斯德哥尔摩国际和平研究所-SIPRI-compendium-on-Article-36-reviews_28页_546kb

报告摘要

Article 36 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions requires states to conduct legal reviews of new weapons, means, or methods of warfare before their use in armed conflict.
The purpose of the review is to ensure compliance with international law, including International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL).
SIPRI has compiled a compendium of national Article 36 review procedures to promote transparency, compliance, and confidence-building.
The compendium includes country-specific analyses for Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

To provide a factual basis for international discussions on best practices in Article 36 reviews.
To offer examples of how the review process can be structured for states looking to establish or reform their procedures.
To support more widespread and effective compliance with Article 36 obligations.

Obligation: States must determine whether new weapons or methods of warfare are lawful under international law.
Review Mechanism: A formal process that involves multidisciplinary teams and considers both legal and operational aspects.
Advisory Nature: Reviews are not binding decisions but are typically followed in practice.
Reassessment: Reviews can be repeated if new information becomes available after the initial assessment.

The Martens Clause (Article 1(2) of Protocol I) is considered in reviews, especially when assessing the normal use of a weapon.
Reviews assess the humanitarian impact, including effects on civilians, the environment, and the long-term consequences of weapon use.
Ethical and policy considerations are also integrated into the review process, such as environmental impact, public perception, and operational use.

Review Body: The Legal Review Commission (LRC), established in 2002.
Process: Three stages: investigation, advice, and decision-making.
Legal Criteria: Considers IHL, IHRL, and the right to life.
Empirical Evidence: Relies on manufacturer data, internal testing, and international test results.
Expertise: Multidisciplinary team including legal, military, and medical experts.
Scope: Applies to all types of weapons and methods of warfare, including non-lethal ones.

Review Body: The 'Review of New Weapons and Methods of Warfare' Steering Group.
Process: A legal assessment is conducted, but final decisions are made by the Ministry of Defence.
Legal Criteria: Focuses on IHL and requires a broad range of operational scenarios for compliance.
Empirical Evidence: Relies on technical descriptions, medical opinions, and environmental impact assessments.
Expertise: Involves representatives from various Directorates-General of the MOD.
Scope: Interprets Article 36 to apply only to conventional weapons, excluding nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Review Body: The Advisory Commission on International Law and Conventional Weapons Use (AIRCW).
Process: Three-stage process with a working group and final decision by the Minister of Defence.
Legal Criteria: Considers all applicable international law, including human rights law and IHL.
Empirical Evidence: Relies on manufacturer data, internal testing, and open-source research.
Expertise: Multidisciplinary team including legal, policy, medical, and military experts.
Scope: Broad, applying to any instrument intended to cause harm, regardless of the anticipated degree of harm.

Transparency and Compliance: Article 36 reviews are essential for ensuring that new military technologies comply with international law.
Multidisciplinary Approach: Effective reviews require collaboration between legal, military, medical, and technical experts.
Adaptability: Reviews must be adaptable to new technologies and can be reassessed if new information emerges.
Need for Standardization: There is a need for international standardization of risk assessments, especially for non-lethal weapons.
Confidence Building: A compendium of national procedures can help build confidence and encourage more states to adopt formal review mechanisms.

The SIPRI compendium provides a valuable resource for understanding the current state of Article 36 reviews across different countries.
It highlights the importance of legal, ethical, and operational considerations in the review process.
The document serves as a guide for states seeking to implement or improve their own Article 36 review systems.

展开完整摘要