Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 7 - Weapons Reviews under the System of AP I

  • Natalia Jevglevskaja, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book:
    International Law and Weapons Review
    Published online:
    16 December 2021
    Print publication:
    16 December 2021, pp 195-206

  • 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]