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.
13 positions IC RCRC (remove filter)
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
2024
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Australia
Does the government conduct legal reviews under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to determine whether new weapons, means or methods of warfare may be employed in accordance with Australia’s international legal obligations? Article 36 of Additional Protocol I requires that: In the study, development, …
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in the United Kingdom
3. What is the United Kingdom’s approach to reviewing weapons? a) Does the Government conduct a legal review to determine whether new weapons and means or methods of warfare may be employed lawfully? Article 36 of AP I requires States to determine whether new weapons, …
ICRC IHL Challenges Report
States use various domestic processes to implement their IHL obligations. Legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare is one such process mandated by IHL. Carrying out a legal review of any new weapon, means or method of warfare they develop or acquire …
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in New Zealand
Procedures For Assessing New Weapons 91. New Zealand is required to assess the legality of new weapons or means or methods of warfare.83 As part of the assessment, New Zealand must determine whether employment would, in some or all circumstances, violate the rules of Additional …
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Argentina
8. Nuevas armas En relación con los procedimientos formales para el examen de la legalidad de nuevas armas, de acuerdo con la normativa que regula las distintas actividades que desempeñan las Fuerzas Armadas, los nuevos desarrollos deben ser sometidos al análisis de legalidad dentro de …
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Canada
Determination of whether new weapons and means or methods of warfare may be employed lawfully Canada conducts weapons reviews in accordance with Article 36 of AP I. In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, Canada has …
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Ukraine
3. Legal review of weapons under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. What is done? The obligation to conduct a legal review of weapons is established by Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, that defines an obligation of the State during the study, development, acquisition …
2023
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Italy
b. The procedure for evaluating new types of weapons According to art. 36 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, States parties have an obligation to determine whether a new weapon under development, acquisition or adoption process could violate IHL59. This obligation …
2020
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Switzerland
3.2 Procedure for assessing new weapons IHL legal framework Article 36 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, which partly reflects customary international law,27 provides that in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, every state …
Norway pledge on review of existing Norwegian Defence Sector implementation of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions article 36
A) Objectives of the pledge: Norway is a party to the Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva conventions of 1949 (AP I). The obligations under AP I article 36, is implemented within the Norwegian Defence Sector, by the “Norwegian Ministry of Defence, Directive …
Voluntary Report on the Implementation of IHL in Germany
b. Weapon Reviews Under the provisions of Art. 36 AP I, all contracting parties are obliged, when studying, developing, acquiring or adopting a new weapon, means or method of warfare, to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances of employment, be prohibited …
2019
ICRC IHL Challenges Report
E) Challenges Posed by Certain New Technologies of Warfare to Legal Reviews of New Weapons As noted above, the development and use of new technologies of warfare, such as autonomous weapon systems or military cyber capabilities, do not occur in a legal vacuum. As with …
2015
ICRC IHL Challenges Report
1) New technologies of warfare […] In accordance with Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, each State Party is required to determine whether the employment of a new weapon, means or method of warfare that it studies, develops, acquires or adopts would, in some or …