Commitment of Governments to Legal Review of New Arms in International Law

Retrieved from: Seyed hesamodin lesani, Commitment of Governments to Legal Review of New Arms in International Law, Public law studies quarterly, 2016

The development of new weapons is not a challenge to the law of armed conflict, but, the problem is the growth of weapons technology, including the development of new weapons and the upgrading of existing weapons, which is so rapid, that law is unable to keep pace with this growth. Governments' interest in keeping their weapons secrets and their efforts to obtain superior technologies from other governments, prevent them from being simply persuaded to legitimize the status of the weapons they have produced or purchased gather in a meeting and finally restrict or ban that weapon. Thus, the daily upgrade of the weapons and military technology of the creators of the First Protocol 1977, ratified the 1944 Geneva Conventions by assigning article, it forces the member states of the protocol to review their new weapons legally and oblige them to adapt their new weapons to their international obligations. Therefore, article 36 additional protocols entrusts the responsibility of each government to the same government in order to monitor new weapons. Without naming a specific weapon, requests governments considering its international obligations have adequate supervision on the process of producing research to upgrade or introduce any new weapons in the structure of their military forces. However, this article is not yet customary, but the large number of members of the first additional protocol has raised hope that Many States through the perspective of contract law are required to comply with their obligations under article 36 of the Protocol. Important guarantee for the implementation of article 36 of the first protocol, is article 1 of this Protocol similar to article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, it obliges member states to ensure implementation of the provisions of this protocol throughout their territory. Other States are also required by article 1 of the first protocol to guarantee the implementation of this protocol by other members. In one hand, concerns of governments from the use of weapons that will one day cause them to enter the international criminal court, on the other hand concern about the production or promotion of weapons that other governments are reluctant to purchase due to non-compliance with international obligations is also an appropriate guarantee for the implementation of the provisions of article 36 of the first additional protocol by states. However, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is limited by its statute and in that statute, the number of weapons that have been banned is limited. It is hoped that with the full implementation of Article 36 of the First Protocol by governments prevent the manufacture of weapons contrary to the principles of the law of armed conflict, such as the distinction between military and civilian targets and persons and the principle of prohibition of causing unnecessary damage and f finally, the rights of armed conflict are brought closer with the aim of limiting wars and protecting civilians.