Understanding the direct and indirect effects of explosive weapons

The collection and sharing of data on both the direct and reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons are crucial to increasing our collective understanding of their severe and wide-ranging impacts on civilians, as well as to informing effective and appropriate responses to prevent, minimize, and respond to these impacts. The Political Declaration provides such a framework for this, but all stakeholders – and states in particular – must commit to progress in implementing its provisions. This article takes stock of these efforts and provides recommendations on ways in which states might leverage the Political Declaration and its process of work to strengthen data collection on harm to civilians from the use of explosive weapons.

Introduction

More than 90 states attended the first conference to review implementation of the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas in Oslo, Norway, on 23 April 2024. The Political Declaration, which is the first formal recognition of this issue, promotes this shared recognition by endorsing states of the devastating pattern of civilian harm resulting from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, as well as of the need to take action to prevent and mitigate these harms.

The Oslo Conference brought together state officials and experts from ministries of defence and foreign affairs, armed forces as well as international and regional organisations, civil society, and academia, to take stock of the Declaration’s implementation and to discuss progress, opportunities and challenges, and the future follow-up work. It provided space to discuss the central commitments of the Declaration and to build a shared understanding of the priority areas and key issues in its implementation, including different regional experiences and approaches.i

Ahead of the Oslo Conference, the International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW) and the Norwegian Red Cross organized a Protection Forum, which provided an interactive space to discuss how to meet the needs of conflict-affected communities and to foster dialogue to strengthen protection of civilians from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. The forum also put a spotlight on the humanitarian impacts of ongoing explosive weapons use in Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere. It provided a platform for first responders and other civil society organisations to share their efforts to meet the needs of conflict-affected communities.ii

These events took place following a year of unprecedented levels of civilian harm from the use of explosive weapons. This was evident in the numerous interventions from those who had experienced, in many forms, the impacts of explosive weapons in conflict. The Explosive Weapons Monitor 2023 report, launched ahead of the conference, also made clear this increased civilian harm – including unprecedented increases in civilian casualties in 2023, as well as increases in attacks on healthcare, education and humanitarian aid, in which explosive weapons damaged and destroyed health facilities and reduced the capacity of health systems, limited access to learning for students, and fueled displacement crises across the globe.iii The true extent of harm to civilians from the use of explosive weapons went well-beyond these areas of harm. This includes other indirect or reverberating effects including food insecurity, psychosocial trauma, impeded economic development, and loss of cultural identity and history. 

The collection and sharing of data on both the direct and indirect or reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons are crucial to increasing our collective understanding of their severe and wide-ranging impacts on civilians, as well as to informing effective and appropriate responses to prevent, minimize, and respond to these impacts. The Political Declaration provides such a framework for this, but all stakeholders – and states in particular – must commit to progress in implementing its provisions.

The Oslo Conference, as well as workshops and other initiatives hosted prior to this meeting of endorsing states, provided space for concrete discussions to advance implementation of the Declaration’s data collection and sharing commitments. This article takes stock of these efforts and provides recommendations on ways in which states might leverage the Political Declaration and its process of work to strengthen data collection on harm to civilians from the use of explosive weapons.

Current state of implementation - state interventions at the Oslo Conference on the direct and indirect effects of explosive weapons

The use and impact of explosive weapons in populated areas remains a widespread problem, and there is, therefore, still an urgent need to address it. This makes the continuation and strengthening of data collection and sharing on civilian harm a crucial undertaking within the framework of the Political Declaration.

The second session of the Oslo Conference, ‘Understanding direct and indirect effects’, focused on the direct and indirect effects arising from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, and the centrality of data collection in understanding these effects (primarily commitments 3.4., 4.2.–4.3.). The goals of this session were to:

• Initiate a discussion on how direct and indirect effects are understood, what the long-term consequences might be, and how this can be factored into the planning and execution of military operations
• Look at approaches to establishing mechanisms to collect data on civilian harm from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas
• Provide an arena for sharing findings from recent data collection efforts and elaborate on how mechanisms of data collection can be used to improve the tracking of and responses to civilian harm
• Address opportunities and challenges relating to the sharing of data on direct and indirect effectsiv

With limited time for participation by states and other stakeholders in discussions to meet the above objectives, states did nonetheless take the floor or submit written statements to comment on the importance of data collection in this context and to share actions taken towards supporting ongoing work in this area. Interventions by the ICRC, UN entities, and civil society shared findings from various data collection efforts that illustrated the degree to which the use of explosive weapons in populated areas remains a leading cause of harm to civilians in armed conflict. These organisations similarly provided suggestions for improved mechanisms for tracking the harm caused by explosive weapons. In this context, some states provided insight into their interpretations of the direct and indirect effects of explosive weapons, provided examples of newly established mechanisms to support the collection of civilian harm data, and identified opportunities and challenges related to the sharing of this data.

Discussion on how direct and indirect effects are understood

The United States provided insight into its interpretation of ‘indirect’ effects in the written statement it submitted to the conference. It references Section 5.12.1.3 of the US Department of Defense Law of War, which addresses the “kinds of expected loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects incidental to an attack on a military objective that need to be considered in assessing whether the attack would be excessive and prohibited under the principle of proportionality.” It draws a distinction between foreseeable harms, which include the “expected loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects and is generally understood to mean such immediate or direct harms foreseeably resulting from the attack,” and remote harms, which are those that “could result from the attack.” As such, remote harms do not need to be considered in applying this prohibition in accordance with international humanitarian law. The United States noted, however, that though the Political Declaration does not modify existing IHL, it does “usefully advance our best practice in this regard by committing endorsing states to ensure that their armed forces take into account the direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects which can reasonably be foreseen.”v The Declaration’s language is therefore useful guidance, as “militaries should be trying to address those harmful effects on civilians and civilian objects that can reasonably be foreseen, both ‘direct’ and ‘indirect.’”

Canada indicated in its statement that parties to armed conflict should “take into account less immediate effects that are reasonably foreseeable” in the planning and execution of military operations, as these “are frequently the ones that cause the most significant harm to civilians and civilian objects.” Canada strongly endorsed the Declaration’s commitment to consider the reasonably foreseeable effects of military targeting on civilians and civilian objects and suggested that states take measures to protect civilians over the long term by protecting “the systems of critical infrastructure that surround them” and, after battles occur, conducted battle damage assessments to collect data and inform future operations.vi

Germany underscored its longstanding focus on understanding the indirect or reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, and once again it welcomed commitments in the Declaration that are specific to addressing them. It highlighted its support for this work, including UNIDIR’s two Menus of Indicators that support the collection and of data on the reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons on different areas of civilian life, as well as the UNIDIR and Explosive Weapons Monitor workshop on the same topic that took place in advance of the Oslo Conference. Germany made clear that there is a “solid basis” to understand the reverberating effects of explosive weapons, and that next steps will include moving to using this knowledge to inform policies and practices and identifying ways to feed into the practices of armed forces, including guidance tools, scenario-based exercises, and national and regional level workshops and capacity building initiatives.vii

Portugal also made clear that the effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas are both direct and indirect, and they can have a harmful impact on the environment and therefore human health. Similarly, Italy indicated that data collection on both direct and indirect effects is essential, with special attention given to particularly vulnerable groups, including women, children and journalists. Liechtenstein also shared that it believed data collection must include more than numbers of civilian fatalities so that greater context can allow for improved coordination and access of humanitarian aid.

Approaches to establishing mechanisms to collect data on civilian harm from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas

The United States indicated that it would be useful for states to share more about their efforts to improve capabilities to assess the “effects of operations on civilians and civilian objects and to incorporate those assessments into military operations.” For the United States, this includes military doctrine related to targeting and estimating and assessing collateral damage. It is currently engaged in efforts to improve its armed forces’ capabilities to mitigate and respond to civilian harm, particularly in the context of improving “knowledge of the civilian environment and civilian harm mitigation capabilities and processes throughout the joint targeting process so that DoD is more effectively prepared to mitigate and respond to civilian harm in any future crisis or conflict.” Concrete actions taken towards this include the creation of Civilian Environment Teams at operational commands that will assist commanders in understanding the ways in which the civilian environment is impacted.viii 

Brazil shared that it recently established a national commission for the dissemination of international humanitarian law, which it believes will help move forward the development of new policies and national action plans. It also made clear that its armed forces are professionally trained in the application of IHL and that IHL provisions are streamlined throughout its military practices.

Opportunities and challenges relating to the sharing of data on direct and indirect effects

Peru suggested that the knowledge and expertise of other sectors be drawn on while seeking to better understand the direct and indirect effects of the use of explosive weapons. In this context, the mine action sector’s collection of data on fatalities and affected communities can be leveraged to glean useful information about the human cost of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. For example, there is detailed information available about the failure rate of explosive munitions that cause harm to civilians as explosive remnants of war. Similarly, the dangers that explosive weapons pose to the environment present another opportunity for linkages to the Sustainable Development Goals.ix

Canada, while referencing the importance of collecting data during battle damage assessments to inform future operations, made clear that this analysis must be informed by the best data available. This data may come from the ICRC, the UN and NGOs, and as such states should support and facilitate the tracking of information by these stakeholders. It stated that “our dialogue with these organisations is critical to a nuanced understanding of the indirect effects of EWIPA.” To support these organisations, who often find it challenging to collect disaggregated data, Canada suggests considering how this might be done and encourages states to consider the differentiated impact of armed conflict on different groups. At present, Canada funds UNIDIR’s Gender & Disarmament Program, which conducts research on the gendered impacts of EWIPA.x

Liechtenstein similarly referenced methodological challenges in collecting data. It suggested that new data collection be standardised so that it is comparable and reliable. It suggested adherence to casualty recording methodologies of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).xi

The way forward – suggested areas of focus for states and other stakeholders working to strengthen the collection of data on indirect or reverberating effects within the Political Declaration process of work

To advance discussions on the implementation of relevant commitments of the Political Declaration, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) and the Explosive Weapons Monitor (EWM) organized a multistakeholder workshop on effective measures and practices for the collection of data on the reverberating effects of the use of EWIPA on 29 February and 1 March 2024 in Geneva. While the workshop’s discussions focused on the role of international organisations, civil society and academia in collecting data and documenting these effects on different areas of civilian life, it also addressed how an improved understanding of indirect or reverberating effects, enabled by data collection efforts, can support operational responses and help inform policies and practices to strengthen the protection of civilians in armed conflicts.

In a working paper submitted to the Oslo Conference, UNIDIR and the Explosive Weapons Monitor put forward recommendations for endorsing states of the Political Declaration to advance implementation of relevant commitments on the collection of data on indirect or reverberating effects within its framework, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders.

Utilise international review meetings of the Political Declaration to exchange on policies and good practices

While states should take steps towards implementation of the Political Declaration’s commitments, they should also seek to utilise the international review meetings of the Declaration, as well as other regional and national-level implementation activities, to exchange on policies and good practices to prevent, minimize and respond to the indirect or reverberating effects of military operations involving the use of explosive weapons. While limited time afforded the opportunity for few states to speak during the Oslo Conference, more time should be dedicated to these discussions in future meetings and states should come prepared to share concrete examples of efforts to implement the Declaration’s data collection commitments. This should include policies, practices, or mechanisms that can be established or adapted to track, monitor and respond to these effects in a way that promotes operational and institutional learning within States and their armed forces. Such activities should help identify the types of resources and expertise needed to build or strengthen such mechanisms, taking into account the varied needs, challenges, and capabilities of endorsing states.xiii

Establish formal or informal structures of work to promote collaboration and exchange to improve understanding of indirect or reverberating effects, their nature, scale and foreseeability

Endorsing states could consider the establishment of formal or informal structures of work, such as standing and/or ad-hoc working groups, to promote collaborative work and exchanges to improve understanding of indirect or reverberating effects, their nature, scale and foreseeability. Such an approach would help to operationalize the Political Declaration’s commitments, including on exchanges of good policies and practices in relation to emerging concepts and terminology.

Establish a voluntary “trust fund” type of mechanism to support independent research to improve the understanding of the nature, scope, and foreseeability of the indirect or reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons

Endorsing states could consider the establishment of a voluntary “trust fund” or another type of mechanism to support independent research to improve the understanding of the nature, scope, and foreseeability of the indirect or reverberating effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. This could include, for instance, support for the development of case studies focused on different contexts and thematic areas to strengthen and promote the diversification of the evidence base. Consideration could also be given to tasking a group or consortium of organisations to conduct a “pilot project” to develop and/or test different approaches and methodologies for documenting these effects over time and across different geographical contexts.

Conclusion

While the UN, civil society and the ICRC have been collecting data on the harm to civilians caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas for more than a decade, the Political Declaration broadens our understanding of who holds responsibility for data collection to include states. While states engage with the Political Declaration process of work to fulfill its data collection commitments, they should also develop their own mechanisms to collect and share data on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and on resulting civilian harm.

Meeting the data-collection commitments contained in paragraphs 4.2 and 3.4 could be achieved in part through the practice of civilian harm tracking, an internal process through which an armed actor (such as state armed forces or an armed group) systematically gathers data on civilian deaths and injuries, property damage or destruction, and other instances of harm to civilians caused by its operations.xiv While this is not a new practice, there is currently no shared methodology for the way in which this occurs. To that end, states should look to casualty recording efforts undertaken by civil society, international organisations, humanitarian actors and academia, in the context of civilian casualties in armed conflict more broadly, as they have already identified examples of good practice and areas for increased cooperation around methodology development.xv

Not only does the collection and sharing of data on the direct and indirect effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas fulfil a moral obligation to understand and recognize victims of armed conflict, it is also essential to responding to the needs of conflict-affected communities and to supporting the development of policies designed to avoid civilian harm and the implementation of the Declaration’s commitments. The Political Declaration provides a framework for strengthened data collection and therefore action to prevent and mitigate harm to civilians. Stakeholders – and states in particular – must commit to progress in implementing its provisions in order to meaningfully strengthen the protection of civilians in this context.