Germany

This entry has been drafted by a member of the APILS team on the basis of publicly available materials. Its content has been neither peer reviewed nor checked for accuracy by any government official.

Germany signed Additional Protocol I on 23 December 1977, and ratified it on 14 February 1991.

The following overview is based on the the Joint Service Regulation A-2146/1 (the Regulation), which laid out the process for the ‘Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare’ and served as a domestic legal basis for Germany’s international law obligations under Article 36 AP I (the Regulation, § 101). The Regulation came into effect on 13 June 2016, and was scheduled for revision by 12 June 2021. It was reportedly replaced by a version dated 10 January 2019, but this updated text has not been made publicly available, nor has any openly accessible analysis been published comparing it to the 2016 version. Although (as of October 2025) we could not verify the substance of the 2019 Regulation, the account below continues to apply to the extent that it retained the contents of the 2016 Regulation.

Weapons reviews were conducted within the Federal Armed Forces long before Germany became party to AP I. Expert commentary often supports this conclusion by reference to the 1961 ‘internal military directive’ (Sohm 2018, 22) — General Legal Provisions relating to the Conduct of Hostilities and War on Land — which stated that weapons be developed in accordance with both the specific prohibitions on their use and the general principles governing the lawful use of weapons (ZDv 15/10 (March 1961) art 86; see also Sohm 2018, 21). However, the review process was formalised only in 2015, when the first ‘Steering Committee on the Review of New Weapons, Means and Methods of Warfare’ (the Steering Committee) was established (Sohm 2018, 21; Sohm, 2015). The Committee’s work processes were later revised and are now reflected in the Regulation.

Review authority

The Steering Committee conducts reviews under the purview of the Directorate General for Legal Affairs (International and Operational Law Branch, [‘Referat I 3’], the Regulation, § 401). The Steering Committee supports the Directorate General for Legal Affairs by providing cross-departmental perspectives and specialised technical, medical, military and other expertise required for weapons undergoing a review. It is also responsible for improving the review process where necessary.

In addition to the Legal Department which leads the Committee’s work, representatives of other Directorates General of the Federal Ministry of Defence (for example, the Directorates General for Politics; Planning; Equipment, Information Technology and Usage; Command of the Armed Forces; Strategy and Deployment / Operations) contribute their expertise to Committee’s work. The said representatives also serve as the points of contact through which additional expertise for the review of a given capability can be sourced (the Regulation, § 403).

Scope of Review

§ 301 of the Regulation defines ‘weapons’, ‘means of warfare’ and ‘methods of warfare’ for the purposes of review. Accordingly:

  • ‘weapons’ are objects that are designed or suitable to kill or injure persons or eliminate or reduce their attacking or defence capabilities and/or to destroy or damage objects;
  • ‘means of warfare’ are devices which are not weapons, yet have a direct effect on offensive or defensive capabilities;
  • ‘methods of warfare’ are military strategies, doctrines, or plans intended to disrupt enemy military operations and capabilities, or to support one’s own military operations and capabilities;

The Regulation also defines the element ‘new’ which refers to (presumably) capabilities and methods which are ‘newly developed, significantly modified or existing but not yet introduced into the Federal Armed Forces [‘Bundeswehr’]’ (the Regulation, § 301).

The Regulation does not specifically address the review of cyber capabilities.

Standard of Review

The Regulation requires reviewing new weapons, means and methods of warfare on their compliance with applicable ‘international humanitarian law’. The legal authority and responsibility for this assessment lies with the Directorate General for Legal Affairs (the Regulation, § 601).

The determination of whether a new weapon, means, or method of warfare should be introduced into service ultimately hinges on the assessment of whether there are plausible scenarios in which its use, deemed militarily viable and operationally feasible, would also be legally permissible. The Regulation suggests that the legal review will therefore need to include military operational considerations in addition to relevant medical and technical examinations (the Regulation, §§ 602-3).

The Regulation does not detail what rules and principles would need to be considered as part of this analysis; the examination is, however, focused on the ‘normal’ or ‘anticipated’ use of the weapon, means or method of warfare (Sohm 2018, 25).

Conduct of review

Reviews are initiated as early as possible, not least for economic reasons, such as avoiding the development of unusable weapons (the Regulation, § 302). A key factor in the decision to establish the Steering Committee was the intention that its work be integrated into the general procurement process (Sohm 2018, 26). The latter is set out in an independent service regulation (ZDv A-1500/3; see also Sohm 2018, 26) and includes four stages: the Analysis Phase Part 1, followed by the Analysis Phase Part 2; the third is the Implementation Phase, and the fourth stage – Usage Phase – closes the procurement process (the Regulation, § 501).

In principle, the review can be carried out at any time during Phases 1 and 2. It must be completed prior to Phase 4 (the Regulation, § 502).

Typically, the review takes place during Phase 2 because, first, by that time, there is enough information available to conduct a comprehensive assessment. Second, the service regulation setting out the procurement process mandates that the ‘Integrated Project Team’ considers existing or anticipated domestic and international legal requirements that prevent imports of ‘unauthorised products’ [capabilities] into the Bundeswehr (the Regulation, § 503). The project manager who leads the ‘Integrated Project Team’ in a given case, has to request the Directorate General for Legal Affairs to perform the review of a given capability. The Steering Committee then conducts the requested review (the Regulation, § 504).

The Steering Group must be provided with all the necessary documentation. This typically includes the provision of the following documents:

  • A comprehensive technical description of the capability under review (ie weapon / means of warfare) which outlines its intended use, effects, reliability, and any remaining risks associated with the capability’s intended use;
  • Medical expert reports, if applicable, detailing the impact of the capability under review (ie weapon / means of warfare) on the human body;
  • A comprehensive description of the environmental effects of the capability under review (ie weapon / means of warfare) on the natural environment;
  • An explanation of the purpose and effects of a method of warfare. (See the Regulation, §§ 701-2.)

Depending on the stage at which a review is conducted, the scope of the relevant materials may vary; the Steering Committee may also request additional information where such is required (the Regulation, § 703).

Outcome and effect

The Steering Committee may either provide its final assessment of the weapon, means or method of warfare or, as in the case of phased development processes, equally offer interim assessments (the Regulation, § 506). The findings of the Steering Group constitute a legal assessment and do not serve as the final decision on the introduction of a new weapon, means, or method of warfare (Boulanin and Verbruggen 2017, 5). However, the legal assessment holds binding authority unless overturned (ibid.). The assessments are not published. The Federal Government cites obligations to maintain confidentiality, trade secrets, and the intellectual property rights of third parties as reasons (German Bundestag 2020, 92).

References

Key documents

Historical documents

Further references

Archive of public views
Published: 1 October 2025
Updated: 15 October 2025