Remarks delivered by Laura Boillot at the Protection Forum in San Jose, Costa Rica, 18 November 2025.

A dangerous normalisation of civilian harm

In recent years a rise in the number of armed conflicts globally has brought about higher rates of explosive‑weapon use.  Data from the Explosive Weapons Monitor shows a staggering number of civilians killed and injured each year from bombing and shelling in towns and cities, and  increasingly frequent attacks on infrastructure and essential services.

To a large degree this sharp increase in civilian harm is a result of a total disregard shown by parties to conflict for civilian life and for their obligations under international humanitarian law. We are witnessing is a dangerous normalisation of attacks on civilians.

The devastation that stems from the widespread use of heavy explosive weapons in towns and cities is one manifestation of this normalisation of civilian harm. Some explosive weapons should simply never be used in populated areas.

Unguided airdropped bombs – often called “dumb bombs” – are dangerously unpredictable and can miss their targets by hundreds of metres, flattening entire buildings. Multiple Launch Rocket Systems fire dozens of rockets in rapid succession, saturating whole neighbourhoods. This is the reality on the ground in too many countries across the world today.

This decline in applying long‑standing humanitarian rules and principles, of restraint, and of accountability, has devastating consequences for civilians. Urgent action is needed to uphold and strengthen international protective norms that are being eroded.

Why norms are eroding – what states must do

In today’s world, there are seemingly fewer consequences for violations of international law and for causing civilian harm.  Fewer states are speaking out when harm occurs.  This growing silence – especially when the use of explosive weapons involves allies or strategic partners – entrenches double‑standards.  When double‑standards become the norm, there are effectively no standards at all.

States must refuse to accept the bombardment of cities as something “normal” or an inevitable consequence in armed conflict.  What we are seeing today is a growing tolerance for behaviour that international law and decades of humanitarian disarmament efforts were designed to prevent.  Once these attacks are treated as tolerable, the rules and norms that protect civilians begin to unravel.

Another expression of these broader counter-normative efforts has been backsliding on other related instruments that prohibit especially harmful explosive weapons. Withdrawals from treaties banning landmines and cluster munitions, and even a proposed (and unlawful) suspension from these agreements that significantly reduced civilian casualties and transformed global practice are profoundly short‑sighted.

Equally concerning is that purposeful efforts to roll back protections are too often met with international silence. Security narratives are being elevated and politicised, at the expense of humanitarian protections, as well as core legal and moral obligations that these treaties represent.

States have a moral imperative to speak out, to challenge harmful practices, and to reaffirm the values that underpin these international agreements and that stability that they bring. Above all, they must hold firm to the conviction that human suffering demands protection – no matter where it occurs, no matter who is responsible.

Leadership

There is a need in these times for moral leadership, combined with concrete action. This begins with a clear recognition and acknowledgement of the scale of civilian harm from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, and with demonstrating in both policy and practice, that the protection of civilians is a priority.

States need to embed preventative and remedial civilian protection measures in national policies and military practices. This means refusing to normalise the bombardment of cities; speaking out consistently when harm occurs; challenging double‑standards; defending and strengthening humanitarian norms; and ensuring that explosive weapons are not used in ways that devastate civilian populations.

This also means acknowledging that current approaches are insufficient. States must move beyond assertions that implementation of the Political Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas simply means adherence to international humanitarian law (IHL).

By framing implementation largely in terms of IHL compliance, many states obscure the Declaration’s distinctive purpose and miss its added value – to translate humanitarian principles into concrete operational changes: setting and communicating explicit expectations for armed forces; putting in place clear limits on use and effects of explosive weapons in populated areas – including refraining when explosive weapons have wide‑area effects; as well as being transparent about both progress and challenges.

Norm‑building is possible, even in difficult political environments. As INEW emphasises, there remains hope.  We must work together to fulfil the potential and purpose of the Declaration, to build global support and to set stronger standards against the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

Protecting civilians is not simply a moral imperative – it is a core component of responsible security policy. States that act now can play a critical role in reinforcing the standards that are currently under strain, and in helping to build a future where civilians are protected from the preventable suffering caused by the bombardment of towns and cities.