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 (continued)
Statement by Ukraine
As for paragraph 39, We recognize that this paragraph largely reflects the duty found in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Some States, acting in their sovereign right, chose not to join the Protocol. However, we also know that some States not parties to the …
Statement by Czechia
We also welcome the clarification that human beings may exercise such control directly or indirectly. We understand this wording as recognizing that relevant human judgment may be exercised at different stages of a system's lifecycle, including during legal review, testing and evaluation, and in preparation …
Statement by Egypt
… On a positive note, we welcome the restoration of article 36 consistent trigger language at paragraph 38 ….
Statement by Ukraine
Human rights law is a frequently cited example of other law that applies in armed conflict, but we must also be mindful of international maritime law, international air and space law, the law of state responsibility, and other areas of law. To support the mention …
Statement by Nigeria
… The provision concerning responsible chains of human command and control, limitations on targets and operational parameters, timely deactivation or neutralization, legal reviews, testing and evaluation, predictability, reliability, traceability, explainability, and the mitigation of unintended and automation bias are essential. …
Statement by Türkiye
… paragraph 39 now incorporates language directly drawn from Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. As my delegation is not party to that instrument, we cannot accept language that imports treaty-specific obligations into a document intended to reflect common understanding among all states, including non-parties. …
Statement by APILS and Utrecht University
Our most fundamental concern with this box, also shared by others who have intervened today, is that it does not sufficiently distinguish between legal obligations and other measures. This blurring occurs as a result of the conduct of legal reviews being placed under a chapeau …