Thank you, Chair,

The current levels of harm and suffering from armed conflicts across the world are a tragic illustration of our failure to better promote and enforce expectations, rules and norms of civilian protection.

Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas

The use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas has risen sharply over the past few years. The continued relentless bombardment of the Gaza Strip exemplifies this horror, but we also bear witness to disastrous consequences for civilians in Lebanon, Sudan, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Syria amongst others.

The adoption of the Political Declaration on Protecting Civilians from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas has signalled a commitment by many to act that must now be upheld.

More needs to be done to bring about change in policy and practice, building dialogue among different stakeholders, including militaries and humanitarian actors, and guided by the goal of reducing civilian harm.

A clear commitment by states to refrain from using explosive weapons in populated areas when they have wide area effects and restricting all other use of explosive weapons in cities and towns, would be one such meaningful contribution.

As such, states should not assume sufficiency of existing laws and policies, rather all states should join the declaration with an expectation and a commitment to make change.

Incendiary Weapons

Incendiary weapons have been widely criticised for their cruel effects, but the past year has seen ongoing use, including of white phosphorus in Lebanon and Gaza.

There have been repeated calls for this forum to discuss whether the current rules on incendiary weapons are adequate, yet the CCW has refused to adopt even an agenda item on the issue:  an issue that is the subject of a whole Protocol within the CCW framework.

And some of the same states who insist that the CCW is the only forum where autonomous weapons should be discussed are those preventing any discussion of this issue. If the CCW cannot undertake discussions on the issues it has Protocols on why should we have confidence in it as a framework for the regulation of new technologies into the future?

We continue to encourage High Contracting Parties to expand the scope and strengthen the rules of Protocol III to better protect civilians and reinforce the stigma that rightfully adheres to incendiary weapons.

Pager attacks

We are also deeply disturbed by the detonation in Lebanon of thousands everyday portable telecommunications devices that had been designed and constructed to contain explosive material. They were apparently detonated en masse among the population of Lebanon, and within concentrations of civilians, without any ability to assess where they would detonate and who they would harm.

Pager attacks in Lebanon shows a flagrant disregard for civilian lives and appears to be a violation of the provisions in CCW’s Amended Protocol II.

A crisis of protection

We are witnessing a crisis for international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians in armed conflict – a crisis that has grave humanitarian consequences.

This forum is founded on the shared conviction that there are limits in war – and that those limits bear upon the weapons, means and methods that can be chosen.

And the purpose of these rules and limits is to ameliorate the suffering to civilians.

Yet in practice we see not only attacks that appear to be violations of international humanitarian law, but also:

• a tendency by some states to use the law to justify their harmful action
• or a tendency to hide behind the language of the law to avoid taking action that could better protect civilians
• and, too frequently, a condemnation of legal violations by some, but a blindness to the harmful practices of friends and allies.

These actions are not only weaking the protection of civilians, but also eroding belief and trust in the value of rules and norms. A double standard leaves us with no standards at all.  And without a focus on the purpose of civilian protection, the law will become just a prop that is used to justify continued violence.

Autonomous Weapons

And against this backdrop we face emerging challenges. Autonomy and AI in weapons systems are developing in practice whilst international discussions fail to reach meaningful conclusions.

We are pleased to see support for the resolution autonomous weapon systems and on the need to address the serious challenges and concerns that these systems raise – and we are encouraged by the still growing support among states and other actors for a legally binding instrument.

But still too many states who claim a commitment to civilian protection and international humanitarian law are complicit in allowing those that want no controls over autonomous weapons to set the terms of the debate.

Taking positive action for new law on autonomous weapons can promote belief and support for norms and standards more broadly.

Conclusion

This current crisis of humanitarian law requires us to rebuild that belief: to collectively recommit to the full protection of civilians, and to build partnerships acting with confidence that positive normative pressure will continue to shape behaviour in our shared global society.

Building such partnership also needs states to enable the active engagement of civil society in forums like this. NGOs have long brought evidence and analysis into discussions under the CCW’s mandate, and it has been one strength of this forum that it has enabled such dialogue. We urge states to maintain that capacity for active participation.

To fulfil the mandate of this forum, states must act in the face of escalating humanitarian crises and breaches of agreed norms, and work to advance an agenda to address both immediate suffering and future risks. A continued failure to do so undermines its role and purpose.