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.
20 positions MX LAWS 2016 (remove filter)
2016
Presentation of the Belgian Commission of the Legal Review of New Weapons
The Belgian Commission for the Legal Review of New Weapons was established by the General Order-J/836 issued by the Chief of Defence on 18th July 2002. The establishment of the Commission aimed at formalizing the respect of the obligation coming out of article 36. The …
Statement by Israel
It seems widely accepted that, like every other means of warfare, the use of LAWS is subject to the Law of Armed Conflict. Another observation that seems to be widely supported, regards the importance of conducting legal reviews of weapons, including LAWS. Israel would like …
Statement by Switzerland
In this context, the obligation to conduct legal reviews is central to discussions on autonomous weapons systems. We see a number of challenges related to autonomous weapons systems distinct from traditional weapons reviews. Specifically, the question is how such systems and their specific characteristics can …
Non-Paper of France
L’article 36 du premier Protocole additionnel aux Conventions de Genève du 12 août 1949 (PA I), en exigeant que les États parties vérifient la conformité au DIH des nouvelles armes, moyens ou méthodes de guerre, témoigne de la continuité d’application du DIH au développement et …
Opening Statement by the Netherlands
Please allow me, to summarize explain in summary the Dutch position: […] 9. Autonomous weapon systems need to remain under meaningful human control. Therefore it is important that when procuring autonomous weapons, the government should ensure that (1). the concept of morally responsible engineering is …
Statement by Australia
May I reaffirm at the outset that Australia takes seriously our responsibilities under the existing legal framework for reviewing new weapons under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. We fully support and adhere to the obligation to …
Statement by Canada
… increased transparency and information-sharing around guidelines and best practices for weapons reviews could play an important role in assisting States fulfill their Article 36 obligations with regards to LAWS.
Statement by Finland
We further underline, that each and every state has the ultimate responsibility in every situation where norms of international humanitarian or human rights law are breached. This includes of course the provisions in the Geneva conventions first additional protocol on the review of the legality …
Statement by Germany
Fourthly, without LAWS being a reality yet and without even a definition of LAWS transparency and confidence building measures especially with regard to the introduction of new weapons systems are of crucial importance. We should therefor make full use of the process of Legal Weapons …
Statement by Germany
Technology develops in unforeseeable ways and comes in virtually unlimited varieties of shapes and modes of action. Given this challenge, it is for good reason that the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law avoid specifying particular technologies. The general, abstract approach of international humanitarian law …
Statement by Sierra Leone
We have heard conflicting views as to whether LAWS could be in conformity with IHL. My delegation trusts that all States would like to operate within the provisions of International Humanitarian Law and would take steps to respect Article 36 of the Additional Protocol 1 …
Statement by Sri Lanka
… establishing evidence that the operator or the manufacturers knew or should have known the possibility of the crime committed by a complicated artificial intelligence system fed into the weapon will be a difficult task. Therefore, we recommend this aspect also be given due attention …
Statement by Sweden
We would like to contribute to the discussion with a brief account of the Swedish experiences of the Article 36 review process. The Swedish Delegation for International Humanitarian Law Monitoring of Arms Projects (the Delegation) was established in The Delegation is an independent authority and …
Statement by the ICRC
The ICRC welcomes the recognition by States of the importance of reviewing new weapons to ensure their compatibility with international law, and stresses that efforts to strengthen national legal review processes are complementary and mutually reinforcing of discussions at the international level, in particular in …
Statement by the Netherlands
The Netherlands believes that, in assessing whether autonomous weapon systems are under meaningful human control, there is an important role for the Article 36 procedure of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. Article 36 obliges States Parties to determine whether new means and …
Statement by the United Kingdom
Article 36 Weapons Reviews are the correct means to assess a weapon, means, or method of warfare and its use, as required by Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention. The UK is aware that despite the large numbers of States being signatories to the …
Statement by the United States
Finally, we have consistently heard in the CCW interest expressed on the weapons review process and about the requirement to conduct a legal review of all new weapon systems, including LAWS. We believe that this is an area on which we should focus as an …
Statement by Zambia
While a number of states have suggested that action around national legal reviews of weapons, under the framework of article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, could constitute a basis for addressing the serious concerns that states have raised in relation to …
Statement by Sweden
However, at the bottom of the issue lies the fact that a legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare is crucial. Sweden set up a Delegation for International law monitoring of Weapons projects already a long time ago. This delegation acts as …
Towards a “compliance-based” approach to LAWS
22. Under IHL, the substantive rules described above are complemented by a procedural rule. As with any other weapon, means or method of warfare, States have the positive obligation to determine, in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of any AWS, whether their employment would, …