Relying on the methodology explained in the preceding chapter, Chapter 4 examines the object of the review procedure – ‘a new weapon, means and methods of warfare’. It argues that the object of the review has a broad meaning and covers a wide range of existing and emerging military technology designed or, in certain circumstances, used to trigger damage to objects or injury to individuals. ‘Methods of warfare’ relate to the ways weapons are used as well as operational tactics, techniques and procedures resorted to on a structural basis. The provision covers military capabilities newly introduced into the State’s arsenal, state-of-the-art weapons technology, and existing weapon systems that are adapted in a way that alters their use or effects. [118 words]

Relying on the methodology explained in Chapter 3, Chapter 5 clarifies the duty bearer of the weapons review obligation — ‘a High Contracting Party’ — and considers the process and standard of review covered by the terms ‘study, development, acquisition or adoption’, ‘to determine’, ‘in some or all circumstances’ and ‘this Protocol or … any other rule of international law’. It concludes that the Article 36 obligation rests on each State Party to Additional Protocol I and allows for variations in terms of form and procedure. While the establishment of a standing or permanent mechanism is not required as a matter of law, States regularly developing or purchasing weapons must adopt a certain internal approach or coherent national measures to examine the legality of new weapons. The legal standard of review indisputably comprises treaty and customary law of armed conflict. However, the proposition advanced in the legal literature to extend the review scope to human rights is unlikely to enhance protection already offered under the law of armed conflict and thus justify the inclusion of such rights in the Article 36 analysis. [181 words]