INEW

Open menu

Sections 3 & 4: Operational and Other Commitments

On Section 3 of the January 2021 Political Declaration text

INEW intervention, delivered by Steve Goose on 5 March 2021
Informal consultations on a political declaration on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, 3-5 March 2021

Section 3, and especially 3.3, is the heart of the Political Declaration. The strength of Section 3 – of the operative commitments – will determine the eventual effectiveness and success of the Declaration. Clarity and boldness are needed here more than anywhere else.

Regrettably, the current draft text falls short on both counts—clarity and boldness.

The commitments in this section importantly and appropriately focus on the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects. While the use of EWIPA is a broad matter, it is the use of weapons with wide area effects in populated areas that is causing the most civilian harm, the most civilian deaths and injuries at the time of attack and the most deadly, long-lasting reverberating effects. This fact has been established by years of research.

When addressing the use of EWIPA, the place to start, with great urgency, is weapons with wide area effects. This would provide the best practical mechanism for reducing civilian harm.

The declaration needs a better, fuller, description of wide area effects.  The proper place for that would be in the preamble, with a paragraph explaining that wide area effects are created by a wide blast and fragmentation radius, inaccuracy of delivery, the use of multiple munitions at once, or some combination of these factors.

Here are some specific concerns and recommendations on Section 3.

Section 3.3 should be moved to the beginning of Section 3.  It constitutes the basic operative commitment, the most important commitment, and needs to be front and center.

The best formulation for 3.3 would be to STOP the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas. This would have the biggest impact and would most strongly establish a stigma against use of EWIPA with wide area effects, establishing a new standard of behavior.

The next best formulation would be to AVOID the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas. The ICRC has made a strong case for embracing an “avoidance policy” that would establish a presumption against use of EWIPA with wide area effects.

The qualifier in 3.3 that “when the effects may be expected to extend beyond the military objective” should be deleted. It could be seen as suggesting that there are occasions when the use of EWIPA with wide area effects do not extend beyond the military objective.

To promote effective implementation of this commitment, language could be added regarding the need to ensure prior assessment and understanding of both the area effect of specific weapons and the specific context of use.

Section 3.4 would be greatly strengthened by replacing “take into account” with, “Assess and take steps to mitigate the direct, indirect, and reverberating effects on civilians and civilian objects which can reasonably be foreseen.”

Additional suggestions for Section 3 can be found in the written INEW submission to Ireland.

 

On Section 4 of the January 2021 Political Declaration text

INEW intervention, delivered by Ray Acheson on 5 March 2021
Informal consultations on a political declaration on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, 3-5 March 2021

Thank you, Ambassador. In this intervention I am speaking on behalf of the International Network on Explosive Weapons. INEW’s full comments on section 4 are available in our written submission—the following are some of our priorities in this section:

4.2 should commit states to “Establish capabilities to collect, share and make publicly available, disaggregated data, on the direct, indirect and reverberating effects on civilians and civilian objects in military operations which they are involved.”

In addition, the declaration should include a commitment from signatories to “ensure that all civilian deaths are promptly recorded, correctly identified, and publicly acknowledged, by recording any information available to us regarding civilian casualties irrespective of which party is presumed responsible; share this information and make it publicly available promptly”.

Data collection should also include disability along with sex and age.

Commitments on data collection in the declaration should call for collection of data on the types, locations, quantities, and effects of weapons used, in order to better track which weapon systems are causing harm.

It should also include an explicit commitment to casualty recording and recording of destruction and damage to infrastructure.

There is a precedent set by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol V for gathering this set of information, thus a commitment in this declaration would ensure consistency with existing standards and building understandings of impacts and responses to explosive weapon use.

Data collection and sharing must be on all use of explosive weapons in populated areas, not just that with wide area effects.

Similarly, 4.3 should refer to all use of explosive weapons in populated areas, not just that with wide area effects. The word “relevant” in qualifying civil society should be removed.

4.4’s commitment to assist victims should be strengthened from “Make every effort” to “Provide, facilitate and support assistance to victims”. It should also be clear that victims, are understood to include those injured, survivors, family members of people killed and/or injured and affected communities.

The type and breadth of assistance required should be listed, including:

  • Basic needs such as safety, shelter, food, water, medical care, hygiene, and sanitation;
  • Longer-term medical care, rehabilitation, psychosocial and psychosocial support, socio-economic inclusion, education;
  • Data collection, and risk education aimed at preventing injury to people; and
  • Capacity development to respond to blast incidents with life-saving first aid, triaging, evacuating casualties, first responder capacities, and searching for casualties.

The “post-stabilisation” reference in 4.4 should be deleted.

The provision on supporting humanitarian relief efforts (which was previously 4.5) should be reinserted and strengthened to urge all parties to armed conflict to provide and facilitate rapid and unimpeded access for principled and inclusive humanitarian assistance in line with international norms and standards.

The unnecessary qualifications in 4.5 around the provision of support should be deleted, as should “as appropriate”. The phrase “that can arise from” should also be deleted, as this undermines the reality that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas results in civilian harm and damage to civilian objects. 

4.6 should make it clear that meetings under the declaration are aimed at reviewing humanitarian consequences arising from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and implementation and universalisation of the political declaration, not compliance with IHL.

Meetings of the declaration should provide the agenda for work and broader framework of activities to be carried out under this declaration, rather than a suggestion of types of activities that could be undertaken by some actors.

The declaration should be careful to avoid inadvertently suggesting implementation is undertaken exclusively or primarily by military actors, and which risks excluding humanitarian and civil actors in this function concerned with humanitarian protection.

Website by David Abbott Projects