Proefschrift

84 3 CHAPTER 3 ͳ legal accountability, the outcome of a trial or court ruling is a decision or court order; ͳ administrative accountability, it could be an investigation report with recommendations; ͳ professional accountability, could be recommendations, advice or lessons learned. The review process could lead to recommendations or obligations to incorporate in the governance, socio-technical or technical layer of the next iteration of the interpretation stage of the Comprehensive Human Oversight Framework. The monitoring, responding and acting on the outcome of the review process can be done by an article 36 weapon review committee. Several countries, at least Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States (Verbruggen & Boulanin, 2017), have an article 36 reviewing procedure in place to conduct weapon reviews when new weapons and methods or means of warfare are studied, developed, acquired or adopted. The aim of the article 36 weapon review is to monitor the development of weapons by reference to its obligations under International Humanitarian Law by a State (McClelland, 2003). However, very few countries have a formal review mechanism in place (Verbruggen & Boulanin, 2017) and the format and responsibilities of the reviewing authority, how states interpret the terms of reference and legal obligations of Article 36 are conducted differ by each country. For example, the United States describes a separate approval process for fully Autonomous Weapons by a senior review committee in their updated DOD DIRECTIVE 3000.09 AUTONOMY IN WEAPON SYSTEMS (US Department of Defense, 2023). Whilst The Netherlands has established an Advisory Commission on International Law and Conventional Weapons Use (AIRCW) which uses a three-step process for an Article 36 review in which the actual review is conducted by a working group (Verbruggen & Boulanin, 2017). A standard review process is lacking and developing an international standard article 36 review process could ensure the incorporation of the obligations and recommendations in the next iteration of the interpretation stage of the Comprehensive Human Oversight Framework. 3. Process What type of feedback with what frequency is required is the question that needs to be answered to describe the process. According to Gigler et al. (2014) feedback should be viewed as a typology of types of information or interaction

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw