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.
37 positions GGE LAWS 2026 (remove filter)
2026 Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems
2026
Statement by Türkiye
We further place on record our understanding that formulations expressed as must in the current text including but not limited to paragraphs 31, 32, 34, 37, 41, 42 as they stand, are intended to reflect existing obligations and apply to each state only in accordance …
Statement by Armenia
We welcome in particular the retention of the crucial role of human judgment, human responsibility and accountability, a responsible human chain of command and control, legal reviews as well as safeguards concerning reliability and bias. We consider these important elements for ensuring the responsible use …
Statement by Panama
On this paragraph, having heard the comments of other delegations, I think that you've done a titanic effort to achieve a balance in the chapeau and in the subparagraphs. Now we've heard the argument that if the obligations to carry out legal reviews and this …
Statement by Peru
We attribute particular importance to preserving provisions regarding legal reviews, including in the case of notifications or substantive modifications to existing systems.
Statement by Switzerland
With your indulgence, I will also come back to the paragraph on legal reviews. In that regard, we also recall the adoption of guiding principle (e) in 2019 and the language contained in there, and we are open to study the proposal of the US …
Statement by the United Kingdom
In paragraph 38, it is suggested that the modification is being reviewed for compliance with IHL, as opposed to the impact of the modification on the system's ability to be used for compliance with IHL. It is also clear that the preceding subparagraph reflects article …
Statement by Türkiye
Paragraph 38 still requires States to conduct legal reviews in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of laws, language drawn directly from Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. As we're not party to that protocol, we cannot accept treaty-specific language in a set of elements …
Statement by APILS and Utrecht University
We welcome the revised language concerning legal reviews in paragraph 39. The paragraph now consolidates the text on legal reviews, and separates it from other measures, mentioned in subsequent paragraphs, taken across the life cycle of LAWS. We believe this separation is appropriate as the …
Statement by Armenia
Regarding paragraph 39, Armenia attaches importance to retaining a clear reference to legal reviews in paragraph 39. Effective legal review procedures are an important safeguard for ensuring that the development and use of laws remain consistent with applicable international law. We remain flexible as to …
Statement by Austria
And we see para 34 fully in line with para 39 and appreciate the paragraph following the logic of Article 36 that weapons systems that have been reviewed as not complying with IHL would not be acquired, stockpiled or transferred. That we assess also has …
Statement by Brazil
On paragraph 39, my delegation, like those of Pakistan and the ICRC, believe that this is one of the essential elements of the text. We believe that is particularly true with regards to 39 which addresses how the obligation of legal reviews applies specifically to …
Statement by Chile
I do want to dwell on it a moment though because it seems to be particularly important to us. The obligation of a legal review is not the only legal obligation when it comes to the study, development, acquisition or adoption of LAWS. According to …
Statement by IHLYI
IHLYI also welcomes paragraph 39, particularly its recognition of the need for legal reviews as appropriate across the life cycle of laws and in accordance with states obligations under international law. In this context, we would like to reiterate an issue that IHLYI has consistently …
Statement by India
… on legal reviews in para 39, we want to suggest a minor editorial reordering of the chapeau dealing with the legal reviews. The chapeau part should start as follows which is "in accordance with their existing obligations under applicable international law, states must across …
Statement by Italy
With regard to part 39, we support the current formulation, which emphasizes the need to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law through legal review mechanisms applied throughout the entire life cycle of lethal autonomous weapon systems, including in the event of any significant changes affecting …
Statement by Mexico
On [paragraph] 39, we believe that legal reviews are necessary to identify in advance the private use and the necessary conditions in order to ensure the compatibility of laws with IHL. In this respect, we support the current language of the text and the subparagraph.
Statement by Mozambique
Regarding paragraph 39, we support the importance of legal reviews, including where subsequent modification may affect identification, solution and engagement function of the and anticipated effort of system regarding in terms of substantial impact. We believe that may material effect could be could provide the …
Statement by Norway
And we would also add that paragraph 34, which is an extremely narrow prohibition since it only kicks in at the manufacturing level, does not contradict paragraph 39 on legal reviews, but rather complements it or works in tandem with it. … If a legal …
Statement by Pakistan
On paragraph 39, my delegation supports the Article 36 review obligation as it is currently drafted. We would note and welcome also sub-paragraph (b) of 39, which extends review to further development and modification affecting the identification, selection and engagement functions or the anticipated effects.
Statement by Peru
Now, paragraph 39. We welcome the clarification that there must be legal reviews during the review, acquisition and adoption cycle of laws. At the same time, just like other delegations, we believe that it is important to keep sub-paragraph of 39, recognising that subsequent changes …
Statement by Spain
Now, that being said, let's make the following comments. On paragraph 39(a) and the first sentence on legal reviews, the inclusion of study, development, acquisition or adoption. Now, we know that a good number of delegations have made this request time and again relating to …
Statement by Sweden
Legal review is a key issue for Sweden and therefore we consider that para 39(a) is an essential part of the text. We welcome the changes made in paragraph 39(a) of the Chair's additional suggestions with the proposed insertion in the study, development acquisition or …
Statement by Switzerland
On paragraph 39, We support the proposed amendments and the alignment with the text of Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Together with the chapeau, we are very close to Guiding Principle (e), which is now adapted to specifically address LAWS. Switzerland cannot support proposals …
Statement by the Chair
Let me now turn to para 39. At the request of several states, this para has been brought in line with the exact wording of Additional Protocol I, Article 36. The original formulation was intentionally kept shorter as the chapeau already refers to the life …
Statement by the ICRC
We welcome the paragraphs in this section. In particular, we support the inclusion of the paragraph on legal reviews, as well as the language in your additional suggestions, which aligns with existing IHL language in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. We also echo the …
Statement by the Philippines
… my delegation supports the elaboration of the conduct of legal reviews in paragraph 39(a).
Statement by the Russian Federation
But we do still have concerns about sub-paragraph [39(b)]. We feel that this little paragraph is superfluous because it is covered by the understanding of a legal review itself, which foresees following the procedure that's described under the circumstances that are mentioned in subparagraph right …
Statement by the United Kingdom
On paragraph 39(a), the UK supports the inclusion of legal reviews within the measures. This group has long recognised the important role of legal review of weapons, not only in Guiding Principle (e), but also in its reports and working papers, which have considered the …
Statement by the United States
For example, the obligation in the 1977 Additional Protocol I mentions specific stages of the life cycle. We also think it is critical to add the word new, which is used in the 1977 Additional Protocol I. Legal reviews are conducted of new weapons. Rather …
Statement by Türkiye
On paragraph 39, incorporation of language drawn from Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, specifically study, development, acquisition or adoption, as is this room, my country is not party to that protocol. We do not believe language specific to one treaty regime should be imported …