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
Statements and positions
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.9 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.10 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.11 Similarly, at the 2022 UN General Assembly First Committee, the US welcomed the conclusion of the negotiations on the Political Declaration.12