Statement during the May 2017 UN Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict:
“The ICRC endorses the three priorities of protection in the report and supports the call to focus on the particular challenges of urban warfare. The return of armed conflict to towns and cities has been a particular concern of the ICRC in recent years. Approximately 50 million people in urban areas now bear the brunt of conflict. The overwhelming percentage of people killed or injured by explosive weapons in populated areas are civilians. They are mothers, fathers and children who are not part of the fighting and simply wish to lead their lives, not fear for them.
The ICRC advocates that all parties should avoid using explosive weapons that have a wide-impact area in populated places. In addition to the high risk of indiscriminate civilian death and injury, heavy explosive weapons can cause extensive damage to critical infrastructure, such as health care, water and electricity facilities. Critically, under international humanitarian law, civilians must not only be protected from attack and the impact of conflict, but also be able to go about their daily lives, but too often we see the fabric of communities being eroded. Children are unable to attend school. The sick cannot reach hospitals, and livelihoods are interrupted or cease entirely. When people live in fear and cannot safely continue their activities, they risk becoming marginalized, destitute and reliant on humanitarian aid.”
Statement during UN General Assembly First Committee, October 2016:
“Current and recent armed conflicts – such as those in Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq and Gaza – continue to expose the particularly devastating effects on civilians of heavy explosive weapons when used in populated areas. Large bombs and missiles, indirect-fire weapon systems such as mortars, rockets and artillery, multi-barrel rocket launchers, and certain types of improvised explosive devices, are prone to indiscriminate effects when used in population centres, owing to their wide-area effects. In addition to the high risk of incidental civilian death, injury and disability, heavy explosive weapons tend to cause extensive damage to critical civilian infrastructure, triggering debilitating “domino effects” on interconnected essential services such as health care, and water and electricity supply systems. This in turn provokes further civilian death and displacement. And these effects are exacerbated in protracted armed conflicts.
While there is no question that IHL permits parties to armed conflicts to attack military targets located in populated areas, it also constrains their choice of means and methods to do so, with the aim of protecting civilians from unacceptable harm. The ICRC welcomes that a growing number of States are engaging on this crucial humanitarian issue, and we encourage them to share how they put into practice the constraints of IHL on their choice of weapons in urban warfare. We continue to call on States and parties to armed conflict to avoid using explosive weapons with a wide impact area in densely populated areas, owing to the significant likelihood of indiscriminate effects.”
Statement during the January 2016 UN Security Council open debate on the protection of civilians:
“The use of explosive weapons in populated areas is one example that raises serious concern in terms of compliance, especially in urban environments. These weapons are prone to indiscriminate effects, with often devastating consequences for civilians. Many civilians are killed or injured by such weapons. Critical infrastructure on which civilians depend for their livelihoods and survival, such as power stations, water treatment plants and hospitals, can be continuously and cumulatively damaged so that they cease to be able to provide essential services to meet people’s basic needs. Precisely for those reasons, the ICRC has urged that the use of explosive weapons with a wide impact area should be avoided in densely populated areas.
To address this humanitarian issue, States should make known their policies on the use of such weapons and explain how their use of explosive weapons in populated areas complies with international humanitarian law. We also ask that the upcoming third United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, which will address the development of a new urban agenda, take account of the risks faced by many millions of people threatened by armed conflict and other situations of violence in today’s densely populated and fast-growing cities.”
Statement during the General Debate of the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly First Committee, 2014:
“It is not just the availability of conventional arms that engenders civilian suffering. The types of conventional weapons chosen by belligerents when fighting in populated areas are also of concern. This year alone, a number of armed conflicts have seen the use in populated areas of explosive weapons with a wide impact area, such as large bombs or missiles, unguided indirect-fire weapons including artillery and mortars, and weapons systems designed to deliver multiple munitions over a wide area.
The ICRC considers that explosive weapons with a wide impact area should be avoided in densely populated areas due to the significant likelihood of indiscriminate effects and despite the absence of an express legal prohibition against specific types of weapons. Recent conflicts show that there is a need for States to pay greater attention to this important humanitarian issue.
In its day-to-day work to protect and assist civilians affected by armed conflict, the ICRC continues to witness the devastating human cost of such weapons, in terms of incidental or indiscriminate death and injury and severe damage to critical civilian infrastructure. Damaged or destroyed buildings are the most visible effects of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Less visible is the damage caused to vital water and electrical supply systems, which has severe adverse consequences on the functioning of hospitals and more generally on the survival of the civilian population. Moreover, the loss of homes and livelihoods caused by explosive weapons in populated areas leads to the long-lasting displacement of civilians. These effects raise questions about the choice of means and methods of warfare, including whether it is appropriate, in populated areas, to employ weapons that have been designed for combat in an open battlefield, or otherwise to employ large amounts of explosive force.
In his November 2013 Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, the Secretary- General encouraged States to share information on their respective policies, operational practices and lessons learned on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, which would contribute to informing discussions and to eventually developing policy guidance. The ICRC joins the Secretary-General in this call.”
Statement during February 2014 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict:
“In many armed conflicts, the prevalent use of explosive weapons with wide impact in densely populated areas — with all its inherent risk of incidental or indiscriminate death, injury and destruction of homes and vital civilian infrastructure — further fuels displacement and inhibits return. The ICRC joins the Secretary-General in encouraging States to share information on their respective polices, operational practices and lessons learned on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. That would contribute to informed discussions on this important humanitarian issue, and hopefully to the development of operational guidance by States.”
Statement by ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger, August 2010:
“The debate has been prompted in part by the growing number of military operations conducted in densely populated urban areas, often using heavy or highly explosive weapons, which have devastating humanitarian consequences for civilian populations. The media images of death, injury and destruction – of terrible suffering – in such situations of conflict in different parts of the world are surely all too familiar to everyone here today.” View statement