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 2025 (remove filter)
2025 Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
2025
Statement by Israel
There is a reason why definitions of weapons are based on design in particular since they delineate more clearly the types of weapons under consideration and since they better reflect the element of intended circumstances of use which is a crucial element in defining and …
Statement by APILS
The chapeau of this box concludes with the word “should”, indicating that the paragraphs that follow reflect desirable measures or good practices. But this creates some issues in relation to paragraphs 1 and 9. As several delegations have underlined, the obligation to undertake legal reviews …
Statement by Australia
Australia supports the inclusion of Paragraphs 1 to 4 in this box which addresses the legal review of LAWS to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. We believe strengthening compliance with existing IHL including through Article 36 legal reviews is the most effective way to …
Statement by Israel
Article 36 itself states that, in the development of a new weapon, a High Contracting Party is under the obligation to determine whether its employment will be prohibited by [Additional] Protocol [I] or by any other applicable rule of international law, meaning the Article does …
Statement by Pakistan
…ensuring IHL compliance must begin at the development stage. And right now many Delegations have pointed out—delegation of Italy also has pointed out—that Article 36 of the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions do affirm the necessity of ensuring compliance with IHL from the …
Statement by the United States
I would draw your attention to our proposals in the 24th Draft Article, proposal joined by a number of other Delegations, where we have expressed the idea that autonomous weapons systems may only to be developed such that their effects and attacks are capable of …
Statement by Austria
[W]e also support to switch out "employment" to "development and use". The whole life-cycle issue has been discussed also since a long time and this is something we definitely support. It is important as what we are doing here is upholding IHL, and IHL does …
Statement by Sierra Leone
As a cosponsor of Draft Protocol VI, Sierra Leone notes the significant convergence between that protocol and the rolling text, particularly regarding the application of international humanitarian law, the need for human control, prohibitions on certain systems, weapons reviews, human responsibility and risk mitigation.