The United States was actively involved in the process to develop a Political Declaration on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, and was among the first group of states to endorse the Political Declaration in Dublin in November 2022. During the endorsing conference in Dublin, the United States said it looks forward to continuing its collaboration on this Declaration, adding that to have a lasting impact this Declaration will need robust implementation by each state and active follow-on exchanges among states.1
The United States regularly delivered statements throughout the consultations towards a Political Declaration2, as well as raising concerns around explosive weapons in populated areas and expressing support for a Political Declaration in other multilateral forums. In the early stages the Unites States argued that the Political Declaration should not focus on the use explosive weapons in populated areas but more broadly on the protection of civilians in urban warfare, suggesting extensive revisions to widen the text and emphasising that explosive weapons should not be stigmatized as it their misuse, not their use, that is problematic.
Though the United States maintained that a Political Declaration should not create new norms or renegotiate existing international humanitarian law (IHL) obligations, nor establish new concepts or mechanisms, it agreed that good military practices might go beyond what was required by IHL. It also suggested that non-state actors be included within the text, and argued that data does not need to be disaggregated and that data collection be “operationally feasible”.3
As consultations progressed, the United States supported qualifiers throughout the text indicating that harm “can” potentially arise from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, arguing that not all explosive weapons use causes civilian harm. It also argued that: “In some circumstances, the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects could actually be the best means for minimizing civilian casualties” and called for the Declaration to recognise this as part of the “full range of good policies and practices that contribute to such protection.”4 It also supported France’s suggestion to delete “wide area effects” throughout the entire text on the basis that the text should deal with all types of explosive weapons. The United States also expressed concern with the use of the phrase “populated areas,” as it is not defined under IHL, and noted the importance of protecting civilians outside of populated areas as well. It also said that damage to infrastructure does not automatically impact essential services and opposed use of the term “reverberating effects”.5
The United States suggested that humanitarian consequences of “urban warfare” arise to a great extent from non-state armed groups that use human shields and operate in urban areas, which should be reflected in the Political Declaration. Unlike other participants, it specifically spoke against a review mechanism though it did later express support for a follow-up process that establishes a positive collaborative way forward, and not a forum that would judge states compliance in a politicized way.6 Regarding paragraph 4.4. on victim assistance, the United States said it preferred the previous formulation to “make every effort to assist victims” instead of “provide, facilitate and support assistance to the injured survivors, families and communities affected by armed conflict”, saying that this commitment is unrealistic and too broad.7 Regarding paragraph 4.4. on victim assistance, the United States said the draft formulation of “provide, facilitate and support assistance to the injured survivors, families and communities affected by armed conflict” was unrealistic and too broad. Regarding paragraph 3.3, the United States said that it's not feasible or realistic in combat generally to restrict or refrain from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, and that if this provision does not reflect IHL and operational realities, it could prevent the United States and other states that are currently engaged in armed conflict to join the Declaration. 8
The US attended the first international follow-up conference on the Political Declaration in Oslo, Norway in April 2024.
Statements and positions
At the first international follow-up conference, the US said that the Political “Declaration can help States do critically important work to improve the protection of civilians in armed conflict,” and hoped it provided a “framework under which States, in a collaborative spirit, exchange good practices for mitigating and responding civilian harm” and thus have “real-world impact in strengthening the protection of civilians”. To this end, the US presented reforms and institutional changes it has undertaken to improve its civilian harm mitigation and response, including its Civilian Harm Mitigation Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP) and the Department of Defense Instruction on CHMR (CHMR DoDI), which it described as reforms and innovations that “have created a mutually reinforcing framework - an institutional ecosystem - which allows us to improve our CHMR approach now and continue to develop and improve over time”, and through which it has “created structures to ensure appropriate leadership and oversight of implementation within the” Department of Defense. The US emphasised its view that there are important moral, legal and strategic imperatives associated with civilian harm mitigation and response9.
The US outlined some of the actions taken herein, including establishing a Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, which it describes as a “hub of analysis, learning, and training related to” civilian harm mitigation and response, which will “aid us in institutionalizing good practises across the force”, and an expected 166 new positions. These include Civilian Harm Mitigation Response Officers embedded in combatant and operational commands, Civilian Harm Assessment Cells, and Civilian Environment Teams10.
The US stated that the DoDI assigns clear responsibilities to the Secretaries of the Military department for developing doctrine and operating concepts to help mitigate civilian harm resulting from US military operations, and to incorporate civilian harm mitigation and response objectives into strategy, plans, exercises, training, professional military education. This will ensure the Department of Defense is “more effectively prepared to mitigate and respond to civilian harm” in any operating environment. It also contains language on improving battlespace awareness to enhance understanding of civilian and civilian objects throughout the targeting process, and formalising a policy “requirement to assess civilian harm resulting from military operations and that standardizes civilian harm assessment processes across” the Department of Defense. The US also emphasised that it viewed sharing best practices with partners, and learning from each other’s experiences and policies11.
The US has on occasion spoken on explosive weapons in populated areas in multilateral forums. During the Interactive Dialogue with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict at the Human Rights Council in September 2012, the United States expressed concern at the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.12 At the UN Security Council Open Debate War in Cities: Protection of Civilians in Urban Settings on 25 January 2022, the United States noted that explosive weapons “have made it devastatingly easy to threaten and kill civilians” and said that “armed actors exploit this,” putting schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure in deliberate danger.13 It also noted its participation in the diplomatic process to develop a Political Declaration on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. At the UN Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in May 2023, the Group of Friends of Action on Conflict and Hunger, of which the US is a member, strongly welcomed the Political Declaration, called on other states to join it, and said that the Oslo Conference will provide a critical opportunity to make progress in implementing the Declaration.14 Similarly, at the 2022 UN General Assembly First Committee, the US welcomed the conclusion of the negotiations on the Political Declaration15.
Implementation of the Political Declaration
In February 2024, INEW and EWM conducted a state survey into endorser states' national efforts to disseminate and implement the Political Declaration. In the survey, the US reported that it had disseminated the Political Declaration. This included disseminating it internally within the US Government, including the Department of State and the Department of Defense before the US formally endorsed the Declaration16.
The US reported that it has nominated a point person responsible for the implementation of the Declaration. It explained that “efforts to implement the Political Declaration span multiple offices and Departments across the US Government, including the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) Policy Team under the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Security and Human Rights within the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor”17.
The US stated that it had conducted briefings, workshops or trainings on the content of the Political Declaration and plans for its domestic implementation. The US explained that it “regards the content of the Political Declaration as reflected in its existing practice to effectively implement its obligations under international humanitarian law and to strengthen the protection of civilians in military operations.” It added that the US “recognises the moral and strategic imperative of protecting civilians during military operations and the US military is continually striving to improve its policies and practices relating to the protection of civilians in armed conflict.” Citing the commitment in paragraph 3.2, the US stated that it has been “engaged in and continues to engage in training for its armed forces on the international humanitarian law and good practices and polices with regard to the protection of civilians.”
The US also highlighted two Department of Defense Directives:
“DoD Directive 2311.01, DoD Law of War Program, training on international humanitarian law rules applicable to the United States is a critical component of effective programs to prevent violations. Providing additional training on applicable international humanitarian law can also be part of appropriate actions to ensure accountability and to improve efforts to prevent violations. In addition, DoD Directive 2311.01 specifies that periodic training for military members provided by the Military Departments (i.e., Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force) within the D oD will ensure that “all military members of their respective Military Department know the fundamental precepts of the law of war and that all members have knowledge of the law commensurate with each individual’s duties and responsibilities.”
Under U.S. D oD Instruction 3000.17, CHMR , a key element of DoD policy is for DoD components to “develop professional tracks, skill identifiers, and certification requirements for key CHMR personnel and functions. ” DoD components are to “t rain and educate DoD personnel, commensurate with their responsibilities, on: (a) Law of war rules and principles relevant to CHMR, in accordance with DoDD 2311.01. (b) Policy, doctrine, and other guidance related to the protection of civilians and civilian objects and other aspects of CHMR. (c) Practices that effectively reduce the likelihood of civilian harm and policies and practices for appropriately and effectively responding to civilian harm.”18
The US responded in the affirmative to the question of whether it had reviewed existing laws, policies, codes or similar relevant to the protection of civilians, to identify areas where further policy development is necessary to meet the commitments under the Declaration and avoid civilian harm from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. Elaborating on this, the US stated that “Prior to U.S. endorsement of the Political Declaration in 2022, the U.S. Government reviewed the Political Declaration and assessed that the commitments under the Political Declaration were already reflected in existing U.S. military policy and practice. In addition, the United States is also actively working to strengthen this policy and practice and to support other States in doing so”19.
Expanding on this, the US explained that “a wide range of US policies are relevant to implementing the commitments in the Political Declaration” referencing its Department of Defense Directive 2311.01, which established policy and assigns responsibilities for the Department’s Law of War Program, establishes a Law of War Working Group, responsible for preparing the Law of War Manual, which provides information on the Law of War to the Department’s personnel responsible for implementing the law and executing military operations. It also highlighted the Department of Defense Instruction 3000.17, which was issued on 21 December 2023. It described the instruction as a “significant step towards improving the US military’s approach to mitigating and responding to military harm.” The more than 50 page policy instruction, which establishes Department of Defense policy, assigns responsibilities among Department officials and provides procedures for civilian harm mitigation and response, was referenced as a key milestone in the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan20.
Referencing “specific practices that could be used to help implement the commitments in the Political Declaration” the US also highlighted a draft technical compilation of Practical Measures to Strengthen the Protection of Civilians During Military Operations in Armed Conflict, jointly submitted in 2019 by Belgium, France, Germany, the UK and the US, stating that this could form a basis for future exchanges, workshops and seminars among militaries21.
Upon a question about whether they had faced or identified any challenges in their planning for or implementing of the commitments set out in the Declaration, the US responded in the negative. However, it emphasised that good practices could help strengthen compliance with and improve the implementation of applicable international humanitarian law outside of the context of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, stating that it believes that policies and practices developed by states with regard to the protection of civilians should be implemented with regard to non-explosive weapons and when weapons are used outside of populated areas22.
The US emphasised that it is “committed to strengthening its practice with regard to the protection of civilians in military operations and to supporting other States in doing so as well”, highlighting a number of initiatives starting in August 2022 with the Civilian Harm Mitigation Response Action Plan, the Department of Defense Instruction on civilian harm mitigation and response. It highlighted few key initiatives including 1) embedding Civilian Harm Mitigation Response Officers “into appropriate combatant and operational commands”, 2) creating Civilian Harm Assessments Cells “which include Civilian Harm Assessment and Investigation Officers who will improve and standardize the US military’s efforts to assess and investigate incidents that potentially involve civilian harm”; and 3) “incorporating guidance for addressing civilian harm across the full spectrum of operations - from doctrine, plans, professional military education to training, and exercises.” These initiatives, the US stated “address several details of paragraph 4.5 of the Political Declaration, which pertains to victim assistance. The US stated that the Department of Defense has created a Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Policy Directorate, which provides policy support to senior leaders and provides policy oversight, and a “Civilian Protection Center of Excellence to help analyse data related to civilian harm, formulate best practices related to civilian harm mitigation, and to train personnel responsible for CHMR civilian harm mitigation and response issues across the force”23.
The US also highlighted that its newly formed civilian harm response and mitigation policy team has been “actively working to strengthen and promote international cooperation and exchanges of best practices on civilian harm mitigation among our allies and partners” and drew attention to an International Contact Group it co-leads with counterparts from the Netherlands, aimed at advancing international exchanges herein, learn from each other’s experiences and policies, and develop shared practices24.
The US explained that it “actively supports efforts to promote implementation of the Political Declaration and to use it as a mechanism to promote the exchange of best practices between militaries from around the world to learn from each other and continue to improve their policies and practices"25.
It also highlighted its work on removing and destructing explosive remnants of war, and its support for “individuals and communities affected by conflict around the world by providing protection and assistance to vulnerable populations and those with the greatest needs including women, children, the elderly and disabled”26.
To view all of the US’ responses to the INEW and EWM state survey, and other states’ responses, see the Explosive Weapons Monitor 2023, Chapter III on Universalisation and Implementation of the Political Declaration.