INEW

Open menu

Spain

  • State
  • Acknowledged harm
  • Committed to action

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

Statements

Spain issued statements on EWIPA during UN Security Council Open Debates on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in 2013,[1]  2014,[2] 2015,[3] and January and June 2016.[4] In these statements, it expressed concern about the use of EWIPA in urban areas, urging for the Security Council to exploit all possible means to put an end to it. It also stressed the disproportionate impacts of EWIPA on women and children.

As a member of the European Union (EU), Spain condemned the use of EWIPA and the harms it causes to civilians and civilian objects, including during the UN Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in 2011,[6] 2012,[7] and 2013,[8] and at the UN Security Council Open Debate War in Cities: Protection of Civilians in Urban Settings on 25 January 2022.[9] 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).[10]

Spain aligned with the Joint Commitment 123002 to the World Humanitarian Summit led by Austria, in May 2016 where it pledged to minimise impacts on civilians when using EWIPA.[11] Spain also supported Austria’s Statement to the World Humanitarian Summit Roundtable on Upholding the Norms that Safeguard Humanity, in May 2016, where it announced its efforts to strengthen international humanitarian law, including through a political declaration.[12]

As a member of the EU, it aligned with the World Humanitarian Summit Core Commitments to ‘Uphold the Norms that Safeguard Humanity’ in May 2016. 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.”[13]

Spain 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.[14] Spain also endorsed the joint statement on EWIPA during the 74th UN General Assembly First Committee in October 2019.[15] 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.[16]

At the UN Security Council Open Debate War in Cities: Protection of Civilians in Urban Settings on 25 January 2022, the Group of Friends of the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, of which Spain 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.[17]

Political declaration

At the second round of consultations in Geneva in February 2020, Spain suggested adding a reference or new element on protection of schools and medical facilities.[18]

During the 2021 consultation meeting, Spain made the following remarks:

  • It said the term “wide area effects” required further explanation.
  • It called for an expansion of the list of direct effects, suggesting to add “communication networks” and “education services” in Section 1.2. 
  • It highlighted the lack of clarity of the term “reverberating”.
  • It raised concerns that the current wording (“restrict”) could be interpreted as requiring states to take precautions that go beyond existing IHL.  
  • It welcomed gender references and called for a separate para on the gender dimension of EWIPA.
  • It questioned the utility of a standalone follow-up process, suggesting instead that it be embedded within an existing framework.

Spain also submitted two written contributions for the draft of the political declaration. In these documents:

  • It noted that terms such as “wide area effects,” “reasonably foreseen,” and “reverberating effects” lack a clear definition and should be avoided. For instance, “direct and indirect humanitarian impact” would be a preferred option over “reverberating effects”.
  • On paragraph 1.2, it would appreciate the inclusion of references to communication and education.
  • It highlighted that some states (like Spain) have developed or implemented national policies. It therefore suggested the following language on paragraph 3.1: “Review, develop, implement, and, where necessary, develop, implement or improve national policy and practice with regard to the protection of civilians during armed conflict in populated areas.”
  • It did not support the inclusion of new obligations under IHL in a political declaration and, consequently, it suggested the removal of paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4. According to it, these paragraphs are repetitive and should be merged in a new paragraph 3.3 with the following language: “3.3 Ensure that our armed forces make every effort in the planning of military operations and the execution of attacks in populated areas by taking appropriate mitigation measures to limit the risk of harm to civilians and civilian objects and restricting the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas.”
  • On the follow-up process (paragraph 4.6), it stated that the establishment of new fora or bodies to review the implementation of the political declaration would not be the most efficient mechanism to work on the way forward. It supported the idea of working ahead through discussions within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).
  • It accepted the French proposal to merge paragraphs 1.1 and 1.4.
  • It accepted to merge paragraph 1.4 with paragraph 1.1., and added “some states and” before “non-State armed groups” in order to demonstrate that not all states violate IHL. 
  • In paragraph 2.3, it added “children, schools and medical personnel and facilities” in the end.
  • In paragraph 2.4, it included resolution n. 2286 (2016).
  • Regarding section 3, it noted: “The current draft in this Part B seems to suggests that the measures proposed are not in place yet. Nevertheless, many countries include some of these measures in their laws and practises. We therefore propose new drafting. In this section there are also some concepts that will prove difficult to implement unless there is further clarification. For example, in paragraph 3.4 the reference to “reasonably be foreseen” can be subject to different interpretations on which is reasonable, especially in combat environments, with changing and incomplete information.”
  • Regarding Section 4, it noted: “In this section we appreciate also some redundancy in paragraphs 3.6 and 4.1 as both paragraphs refer to the enhancement of protection of civilians by exchanging good practices. For this reason, the idea to merge or change these paragraphs may be considered.”[19]

At the CCW Preparatory Committee meeting held in September 2021, Spain noted ongoing discussions about the use of EWIPA and said states must not ignore the increasing urbanisation of warfare.[20]

 

[1] February 2014 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, Spain Statement, https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.7256. 

[2] February 2013 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, Spain Statement. http://www.peacewomen.org/sites/default/files/statement_-_spain_0.pdf. 

[3] June 2015 Security Council Open Debate on Children and Armed Conflict, Spain statement, https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.7466. 

[4] January 2016 Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, Spain Statement, https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.7606. 

[5]  June 2016 Security Council open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, Spain statement, http://www.peacewomen.org/sites/default/files/_Spain_June%2C%2010_.pdf.

[6] 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.

[7] 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/.

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

[9] 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.

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

[11] Agenda for Humanity. https://agendaforhumanity.org/stakeholders/commitments/123.html. 

[12] Government of Austria (2016). ‘Austria’s Statement at the World Humanitarian Summit Roundtable on Upholding the Norms that Safeguard Humanity’.https://agendaforhumanity.org/sites/default/files/resources/2017/Jul/Statement_by_the_Government_of_Austria_Roundtable_Uphold_the_Norms_that_Safeguard_Humanity.pdf.

[13] Agenda for Humanity. “European Union’. https://agendaforhumanity.org/stakeholders/commitments/161.html. 

[14] 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.

[15] 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/.

[16] 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.

[17] 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.

[18] 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.

[19] Permanent Mission of Spain to the United Nations (2021). ‘Written Comments’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/ewipa/declaration/documents/Spain-March2021.pdf;  and Permanent Mission of Spain to the United Nations (2020). ‘Written Comments’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/ewipa/declaration/documents/Spain-March2020.pdf. 

[20] Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will (2021). ‘CCW Report Vol.9 No. 5’. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/ccw/2021/prepcom/reports/CCWR9.5.pdf.

Website by David Abbott Projects