Autonomous weapons systems pose grave risks to human rights during both war and peacetime by UN News, HRW, ICRC, Stop Killer Robots 11:54am 23rd Apr, 2025   Apr. 2025    Autonomous weapons systems pose grave risks to human rights during both war and peacetime, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Governments should tackle the concerns raised by such weapons systems, known as “killer robots,” by negotiating a multinational treaty to address the dangers.    The 61-page report, “A Hazard to Human Rights: Autonomous Weapons Systems and Digital Decision-Making,” finds that autonomous weapons, which select and apply force to targets based on sensor rather human inputs, would contravene the rights to life, peaceful assembly, privacy, and remedy as well as the principles of human dignity and non-discrimination. Technological advances and military investments are now spurring the rapid development of autonomous weapons systems that would operate without meaningful human control.    “The use of autonomous weapons systems will not be limited to war, but will extend to law enforcement operations, border control, and other circumstances, raising serious concerns under international human rights law,” said Bonnie Docherty, senior arms adviser at Human Rights Watch, lecturer on law at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, and lead author of the report. “To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems.”    The report, co-published with Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, was issued ahead of the first United Nations General Assembly meeting on autonomous weapons systems in New York on May 12 to 13, 2025.    Weapons systems with varying degrees of autonomy have existed for years, but the types of targets, duration of operation, geographical scope, and environment in which they operate have been limited. They include missile defense systems, armed drones, and loitering munitions.    Autonomous weapons systems operating without meaningful human control would, once activated, rely on software, often using algorithms, input from sensors like cameras, radar signatures, and heat shapes, and other data, to identify a target. After finding a target, they would fire or release their payload without the need for approval or review by a human operator. That means a machine rather than a human would determine where, when, and against what force is applied.    Autonomous weapons systems would lack the ability to interpret complex situations and to accurately approximate human judgment and emotion, elements that are essential to lawfully using force under the rights to life and peaceful assembly.    Contrary to fundamental human rights principles, the weapons systems would be incapable of valuing human life in a way that is required to respect an individual’s dignity. In addition, systems relying on artificial intelligence would most likely be discriminatory due to developers’ biases and the inherent lack of transparency of machine learning.    Autonomous weapons systems would also violate human rights throughout their life cycle, not just at the time of use. The mass surveillance necessary for their development and training would undermine the right to privacy. The accountability gap of these black-box systems would infringe upon the right to a remedy for harm after an attack.    “Human beings, whether soldiers or police officers, often egregiously violate human rights, but it would be worse to replace them with machines,” Docherty said. “While people have the ability to uphold human rights, machines do not have the capacity to comply or to understand the consequences of their actions.”    Christof Heyns, the late UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, was the first UN official to raise the alarm about autonomous weapons systems in his 2013 report to the UN Human Rights Council. “A Hazard to Human Rights” charts how the UN secretary-general and numerous UN bodies and experts have stressed that the use of autonomous weapons systems would pose threats to international human rights law, and some have argued they should be prohibited.    More than 120 countries are now on record calling for the adoption of a new international treaty on autonomous weapons systems. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Mirjana Spoljaric Egger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, have urged states to “act now to preserve human control over the use of force” by negotiating by 2026 a legally binding instrument with prohibitions and regulations for autonomous weapons systems.    Most treaty proponents have called for prohibitions on autonomous weapons systems that by their nature operate without meaningful human control or systems that target people, as well as for regulations that ensure all other autonomous weapons systems cannot be used without meaningful human control.    The upcoming UN meeting was mandated by a UN General Assembly resolution on lethal autonomous weapons systems that was adopted on December 2, 2024, by a vote of 166 in favor, 3 opposed (Belarus, North Korea, and Russia), and 15 abstentions.    Countries have discussed lethal autonomous weapons systems at the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) meetings in Geneva since May 2014, but with no substantive outcome. The main reason for the lack of progress under the CCW is that its member countries rely on a consensus approach to decision-making, which means a single country can reject a proposal, even if every other country agrees to it. A handful of major military powers investing in autonomous weapons systems have exploited this process to repeatedly block proposals to negotiate a legally binding instrument.    “Negotiations for a treaty on autonomous weapons systems should take place in a forum characterized by a common purpose, voting-based decision-making, clear and ambitious deadlines, and a commitment to inclusivity,” Docherty said.    * Human Rights Watch is a cofounder of Stop Killer Robots, which calls for a new international treaty to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapons systems. The coalition of more than 270 nongovernmental organizations in 70 countries supports the development of legal and other norms that ensure meaningful human control over the use of force, counter digital dehumanization, and reduce automated harm.    http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/04/28/killer-robots-threaten-human-rights-during-war-peace http://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/21/un-start-talks-treaty-ban-killer-robots http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/06/enabling-machines-make-life-death-decisions-morally-unjustifiable http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2025-05-12/secretary-generals-video-message-the-informal-consultations-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1163891 http://www.icrc.org/en/statement/preserving-human-control-over-use-force-call-regulate-lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems http://futureoflife.org/project/autonomous-weapons-systems/ http://www.passblue.com/2025/05/14/can-a-treaty-controlling-killer-robots-soon-see-the-light-of-day-experts-hope-so/    Oct. 2023    In a joint appeal today, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, and the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mirjana Spoljaric, are calling on political leaders to urgently establish new international rules on autonomous weapon systems, to protect humanity.    Today we are joining our voices to address an urgent humanitarian priority. The United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) call on States to establish specific prohibitions and restrictions on autonomous weapon systems, to shield present and future generations from the consequences of their use. In the current security landscape, setting clear international red lines will benefit all States.    Autonomous weapon systems – generally understood as weapon systems that select targets and apply force without human intervention – pose serious humanitarian, legal, ethical and security concerns.    Their development and proliferation have the potential to significantly change the way wars are fought and contribute to global instability and heightened international tensions. By creating a perception of reduced risk to military forces and to civilians, they may lower the threshold for engaging in conflicts, inadvertently escalating violence.    We must act now to preserve human control over the use of force. Human control must be retained in life and death decisions. The autonomous targeting of humans by machines is a moral line that we must not cross. Machines with the power and discretion to take lives without human involvement should be prohibited by international law.    Our concerns have only been heightened by the increasing availability and accessibility of sophisticated new and emerging technologies, such as in robotics and Artificial Intelligence technologies, that could be integrated into autonomous weapons.    The very scientists and industry leaders responsible for such technological advances have also been sounding the alarm. If we are to harness new technologies for the good of humanity, we must first address the most urgent risks and avoid irreparable consequences.    This means prohibiting autonomous weapon systems which function in such a way that their effects cannot be predicted. For example, allowing autonomous weapons to be controlled by machine learning algorithms – fundamentally unpredictable software which writes itself – is an unacceptably dangerous proposition.    In addition, clear restrictions are needed for all other types of autonomous weapons, to ensure compliance with international law and ethical acceptability. These include limiting where, when and for how long they are used, the types of targets they strike and the scale of force used, as well as ensuring the ability for effective human supervision, and timely intervention and deactivation.    Despite the increasing reports of testing and use of various types of autonomous weapon systems, it is not too late to take action. After more than a decade of discussions within the United Nations, including in the Human Rights Council, under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and at the General Assembly, the foundation has been laid for the adoption of explicit prohibitions and restrictions. Now, States must build on this groundwork, and come together constructively to negotiate new rules that address the tangible threats posed by these weapon technologies.    International law, particularly international humanitarian law, prohibits certain weapons and sets general restrictions on the use of all others, and States and individuals remain accountable for any violations. However, without a specific international agreement governing autonomous weapon systems, States can hold different views about how these general rules apply. New international rules on autonomous weapons are therefore needed to clarify and strengthen existing law. They will be a preventive measure, an opportunity to protect those that may be affected by such weapons and essential to avoiding terrible consequences for humanity.    We call on world leaders to launch negotiations of a new legally binding instrument to set clear prohibitions and restrictions on autonomous weapon systems and to conclude such negotiations by 2026. We urge Members States to take decisive action now to protect humanity.    Aug. 2025    80 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A call to eliminate nuclear weapons, from the President of the Japanese Red Cross Society, Atsushi Seike, and President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mirjana Spoljaric.    “Let all the souls here rest in peace for we shall not repeat the evil.”    These are the words carved into the stone monument at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. Eighty years after the world witnessed the horrifying tragedy caused by nuclear weapons, we must ask ourselves: Are we taking this pledge seriously? Are we doing enough to ensure the memory of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not forgotten? And, critically, are enough efforts being made to rid the world of these devastating weapons?    Eighty years ago, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reduced to ash and tens of thousands perished in mere seconds. The registers of both atomic bombings’ victims exceed 540,000, including those who died after suffering from the long-term effects of radiation. This number continues to grow even now.    To this day, survivors – Hibakusha – continue to endure the physical and emotional toll of these weapons. They are still being treated by Japanese Red Cross hospitals for radiation-induced illnesses. This fact underscores the lasting consequences of nuclear warfare.    The risk of intentional or accidental use of nuclear weapons is terrifyingly real. There are far more nuclear weapons today than there were 80 years ago. They are also far more powerful. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima - with a yield equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT - would today be classified as a small nuclear weapon.    Any use of nuclear weapons would be a catastrophic failure of humanity. In particular, no humanitarian response could ever address the suffering resulting from a nuclear detonation in or near a populated area. It is extremely doubtful that nuclear weapons could ever be used in accordance with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.    Two years ago, ahead of the G7 Summit held in Hiroshima in May 2023, we issued a joint statement in which we called on the international community to eliminate nuclear weapons.    And yet instead of advancing towards nuclear disarmament, we see a growing emphasis on nuclear weapons in military postures and doctrine along with the renewal and expansion of nuclear arsenals.    However, there is reason to not lose hope. The desire for a world without nuclear weapons is widely shared among many nations. The number of state parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is growing. Seventy-three states are now parties to the treaty and another 25 have signed it.    The experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago should be proof enough that nuclear weapons are too dangerous for the world to keep.    We again call on all states to never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, to adopt risk-reduction measures to prevent their deliberate or accidental use, to end reliance on them as a means of national security, and to work towards their complete elimination by joining the TPNW or other similar means.    We also urge governments to provide education to ensure that awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons is passed on to future generations so that the unimaginable harm they inflict on civilians is never forgotten.    http://www.icrc.org/en/article/hiroshima-80-years-humanitarian-imperative-eliminate-nuclear-weapons http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/08/1165583 http://www.dw.com/en/japan-marks-80-years-since-the-hiroshima-atomic-bombing/a-73542738 http://www.dw.com/en/risk-of-nuclear-war-grows-amid-new-arms-race/a-72894853 http://www.icanw.org/80years http://childrenspeacememorial.org/ http://www.icanw.org/hibakusha http://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2024/nihon-hidankyo/lecture/ http://www.ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/weapons/weapons1.html http://theelders.org/news/no-more-hiroshimas-elders-call-urgent-nuclear-dialogue-conflict-risks-rise http://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/nuclear-risks-grow-new-arms-race-looms-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now    http://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/role-nuclear-weapons-grows-geopolitical-relations-deteriorate-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now http://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/nuclear-risk/ http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2024-08-06/secretary-generals-message-the-hiroshima-peace-memorial-the-79th-anniversary-of-the-atomic-bombing-of-hiroshima http://www.un.org/en/observances/nuclear-weapons-elimination-day http://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/    http://thebulletin.org/2025/07/the-nobel-laureate-assembly-declaration-for-the-prevention-of-nuclear-war/ http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02271-w http://futureoflife.org/project/artificial-escalation/ http://futureoflife.org/project/mitigating-the-risks-of-ai-integration-in-nuclear-launch/    Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity. Even a “limited” nuclear war involving only 250 of the 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting 2 billion people at risk.    A large-scale nuclear war between the USA and Russia could kill 200 million people or more in the near term, and potentially cause a global “nuclear winter” that could kill 5–6 billion people, threatening the survival of humanity.    Once a nuclear weapon is detonated, escalation to all-out nuclear war could occur rapidly. The prevention of any use of nuclear weapons is therefore an urgent public health priority and fundamental steps must also be taken to address the root cause of the problem—by abolishing nuclear weapons.    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)01526-X/fulltext http://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm http://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0 http://www.ippnw.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/ENGLISH-Nuclear-Famine-Report-Final-bleed-marks.pdf http://www.icrc.org/en/document/avoiding-catastrophe-we-must-act-now-ensure-nuclear-weapons-are-never-again-used http://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/reviews-pdf/2022-06/the-icrcs-legal-and-policy-position-on-nuclear-weapons-919.pdf http://commonsecurity.org    Feb. 2025    Closer than ever: It is now 89 seconds to midnight - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists    In 2024, humanity edged ever closer to catastrophe. Trends that have deeply concerned the Science and Security Board continued, and despite unmistakable signs of danger, national leaders and their societies have failed to do what is needed to change course. Consequently, we now move the Doomsday Clock from 90 seconds to 89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to catastrophe.    Our fervent hope is that leaders will recognize the world’s existential predicament and take bold action to reduce the threats posed by nuclear weapons, climate change, and the potential misuse of biological science and a variety of emerging technologies.    In setting the Clock one second closer to midnight, we send a stark signal: Because the world is already perilously close to the precipice, a move of even a single second should be taken as an indication of extreme danger and an unmistakable warning that every second of delay in reversing course increases the probability of global disaster.    In regard to nuclear risk, the war in Ukraine, now in its third year, looms over the world; the conflict could become nuclear at any moment because of a rash decision or through accident or miscalculation.    Conflict in the Middle East threatens to spiral out of control into a wider war without warning. The countries that possess nuclear weapons are increasing the size and role of their arsenals, investing hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons that can destroy civilization.    The nuclear arms control process is collapsing, and high-level contacts among nuclear powers are totally inadequate given the danger at hand. Alarmingly, it is no longer unusual for countries without nuclear weapons to consider developing arsenals of their own—actions that would undermine longstanding nonproliferation efforts and increase the ways in which nuclear war could start.    The impacts of climate change increased in the last year as myriad indicators, including sea-level rise and global surface temperature, surpassed previous records. The global greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change continued to rise. Extreme weather and other climate change-influenced events—floods, tropical cyclones, heat waves, drought, and wildfires—affected every continent.    The long-term prognosis for the world’s attempts to deal with climate change remains poor, as most governments fail to enact the financing and policy initiatives necessary to halt global warming. Growth in solar and wind energy has been impressive but remains insufficient to stabilize the climate.    Judging from recent electoral campaigns, climate change is viewed as a low priority in the United States and many other countries.    In the biological arena, emerging and re-emerging diseases continue to threaten the economy, society, and security of the world. The off-season appearance and in-season continuance of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), its spread to farm animals and dairy products, and the occurrence of human cases have combined to create the possibility of a devastating human pandemic.    Supposedly high-containment biological laboratories continue to be built throughout the world, but oversight regimes for them are not keeping pace, increasing the possibility that pathogens with pandemic potential may escape.    Rapid advances in artificial intelligence have increased the risk that terrorists or countries may attain the capability of designing biological weapons for which countermeasures do not exist.    An array of other disruptive technologies advanced last year in ways that make the world more dangerous. Systems that incorporate artificial intelligence in military targeting have been used in Ukraine and the Middle East, and several countries are moving to integrate artificial intelligence into their militaries.    Such efforts raise questions about the extent to which machines will be allowed to make military decisions—even decisions that could kill on a vast scale, including those related to the use of nuclear weapons.    Tensions among the major powers are increasingly reflected in competition in space, where China and Russia are actively developing anti-satellite capabilities; the United States has alleged that Russia has tested a satellite with a dummy warhead on it, suggesting plans to place nuclear weapons in orbit.    The dangers we have just listed are greatly exacerbated by a potent threat multiplier: the spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories that degrade the communication ecosystem and increasingly blur the line between truth and falsehood.    Advances in AI are making it easier to spread false or inauthentic information across the internet—and harder to detect it.    At the same time, nations are engaging in cross-border efforts to use disinformation and other forms of propaganda to subvert elections, while some technology, media, and political leaders aid the spread of lies and conspiracy theories.    This corruption of the information ecosystem undermines the public discourse and honest debate upon which democracy depends. The battered information landscape is also producing leaders who discount science and endeavor to suppress free speech and human rights, compromising the fact-based public discussions that are required to combat the enormous threats facing the world.    Blindly continuing on the current path is a form of madness. The United States, China, and Russia have the collective power to destroy civilization. These three countries have the prime responsibility to pull the world back from the brink, and they can do so if their leaders seriously commence good-faith discussions about the global threats outlined here.    Despite their profound disagreements, they should take that first step without delay. The world depends on immediate action. It is 89 seconds to midnight.    http://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/2025-statement/    New report finds alarming levels of civilian harm from the use of explosive weapons in 2024 - International Network on Explosive Weapons    Civilians continued to bear the brunt of bombing and shelling in towns and cities across the globe in 2024. Worldwide, civilians and civilian infrastructure were harmed by explosive weapons used by state and non-state actors in 74 countries and territories, a new report by the Explosive Weapons Monitor has revealed.    According to the Explosive Weapons Monitor 2024, continued heavy bombardment in Gaza, as well as extensive use of explosive weapons in Lebanon, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere, has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and the reverberating, long-term effects of people losing safe access to healthcare, education, aid and food security.    “Civilians are paying the ultimate price when explosive weapons are used in populated towns and cities. We see a worrying pattern of harm caused by the use of explosive weapons in ongoing conflicts that extends well beyond the area of attack,ˮ said Katherine Young, Research and Monitoring Manager of the Explosive Weapons Monitor.    “Not only do explosive weapons kill and injure civilians, they also cause damage to schools, health facilities, power lines, water supplies and other essential infrastructure which can last long after conflicts have ended. This inflicts further, long-term suffering on populations whose lives have been made unbearable while under bombardment,ˮ she said.    The report also shares that attacks with explosive weapons on civilian infrastructure and essential services rose sharply in 2024. The use of explosive weapons in attacks on healthcare increased by 64 percent from the previous year, damaging and destroying health facilities and ambulances and killing health workers.    Likewise, the use of explosive weapons in attacks on education more than doubled, and attacks on humanitarian aid occurred nearly five times more frequently in 2024.    Given the scale of harm to civilians in 2024, the report shows that it is critically important for states to reduce harm to civilians and the infrastructure they depend on. To do so, states should endorse and implement the 2022 Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences of the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.    This international agreement to protect civilians from the devastating effects of explosive weapons in urban areas has been endorsed by 88 countries so far.    “States must refuse to normalise the devastating toll of explosive weapons on civilians. By signing the political declaration, states are sending a clear message that harm to civilians, and destruction of the infrastructure they need to survive, will not be tolerated,ˮ said Alma Taslidzan, Disarmament and Protection of Civilians Advocacy Manager at Humanity & Inclusion.    http://explosiveweaponsmonitor.org/reports/5/explosive-weapons-monitor-2024/ http://reliefweb.int/report/world/explosive-weapons-monitor-2024    Apr. 2024    Statement by ICRC president Mirjana Splojaric to the first international follow-up conference to review implementation of the Political Declaration on explosive weapons in populated areas - 23 April 2024, Oslo Norway:    "Today, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and Yemen, we are witnessing a global and collective failure to protect civilians in armed conflicts.    The human toll of these wars, exacerbated by the use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas, is unacceptable.    Heavy explosive weapons put at risk everyone – children, women and men – and everything – homes, schools and hospitals – within their wide impact areas often extending well beyond their target.    In urban environments where military objectives, civilians and civilian objects are commingled, the results are devastating. The ICRC teams on the ground have seen scores of civilians killed or injured, often left with permanent disabilities or serious mental trauma.    Cities are reduced to rubble, with homes, infrastructures, schools and cultural sites destroyed. People's means of earning a living are wiped out.    Services essential for human survival collapse, leaving entire populations without access to water, sanitation, electricity or health care – causing more death and disease, triggering displacement and setting development back decades.    Importantly, it raises serious questions about how states and non-state armed groups using such weapons are interpreting and applying the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern the conduct of hostilities.    These IHL rules are all about protecting civilians from the deadly dangers of hostilities. They stem from the cardinal principle of distinction that requires all parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between the civilian population and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives.    Attacks must not be directed against civilians or civilian objects, and indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.    Furthermore, the principles of proportionality and precaution afford protection to civilians and civilian objects against the danger of being incidentally harmed by attacks against military objectives.    In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population and civilian objects. Attacks are prohibited when they may be expected to cause incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects that would be excessive or could be avoided or minimized.    And yet, we see exceptions to IHL being made that strip entire categories of people of their protection. We see transactional and reciprocal arguments invoked in an attempt to justify unacceptable interpretations of proportionality, feasible precautions not being taken and other non-compliant behaviors.    We see military necessity being increasingly emphasized to the detriment of sparing civilian lives, with far too little regard being paid to the protective purpose of IHL. As parties to armed conflicts interpret these tenets of international humanitarian law with increased elasticity, they set a dangerous precedent with tragic consequences for all.    In this respect, we commend the Political Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas for stressing the importance of full compliance with IHL as a means to protect civilians and civilian objects and to avoid, and in any event minimize, civilian harm.    While there is no general prohibition under IHL against using heavy explosive weapons in populated areas, their use in these areas is very likely to have indiscriminate effects, and, depending on the circumstances, IHL rules may well prohibit such use.    This underpins the long-standing call by the ICRC and the broader International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to all states and non-state armed groups that are parties to armed conflicts to avoid the use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas.    These weapons should not be used in populated areas unless sufficient mitigation measures can be taken to limit their wide area effects and the consequent risk of civilian harm.    The declaration recognizes that, beyond compliance with the law, effectively protecting civilians requires states and parties to armed conflicts to review and improve national policy and practice with regard to the protection of civilians during armed conflict involving the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.    The daily reminders from around the world of the devastation caused by urban warfare highlight the declaration's relevance and urgency. However, in the reality of armed conflicts, we must soberly acknowledge that the declaration's life-saving potential will only materialize if:    All endorsing states implement the declaration – in letter and spirit. All parties to armed conflict, including non-state armed groups, fully adhere to its commitments, and all warring parties interpret IHL, including its rules on the conduct of hostilities, in good faith, as the protective body of law it is meant to be.    Words matter. Political pledges matter. Yet they offer scant consolation to civilians worldwide enduring the horrors of bombardment. What is urgently needed is tangible, on-the-ground change. We call on you all to take concrete steps to make this change.    http://www.icrc.org/en/document/global-and-collective-failure-to-protect-civilians-in-armed-conflict http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/04/22/protecting-civilians-in-conflict-the-urgency-of-implementing-the-political-declaration-on-explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas/    Apr. 2024    Meaningful action to prevent the use of explosive weapons in populated areas could almost halve number of child casualties in conflicts. (UNICEF)    Between 2018 and 2022, explosive weapons were responsible for nearly half - 49.8 per cent - of the more than 47,500 instances of children killed and maimed that were verified by the United Nations, in more than 24 conflict zones globally. The vast majority of these instances occurred in populated areas.    The use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (EWIPA) poses an immense threat to children worldwide. As urban warfare increases, the use of weapons designed for open battlefields is now a common reality in cities, towns, villages, and other populated areas, with devastating effects on young populations. In the five years up to 2022, explosive weapons killed or seriously injured almost twice as many children as were killed or injured by gunshots and other firearms.    “The evidence is irrefutable—when explosive weapons are used in populated areas, children suffer profoundly, not just physically but in every aspect of their lives,” said UNICEF Deputy Executive Director Ted Chaiban.    “That the use of explosive weapons accounts for half of all child casualties is not only a reminder of the catastrophic impact and dire consequences for children, but also illustrates the progress that could be made with meaningful action to prevent their use in populated areas.”    As countries meet this week in Oslo, Norway, at the first international follow-up conference to the Political Declaration on the use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, which was adopted in Dublin in November 2022, this provides a crucial opportunity to better protect children, their families, and communities from armed conflict.    Endorsed by more than 85 countries, the Declaration commits states to take steps to avoid civilian harm when conducting military operations in populated areas.    “Thousands of young lives are abruptly ended or forever altered each year,” said Chaiban. “Beyond children’s physical injuries and scars lie additional - often less visible - psychological, educational, and social impacts, that can persist throughout their lifetimes, creating cycles of hardship and suffering.”    In addition to direct injuries, the use of explosive weapons leads to broader social, economic and environmental degradation, severely affecting children’s access to essential services like healthcare, education, and clean water. The destruction of infrastructure necessary for survival and well-being results in long-term consequences for children’s development and the health of the community at large.    UNICEF is actively working on the ground in conflict zones to mitigate these impacts, delivering critical aid and support to the children most at risk. However, this can only achieve so much, and prevention is a critical aspect of ensuring all children are protected, requiring a robust and sustained international response.    UNICEF is calling for:    All parties to conflict and those with influence over them, to protect and ensure respect for children’s rights including by ending the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.    All Member States to sign the EWIPA Declaration and call on to Member States that are already signatories, to identify and adopt military measures, policies, and practices that reduce harm to children, and share them with other countries.    Member States who are signatories to speak out about the devastating impact of EWIPA on children and promote the Political Declaration including by urging warring parties around the world to cease the use of EWIPA.    Member States to provide sustained, financial support for programmes and interventions that will protect children from EWIPA including through injury surveillance, conflict preparedness and protection (CPP), explosive ordnance risk education (EORE), clearance, and victim assistance.    Member States to refrain from transferring explosive weapons to warring parties that are likely to use them against civilians and civilian objects in line with the Arms Trade Treaty.    Member States, international organizations and civil society to gather and share evidence and data, including casualty tracking and mental health, on the direct and indirect impact of explosive weapons on children to support the case for child protection.    “The ongoing commitment of global leaders and the implementation of the EWIPA Declaration are critical to turning the tide against the use of explosive weapons in populated areas,” said Chaiban. “As the international community continues to witness the unspeakable harm these weapons cause, we must take decisive action to protect our future generations. The cost of inaction is too high—a price paid by our children.”    http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/meaningful-action-prevent-use-explosive-weapons-populated-areas-could-almost-halve    Nov. 2022 (INEW, ICRC)    Today in Dublin, Ireland 82 countries officially endorsed the Political Declaration on the Protection of Civilians from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, which had been finalised on 17 June 2022 in Geneva.    The declaration is the culmination of a decade-long advocacy effort led by the International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the United Nations and almost three years of diplomatic negotiations led by Ireland.    The civilian harm arising from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas is extensive and well-documented. On average, 90 percent of the people who are killed or injured when explosive weapons are used in populated areas are civilians.    Damage to or destruction of buildings, homes, infrastructure, and other civilian objects further exacerbates civilian suffering by disrupting access to services critical for the civilian population, including education and health care, and driving displacement.    These direct and indirect effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas have affected countless civilians in recent and ongoing armed conflicts across many countries.    The use of explosive weapons in populated areas is the leading cause of civilian casualties in armed conflict, and the declaration is the first formal international recognition that this must be addressed urgently and directly.    The declaration promotes stronger standards to protect civilians and commits states which endorse it, to take action to implement it by making changes to their national policy and practice, including military policies and operational rules of engagement.    The 82 endorsing countries came from all regions of the world and include major producers of explosive weapons, past users of explosive weapons in populated areas, and countries affected by armed conflict.    Statement by ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric, Dublin, November 2022.    " This Political Declaration has the potential to change the fate of many hundreds of thousands of persons affected by armed conflict around the world. It is a step towards strengthening the protection of civilians and respect for international humanitarian law where it matters the most.    The use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas is one of the major causes of civilian harm in today's armed conflicts. When fighting takes place in cities, men, women, and children are exposed to unacceptably high risks.    Whether in the Middle East, in Africa, Asia, Latin America and now also again in Europe, we continue to witness the devastating pattern of suffering and destruction they cause.    Countless lives are shattered, countless victims disabled and traumatized because they happened to be in these weapons' large impact area. Many more suffer, fall ill or even die when a bomb, missile or mortar damages critical infrastructure, cutting off vital services such as water, electricity, sanitation and health care.    Entire populations flee to escape bombing and shelling or because life in the ruins becomes unbearable. Many remain displaced for months or even years. Large regions are contaminated by unexploded ordnance long after hostilities have ended. Ultimately, whole generations are scarred, and development indexes are set back by decades.    When bombs fall in cities, pain multiplies. Lost lives. Lost limbs. Crumbled homes. Crushed dreams. That's why today's declaration is so important. It brings hope that the immense suffering of civilians will no longer be accepted as an inevitable by-product of warfare.    For the first time in an instrument of this kind, States have acknowledged the gravity of the problem and have committed to taking concrete actions to address it, including by restricting or refraining from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, where such use may be expected to cause civilian harm.    The ICRC welcomes this and the other important commitments in the Declaration. Since 2011, we have been calling on all States and parties to armed conflict to avoid the use of explosive weapons with a wide impact area in populated areas, as a matter of policy, due to the significant likelihood of indiscriminate effects.    This is why the ICRC finds this Declaration so important. It sends a powerful signal that belligerents cannot continue fighting in populated areas the way they have until now. This change in mindset and perspective is crucial. Yet, we are only at the beginning of a long process.    We must now work together to broaden support for the Declaration and to effectively implement it, turning ambitious commitments into meaningful measures, policies and good practices that will help alleviate human suffering during armed conflicts and in their aftermath.    The urbanization of warfare is a global phenomenon, and its consequences are also global. From people displaced by armed conflict to the ripple effects of essential service disruption on food security, the effects of the use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas transcend borders.    The Declaration aims to strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law, which is today direly needed. All States have not only an interest in doing so, but also a legal duty.    The Declaration creates an international standard of behaviour. The more States endorse the Declaration, the stronger this standard will become. Let us not forget that, today, no one fights alone. Partnered military operations and other support relationships shape the course of armed conflicts around the world.    As more and more States agree to restrict or refrain from using explosive weapons in populated areas, partners and supported parties will eventually be held to the same standard.    So today we mark the achievement, but tomorrow we must work harder to put these important commitments into action. We owe this to the innumerable victims of urban warfare, and to our common humanity".    http://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-foreign-affairs/publications/protecting-civilians-in-urban-warfare/ http://www.inew.org/news http://civiliansinconflict.org/press-releases/civic-urges-immediate-implementation-of-political-declaration-on-explosive-weapons    Nov. 2022    States adopt first ever international agreement to protect civilians from explosive weapons in populated areas. Action on Armed Violence (AOAV)    This landmark agreement addresses the widespread civilian suffering and devastation resulting from the bombing and shelling of cities, towns, and other populated areas.    The International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW) welcomes the declaration and calls on all states to sign and implement it.    “This declaration sends a clear message that using explosive weapons in populated areas causes unacceptable civilian suffering and devastation and must stop. It is time for all states to endorse and implement the Declaration to help civilians and their communities during and after conflict”, said Laura Boillot, Coordinator for the International Network in Explosive Weapons (INEW).    The Declaration requires states to impose limits on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, which is the leading cause of harm to civilians in conflicts today.    “When explosive weapons are used in populated areas, over a decade of data from AOAV has shown that civilians will be, by far, the most impacted. Around nine out of ten people harmed from such explosive weapon use in towns and cities have been civilians – a consistent finding seen throughout all conflicts in recent years,” said Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), which runs a global annual monitor.    It also requires states to assist victims and affected communities both during and after conflict and to address the long-term suffering that stems from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Civilians suffer physical and psychological injury. Damage to and destruction of critical civilian infrastructure interferes with heath care, education, and other services. People are forced to flee the towns and cities in which they live and work.    “Nobody thinks about people like me, with no place to hide. This leads to psychological trauma. I was 12, in a wheelchair and terrified, but there was nothing anyone could do. When civilians are bombed it’s not only lives, cities and homes that are lost but also their future. I hope that signing the declaration will not be just a piece of paper – but the beginning of a real change. People suffering in wars around the world need it”, said Nujeen Mustafa, who fled from Aleppo, Syria to Germany.    “There is a widespread pattern of harm: when towns and cities are bombed, it is civilians that suffer the most”, said Alma Taslidzan Al-Osta from Humanity and Inclusion.    Ethiopia, Iraq, Palestine (Gaza), Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen are recent examples of affected counties.    “Children disproportionately suffer the consequences of today’s armed conflicts as city centres are turned into battlefields. This could be a significant step forward to stop the war on children, but the declaration will mean nothing without robust, urgent implementation”, said James Denselow, Head of Conflict at Save the Children, UK.    Explosive weapons were designed for use in open battlefields, and are often deadly choices when used in towns, cities and other areas in which civilians are concentrated.    “Heavy explosive weapons, which are inaccurate, have a wide blast or fragmentation radius, or are delivered in groups, are a deadly choice for civilians”, said Steve Goose from Human Rights Watch. “Use of explosive weapons with such wide area effects should always be avoided in populated areas.”    States that sign the declaration must move quickly to begin the process of implementation. This includes developing policies and practices which limit the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and ensure that the protection of civilians is prioritized in the planning and conduct of military operations.    The use of explosive weapons in populated areas is the leading cause of civilian casualties in contemporary armed conflicts, and the Declaration is the first formal international recognition that this must be addressed urgently and directly.    http://www.icrc.org/en/document/un-icrc-urge-stepped-up-support-to-protect-civilians-from-explosive-weapons-populated-areas http://www.inew.org/dublin-conference-to-adopt-the-political-declaration-on-explosive-weapons/ http://aoav.org.uk/2022/states-set-to-adopt-first-ever-international-agreement-to-protect-civilians-from-explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas/ http://www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/26/safeguarding-civilians    http://www.icrc.org/en/document/civilians-protected-against-explosive-weapons http://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/protected-persons/civilians http://www.icrc.org/en/explosive-weapons-populated-areas http://www.icrc.org/en/publication/i-saw-my-city-die-voices-front-lines-urban-conflict-iraq-syria-and-yemen http://international-review.icrc.org/reviews/irrc-no-901-war-cities    http://hi.org/en/a-political-declaration-against-the-use-of-explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas http://civiliansinconflict.org/press-releases/ewipa-2022-statement/ http://www.inew.org/press-release-use-of-heavy-explosive-weapons-killing-civilians-in-towns-and-cities-must-be-prevented/ http://civiliansinconflict.org/press-releases/civic-urges-immediate-implementation-of-political-declaration-on-explosive-weapons/ http://www.hrw.org/news/2022/10/26/safeguarding-civilians    Sep. 2022    Explosive Weapons Declaration to Curb Civilian Harm. (HRW)    A new international declaration aimed at curbing harm from the bombing and shelling of villages, towns, and cities is a major milestone for protecting civilians during armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said today.    The Declaration on the Protection of Civilians from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas will be opened for countries to endorse at a conference hosted by the government of Ireland on November 18, 2022.    “All countries should seize this opportunity to prevent human suffering in armed conflict by endorsing the new declaration to limit the use of explosive weapons in populated areas,” said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch. “This political commitment sends a strong message that the civilian toll from the widespread use of explosive weapons in populated areas is unacceptable.”    Explosive weapons, such as aerial bombs, rockets, artillery and mortar projectiles, and missiles, if used in populated areas, not only kill and injure civilians at the time of attack, but also have long-term ripple, or “reverberating,” effects.    These weapons damage civilian infrastructure, which in turn interferes with basic services such as health care and education, infringing on human rights. They inflict psychological harm, cause environmental damage, and displace communities.    The bombing and bombardment of cities and towns endures, causing thousands of civilian casualties each year. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas has inflicted immediate and long-term harm on civilians in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and in other conflicts in recent years.    Since its invasion on February 24, 2022, Russia has repeatedly shelled and bombed Ukrainian cities, towns, and villages with explosive weapons that have a large destructive radius, are inherently inaccurate, or deliver multiple munitions at the same time. Such factors create wide area effects that make these explosive weapons an inappropriate choice for use in populated areas as they pose a heightened risk of harm to civilians.    Under the declaration, states commit to adopt and carry out national policies and military practices that strive to avoid civilian harm by “restricting or refraining from” the use of explosive weapons in towns, cities, and other populated areas. Countries should refrain from using explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas and should restrict the use of other explosive weapons.    Other key provisions include commitments to assist victims, facilitate humanitarian access, and collect and share data about the effects of explosive weapons.    The explosive weapons declaration responds to a proven and devastating pattern of harm caused to civilians, which drives people from their homes and causes them to lose their lives and livelihoods. It goes beyond simply restating existing international law by committing signatories to take additional steps that improve the protection of civilians, address the humanitarian consequences, and strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law, or the laws of war.    Countries have adopted many declarations relating to the conduct of armed conflict and use of weapons. For example, the 2015 Safe Schools Declaration, endorsed by 114 countries, seeks to restrict the military use of schools and keep children in school during conflicts.    The diplomatic process to create the explosive weapons declaration began when 133 countries participated in a conference on Protecting Civilians in Urban Warfare hosted by Austria in October 2019. Ireland then convened two rounds of diplomatic consultations on the text in 2019 and 2020. The Covid-19 pandemic postponed negotiations until early 2022.    Governments agreed to the final text of the draft declaration on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas at the United Nations in Geneva on June 17, 2022.    The process to conclude the declaration has featured close partnership among countries, United Nations agencies – notably the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and civil society organizations. Human Rights Watch is a cofounder of the International Network on Explosive Weapons, a coalition of groups that has pushed for such a declaration since 2011.    The political declaration creates a platform for future work, including regular meetings to promote the commitments that it sets out. The meetings would provide a forum to present and review data tracking civilian harm in military operations and consider efforts for addressing it.    While not legally binding, political declarations carry significant weight because they can help clarify existing international law’s applicability to a specific situation or outline standards for conduct that go beyond existing law. In doing so, political declarations can positively shape state behavior and help advance common goals.    http://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/20/explosive-weapons-declaration-curb-civilian-harm http://www.actionagainsthunger.org/story/civil-society-statement-protection-civilians-urban-conflict http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/10/domicide-must-be-recognised-international-crime-un-expert    Mar. 2025    Arms transfers are not a human rights-free zone. (OHCHR)    States and the private sector must do more to tackle the devastating human rights impact of arms transfers, a UN Human Rights Office report published today says.    Amid the highest number of violent conflicts since World War II, such transfers and the diversion of arms are contributing to internal repression, human rights violations and abuses, and serious violations of international humanitarian law, the report warns.    “Arms transfers are not a human rights-free zone, as our report makes clear. Both States and private actors have clear obligations and responsibilities under international law and standards,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said.    The report details challenges related to corruption and conflicts of interest in the arms sector, as well as gaps between what States and the private sector should do - and what they do in practice - to prevent, address and mitigate the negative human rights impact of arms transfers.    Political expediency and narrow economic objectives too often result in allowing arms transfers when there are real risks that they could contribute to violations of international law.    “More efforts must be taken to investigate, prosecute and punish those who assist in perpetrating international crimes through arms transfers. Barriers to effectively challenge arms transfer decisions through independent courts should also be reviewed and lifted”, the High Commissioner said.    The report further highlights that companies frequently lack human rights policies and due diligence processes to assess independently the risks of violations.    “States and the private sector need to do more to close the compliance gaps and act effectively to prevent, address and mitigate the negative human rights impact of arms transfers,” said the High Commissioner. “To address these systemic issues, arms transfers should be subject to greater oversight and accountability.”    The report calls for States to conduct robust risk assessments, refrain from prohibited arms transfers, prevent unlawful arms transfers by third parties, and ensure judicial oversight of transfers and provision of effective remedies to victims. The private sector has responsibility to respect human rights, including through undertaking effective human rights due diligence.    * To read the full report: http://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/58/41    http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/arms-transfers-are-not-human-rights-free-zone-un-report http://www.wilpf.org/another-step-towards-holding-governments-and-corporations-accountable-human-rights-council-hrc59-adopts-resolution-about-arms-transfers/    Aug. 2024    The Arms Trade Treaty must be faithfully implemented to prevent serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.    ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric addresses the Tenth Conference of State Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty on World Humanitarian Day:    "A week ago, for the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, I urged the world to recommit to a robust protective framework that saves lives and preserves humanity. It is a dangerous time for civilians and for humanitarian personnel who strive to respond to unprecedented humanitarian needs.    As we mark World Humanitarian Day, the normalization of attacks against civilians and humanitarian personnel must be halted.    The prohibition to transfer weapons where there is a risk they could be used for such purposes must be upheld.    Every day, the ICRC witnesses the immense human suffering caused by armed violence and conflict, fueled by the widespread availability and misuse of arms and ammunition.    In many places, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Israel and the occupied territories, the Sahel, Sudan, Somalia, Ukraine and Yemen, to mention but a few, this influx of weapons exacts an unacceptable human toll and hinders the prospects of building lasting peace.    With global arms sales on the rise, driven by growing international tensions, resurgent arms race dynamics and commercial incentives, the promotion of responsible action and restraint in the international arms trade is an ever more pressing humanitarian imperative.    Can the international community accept that vast quantities of conventional arms and ammunition continue to flow – overtly and covertly – to some of the most brutal armed conflicts, where there is a clear or overriding risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate international humanitarian law violations?    The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was designed to prevent the recurrence of horrors of preceding wars. When faithfully implemented, it plays an indispensable part in States’ efforts to prevent serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.    As States Parties to the ATT, you showed leadership in adhering to the first global treaty to regulate the international trade in conventional arms.    I urge you to take an honest look at how actions and inactions in arms transfer perpetuate suffering and to demonstrate renewed commitment to the clear humanitarian purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty.    As part of your obligations, you must ensure that arms transfer decisions are subject to humanitarian concerns.    Any State as an arms supplier must apply greater diligence in assessing the risks posed by the arms they transfer, and implement timely, robust and practical measures that can realistically offset such risks.    Respect for international humanitarian law in arms transfer decisions must apply at all levels of decision-making and must not be trumped by economic or political considerations.    Where there is a clear risk that arms would be used to commit international humanitarian law violations, you must refrain from transferring them.    Exporting States should, furthermore, use their influence to foster respect for international humanitarian law by the arms recipient.    Second, the Treaty’s humanitarian aspirations must be operationalized to yield tangible impact on the ground.    The humanitarian purpose of the Treaty is evident. It recognizes the human cost of arms availability and spells out the aim of contributing to international and regional peace and security.."    http://www.icrc.org/en/news-release/arms-trade-treaty-must-be-faithfully-implemented-prevent-serious-violations http://theglobalobservatory.org/2025/06/weapons-without-consequences-how-the-global-arms-trade-undermines-the-protection-of-civilians/ http://iansa.org/human-economic-and-social-costs-of-small-arms-and-light-weapons-violence-selected-global-data-june-2024/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/05/sudan-advanced-chinese-weaponry-provided-by-uae-identified-in-breach-of-arms-embargo-new-investigation/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/sudan-european-defence-firms-face-questions-over-weapons-diversion-to-conflict-zones http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/08/global-governments-brazen-flouting-of-arms-trade-treaty-rules-leading-to-devastating-loss-of-life/ http://disarmament.unoda.org/convarms/att/ http://thearmstradetreaty.org/ http://controlarms.org/csp/csp-2025/ http://controlarms.org/csp/ http://www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item