Assistant Professor, Hazrat-e- Masumeh University, Iran


According to 1907 Hague Regulations, the right of belligerents to adopt weapons and methods of warfare is not unlimited. All States have obligations to ban or restrict certain weapons under International Agreements and International Customary Law. The reality of everyday developments in military and weapons technology led the founders of the 1977 Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions (1944) to designate an Article with the purpose of obliging member States into legal assessment of their new weapons. Hence, Article 36 of Additional Protocol I (1977) of the Geneva Conventions (1944) indicates that States must determine whether new weapons, means or methods of warfare they intend to study, develop, acquire or adopt comply with the rules of International Law applicable to them. However, the practical aspects of the said review mechanism are not clear. As a result, to this date only six States have attempted to apply Article 36. Examining the practice of the aforementioned countries will help other States to fulfill their obligation of legal review of their modern weapons.


  1. کولب،رابرت و هاید،ریچارد-1394-درآمدی بر حقوق مخاصمات مسلحانه-ترجمه دکتر سید حسام الدین لسانی-مجمع علمی و فرهنگی مجد.
  2. ممتاز،دکتر جمشید – 1390-نقش و کاربرد امروزین حقوق بین‌المللی بشر دوستانه عرفی- مجموعه مقالات همایش حقوق بین‌المللی بشر دوستانه عرفی – مجمع علمی و فرهنگی مجد


3.Australian Department of Defence (2005) Instruction (general): legal review of new weapons 44-1

4.Blake D, Imburgia JS (2010) Bloodless weapons? The need to conduct legal reviews of certain weapons and the implications of defining them as ‘weapons’. Air Force Law Rev 66:157–204

5.Boothby,William (2009) Weapons and the law of armed conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford

6.Daoust , Isabelle and Coupland , Robin and Ishoey,Rikke -2002-New wars, new weapons? The obligation of states to assess the legality of means and methods of warfare - International review of Red Cross –vol.84

7.Fry JD (2006) Contextualized legal reviews for the methods and means of warfare: cave combatand international humanitarian law. Columbia J Transnatl Law 44:453–519

8.Greenwood C (1999) The law of weaponry at the start of the new millennium. In: Schmitt MN,Green LC (eds) The law of armed conflict: into the new millennium. US Naval War College International Law Studies, vol 71. Naval War College, Newport, pp 185–231

9. Henckaerts,Jean Marie  and Doswald beck Louise-2009-Customary international Humanitarian Law-Cambridge university press

10. ICJ Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons-1996

11. ICRC,2006, A guide to the legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare: Measures to implement article 36 of additional protocol 1 of 1977-International Committee of the Red Cross-Geneva

12. Introduction to the Law of War –2002-The judge advocate generals school, US army-Virginia

13. Jacobsson,Marie -2006-Modern Weaponry and Warfare: The Application of article 36 of additional protocol 1 by governments-International law studies-vol.82

14.Kellenberger J (2009) Official statement of the ICRC: sixty years of the Geneva Conventions:learning from the past to face the future.

15.Mc Clelland ,Justin-2003-The review of weapons in accordance with article 36 of additional protocol 1-International review of red cross-vol.85

16.McLaughlin R (2011) Unmanned naval vehicles at sea: USVs, UUVs, and the adequacy of the law. J Law Inf Sci 21:100–115

17.Nasu H, Faunce TA (2010) Nanotechnology and the international law of weaponry: towards International regulation of nano-weapons. J Law Inf Sci 20:21–54

18.Parks WH (2006) Means and methods of warfare. George Wash Int Law Rev 31:511–539

19.Roberts, Adam and guelff,Richard-1989-Documents on the laws of war-Clarendon Press, Oxford

20.Sandoz, Yves and Swinarski , Christophe and Zimmermann ,Bruno-1987-Commentaryon the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions-Martinus Nijhof, -Geneva

21.Schmitt MN (2010) Military necessity and humanity in international humanitarian law: preserving the delicate balance. Va J Int Law 50(4):795–839