Diplomatic Analysis: Streamlining defence procurement requires embedding legal and operational expertise within industry, not simply cutting regulation.
Overview
The Russo-Ukrainian War has starkly highlighted the accelerating pace of technological change on the battlefield—far outpacing the ability of military procurement and review processes to keep pace. This disparity creates a critical vulnerability, as cutting-edge systems are delayed or rendered obsolete before they can be fielded. Current debate often focuses on reducing bureaucratic “red tape”, or easing review standards for autonomous weapon systems. However, this analysis, based on a recent piece from War on the Rocks, argues that these approaches are insufficient and even counterproductive. The most effective solution lies in fundamentally altering the review architecture by embedding legal and operational advisors directly within defence firms – enabling a continuous review process alongside development, rather than a final hurdle at its completion. This shift can enhance efficiency, safeguard ethical and legal compliance, and ultimately improve military readiness.
Historical Context
For decades, defence procurement has been characterized by lengthy timelines and complex regulatory hurdles. In the United States, the formal process of law of war weapons reviews dates back to 1974 and is now codified in Department of Defense directives. These reviews, alongside those for autonomous systems, are rooted in a commitment to ensuring weapons systems are used lawfully and ethically. While these reviews are not mandated by international treaties like Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, they are nonetheless considered vital for maintaining operational effectiveness, upholding international norms, and avoiding unintended consequences. However, these established processes were designed for a slower technological tempo. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has introduced a fundamentally new challenge. Modern systems can undergo rapid iteration and refinement, with millions or billions of “learned weights” changing with even minor dataset adjustments – impacting behaviour in unpredictable ways. Traditional review methods are ill-equipped to handle this dynamic reality, leading to significant delays and potential obsolescence.
Key Actors & Positions
The principal actors in this debate are defence ministries (particularly the US Department of Defence, and its NATO counterparts), defence contractors, and legal/ethical review boards. Defence ministries seek to acquire and deploy technologically advanced weapons systems rapidly, in line with evolving threat landscapes. However, they are also bound by legal obligations, ethical concerns, and the need to ensure system reliability and safety. Defence contractors, naturally, want to streamline the process to bring their products to market efficiently and maintain competitiveness. They often express frustration with the perceived bureaucratic burden of the review process. Legal and ethical review boards advocate for rigorous evaluation to mitigate risks associated with new technologies, especially autonomous systems, and to ensure compliance with international law and moral principles. The tension here lies in balancing speed with thoroughness, innovation with responsibility, and differing priorities – with no single actor holding a monopoly on the ‘correct’ position.
Analysis
The calls for simply “cutting red tape” or reducing review standards are pragmatic but flawed. Pruning unnecessary bureaucracy is always sensible, but it fails to address the fundamental problem of reviewing rapidly evolving systems. Relaxing standards carries unacceptable risks – potentially deploying systems that are unpredictable, discriminatory, or legally questionable. These approaches also undermine the existing legal and ethical framework that underpins military legitimacy and operational success. The proposed solution – embedding legal and operational advisors directly within defence firms – offers a more nuanced and effective approach. This shifts the review process from a discrete ‘gate’ at the end of development to a continuous process running in parallel. Advisors provide real-time input, identify potential legal or operational concerns early on, and compile an ongoing record of the system’s development. This continuous documentation is invaluable for subsequent reviews, allowing assessors to focus on changes and deltas rather than starting from scratch. Importantly, the proposed model leverages a “carrot, not a stick” approach, incentivizing industry participation without imposing additional oversight. Challenges exist, including potential conflicts of interest, intellectual property concerns, and the practical strain on already-stretched military resources. These can be mitigated through careful implementation – clear guidelines on advisor tenure, non-compete clauses, and strategic assignment of personnel to programs where review is most critical.
Outlook
The trend towards increasingly rapid technological innovation in the defence sector is irreversible. The current procurement and review systems are demonstrably inadequate to address this challenge. While widespread adoption of the embedded advisor model may take time, a pilot program – focusing on programs with particularly fast development cycles – is a logical first step. The success of such a program will hinge on building trust between defence ministries and industry, ensuring the independence and objectivity of embedded advisors, and establishing clear documentation standards. Failure to adapt will leave military forces increasingly reliant on obsolete technology, at a growing strategic disadvantage. The outcome is not simply about speed, but about maintaining a responsible, ethically-grounded, and ultimately effective defence capability in the 21st century. Wider collaboration amongst NATO members to standardize documentation could amplify the benefits.
Sources:
Wood, Nathan, and Jesse Hamilton. “Winning by the Rules: Optimizing Weapons Reviews in the Age of Technological Innovation.” War on the Rocks, 23 September 2026. [https://warontherocks.com/2026/09/winning-by-the-rules-optimizing-weapons-reviews-in-the-age-of-technological-innovation/](https://warontherocks.com/2026/09/winning-by-the-rules-optimizing-weapons-reviews-in-the-age-of-technological-innovation/)
