Book contents
- International Law and Weapons Review
- International Law and Weapons Review
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties and Other Selected Instruments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Article 36: Background and Historical Development
- 3 Interpretative Methodology
- 4 Interpreting Article 36: The Object of Review
- 5 Interpretation of Article 36: The Process and Standard of Review
- 6 Weapons Review Obligation under Customary International Law
- 7 Weapons Reviews under the System of AP I
- 8 Challenges to Article 36 Reviews Posed by Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS)
- 9 Challenges to Article 36 Reviews Posed by (Autonomous) Cyber Capabilities
- 10 Concluding Remarks
- Index
7 - Weapons Reviews under the System of AP I
Relationship between Article 36 and Article 82
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2021
- International Law and Weapons Review
- International Law and Weapons Review
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties and Other Selected Instruments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Article 36: Background and Historical Development
- 3 Interpretative Methodology
- 4 Interpreting Article 36: The Object of Review
- 5 Interpretation of Article 36: The Process and Standard of Review
- 6 Weapons Review Obligation under Customary International Law
- 7 Weapons Reviews under the System of AP I
- 8 Challenges to Article 36 Reviews Posed by Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS)
- 9 Challenges to Article 36 Reviews Posed by (Autonomous) Cyber Capabilities
- 10 Concluding Remarks
- Index
Summary
Chapter 7 examines the obligation of States under Article 82 of Additional Protocol I to provide for legal advisers to military commanders. It tests the argument that providing such advisers is sufficient to ensure that new weapons will be reviewed as a matter of law. It concludes that, while in certain scenarios an Article 82 adviser can perform an ad hoc weapons review, a State generally cannot avail itself of an argument that providing for legal advisers under Article 82 is also sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 36. This is so because compliance with the latter requires adopting a certain internal approach or coherent national measures whenever a State develops or purchases a new weapon. Above all, the acquisition agencies involved in the procurement process should be aware of the Article 36 legal review requirement. Therefore, and unless a State can produce evidence of a functioning review process, it cannot be presumed that compliance with Article 82 equally implies due respect for the State’s obligations under Article 36. [170 words]
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Law and Weapons ReviewEmerging Military Technology under the Law of Armed Conflict, pp. 195 - 206Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021