States and some organisations have expressed their views about the utility, purpose, scope and process of the legal review of weapons in various different contexts. Some of these views have been recorded domestic documents, such as military manuals on the law of armed conflict. Increasingly, however, States and organisations have articulated their positions in a range of international fora, either through written submissions or oral interventions.
This database compiles and organises publicly expressed views in relation to legal reviews, without prejudice to their relative significance or effect (for example, in terms of the development of customary international law). The database aims to comprehensively reflect the views of states but only covers the positions of a small number of selected organisations.
This database currently contains 379 positions and is continuously updated. Any corrections, or suggestions to add material, are welcome.
8 positions GGE LAWS 2024 (remove filter)
2024
Statement by Argentina
We suggest that there is a need to strengthen the issue of responsibility in the creation and production of autonomous systems, making them auditable and limiting to the black box. In 2018 and 2019, we presented two documents emphasizing the existing obligations to carry out …
Statement by the Russian Federation
As we said before, obligations under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I do not provide for an automatic prohibition of one or other kind of weapons as not in line with the requirements of IHL because of the objective impossibility of providing for and taking …
Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems
Article 1. Preventing Autonomous Weapon Systems That, By Their Nature, Are Incapable of Use in Accordance With IHL IHL prohibits the use of an autonomous weapon system if it is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, if it is inherently indiscriminate, …
Statement by Belgium
… although for Belgium the adoption of an international legally binding instrument looking to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapon systems is necessary, my delegation nevertheless thinks that national legal reviews are the best way to fully implement the obligations contained in an international instrument, whether …
Statement by Switzerland
While not the sole solution for the challenges associated with increasing autonomy in weapons systems, legal reviews are a crucial instrument and thus can be part of the solution. A well-designed weapons review mechanism has not only the potential to determine whether or not an …
Statement by China
… legal review is stipulated in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. All states parties should strictly implement their obligations. Most states parties, including China, have relevant review and evaluation mechanisms as a CBM. Countries are encouraged to formulate corresponding legal review mechanism in light …
Statement by the ICRC
Effective legal reviews are a clear obligation for states that are party to Additional Protocol I and, for all states, they’re critical to ensuring that their armed forces comply with IHL rules in the use of any weapon systems. And the ICRC endorses the view, …
Reply by Estonia to the Chair’s Guiding Questions
Weapons reviews are a valuable tool to ensure the compliance of a specific LAWS with international law. We find that in addition to conducting a weapons review when a new weapons system is taken into use, a weapons review should also be conducted when a …