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.
28 positions WG ERW (remove filter)
2006
IHL and ERW: Response from China
3. … Senior functional agencies have been set up in general staff departments and military procurement departments to review the legality of new weapons, new methods of waging war and proposed new military theories.
IHL and ERW: Response from Portugal
8. Yes. The applicable international instruments adopted by Portugal are taken into consideration in armament acquisition programs. The legal instruments are the national decrees transposing those instruments into the Portuguese law system.
IHL and ERW: Response from Ireland
16. All Defence Forces personnel engaged in weapons procurement and formulation of militarydoctrine have access to military legal advice.
IHL and ERW: Response from Mexico
20. In keeping with article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977, as well as other provisions of international law, Mexico has machinery which reviews the lawfulness of the manufacture, purchase, transfer, storage, sale, import, export, possession and carrying of weapons, ammunition and explosives. 21. …
IHL and ERW: Response from South Africa
10. Yes. The South African Government has promulgated the National Conventional Arms Control Act (41 of 2002) whereby the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (situated at the DOD) review legality of new weapons and their impact on the method of warfare and military doctrine. The …
IHL and ERW: Response from the Czech Republic
16. Unfortunately, the legal service of the Czech Armed Forces is currently not explicitly tasked to review legality of any new weapons. This is made rather on ad-hoc basis or within military and industrial testing. Therefore, this is an area, where a system improvement is …
2005
IHL and ERW: Response from Lithuania
19. Legal advice is available at most of the stages of the procurement of the equipment.
IHL and ERW: Response from Finland
10. As an example in relation to this, we could mention the procedure of reporting on security and defence policy, which presents e.g. military threats, grounds for the development of the defence system as well as supporting society and the effects of international (humanitarian) conventions …
IHL and ERW: Response from Croatia
18. The mechanism of reviewing the legality of new weapons is regulated by the Article 19 of the Law on Production, Overhaul and Trade of Armament and Military Equipment (“Official Gazette” No. 33/02 and 173/03) in which it is stated: “the armament and military equipment …
IHL and ERW: Response from Belgium
14. In accordance with article 36 of Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Geneva Conventions, a commission has been set up in the Belgian armed forces to evaluate new weapons, means and methods of warfare from the legal standpoint. 15. The Commission’s task is to …
IHL and ERW: Response from Estonia
9. At the moment Estonia does not possess such mechanism of review. If needed, such analysis will be done on a case-by-case basis to maximize compliance with IHL.
IHL and ERW: Response from the Netherlands
8. … The Netherlands has a review mechanism based on the requirements of Article 36 of AP1 which reviews both methods and means of warfare to ensure their compatibility with international law, including IHL. The mechanism was set up by Ministerial Decree of the Minister …
IHL and ERW: Response from the Russian Federation
The Russian Federation attaches great importance to efforts to create a mechanism to ensure that evolving arms systems comply with IHL. In order that the features of new types of weapon are in keeping with international treaties, it is planned to set up a special …
IHL and ERW: Response from Brazil
31. In each Force there is a sectors responsible for the continuous review of military doctrines, which includes the need to assess the legality of new methods and means of warfare.
IHL and ERW: Response from Denmark
10. The Danish procurement procedures underline the responsibility to guarantee that conventions and humanitarian laws accepted by Denmark are respected in the procurement. In research, development, procurement, acquisition or choice of new weapons the procurement organization has the responsibility to conduct a technical evaluation of …
IHL and ERW: Response from France
16. The action of designing a weapon for a specific purpose is indeed an action in application of the principle of discrimination. It is complemented, within an overall legal approach, by the fulfilment of the obligations stemming from article 36 of the first additional Protocol …
IHL and ERW: Response from New Zealand
19. All new weapons and ammunition types that are under consideration for acquisition by or for the NZDF are to be vetted by Directorate of Legal Services (DLS) to ensure that they comply with LOAC. 20. Vetting of weapon and ammunition types will include regard …
IHL and ERW: Response from Austria
16. In compliance with Article 36 Additional Protocol I every new weapon, means or method of warfare is made subject to an examination with the purpose of determining if its employment would be in some or all circumstances prohibited according to Additional Protocol I or …
IHL and ERW: Response from Japan
14. Although Japan does not have a specific mechanism solely for the review described in the question, it considers it obvious that Japan should implement the obligation in Article 36 of the Protocol I and review the legality of new weapons.
IHL and ERW: Response from Switzerland
33. Switzerland has implemented a review mechanism within the defence structure. At the beginning of a procurement process, the IHL section of the staff of the chief of the armed forces is consulted by the organization in charge for the procurement project. The IHL-section may …
IHL and ERW: Response from Argentina
5. It is clear that CIDA’s opinion covers not only measures planned for use but also measures applicable to the design of such munitions/submunitions. These views are reproduced below as being of interest. … (vii) In all projects for and designs of new weapons, the …
IHL and ERW: Response from Germany
37. The Legal Affairs Directorate of the Federal Ministry of Defense is responsible for Federal Armed Forces issues within the area of legal competence of the ministry. In the framework of the review process, the directorate has due regard, inter alia, to the “Manual regarding …
IHL and ERW: Response from Norway
33. The Norwegian Minister of Defence appointed in 2003 the so-called “Norwegian Chief of Defence International Law Committee”. This committee is responsible for assisting the Chief of Defence in legal reviews during the process of developing, acquiring or adoption of any new weapons, methods or …
IHL and ERW: Response from Sweden
9. In 1974 the Government established a Delegation for International Humanitarian Law Monitoring of Arms Projects (see Ordinance concerning monitoring of arms projects in accordance with the requirements of international law, 1994:536). Its task is to examine all weapon projects not only with respect to …
IHL and ERW: Response from Australia
14. Weapon review compliance is also an issue taken seriously by the Australian Defence Force. An Instruction dealing with the legal review of new weapons came into force on 02 June 2005. This requires the legal review of all proposed new weapons to determine whether …
IHL and ERW: Response from the United States
29. The United States does have a mechanism to review the legality of new weapons. Pursuant to DOD Directives and Military Department regulations, a legal review is required for every new or modified weapon or weapons system. In 1974, the first DOD Directive on this …
IHL and ERW: Response from Canada
30. Canada views the review process of weapons systems for IHL compliance to be an important topic in any discussion of the wider or more specific aspects of IHL implementation. In accordance with Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, Canada conducts legal reviews during the …
IHL and ERW: Response from the United Kingdom
1. The United Kingdom recognises that all explosive munitions are capable of becoming Explosive Remnants of War. This is because all explosive ordnance is capable of failing to explode as intended. The United Kingdom therefore considers that the question relates to the use of all …