INEW

Open menu

Sweden

  • State
  • Acknowledged harm
  • Committed to action

Sweden has acknowledged the harm caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) and committed to action on the issue. 

Statements

As a member of the European Union (EU), Sweden has acknowledged the harm caused by EWIPA on several occasions, during the UN Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in 2011,[1] 2012,[2] and 2013,[3] and at the UN Security Council Open Debate War in Cities: Protection of Civilians in Urban Settings on 25 January 2022.[4] The EU also spoke out against the use of EWIPA during the General Debate of the 72nd UN General Assembly First Committee in 2017, recognising its potential impact on civilians and calling on all parties to armed conflict to fully comply with international humanitarian law (IHL).[5]

Sweden has also signed onto other joint statements by the Nordic Group that have drawn attention to the importance of adhering to IHL and avoiding the use of EWIPA, including at the UN Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in 2012,[6] 2013,[7] 2014,[8] and 2016.[9] In these statements, the Nordic Group highlighted the use of EWIPA as an issue that requires immediate attention, including through robust data collection on its impact and the sharing of policies and practices to prevent the use of EWIPA.

At the UN Security Council Open Debate War in Cities: Protection of Civilians in Urban Settings on 25 January 2022, the Nordic Countries jointly called on all parties to conflict to prevent civilian harm resulting from use of EWIPA, especially those with wide area effects.[10] At this same meeting, the Group of Friends of the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (of which Sweden is a member) called on states to enhance the protection of civilians, including from the use of EWIPA, and took note of the ongoing consultations to develop a political declaration on this subject.[11]

Sweden also aligned with the World Humanitarian Summit Core Commitment to ‘Uphold the Norms that Safeguard Humanity’ in its national capacity and as an EU member state. This included the commitment “to promote and enhance the protection of civilians and civilian objects, especially in the conduct of hostilities, for instance by working to prevent civilian harm resulting from the use of wide-area explosive weapons in populated areas, and by sparing civilian infrastructure from military use in the conduct of military operations.”[12]

Sweden endorsed the joint statement on EWIPA during 73th UN General Assembly First Committee in October 2018. The statement, delivered by Ireland, called attention to the devastating and long-lasting humanitarian impact of the use of EWIPA and urging states to reverse the trend of high levels of civilian harm.[13] Sweden also endorsed the joint statement on EWIPA during the 74th UN General Assembly First Committee in October 2019.[14] The statement, also delivered by Ireland, encouraged states to participate in international efforts to address the impacts of the use of EWIPA on civilians, including by working towards the creation of an international political declaration on this issue.[15]

Sweden participated in the Vienna Conference on the Protection of Civilians in Urban Warfare in 2019. In the occasion, Sweden asked how to define a “populated area” under law, noting it gets used interchangeably with similar terms. It also highlighted that a declaration should demonstrate respect for international humanitarian law (IHL) and warned against it being formulated in a way that indicates IHL is insufficient. Finally, it encouraged that the declaration provide for exchange of practices.[16]

Political declaration

Sweden participated in the consultation regarding a political declaration on the use of EWIPA held in 2019 in Geneva. In the occasion, it said the declaration should stress that existing IHL provides a sufficient framework to address the problem of EWIPA. It also said that the objective of the declaration should be to strengthen IHL.[17]

At the 2020 consultation meeting, Sweden echoed Switzerland’s statement that the political declaration should not create the impression that we are losing faith in IHL and should condemn only clear violations of IHL. Regarding sharing practices, it suggested replacing “foster clarity” with “strengthen implementation”, and argued the word “institutionalising” may raise questions, and so suggested new structures to be established.[18]

In its written comments, Sweden raised the following elements:

  • For the sake of clarity and consistency, the term “explosive weapons with wide
    area effects” should be used consistently in the document. 
  • On the last sentence of paragraph 1.2 is that psychological
    and psychosocial harm to civilians can also occur in non-urban warfare. 
  • Paragraph 3.3 needs to be clear in relation to existing IHL, i.e. that the commitment is a precautionary measure in line with existing IHL, facilitating its respect and implementation. Sweden supported the suggestions made regarding this paragraph in the written submission by Switzerland. 
  • Paragraph 4.8 indicates that states will meet periodically to review the implementation of the declaration. This appears to be somewhat far-reaching for a political declaration and could perhaps create some uncertainty as to the status of the declaration. For this reason, Sweden preferred its deletion or, to add “as appropriate” or a similar qualifier.[19]

During the 2021 consultation meeting, Sweden said Section 2.1 should be clarified with respect to what kind of violations are relevant. It further suggested amending 2.3 to read “including in populated areas,” to avoid the impression that the obligations only apply in populated areas. Regarding para 3.3, it raised concerns that the current wording (“restrict”) could be interpreted as requiring states to take precautions that go beyond existing IHL. To mitigate this concern, Sweden suggested adding “in accordance with IHL” to 3.3.[20]

In addition, Sweden suggested that the follow-up process/review mechanism must be voluntary, and so the language of 4.6 should read, “Meet regularly on a voluntary and informal basis….”. It also raised concerns regarding the inclusion of the “working group” proposed in the second half of 4.6, though Sweden did not object to the actual subject matter or mandate of such a group—just its inclusion in the declaration and as part of the declaration’s follow-up mechanism.[21]

 

[1] European Union (2011). ‘EU Statement during the May 2011 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’. http://www.peacewomen.org/sites/default/files/eu_poc_11may2011_0.pdf.

[2] European Union (2012). ‘EU Statement during the June 2012 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’. http://www.peacewomen.org/security-council/security-council-open-debate-protection-civilians-armed-conflict-june-2012/.

[3] European Union (2013). ‘EU Statement during the August 2013 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’.

[4] Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will (2022). ‘UN Security Council Debates War in Cities and the Protection of Civilians’. https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/news/latest-news/16009-un-security-council-debates-war-in-cities-and-the-protection-of-civilians.

[5] European Union (2017). ‘UNGA First Committee Statement’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com17/statements/18Oct_EU.pdf.

[6] The Nordic Group (2012). ‘Nordic Group Statement during the June 2012 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’. https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.7019.

[7] The Nordic Group (2013). ‘Nordic Group Statement during the August 2013 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’. http://www.peacewomen.org/sites/default/files/european_union_poc_august_2013_debate_0.pdf.

[8] The Nordic Group (2014). ‘Nordic Group Statement during the February 2014 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’. https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.7109.

[9] The Nordic Group (2016). ‘Nordic Group Statement during the January 2016 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict’. https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.7606.

[10] Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will (2022). ‘UN Security Council Debates War in Cities and the Protection of Civilians’. https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/news/latest-news/16009-un-security-council-debates-war-in-cities-and-the-protection-of-civilians.

[11] Ray Acheson, “UN Security Council debates war in cities and the protection of civilians,” Reaching Critical Will of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 28 January 2022, https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/news/latest-news/16009-un-security-council-debates-war-in-cities-and-the-protection-of-civilians.

[12] Agenda for Humanity. ‘Sweden’. https://agendaforhumanity.org/stakeholder/261.html. 

[13] Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations (2018). ‘UNGA73 First Committee Joint Statement on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (EWIPA)’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com18/statements/25Oct_EWIPA.pdf.

[14] INEW (2019). ‘Seventy-one States call for Action on Impact of Explosive Weapons in Joint Statement to UN General Assembly’. https://www.inew.org/seventy-one-states-call-for-action-on-impact-of-explosive-weapons-in-joint-statement-to-un-general-assembly/.

[15] Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations (2019). ‘UNGA74 First Committee Debate on Conventional Weapons: Joint Statement on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas Delivered by H.E. Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations, 2019, https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/UNGA74-joint-statement-on-explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas.pdf.

[16] Reaching Critical will (2019). ‘States Commit to Take Political Action on Explosive Weapons at Vienna Conference’.https://reachingcriticalwill.org/news/latest-news/14061-states-commit-to-take-political-action-on-explosive-weapons-at-vienna-conference. 

[17] Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will (2020). ‘Impacts, not Intentionality: The Imperative of Focusing on the Effects of Explosive Weapons in a Political Declaration’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/news/latest-news/14658-impacts-not-intentionality-the-imperative-of-focusing-on-the-effects-of-explosive-weapons-in-a-political-declaration.

[18] Reaching Critical Will (2019). ‘Towards a Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas: States Need to Ensure that Expressed Commitments Translate into Real Impacts on the Ground’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/news/latest-news/14451-towards-a-political-declaration-on-the-use-of-explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas-states-need-to-ensure-that-expressed-commitments-translate-into-real-impacts-on-the-ground. 

[19] Permanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations (2020). ‘Written Comments’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/ewipa/declaration/documents/Sweden-March2020.pdf. 

[20] Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will (2021). ‘Report on the March 2021 Consultations on a Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/news/latest-news/15213-report-on-the-march-2021-consultations-on-a-political-declaration-on-the-use-of-explosive-weapons-in-populated-areas.

[21] Permanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations (2021). ‘Statement’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/ewipa/declaration/statements/3March_Sweden.pdf. 

Website by David Abbott Projects