start date

end date

text search

324 Results

sort by:

Airwars wins Overseas Press Club of America award

Published

April 19, 2025

Web link

Gaza documentation and investigations honoured in New York ceremony

Airwars’ documentation and investigations into civilian harm in Gaza won a prestigious Overseas Press Club of America award on Thursday.

The Kim Wall Award recognised the “best story or series of stories in any medium on international affairs using creative and dynamic digital storytelling techniques.”

In a statement the judges, chaired by Mary Rajkumar, Pulitzer-winning journalist at The Associated Press, said: “Airwars stood out for the innovation they brought to the field of digital storytelling on international affairs, homing in on the most urgent and competitive storyline of the year with tangible impact.”

“The visually stunning interactive breaks down an overwhelming amount of data into a digestible presentation.”

Airwars’ Rowena De Silva and Joe Dyke accept the OPC award in New York

The award recognised both the incident-by-incident documentation of civilian harm Airwars has conducted in Gaza since the war began in October 2023, as well as the powerful journalism produced by the investigations team.

In particular, the short film The Killings They Tweeted – produced in conjunction with Sky News – used open source investigative techniques to match black and white strike footage released by the Israeli military to real civilian harm incidents. The 20-minute film is available on Youtube:

Airwars was the smallest organisation to win an award and one of only two non-US based organisations, the other being Al Jazeera. Other winners included The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

The Killings They Tweeted is also in the four-entry shortlist for the Broadcast Investigation category at the 2025 Amnesty Media Awards, which is due to take place on June 4, 2025. The short film was also nominated at the Open Source Film Awards.

The acceptance speech by the Airwars investigation team is available below:

Airwars and PAX launch major new assessment tool for state efforts to protect civilians

Published

April 15, 2025

Written by

Airwars Staff

Web link

Hundreds of policies, doctrine, and guidance documents reviewed and compiled to build the first-ever repository and roadmap for the better protection of civilians in conflict

For more than twenty years, a dedicated network of civil society organisations, human rights lawyers, journalists, and local advocates have been challenging powerful military states to fundamentally rethink the way they wage wars.

This effort calls on states to go beyond the minimum standards outlined in the laws of war, and proactively identify measures to both protect civilians and respond to civilian harm when it does occur. This includes major public investigations and inquiries, closed door trust building and engagement, and extensive advocacy and campaigning across all levels of government.

Good practices have emerged in some states in recent years, while significant obstacles remain in others. But analysing and understanding these practices, both those that set good examples, and those with room for improvement, is almost impossible without extensive research, pre-existing knowledge of state policy frameworks, and in-depth networks within military and policy communities. No state has a complete repository of its policies and practices on this subject, and even where states are publicly supportive of this field, there can be little by way of substantive evidence to back these claims up.

The Civilian Protection Monitor (CPM) seeks to democratise the field, push transparency on this important topic, and ensure lessons learned can be identified across different states.

Based on a framework developed by the Center for Civilians in Conflict, this new tool provides a comprehensive analysis of state commitments based on all publicly available material on policies and practices, and an actionable and granular set of recommendations informed by experts across local civil society groups, international NGOs, academics, researchers and other practitioners. All policies and practices are centralised and archived with partners at Unredacted.

Civilian harm mitigation at a crossroad

The need to better understand gaps in national systems – and the lessons emerging from allies that can be used to address these – is particularly acute as the civilian harm mitigation field currently stands at a crossroads.

One the one hand, years of pressure from survivors, civil society groups, and other advocates have led to major progress in some areas. The United States has released new dedicated policies committing to the protection of civilians from their own military operations and the Netherlands has pushed forward major reforms, including by building a dedicated team to protect civilians in its Ministry of Defense. In late 2022, more than eighty states signed on to a political declaration committing to the protection of civilians in today’s modern urban battlefields.

As momentum builds however, there are also major challenges. Eighteen months of catastrophic attacks on civilians in Gaza and the wider region are pushing at the norms of international humanitarian law. There are escalating threats to civilians in contexts like Yemen from US military actions, often with little to no public accountability, and for the first time since the second World War, we are seeing major inter-state conflict in Europe following Russian’s invasion into Ukraine. The policies that were implemented over the last three years in the US to improve mitigation of civilian harm from the US’ own military operations are now also at risk from changing priorities and funding cuts under the second Trump administration.

In this context, it is essential for researchers, journalists, and civil society to be able to take stock of the field of civilian protection as it stands today, hold states to account for any backsliding in progress as posturing among major powers increases, and ultimately have a clear roadmap for progress for implementing policies and practices that ensure civilians are protected in conflicts.

Lessons from militarily active states

CPM has a focus on three states: the United States, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. These three states were chosen on the basis of their significant military contributions to recent campaigns, including the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq and Syria, as well as their stated commitments to civilian harm mitigation, and important lessons emerging from each context on best practices and practices to avoid.

The United States as the largest military power has been involved in active military operations continuously for several decades. The war against ISIS, characterised predominantly by an aerial campaign on densely populated cities like Mosul and Raqqa, saw levels of harm to civilians that – at the time – was said to be comparable only to the second world war. The US was the leading nation in a Coalition of more than a dozen states at various points, in an eight-year war that likely killed at least 8,000 civilians.

Over the last ten years, policies instigated under the first Trump administration and pushed through under Biden have brought about significant changes to the mechanisms of civilian protection. As of February 2025, the Civilian Protection Monitor determined the United States to be an ‘Emerging Leader’, having taken notable steps to reduce civilian harm from its military operations. With these policies and practices now at risk with government-wide cuts and a significant shake-up in national approaches under the Trump administration, the CPM US report captures a valuable snapshot at a moment when the US was a leading example in investing in the policy infrastructure needed to better mitigate and respond to civilian harm from its own military operations.

The Netherlands was selected as another major player in the field of civilian protection, despite having a relatively smaller military and history of military operations. With a series of reforms instigated by a strike that killed more than 80 civilians during the war against ISIS, the Netherlands has invested in the infrastructure needed to mitigate and respond to civilian harm in future operations. The CPM has assessed the Netherlands to be ‘Engaged’ on this topic, with intention and commitments clear, and room for improvement across standardisation and institutionalisation of these processes.

While operating an active military, responsible for strikes in Syria as recently as February 2025, the United Kingdom ranked the lowest of the three countries for its failure to proactively engage with, commit to, and deliver on the policies and practices needed to protect and respond to civilian harm from its own actions. This is in large part due to a lack of transparency across all areas of civilian protection, as well as substantial unanswered questions on the UK’s capacity to track civilian harm and its record of harm in the war against ISIS.

Each section of the Civilian Protection Monitor contains a clear path forward, based on the perspectives of experts at PAX and Airwars who have had direct engagement with governments and militaries on this subject. Governments were given the opportunity to fact-check the reports, and each report was also peer reviewed by experts across civil society, academia, military practice and research.

In the coming months, new states will be added to the CPM, and the research team will continue to review changes to policies. We will also explore adding other indicators to the framework, for instance on arms sales and security force assistance, to recognise that states can cause harm to civilians in many different ways. Changes such as the outcomes of inquiries, transparency tribunals, or the rolling back of policies by new government positions will be captured in the News section of the CPM in between comprehensive yearly updates.

With this project Airwars and PAX aim to foster engagement directly with policy makers and military personnel, and build a plan for better practice – ensuring that all states have the systems needed to mitigate and respond to civilian harm. Where they do not, this new tool offers a roadmap for journalists, researchers and civil society to hold their states to account.

Dutch MoD releases results of largest ever assessment of civilian harm allegations from the war against ISIS

Published

March 14, 2025

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Assisted by

Clive Vella and Joel Schülin

Header Image

Airwars mapped Dutch coordinates of weapons deployed during the war against ISIS and identified civilian harm incidents with date and location proximity

Web link

The Dutch MoD have concluded a process with Airwars of reviewing dozens of potential harm claims, in an unprecedented step towards transparency

After a year long engagement, the Dutch Ministry of Defence have released detailed findings to Parliament on the outcome of 61 allegations of civilian harm identified by Airwars in proximity to Dutch airstrikes in the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

In a rare and constructive dialogue, Dutch involvement has now been excluded from at least 39 incidents of civilian harm in the war against ISIS, raising renewed questions for allies who have yet to investigate any allegations of harm during the eight year campaign that claimed thousands of civilian lives according to independent monitors and experts.

A further 22 cases were deemed to have “insufficient detail” by the Dutch MoD due to a lack of available information contained in the original Airwars reports that allowed the MoD to cross-check these allegations against their own mission data. This is the first time that the criteria for cross-checking allegations has been made publicly available, in a move that will strengthen independent referrals to the MoD in future operations. Airwars hopes to continue to work with the Dutch MoD to improve the methodology further when it comes to reviewing cases such as these in future.

In total, Airwars has an archive of 2,978 incidents of civilian harm allegedly caused by the US-led coalition in the war against ISIS and estimates that a minimum of 8,000 civilians were killed. More than 300 of these cases have been conceded by the Coalition, but only four member nations, including the Netherlands, have ever acknowledged harm from their individual involvement. Other members, including France and Belgium have used the anonymity of the Coalition to avoid declaring which strikes their militaries conducted, cutting off routes for accountability.

“The Dutch Ministry of Defence has shown strong leadership on this issue, once again making concrete steps far in advance of its allies when it comes to the protection of civilians,” said Emily Tripp, Executive Director at Airwars. “There are still questions to answer around the extent to which the approach taken reflects the reality of the information environment – especially in potential future wars of greater scale and intensity. We look forward to engaging with the MoD on this issue, and working together to ensure civilian lives are accounted for and acknowledged in conflicts”.

Speaking about the collaboration with Airwars, Dutch Minister of Defence Ruben Brekelmans said: “These steps are intended to communicate as transparently and as completely as possible about possible civilian casualties. The Ministry of Defence will continue to do so. For example, we will now report annually on Verantwoordingsdag [a set day in the Netherlands where government ministries present reports to Parliament] about reports of possible civilian casualties.”

Context of engagement

Airwars’ review of these cases with the Dutch MoD followed a prior exchange between Dutch media outlets NRC and NOS, Airwars and the MoD around potential civilian harm cases in the war against ISIS, in which it was found that the Dutch military were likely responsible for the death of a civilian in Mosul. This case, now under investigation by the Ministry of Defence, also coincided with efforts to release more details on where Dutch airstrikes took place, with the release of the coordinates almost 2200 weapon deployments conducted in the anti-ISIS campaign. Each airstrike might contain one or a series of specific deployments. Each coordinate was also shared within an accuracy of 100m.

This dialogue also occurs in the context of a wider process on the part of the Netherlands to review and update its own policies to protect civilians, in coordination and with input from civil society in the so-called Roadmap Process. This effort was prompted by a Dutch airstrike that killed more than 80 civilians in Hawija in Iraq, and the subsequent failings in the Dutch government to acknowledge and account for harm caused.

Major shortcomings in the Dutch approach to planning, executing, and reviewing the Hawijah airstrike were revealed earlier this year with the release of the Sorgdrager Report – an independent inquiry into the events that led to the strike on Hawija. This incident is also the subject of a major court case in the Netherlands to secure compensation for those killed and injured by the strike.

Despite a long history of systemic failures in the Netherlands on this issue, recent years have seen major steps forward. This includes the launch of a civilian harm reporting portal in December 2024, enabling third parties for the first time to submit harm allegations directly to the MoD.

Case referral and coordination

Airwars referrals to the US-led Coalition account for more than 40 percent of the incidents now admitted by the US Department of Defence. This includes admissions as recently as December 2024, in which two Airwars incidents were newly conceded by the US in relation to on-going anti-ISIS operations.

Following the release of the coordinates of weapons deployed by the Dutch Ministry of Defence in March 2023, Airwars was able to narrow down from an archive of thousands of harm incidents to those that matched the dates and coordinates provided by the MoD.

Using a broad inclusion criteria, Airwars isolated 61 new cases for review by the MoD. These cases contain varying degrees of information, and were matched within varying distances and times to the released Dutch coordinates within a radius of max 15km and within a 24 hour time period.

Map indicating sample of cases selected for review by the Dutch MoD narrowing down incidents within date and time proximity of weapons deployed. Click to expand.

Due to the risk of false positives with Dutch strikes given the intensity of bombardment, the relative lack of transparency on the part of Coalition allies about their own involvement, and due to some uncertainties in the locational information, these cases were presented as a longlist subject to further review with the MoD, and not a definitive or exhaustive caseload.

Among the 39 incidents excluded based on location, coordinates and/or weapons deployed was a December 6th 2018 strike in southern Syria, where at least five civilians were reported killed by alleged Coalition war planes. All five were women and children. UK, Dutch and French strikes were reported in the vicinity. With the Dutch now able to definitively exclude this incident from their involvement, this raises renewed questions for Coalition partners the French and the British, as well as other allies active in the Coalition at the time, who were less transparent about their strike locations.

Airwars’ cross-checking process for the December 6th strike (incident CS1866), found in proximity of eight coordinates of weapons deployed by the MoD within 24 hours of the date, as well as another strike on December 18th with an additional date/location match set for seven Dutch coordinates (note individual points are not easily visible where coordinates overlap exactly). Click to expand.

Four of these incidents were also excluded due to previous admissions by the international Coalition, where the Dutch MoD determined based on mission details that they were not the national partner responsible. These cases include incidents such as a May 13th 2015 strike, admitted by the US-led Coalition after referral by Airwars, where at least six members of one family were killed after a strike on a vehicle distributing oil to local populations. At the time the UK Ministry of Defence also denied responsibility for the strike.

Airwars’ cross-checking process for the May 13th strike (incident CI067), found in proximity of four coordinates of weapons deployed by the MoD (note individual points are not easily visible where coordinates overlap exactly). Click to expand.

“Insufficient detail”

Of the 61 incidents that Airwars and the Dutch Ministry of Defence reviewed, 22 incidents were deemed to have insufficient detail on the geographic “reference points”, or the time of the event, that would support the Netherlands in cross-checking the cases against their own records. In two of these cases, the lack of granular information and the intensity of the fighting at the time further complicated the MoD in being able to plausibly assess Dutch involvement.

Among these cases are 14 incidents that were reviewed and rejected by the US-led Coalition, including allegations where the names and details of the victims were known – but where the time and exact location of the incident was unclear in open source reports.

Other cases raise some questions about the process used to review these claims, such as this January 22nd 2015 strike reported by a local Iraqi MP directly to the US at the time. Despite the description of the village given by the MP, it appears that the US and now the Dutch MoD have been unable to pinpoint enough locational details to support cross-checking against their own mission reports.

Airwars’ cross-checking process for the January 22nd strike (incident CI030), found in proximity of five coordinates of weapons deployed by the MoD (note individual points are not easily visible where coordinates overlap exactly). Click to expand.

The methods used to cross-check information against mission reports also appears to diverge within the Coalition – with cases such as this June 4th 2018 incident rejected by the Coalition on the grounds that the coordinates did not match records of Coalition strikes in the geographical vicinity, instead were assessed by the Dutch MoD as unable to determine the plausibility of Dutch involvement, due to lack of precise locational information contained in the original allegation.

Airwars’ cross-checking process for the June 4th strike (incident CS1764), found in proximity of one coordinate of a weapon deployment by the MoD. Click to expand.

These inconsistencies reflect concerns revealed in the newly released Sorgdrager report, around a diverging approach among Coalition members and between Coalition members and the United States not only on civilian harm detection processes but also in policies and practices around assessment and response.

Looking forward

As defence spending increases across Europe and risks of great power conflict increase, Airwars will be looking to other European nations to follow the example of the Netherlands and invest in procedures and processes to meaningfully engage with civil society to detect and respond to incidents of civilian harm.

The practices for detecting and responding to civilian harm in cases of large scale combat must also reflect the changing realities of the information environment. Especially in intense battlefields, ensuring that reporting mechanisms reflect the reality of at times contradictory and disparate information is going to be essential – otherwise states will reject potentially thousands of cases that fall below unrealistic thresholds for consideration.

▲ Airwars mapped Dutch coordinates of weapons deployed during the war against ISIS and identified civilian harm incidents with date and location proximity

New Airwars and White Helmets project launched

Published

August 1, 2024

Written by

Anna Zahn, Clarie Alspektor, Clive Vella and Shihab Halep

Web link

Airwars and the White Helmets have launched a new project presenting White Helmets incident response data in a single and interactive repository, hosted on the Airwars website.

On February 6th 2023, a devastating earthquake hit areas of Syria and southern Turkey leaving an estimated 55,000 people dead. In northwest Syria, the White Helmets, also known as Syria Civil Defence, deployed their volunteer first responder teams – rescuing at least 2,950 people from under the rubble and recovering the bodies of more than 2,000 others.

White Helmets teams have since been working on reconstruction efforts, including by clearing roads, facilitating community access and providing essential humanitarian services. These efforts have been challenged by continued hostilities, with airstrikes hitting communities already vulnerable from both the earthquake effects and the preceding years of protracted conflict.

In an effort to capture and quantify the on-going harm in Syria, particularly in areas already made vulnerable by the known intensity of the earthquake, Airwars and the White Helmets have teamed up to combine and consolidate data.

Our findings are detailed in the latest edition of Fragments, a new quarterly publication launched by the Explosive Weapons Monitor.

A summary of our findings:

Civilians were often killed in areas where the February 2023 earthquake had been the most intense. In the months following the earthquake, the White Helmets responded to 1,245 attacks using explosive weapons, leading to at least 167 civilian fatalities – a third of which were children. More than 80% of those fatalities were in locations where the earthquake had some of the most intense shocks in Syria. Throughout the year, artillery shelling by Syrian Regime forces led to high numbers of incidents in which civilians were killed, with the White Helmets recording more than 900 separate attacks using artillery on earthquake affected areas. One White Helmets volunteer was killed in a strike with a guided missile on a marked service vehicle, while three other volunteer responders were injured across separate attacks. Among the incidents is a May 3rd strike in Idleb conducted by US forces, on a civilian that the US now admits was misidentified as a member of Al Qaeda.

This joint project is intended to draw attention back to a conflict that gets little international attention, despite the on-going intensity of attacks on civilians. It is also intended to show the benefits and effort of collaborating on critical documentation practices, even in the most intense of battlefields.

Methodology

Data points reflected on the map are incidents provided to Airwars by the White Helmets. Each incident is an instance where first responders were called to respond to explosive weapons use. Data provided included coordinates identified by on the ground response teams, as well as descriptions of the types of operation (such as air or artillery strike), the date, and a short description of the harm caused (such as fatalities or infrastructure damage).

Attribution of the strikes was also provided by the White Helmets, based on an assessment of aircraft use and direction of flight based on areas of control. All attribution should be treated as indicative only, given the complexity of joint operations and lack of transparency around strike reporting by all belligerents. Airwars has written about this in more detail here.

Airwars is continuing to assess each 2023 incident in line with our own casualty recording methodology, and has already published 105 cases reported in earthquake-affected areas on our website – totalling some 98 civilian deaths from alleged Russian strikes alone.

Looking back to look forward: recommendations for the Dutch MoD on civilian harm mitigation

Published

May 23, 2024

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Header Image

The Dutch Ministry of Defence in the Hague.

Web link

Today Airwars is laying out 16 recommendations for the Dutch Ministry of Defence on its approach to civilian harm mitigation, in collaboration with PAX for Peace, Center for Civilians in Conflict, and Utrecht University

These recommendations reflect on our engagement with the MoD over the last four years in the so-called Roadmap Process. This Process has consisted of regular meetings, intensifying over the last year to multiple technical workshops which brought in world-leading experts and CHMR practitioners.

The Roadmap Process was established in early 2020, after it was revealed that the Dutch military was responsible for an airstrike which has killed over 85 civilians in Hawija, Iraq, and that the Minister of Defence has subsequently tried to cover up Dutch involvement for over 4 years.

In the years since, the Dutch MoD has made progress on its policy approach; for instance, in 2022, Defence Minister Kajsa Ollongren announced a 10-step plan for improving the MoD’s approach to civilian harm mitigation, based in part on the consortium’s recommendations from the first phase of the Roadmap Process, which finished in 2021. As part of the 10 step plan, the MoD established a team specifically focused on the Protection of Civilians, which has since expanded. New regulations were also introduced, requiring the MoD POC team to specifically analyse risks to civilians and mitigation approaches to be used for all new deployments under Article 100 of the constitution. The regular engagement with civil society and experts, and improvements made already, places the Netherlands at the forefront of efforts to review and improve national approaches to CHMR.

At the same time, areas for improvement remain – some significant. Most importantly, from an Airwars perspective, the MoD should formalise how it tracks and investigates allegations of civilian harm, through the creation of a civilian harm tracking cell. The cell should have a clear methodology and data management system to ensure allegations of harm are not processed in an ad-hoc manner as one-off incidents, but are examined thoroughly with an established rigorous approach to ensure accountability to those affected and lessons learned for a stronger mitigation approach in future operations.

The MoD should also make it a priority to release their Baseline Study, a recent internal review of current best practice on CHMR within the military, as well as gaps that should be addressed. Releasing this study would allow civil society and experts to best understand the best practices emerging from the Netherlands and to work with the military to find the most effective solutions to current or emerging gaps. Beyond that, the Baseline Study could also provide an invaluable methodology for other militaries who are willing to review their own approaches to CHMR, but are unsure where to begin – as many are.

The Roadmap recommendations released today include an overview of our process to date, a summary page on our recommendations, and finally the full recommendations with examples of best practice. While they were developed for the Dutch MoD, many of these reflect years of research and advocacy across national contexts and will apply to many of the Netherlands’ allies as well. We urge the Dutch MoD and its allies to review and implement the recommendations to further strengthen their approach to civilian harm mitigation.

You can find the full list of recommendations here.

▲ The Dutch Ministry of Defence in the Hague.

Workshop report: exploring military perspectives on the Explosive Weapons declaration

Published

April 18, 2024

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Header Image

Photo by Ahmad Al-Basha/Agence France-Presse, taken from Flickr under Creative Commons

Web link

In November 2023, Airwars and Article 36 co-convened a workshop to explore military perspectives on the opportunities and challenges arising in the implementation of the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.

In the workshop report, we summarise the discussions held and challenges identified during the two-day workshop. We draw on these lessons, and our wider work on EWIPA, to make recommendations to states and militaries working to implement the declaration, and civil society organisations focused on supporting this process.

The workshop focused on exploring operational policies and practice regarding the use of explosive weapons during military operations in populated areas, with reference to the Declaration. Using a scenario-based approach, the workshop aimed to identify, and raise awareness of, changes to policies and practices that are necessary for the effective implementation of the operational provisions of the Declaration, ahead of the first official follow-up meeting of states and civil society which will be held in Oslo next week.

Participants in the workshop included active and retired members of national armed forces and defence ministry officials from 8 Western states, as well as participants from NATO, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and civil society organisations.

Key findings

A summary of the key recommendations and good practices outlined during the workshop are summarised below:

Efforts to disseminate and promote engagement with the Declaration at the national level are required within relevant ministries and departments as well as the armed forces. A process of policy review, revision and development by signatory states is an essential element of the implementation process. To promote and implement the Declaration, it is vital to include both leaders at the strategic/political level as well as commanders at the operational level. Commanders have a key role to play in ensuring civilian harm is mitigated, particularly from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. The Declaration’s central commitment points towards national-level policies and doctrines as the framework through which it should be implemented. Weapon selection, including a proper understanding of the technical effects of different weapons and how those effects will be influenced by the built environment, is critical to mitigating civilian harm from explosive weapons. States should critically review their approaches to and capacity for undertaking civilian harm tracking in line with established good practice.

The full workshop report can be found here.

▲ Photo by Ahmad Al-Basha/Agence France-Presse, taken from Flickr under Creative Commons

Airwars wins Sigma data journalism award

Published

March 27, 2024

Web link

One of ten winners from nearly 600 entries for prestigious journalism prize

Airwars has won a Sigma award recognising excellence in data journalism, while the organisation’s investigative work has also been nominated three times at the forthcoming Amnesty Media Awards.

The article, titled The Year of the Shahed, was one of ten winners selected by Sigma from a total of 591 submissions by more than 300 news organisations.

The investigation involved gathering all open-source allegations of Russia’s use of the Iranian-made Shahed drone to attack Ukrainian civilians, as well as researching the European links to the specific component parts found in them. It was produced in collaboration with the German newspaper Der Spiegel after a grant by Investigative Journalism for Europe.

A still image from the article

Commenting on the article, the Sigma prize committee said: “The increasing digitisation, mechanisation, and automatisation of warfare is a worrying trend that will likely accelerate in years to come. This story about affordable but highly effective Iranian drones (actually, pseudo-missiles) used by Russia in Ukraine is a good example of what investigative and data journalism can do to warn readers about such trends.”

“The piece combines in-depth data analysis of attack patterns, first-person accounts of their consequences, and plenty of context of both the history of this weaponry and of the way it’s operated. The story weaves the narrative with photographic and audio evidence, along with a simple but effective series of data visualizations, scrollytelling sequences, and well-executed vector 3D renderings of the drones. In summary, it’s a rich multimedia experience.”

The article was written by Sanjana Varghese, Nikolaj Houmann Mortensen, Iryna Chupryna and Rowena De Silva of Airwars, as well as Oliver Imhof and Alexander Epp of Der Spiegel. It was designed visually by Airwars’ Júlia Nueno and Azul De Monte.

Among the other projects recognised by the judges were international news organisations including the Financial Times and Bloomberg, as well as local news organisations in Nigeria, Bangladesh and elsewhere.

The full award ceremony can be viewed below and Nikolaj Houmann Mortensen will discuss the article at a panel discussion during the International Journalism Festival 2024 in Perugia, Italy on April 20, 2024.

Separately, Airwars received three nominations for the forthcoming Amnesty Media Awards. The awards celebrate vital stories related to issues of human rights, with the winners to be announced on on May 9th, 2024.

Airwars was the smallest organisation to have been nominated, with almost all other candidates major international news organisations. Only the BBC and The Guardian received more than three nominations.

Airwars and The Guardian were nominated in two categories for a joint investigation into the hidden civilian toll of British airstrikes in Iraq and Syria during the campaign against the so-called Islamic State. The two-year investigation combined months of document analysis to identify likely UK strikes, with reporting from the ground in Mosul speaking to victims.

The longform reportage from Iraq, written by Emma Graham-Harrison of The Guardian and Airwars’ Joe Dyke, was nominated for Best Written Feature, while the Airwars immersive article was nominated in the digital creativity section. The entire investigation has also been nominated in the Outstanding Investigative Reporting category at the forthcoming Fetisov Awards.

Separately Airwars’ Sanjana Varghese was among four nominees in the The Gaby Rado Award for New Journalist category for her work leading the Shahed investigation.

Two weeks under scrutiny: Patterns of harm reported in Gaza following ICJ ruling

Published

February 26, 2024

Written by

Airwars Staff

Web link

Palestinian civilians allegedly killed every day in the two weeks following the International Court of Justice's ruling on Gaza, Airwars finds

On January 26th, the International Court of Justice ordered provisional measures in a case brought by South Africa alleging that Israel was violating its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention in Gaza. Israel refuted the claim, stating it was taking all possible measures to protect civilians during its attempts to destroy the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The ICJ found that a plausible risk of genocide in the Gaza Strip exists and that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent genocide, to prevent and punish incitement to genocide, make provision for access to humanitarian aid, ensure preservation of evidence related to South Africa’s allegations, and must report back to the Court within a month about how it was complying with this order.

However concerns have mounted over the destruction of evidence related to civilian harm claims given widespread attacks on healthcare facilities and the highly restrictive operating environment.

To provide independent incident-based research to support investigations into civilian harm claims, Airwars’ research team carried out an expedited assessment process gathering and reviewing all civilian harm allegations in the first two weeks of the month-long period.

Airwars research identified more than 200 alleged incidents of harm from January 27th 2024 to February 9th 2024, originating from more than 1,500 open source claims. These claims include local media outlets, testimonies from family members, and other witness testimonies posted online. Each incident was identified by corroborating at least five sources detailing the civilian harm event.

There are likely to be other incidents that were not publicly reported upon, however this research intends to provide a starting point for further investigation.

Among the claims, Airwars has identified attacks on journalists, on civilians while sheltering in displacement centres, on civilians waiting for humanitarian aid and on healthcare workers.

Airwars is still reviewing these cases through our rigorous casualty recording methodology, which means that no overall fatality estimates will be produced at this time. However these incidents still reveal some key patterns of harm.

Among the key trends were:

Civilians were reported killed every day in incidents during the two-week period, with an average of 16 casualty incidents recorded per day. In 190 of the incidents, civilians were reported killed or injured following the alleged use of explosive weapons. In 36 incidents, civilians were allegedly shot and killed or injured by live fire. Healthcare workers and first responders were reported killed in six incidents. Civilians waiting for humanitarian aid were reported killed or injured in five separate incidents. Civilians in education centres were reported killed or injured in eight separate incidents, often while taking shelter. Journalists were reported killed in at least five of these incidents, often alongside members of their family. In 13 separate incidents, at least ten civilians were alleged to have been killed. Geographically the largest number of incidents occurred in the governorate of Khan Yunis, which Israeli forces were seeking to take control of during the time period.

Out of the 233 incidents identified by Airwars, our geolocation teams were able to locate 213 to governorate level – key administrative units in Gaza. These incidents are reflected on the map. Further precision on geolocations will be part of Airwars’ forthcoming and comprehensive assessment of each incident.

Incidents include harm from explosive weapon use and to the extent possible from the use of small arms or light weapons. Each incident has not yet been through Airwars’ rigorous assessment process, and therefore data points should be treated as provisional only, including on civilian status and casualty ranges.

Chronology of harm

Key incidents are described chronologically below, and full datasets can be provided on request including with digitally archived links. The following should not be understood as an exhaustive list, but rather a brief summary of each day’s events – as reported by local sources.

More comprehensive analysis will be released once we have completed our full documentation efforts, including the more than 2,000 incidents yet to go through our review process.

January 27th 2024

Civilians alleged to have been killed while waiting for humanitarian aid, as well as in shootings in a hospital courtyard.

January 28th 2024

More than ten civilians reported killed in a single incident in a refugee camp, dozens reported injured while waiting for humanitarian aid, and at least one civilian killed in a school. A journalist was also reported killed.

January 29th 2024

More than ten civilians reported killed in at least three separate incidents, including while sheltering in a school. At least two incidents of identified civilian casualties in a hospital due to shootings. One journalist also reported killed.

January 30th 2024

More than ten civilians reported killed during one incident, as well as other incidents recorded of casualties during aid distributions.

January 31st 2024

Civilians reported killed while sheltering in a collective displacement centre, as well as harm reported on ambulance and first responder crews.

February 1st 2024

Healthworkers reported killed near a hospital entrance, as well as widespread reporting of 22 bodies recovered in Khan Younis.

February 2nd 2024

At least two incidents identified where health workers were reported killed.

February 3rd 2024

More than ten civilians reported killed during an alleged Israeli bombing on a family home.

February 4th 2024

Multiple reports of civilians killed and injured while waiting to receive humanitarian aid. Additional casualties reported in a kindergarten.

February 5th 2024

Civilian casualties reported in education facilities in Khan Younis.

February 6th 2024

At least two incidents where more than ten civilians were reported killed, including in an alleged strike on a family home. Two journalists also reported killed.

February 7th 2024

More than ten civilians killed in a single incident, and additional casualties reported in medical facilities. Several civilians also reported killed while waiting for humanitarian aid.

February 8th 2024

More than ten civilians killed in a single incident, and at least two incidents recorded where healthcare workers were killed, and one incident where civilians were killed in a health centre. One journalist also reported killed.

February 9th 2024

One incident where more than ten civilians were reported killed, another incident where casualties were recorded in medical centres, at aid distributions and also, separately, in an education facility.

Airwars’ ongoing casualty recording efforts

Following the brutal October 7th Hamas attack, Israel launched one of the most intense military campaigns in modern history in Gaza. In the months since, almost every fact emerging has been in dispute.

In an attempt to combat mis- and disinformation and build a permanent public record of civilian harm, Airwars has been recording incident-by-incident civilian harm allegations since October 7th. By utilising Airwars’ open source-led primary language methodology – used to document civilian harm caused by different belligerents in multiple conflict zones including Iraq, Syria and Ukraine – researchers have so far identified more than 2,500 separate allegations of civilian harm in Gaza. These range from incidents in which one or two civilians were reported injured to those in which more than 100 Palestinians have been reported killed.

To date more than 280 incidents have been through a rigorous six-stage verification process and are available on our website in a new archive. Due to the scale of the task and the rigour of the process, most of these relate to the first month of the war. Dozens more are published each week once they have completed the full review process. A forthcoming report will highlight key trends from those published incidents.

▲ Palestinian News & Information Agency (Wafa) in contract with APAimages, reproduced under Creative Commons

Airwars/Altinget investigation sparks Danish civilian harm review

Published

January 31, 2024

Web link

Newly released documents definitively link Danish war planes to strikes that killed Libyan civilians

A joint investigation by Airwars, the Danish news site Altinget and The Guardian has sparked a review of civilian harm allegations from Danish airstrikes in the 2011 war in Libya.

Published on January 25th, the two-year investigation revealed the existence of a previously secret Danish internal review of allegations of civilian harm from its more than 900 bombs dropped as part of the NATO campaign against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The military review found Danish pilots conducted strikes in incidents in which at least 14 civilians were killed. The document was produced in 2012, a year after the war, but kept from the Danish public for more than a decade.

The revelations are the first time a particular NATO country has been definitively linked to specific airstrikes that harmed civilians in Libya. You can read the news stories in English (Guardian) or Danish (Altinget), and find the full story behind the investigation.

The investigation was lead story on The Guardian’s website on January 25th

In a direct response to the investigation, Danish Minister of Defence Troels Lund Poulsen ordered the Danish Armed Forces to commit a formal review of the allegations. A top Norwegian official said such civilian harm was “unsurprising” as NATO’s targeting information was limited during the campaign in Libya.

Several Danish political parties have called for the government to establish a compensation model for civilians harmed, with Christian Friis Bach from the Radikale, emphasising: “If Danish soldiers become aware that they have conducted an airstrike resulting in unintended civilian casualties, then you should proactively take responsibility and reach out with a compensation model that has been established before the incident takes place”.

The investigation also sparked an intense conversation on the possibility of a ‘cover up’ in Copenhagen – with a focus on who knew about the internal review and when. Both the foreign minister and the defence minister at the time that the Danish armed forces concluded their review said they do not recall being briefed about the reports. The foreign minister emphasised he would have remembered, had he been told, while the defence minister referred follow-up questions to the ministry.

Then head of NATO, Rasmus Fogh Andersen – a former Danish prime minister – has refused to comment. Former Danish defence minister Hans Engell hailed the “skilful” investigation, but said the apparent cover up “threatens the credibility of the armed forces” in Denmark.

In Libya, the renowned Arabic paper Asharq Al-Awsat reported a number of politicians and human rights activists calling for action against Denmark to seek compensation for the victims.

Since the 2011 air campaign in Libya, Denmark has contributed to several international coalitions, including the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq and Syria, which Airwars estimates led to at least 8,199 civilian casualties.

In late 2023, Denmark joined the US-led ‘Operation Prosperity Guardian’ campaign targeting the Houthi forces in Yemen, in a supporting capacity. It is unclear what civilian harm mitigation tools are applied in this campaign and whether systems have been established for civilians to report potential harm from airstrikes.

Emily Tripp, Airwars’ director, said: “This investigation reveals once again that a failure in transparency over civilian harm allegations does a disservice both to the citizens in whose name such wars are fought, and to those civilians who deserve answers about which nation killed their loved ones.

“The fact that Danish officials went to the trouble of reviewing these allegations is actually a positive: very few NATO allies engage with external allegations at this level. But refusing to then share those findings with the public raises serious questions about political processes and practices both in Denmark and in the wider NATO campaign.”

Below is a list of some of the articles about the investigation

English

Denmark admits role in Nato airstrikes on Libya that killed 14 civilians in 2011 (Guardian)

How we exposed secretive Danish role in Libyan civilian deaths (Airwars)

Danish

Armed forces kept reports secret for years: Denmark likely killed civilians in Libya (Altinget)

After revelations: the Ministry of Defence reopens its Libya investigation after more than 10 years (Altinget)

Parties in the aftermath of the Libya disclosure: Denmark should prepare for possible lawsuits (Altinget)

Podcast: How it was revealed that Denmark likely killed civilians in Libya (Danish)

‘Son of a bitch!’ exclaims former UN investigator: withheld Libya reports includes all the answers we requested (Altinget)

Former Danish Defence Minister Hans Engell: The Libya disclosures once again threatens the credibility of the armed forces (Altinget)

‘News of that magnitude remains in the mind’: former foreign minister does not recall being briefed about the Libya case (Altinget)

Former top Norwegian diplomat on possible civilian casualties in Libya: ‘unfortunately not surprising’ (Altinget)

https://www.berlingske.dk/internationalt/forargelse-efter-afsloering-af-hemmelig-rapport-om-mulige-danske

Outrage after disclosure of secret report on possible Danish killings of civilians: “Deeply worrying” (Berlingske)

Politiken’s Defence Editor: There was a good reason (minister) Lene Espersen would not guarantee no civilian casualties (Politiken)

Middle Eastern media

Denmark to probe 2011 strikes on Libya that killed 14 civilians (Arab News)

New evidence emerges from 2011 (Al Hadath Libya)

Libyans to sue Denmark on charges of killing 14 civilians during the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime (Al Sharq al-Awsat)

Danish revelations about Libya bombing 13 years ago could help victims’ families (MEMO)

▲ Journalists and locals gather next to the rubble of buildings in Tripoli, Libya, on June 19, 2011. During a government-led tour, the group was shown damaged houses and the bodies of civilians said to have been killed in a NATO coalition bombing. MAHMUD TURKIA/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

Dutch Ministry of Defence announces new civilian harm reporting mechanisms

Published

December 22, 2023

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Header Image

The Dutch Ministry of Defence in the Hague.

Web link

In a major step forward, the Dutch Minister of Defence has announced a new mechanism for civilians and NGOs to report harm to civilians from Dutch airstrikes.

The announcement follows several years of advocacy and detailed discussions between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Protection of Civilians team and a consortium of NGOs including Airwars, Pax, Utrecht University, and CIVIC, in the so-called ‘Roadmap process’.

In the letter to parliament, the Dutch format for setting out policy, the Minister of Defence, Kajsa Ollongren, outlined two major commitments; one for operations that have already finished and one for future engagements. To the former, the Minister acknowledged current gaps in the MoD’s approach, emphasising; “At present there is no specific counter for NGOs and victims/next of kin to report suspicions of civilian casualties to the Netherlands. The Defense Department will therefore set up a counter where these parties can report suspicions of civilian casualties in relation to [military deployments] that are already terminated”.

The Netherlands was one of several nations who contributed with air support to the US-led anti-ISIS coalition, Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), in Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2019. Our evidence suggests that at least 8,199 civilians have likely been killed in Coalition airstrikes. The Dutch have admitted to some of these deaths – though often only after major international investigations have exposed Dutch involvement. This includes a strike on the Iraqi city of Hawijah in 2015, in which more than 85 civilians were killed, which prompted an independent inquiry and a major court case with a verdict expected in January 2024.

By establishing a dedicated civilian harm reporting mechanism, the Netherlands is following in the footsteps of the US and setting itself ahead of the other allies which contributed to OIR. This announcement comes shortly after Airwars took the UK Ministry of Defense to a tribunal, in part for its lack of clarity on mechanisms to protect civilians during its role in the same campaign.

If implemented well, this new Dutch mechanism will make it possible for civilians who have been affected by strikes to report the details directly to the Ministry of Defense. It will also provide NGOs, such as Airwars, which gather evidence of harm with a systematic approach to submitting allegations. This has long been identified by NGOs as best practice in civilian harm mitigation and response.

When it comes to civilian harm reporting in future conflicts, Ollongren states in the letter; “I consider it desirable that NGOs and victims/survivors can report to the relevant coalition. Where relevant, the Netherlands will therefore endeavor to organize this well in a coalition before the start of the Dutch contribution. Should a coalition in question be unable to adequately organize a reporting structure, Defense itself will ensure the possibility to report suspicions to the Netherlands“.

Coalitions, which have come to define engagement in recent conflict by Western states, often introduce uncertainty and bureaucratic complexity on the responsibility and accountability for civilian harm. It is notable that the Netherlands commit themselves to setting up a Dutch mechanism if a coalition one cannot be agreed upon.

As with all policy commitments, the eventual effect depends on how well it is implemented. This is particularly relevant in this case, as a new US-led coalition with Dutch participation was announced on the same day that the letter came out. The new coalition, Operation Prosperity Guardian, will respond to Yemen-based Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Yemen has seen some of the most brutal and sustained civilian harm in the last decade, from both the Houthi forces, but also the US-backed Saudi Coalition.

The Netherlands participation in this new coalition does not yet meet the threshold required for an ‘Article-100 letter’, the system by which civilian harm considerations, such as a reporting mechanism, would be announced and established. However Dutch involvement in this and future operations will be a testing ground for these new commitments, which so far puts the Netherlands apart from many of its allies.

▲ The Dutch Ministry of Defence in the Hague.

Tribunal notice: Airwars to challenge UK refusal over civilian harm next week

Published

November 24, 2023

Web link

Session on Wednesday November 29th vital for British military transparency

On Wednesday November 29th, the London-based civilian harm watchdog Airwars will take the UK government to a tribunal. The session is to appeal against the refusal of the Ministry of Defence and the Information Commissioner to release any details about the single civilian casualty that the UK has admitted in the past decade.

In eight years of bombing the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the UK claims to have killed more than 4,000 ISIS militants but only one civilian. In the same timeframe, the US has accepted responsibility for causing the deaths of more than 1,000 civilians.

A strike on March 26, 2018 remains the only time the UK government has officially accepted harming civilians. The Minister of Defence told parliament in May 2018 that “[d]uring a strike to engage three Daesh fighters, a civilian motorbike crossed into the strike area at the last moment and it is assessed that one civilian was unintentionally killed.”

Since then the MoD has refused to release even basic details about the incident – including the location, how it reached that designation and rejected other allegations of civilian harm, and who made the ultimate decision that the allegation was ‘credible.’

Airwars’ head of investigations Joe Dyke first filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) case requesting such details in early 2021. The Ministry of Defence rejected it, saying that releasing this information would threaten national security.

In the past three years a number of developments have made the UK’s refusal look even less transparent.

In 2021 the United States released to The New York Times more than 1300 civilian harm assessments after a similar freedom of information case. Each document showed how the US military decided whether or not it had killed civilians in a particular incident. These are exactly the kinds of documents Airwars asked the UK to produce. Earlier this year, the Dutch Government released the coordinates of every strike Dutch pilots conducted during the anti-ISIS campaign. This led to an additional civilian harm incident being linked to the Dutch, with the country’s public prosecutor opening a legal case. The Information Commissioner, while siding with the MoD, ruled that the UK’s approach appeared less transparent than the United States. Airwars and The Guardian revealed that the incident in 2018 was not properly recorded either by the MoD or by the US-led Coalition.

The tribunal, in which Airwars is represented by Leigh Day solicitors and barrister Will Perry of Monckton Chambers, will be a vital opportunity to review whether the British public is allowed to understand how the UK decided whether those killed in their name are militants or civilians. Without this oversight, the UK will remain far behind its allies when it comes to transparency on civilian harm.

Emily Tripp, director at Airwars, said: “This tribunal is vital for the sake of basic military transparency. We still have no understanding as to how the UK military assesses whether or not their actions harmed civilians. The UK government insists that even a minimal level of transparency and openness would threaten national security.”

We are only asking for the UK to follow its allies in showing the public how these assessments are made. Without such transparency, there is no legitimacy to the Ministry of Defence’s claim that it only killed one civilian in the war against ISIS – which erodes public trust in our military institutions.”

“Our clients are concerned with a fundamental lack of transparency in how the UK assesses the risk to civilians of its air strikes before they are carried out, as well as how it investigates and assesses civilian harm after the event,” Erin Alcock of Leigh Day said. “Transparency in cases of civilian harm is vital to ensure accountability.”

The tribunal will take place in London on November 29th and 30th, with most of the open evidence to be heard on the 29th.

Journalists interested in covering tribunal that require further details can contact Joe Dyke, who led the initial appeal, on josephdyke [at] airwars.org

▲ A satellite image of the location where the US-led Coalition investigated the strike on March 26, 2018, ultimately concluding there was no Coalition strike that day.

United Nations urges states to support casualty recording

Published

July 14, 2023

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Header Image

UN Headquarters in Geneva (photo from Wikimedia Commons)

Web link

New UN Human Rights Council study emphasises importance of casualty recording for human rights

A breakthrough United Nations report outlining the importance of casualty recording for the protection and promotion of human rights has received nearly universal support at the Human Rights Council’s 53rd session.

The report, which linked casualty recording and human rights obligations directly, received widespread support at the council on July 3rd – with 19 states and observers expressing support for the findings and recommendations. Only one state, Venezuela, expressed objections.

The study will create pressure on states – many of which have previously expressed confusion and hesitancy regarding their obligations around casualty recording – to do more to monitor the civilian impact of conflict.

Setting the tone for the Council session, the report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights recommended that states: “ensure that casualty recording systems and policies are in place and report publicly on all casualties believed to have resulted from hostilities or violence and their circumstances, including for reparations and accountability”.

If implemented, such measures would create a global best practice around casualty monitoring. There is currently little transparency about how states record casualties from their own actions, and state militaries often face accusations of undercounting the civilian impact of their actions.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the Ministry of Defence refuses to publicly disclose details on its own mechanism for casualty recording in the war against ISIS. Airwars is challenging this position in a tribunal later this year.

The importance of casualty recording

The High Commissioner’s report emphasised; “Casualty recording is an important and effective means of delivering on a range of fundamental human rights”. The report further notes: “In addition to disciplinary and accountability measures, such information can be used to foster compliance with international law, including by changing practices and behaviour and enhancing training to this end.”

The US delegation reflected on casualty recording in Ukraine, acknowledging that: “we still do not know the full picture. For that reason, we must advance efforts to create a comprehensive casualty recording system that accounts for all casualties, both civilian and military.”

The delegation went on to emphasise that the US is keen to “aid the international community in developing a casualty reporting mechanism at the international level to contribute to equal access to justice for all”

The support for casualty recording is particularly significant in the context of other successes for civilian protections at the UN last week. In a statement welcoming the report on casualty recording, 56 states of the ‘Group of Friends of R2P’ emphasised the connection between casualty recording and atrocity prevention.

A week earlier, a resolution was adopted at the General Assembly creating an independent institution to examine the fate of all people who are missing in Syria. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, an estimated 130,000 people have gone missing or been forcibly disappeared.

The moves at the UN follow other international assertions on the importance of casualty recording. The Explosive Weapons Declarations, signed by nearly 90 states in November last year, urges states to “record and track civilian casualties, and [ensure] the use of all practicable measures to ensure appropriate data collection.” The US’ Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMRAP), which is widely seen as one of the most ambitious and detailed national policies on this topic, highlights that “developing standardized reporting procedures for operational data to inform civilian harm assessments …will improve DoD’s ability to mitigate and respond to civilian harm.”

The work of independent civil society organisations

Airwars has been collaborating with civil society organisations, particularly Every Casualty Counts and other partners in the Casualty Recorder’s Network, to present evidence for the Human Rights Council report over the last year.

Last year, Every Casualty also released a hard hitting report outlining the requirements for casualty recording across legal regimes. It found that “international humanitarian and human rights law contain extensive requirements regarding states’ duties to account for the dead and missing in armed conflict and other situations of gross human rights violations… these duties are universally binding on all states.”

The work of these organisations was emphasised throughout the report. On the work of Airwars, the report highlighted our work with the US military and Government in particular, highlighting that: “more than 70 per cent of United States internal inquiries into civilian casualties caused by air strikes in the Syrian Arab Republic and Iraq since 2014 have been based on casualty recording submitted by Airwars.”

The report also drew attention to the advocacy work of organisations like Airwars, writing: “…following years of advocacy and engagement based in part on [Airwars’] findings on casualties in Iraq, Libya, Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen, the United States Department of Defense issued the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan in August 2022.”

We welcome the findings of the report on casualty recording and the widespread support it received at the Human Rights Council last week. It brings clarity to the requirements on states and reaffirms, at an international level, the importance of accurately recording and reporting on casualties in warfare.

▲ UN Headquarters in Geneva (photo from Wikimedia Commons)

Airwars joins call for a robust and transparent investigation in response to recent US strike in Syria

Published

July 3, 2023

Written by

Anna Zahn and Clarie Alspektor

Header Image

DoD photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Julian Kemper

Web link

Civil society demands transparency over latest US military civilian harm investigation

On June 29th 2023, Airwars joined 20 human rights, humanitarian and civilian protection organisations in sending a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin calling for greater commitments to transparency and due process over its on-going investigation into the May 3rd strike in Syria that killed Lutfi Hassan Masto.

Within hours of the US strike local sources reported that Masto was a civilian, not the ‘senior Al-Qaeda leader’ the US military claimed him to be.

▲ DoD photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Julian Kemper

Hawijah: Eight years on, civilians are still waiting for answers

Published

June 5, 2023

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Header Image

Hawijah's industrial area in 2021, showing the damage and destruction that remained widespread (Image via Roos Boer, PAX)

Web link

On the eighth anniversary of the Dutch airstrike that destroyed the Iraqi town of Hawijah, the Netherlands faces a crossroad on its approach to the protection of civilians.

On the night of June 2nd 2015, the Dutch military released a munition on an ISIS car bomb factory in the Iraqi city of Hawijah. The strike lit 18,000 kg of TNT hidden in the factory, causing an immense secondary explosion; in an instant, at least 70 civilians were reported killed and an entire section of the city was reduced to rubble.

The pilots who had conducted the strike immediately reported the extensive destruction of Hawjiah to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Just two weeks later, the US Central Command of the coalition that the Dutch were contributing to, submitted a report to the MoD emphasising that reports of over 70 civilians killed were credible. Regardless of these reports, the Minister of Defence made statements to parliament claiming that the strikes had caused no collateral damage.

Four years later, under significant media and civil society pressure, the Government acknowledged the civilian harm that had occurred.

In the years since, the Netherlands has done much work to review its policy framework on civilian harm mitigation, tracking, and response. But the independent inquiry set up to look into the incident in 2020 has yet to release its report, and key members of the investigating team have stepped away from the process. Last month, fresh revelations about civilian harm allegations once again made headlines in the Netherlands – though the Minister of Defense still told parliament that an independent examination of the full Dutch campaign was not needed.

Airwars is one of a small group of NGOs who meet routinely with the Dutch MoD to advise on where improvements could be made with regards to its policies and practices on civilian protection. This article reflects on the steps taken since the deadly Hawijah strike, and highlights some of the critical gaps and questions that remain.

The rubble of a building in Hawijah (courtesy of Roos Boer, PAX)

Accountability to the people of Hawijah

In an effort to hold themselves accountable for the harm caused in Hawijah, the Dutch Government and MoD have taken a dual approach. On the one hand, a commission was launched in 2020, named after its lead, Minister of State Winnie Sorgdrager. The Sorgdrager commission aims to investigate the Dutch strike itself, and the civilian harm that followed, rather than the political decisions around the incident.

In parallel, the Government donated a ‘voluntary compensation’ of €4.4million to two international organisations, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) in order for these to deliver aid and development programmes in Hawijah.

In both processes, the Dutch government has been accused of excluding key local voices. When researchers from the charity PAX travelled to Hawijah in 2021, they read a statement to the Mayor and local NGO coordinators from the MoD on the implementation of the IOM project, which had allegedly started in May 2021 with “local authority…closely involved in every step of the way”, only to look up to shocked faces from the key local stakeholders who were apparently unaware of the project and said that they had never been consulted.

PAX’s findings also emphasised that the priorities for response outlined by the people of Hawijah remained unaddressed by the Dutch Government. Namely: an apology from the Dutch Government, and individual compensation payments. Many of those affected by the 2015 blast lost businesses, homes, and sources of livelihood, while simultaneously facing mounting medical bills. For these individuals, a community wide programme focused on restoring access to electricity and demining the city may provide some benefits – but was said to be inappropriate support to individuals harmed by the Dutch strike.

At the same time, the Sorgdrager Commission is experiencing major challenges in fulfilling its own mandate, with two out of three members of the commission apparently no longer able to give time on a regular basis. There remains little clarity on when the report from the Commission will be published, how the investigation has been carried out, and whether or not the voices of civilians in Hawijah have been listened to and taken into account.

Transparency on targeting and civilian harm tracking systems

In addition to the process of attempting to bring accountability to those in Hawijah, the Dutch MoD has been engaging in a process of reviewing its policy framework on civilian harm mitigation, tracking, and response, with a consortium of civil society organisations including PAX, Airwars, CIVIC, Open State Foundations and experts at the University of Utrecht.

The ‘Roadmap Process’ has led to notable progress in some key areas; this incudes an additional paragraph on the risks to civilians from Dutch military action in the reporting requirements outlined in Article 100 of the Dutch constitution. As a result of consistent pressure from the consortium of civil society groups and pressure from the media, the MoD also recently released details of all strikes conducted during their contribution to the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq and Syria. While this data does not include information on civilian harm, it is an important step in the right direction.

This model of consistent, structured engagement between civil society organisations, many of whom provide a direct link to those affected by Dutch military action, and the MoD serves as a model of inspiration for many of the Netherland’s allies, where Ministries of Defence are less willing to engage in structured engagement, including Belgium and the UK.

However, whilst these are positive steps in the right direction, there are also causes for concern. The same media outlets which revealed Dutch responsibility for the Hawijah blast in 2019, recently published evidence of a further strike in Mosul in 2016, which killed at least 7 civilians. This highlights the importance of continuing to examine allegations of harm from Dutch strikes in the anti-ISIS coalition – as well as the importance of ensuring that the MoD and Government have systems in place to effectively communicate about harm when it is uncovered.

In response to the newest allegations of civilian harm, The Minister of Defence announced a new inquiry into the attack, as well as the aforementioned release of data on Dutch strikes. Yet just a few weeks later, she revealed that she “see[s] no reason” for wider independent examinations into Dutch involvement in strikes which may have caused civilian harm during the anti-ISIS coalition. A system that is only reactive rather than proactive in addressing civilian harm falls below the standards that Airwars and many of its civil society partners have long identified as best practice.

Moving forward

As we review the Dutch approach to civilian harm mitigation and tracking eight years on from Hawijah, we’re facing positive changes in commitments and outlook, as well as some positive policy reforms. At the same time, we are also facing a city that remains destroyed, with rubble still littering the streets, and a population that is being told that the development programmes which were launched in response to the strike in June 2015 have made great strides – a claim many do not recognise.

This is in no way a unique challenge with Dutch military policy. It speaks to the wider lack of transparency and accountability that permeates so much of modern warfare.

The Netherlands stands out insofar as they now face a crossroads: they can either use the positive changes from the last few years, including the establishment of the Roadmap Process, to become a European leader on civilian harm tracking. Or they fail to implement needed changes in their systems and instead continue to widen the gap between rhetoric and reality on the ground when it comes to civilian harm from Dutch actions.

Read more about our coverage of Dutch actions below:

Dutch Parliament set to debate improvements in policies to protect civilians (2022) After Hawija: Dutch Ministry of Defence maps route forward (2022) Fresh revelations show Hawijah’s people are still far from receiving answers on deadly 2015 Dutch airstrike (2021) After Hawija: The way forward for the Dutch Ministry of Defence (2021) “Some families were completely wiped out”: The Mayor of Hawijah speaks out (2020) Dutch F-16 pilots break their silence on airstrikes and civilian harm (2020) Dutch Ministry of Defence promises significant transparency changes (2019) Investigation accuses Dutch military of involvement in 2015 Iraq airstrike which led to deaths of 70 civilians (2019) ‘That’s just how we do it.’ Minister upholds court’s decision not to identify Dutch civilian harm events (2018) Refusal by The Netherlands Defence Ministry to identify specific civilian harm events impedes natural justice, and runs counter to actions by other Coalition allies (2018) The renewed Netherlands mission against ISIS risks the lowest levels of public transparency and accountability among allies in a very different war (2017) Netherlands airstrikes in Iraq and Syria: Towards improved transparency and public accountability (2016)

▲ Hawijah's industrial area in 2021, showing the damage and destruction that remained widespread (Image via Roos Boer, PAX)

Оприлюднено інтерактивну базу даних заподіяної цивільному населенню шкоди у битві за Харків

Published

May 18, 2023

Written by

Airwars Staff

Header Image

Співробітник ДСНС дивиться на будівлю мерії на центральній площі міста після обстрілу Харкова, Україна, вівторок, 1 березня 2022 р. (AP Photo/Pavel Dorogoy)

Web link

Архів загиблих і поранених мирних жителів Харківської області є на сьогодні одним з найґрунтовніших документів у відкритому доступі.

Мати, яка загинула, тримаючи свою дитину в обіймах; літня жінка, яку вразив уламок, коли вона годувала бездомних котів; сім’я, похована під завалами протягом кількох тижнів – це одні із сотень спустошливих людських історій, які містить новий дослідницький портал Airwars про війну в Україні. На сьогодні він є одним з найбільш детальних документів у відкритому доступі про вплив війни на цивільне населення.

Протягом дев’яти місяців нова дослідницька група “Airwars” по Україні ретельно задокументувала кожне оприлюднене повідомлення про заподіяну шкоду цивільному населенню від вибухової зброї під час “битви за Харків”, що тривала від початку російського вторгнення 24 лютого до 13 травня 2022 року.

Дані можна вивчати на порталі Airwars за допомогою інтерактивної карти, бази даних щодо цивільних жертв та теплової карти міста. Наші висновки доступні у повному дослідницькому звіті, що супроводжується методологічною нотаткою. Проєкт було створено як приклад для побудови публічно доступної бази даних з відкритих джерел про жертви серед цивільного населення в Україні. Цифри не претендують на вичерпність та остаточність.

Серед ключових висновків були такі:

Протягом досліджуваного періоду було повідомлено про загибель щонайменше 275 і до 438 цивільних осіб внаслідок використання вибухових засобів. Крім того, було повідомлено про поранення від 471 до 829 цивільних осіб. У випадках, коли місцеві джерела надавали більше детальну інформацію про жертв, “Airwars” встановив, що щонайменше 30 дітей, 52 жінки і 61 чоловік були ймовірно вбиті російськими військами. Щонайменше у 60 випадках (майже третина усіх інцидентів) цивільні, які загинули або були поранені внаслідок артилерійських обстрілів та ударів російською артилерією, перебували у своїх помешканнях. Війна мала руйнівний вплив на інфраструктуру у всьому місті. Щонайменше 16 випадків завдавання шкоди цивільному населенню пов’язані з обстрілом або ударом російської артилерії по лікарнях та інших медичних закладах. У 95% повідомлених інцидентів про завдану цивільному населенню шкоду не було жодних супутніх повідомлень про військові жертви або пошкодження військових об’єктів попри заяви Росії про те, що вони атакують лише військові об’єкти. Найжахливіший випадок заподіяння шкоди цивільному населенню було зафіксовано 9 березня в Ізюмі. Внаслідок ударів і артилерійському обстрілу по п’ятиповерховому будинку загинуло від 44 до 54 цивільних осіб, включаючи до шести дітей. У порівнянні з іншими конфліктами, які відстежувала “Airwars”, було значно менше публічно названих жертв – швидше за все, це результат політики українського уряду щодо захисту даних і конфіденційності.

Знімок інтерактивної бази даних Airwars про жертви серед цивільного населення в Харкові

Битва за Харків

“Airwars” є провідною світовою організацією, яка відстежує вплив військових конфліктів на цивільне населення, і вже десять років відслідковує наслідки військового втручання в конфлікти, в тому числі втручання коаліції під проводом США проти Ісламської держави та російських військових в Сирії.

Війна в Україні призвела до безпрецедентного зосередження уваги на заподіяній шкоді цивільному населенню, але масштаби насильства перевищили всі механізми оцінки жертв. Було запущено численні проєкти, які містять як дослідження з відкритих джерел інформації, так і розслідування на місцевості. Ці спроби підрахунку втрат є кумулятивними, кожна з яких висуває різні деталі на перший план. Метою таких зусиль є, зрештою, створення доказової бази для встановлення справедливості та притягнення до відповідальності, одночасно створюючи уявлення про масштаби втрат.

Після консультацій з міжнародними та українськими партнерами щодо прогалин у такому обліку втрат “Airwars” зосередила свою пілотну програму на битві за Харків.

Друге за розміром місто України, Харків, є одним з найбільш постраждалих міст під час війни. Розташоване приблизно за 40 км від російського кордону, з великою кількістю російськомовного населення і тісними зв’язками з російською економікою, місто було ключовою ціллю агресора з початку російського вторгнення 24 лютого 2022 року.

Коли російські війська вторглися в Україну з різних напрямків, тисячі військових увійшли до Харківської області. Міста і села зазнали сильних обстрілів. За кілька тижнів ключові міста області, зокрема, Ізюм, Куп’янськ та Балаклія, було окуповано російськими військами.

Сам Харків ніколи не був окупований, але, натомість, став ареною інтенсивних боїв та массової евакуації.

В кінці квітня 2022 року українські війська розпочали контрнаступ у Харківській області. До 13 травня російські війська були витіснені з околиць міста – битва за Харків була оголошена виграною. Ще кілька місяців знадобилося українським військам, щоб повернути інші окуповані Росією міста в Харківській області.

Людські страждання

Дослідження “Airwars”, яке проводила наша українська дослідницька група протягом дев’яти місяців, передбачало ретельний збір усіх публічно оприлюднених подробиць щодо вчинення шкоди цивільному населенню. Загалом дослідники відстежили 200 випадків завдання шкоди цивільному населенню, заподіяної вибуховою зброєю за цей період. Кожен із них має власну спеціальну оцінку та сторінку на вебсайті “Airwars”. Майже у всіх випадках російська військова агресія зазначалася як єдина відповідальна сторона.

Ці випадки розповідають про загальну картину війни, а також про окремі страждання. Сусіди, які загинули, обідаючи разом, 96-річна жертва Голокосту, яка загинула вдома – жахливі історії, які складаються в більш широку картину.

17 березня 2022 року мати загинула, коли її будинок був обстріляний вночі. За повідомленнями, вона тримала на руках свою чотирирічну доньку, щоб захистити її. Дитина вижила.

Дослідники “Airwars” також відстежували пошкодження інфраструктури, причому заклади охорони здоров’я були одними з найбільш поширених об’єктів атак. “Airwars” задокументувала пошкодження 16 закладів охорони здоров’я під час інцидентів, у яких також загинули чи були поранені цивільні особи. Серед них були лікарні, пункт донорства крові, аптека, а також швидка допомога. 3 березня сирійський лікар, відомий як гінеколог з міста Дейр-ез-Зор, загинув, коли, за попередніми даними, російський міномет вдарив по Харківській обласній лікарні.

За схемою, схожою на ту, про яку часто повідомляють у Сирії, Airwars також відстежила три повідомлення про так звані “подвійні удари”, коли за ударом слідує другий раунд ударів в той час, коли екстрені служби або мирні мешканці перебувають на місці інциденту.

У 95% випадків постраждали лише цивільні особи

Ключовою дискусією протягом війни було те, в якій мірі російські війська завдавали ударів по легітимних військових цілях. Російські офіційні особи звинувачують Україну в розміщенні військових цілей поблизу цивільного населення, тоді як Україна стверджує, що удари є навмисно невибірковими.

Наші дані показують, що в 94,5% випадків, коли було повідомлено про загибель або поранення цивільних осіб (189 інцидентів), місцеві джерела повідомляли, що цивільні особи були єдиними жертвами російської агресії, і не згадували жодних військових об’єктів чи загиблих українських військовослужбовців.

Хоча оприлюдення інформації про втрати серед українських військових заборонено згідно з українським законодавством, що, можливо, пояснює відносно низькі показники військових втрат, цей висновок перегукується з іншими повідомленнями правозахисних організацій, таких як Human Rights Watch.

Українське інформаційне середовище відрізняється від інших конфліктів, за якими стежить “Airwars”, відсутністю відомостей про особисті дані жертв. В українському медіапросторі згадується мало імен жертв, а також наявна лише обмежена інформація про їх стать, вік або професію. Це значно відрізняється від інших конфліктів, які відстежує “Airwars”, включаючи авіаудари США в Ємені та Іраку, російські бомбардування в Сирії та ізраїльські бомбардування в Газі та Сирії, і створює перешкоди у більш грунтовному обліку жертв.

Наприклад, за один інтенсивний місяць бомбардувань сирійського міста Алеппо російськими та сирійськими урядовими військами в липні 2016 року наша команда відстежила 76 різних інцидентів, в яких постраждало цивільне населення, і там ми встановили ідентичність 187 жертв. У березні 2022 року в Харківській області ми відстежили 70 окремих інцидентів, пов’язаних із завданням шкоди цивільному населенню внаслідок російських ударів, але загалом встановили ідентичність лише 37 жертв.

Існує низка потенційних причин цього браку інформації. Ключовим фактором є політика України щодо захисту приватності, яку влада застосовує для захисту особистих даних цивільних осіб. Вона дозволяє оприлюднювати імена лише за згодою жертви або її/його сім’ї.

У Іраку, Лівії, Сомалі та Сирії такі офіційні структури або відсутні, або не викликають довіру серед цивільного населення. У зв’язку з цим цивільні особи були змушені заповнювати прогалини – публікувати дані про загиблих у соціальних мережах, зокрема у Facebook. В той час, Україна має дієву державу зі структурами безпеки, розслідування, судово-експертної та медично-правової експертизи, які працювали над обліком цивільних постраждалих ще з початку російської агресії проти країни.

(Translated to Ukrainian by Igor Corcevoi and Iryna Chupryna)

Основною мовою “Airwars” є англійська. У разі виникнення питань, пов’язаних з цим документом, будь ласка, перегляньте нашу англомовну версію тут або зв’яжіться з нами за адресою info@airwars.org

▲ Співробітник ДСНС дивиться на будівлю мерії на центральній площі міста після обстрілу Харкова, Україна, вівторок, 1 березня 2022 р. (AP Photo/Pavel Dorogoy)

Battle of Kharkiv interactive civilian harm database launched

Published

May 18, 2023

Written by

Airwars Staff

Web link

Archive of civilians killed and injured in Ukrainian region among the most in-depth public documentation to date

A mother killed cradling her child in her arms, an elderly woman hit by shrapnel while feeding stray cats, a family buried under rubble for weeks – these are among hundreds of devastating human stories recorded in Airwars’ new Ukraine research portal, among the most in-depth public documentation of the war’s human impact to date.

Over nine months, Airwars’ new Ukraine research team documented every publicly reported civilian harm allegation from explosive weapons in the ‘Battle of Kharkiv,’ which lasted from the Russian invasion on February 24th until May 13th 2022.

▲ A member of the Ukrainian Emergency Service looks at the City Hall building in the central square following shelling in Kharkiv, Ukraine, Tuesday, March 1, 2022. (AP Photo/Pavel Dorogoy)

Airwars to challenge UK’s refusal to reveal details of sole civilian harm incident in ISIS war

Published

April 5, 2023

Written by

Airwars Staff

Web link

Tribunal follows Ministry of Defence and Information Commissioner's refusal to release details of incident

Airwars is to challenge the Ministry of Defence and the Information Commissioner at a tribunal over the refusal to release basic information about the sole civilian the UK accepts killing in the war against the Islamic State, it announced on Wednesday.

During the eight years of the UK’s contribution to the Anti-ISIS Coalition in Iraq and Syria, British aircrafts dropped more than 4,300 munitions, and the Ministry of Defence claims to have killed more than 4,000 ISIS militants. Yet the strike on March 26, 2018 remains the only time the UK government has officially accepted harming civilians.

▲ US and British Reapers are playing a major role in the war against ISIL (Library image via US Air Force/ Staff Sgt. John Bainter)

يكشف تحقيق مشترك لـ الحروب الجوية مع الجارديان عن سقوط ضحايا مدنيين جراء غارات جوية بريطانية

Published

April 4, 2023

Written by

Airwars Staff

Header Image

لقطة شاشة من تحقيق الحروب الجوية في الأضرار التي لحقت بالمدنيين جراء غارات المملكة المتحدة

Web link

كشف تحقيق استمر لمدة عام عن مقتل عشرات المدنيين جراء غارات جوية محتملة للمملكة المتحدة

قضت الحروب الجوية و الجارديان العام الماضي في التحقيق في الغارات الجوية البريطانية في العراق وسوريا ، بين عامي 2014 و 2020. ووجدنا أدلة على ما لا يقل عن ست غارات جوية وقعت في الموصل ، يُرجح أنها كانت هجمات بريطانية ، قتلت وألحقت الأذى بالمدنيين في المدينة.

▲ لقطة شاشة من تحقيق الحروب الجوية في الأضرار التي لحقت بالمدنيين جراء غارات المملكة المتحدة

Airwars and The Guardian investigation reveals British civilian harm

Published

March 24, 2023

Written by

Airwars Staff

Web link

Year-long investigation identifies dozens of civilians killed in likely UK strikes

A new Airwars and The Guardian investigation has identified dozens of Iraqi and Syrian civilians killed by likely UK airstrikes, as part of a widespread package picking apart the British claim to have fought a near victimless eight-year war.

Since 2014, the UK has dropped more than 4,000 munitions in the war against the so-called Islamic State. It claims that those strikes have killed more than 4,000 ISIS militants, but has only accepted responsibility for the death of one civilian.

▲ A screengrab from Airwars investigation into UK civilian harm

What next for the Explosive Weapons declaration?

Published

November 25, 2022

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Header Image

The signing ceremony for the Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (EWIPA) on November 18th 2022 in Dublin Castle. Over 80 state delegations such as the UK (pictured) officially endorsed the declaration.

Web link

An overview of the actions needed

On Friday November 18th, states and civil society joined together in Dublin Castle to officially endorse the long-awaited international Political Declaration on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA). So far, 82 states have signed onto the declaration; this is a similar number to the initial signatories to other international declarations that have created new norms and standards in warfare, such as the Safe Schools Declaration. Among the signatories to the EWIPA declaration are states such as the US, UK, Netherlands, and Belgium, all of which made sizable contributions to the coalition against ISIS in Iraq and Syria that killed an estimated 8,194–13,249 civilians.

According to Action on Armed Violence, when EWIPAs are used, over 90% of those harmed are civilians. Airwars recently put together a series of maps showing the clear and troubling connection between population density in cities and civilian deaths during urban warfare. Even beyond those who are killed immediately, the reverberating effects are often severe and pervasive, with schools, hospitals, livelihoods, and basic resources like food and water becoming inaccessible for years. This has played out in recent conflicts in cities such as Mosul and Raqqa, in which entire city parts were destroyed and have been made uninhabitable.

The Irish-led, UN backed international declaration is a groundbreaking step towards curbing the use of such weapons. It comes at the back of a decade of civil society focus and pressure on this, led by the INEW network, which Airwars is a part of. As with any political declaration, the results are only as good as the implementation. Below, we outline some of the challenges states must address as they begin the process of implementing the EWIPA declaration.

States must be frank about gaps in their current approach

The first step in understanding how to implement the declaration to limit the use of EWIPAs must be for each state to critically examine current gaps in its own approach and engage in a meaningful process to address these. This in itself might be a stumbling block for some; while states such as the US and the Netherlands have shown increasing willingness to address gaps in their approach to the protection of civilians by working with civil society and experts, others have not.

The UK for instance, still falls behind allies in terms of transparency on evidence collection around civilian harm. Under the declaration, states committed to: “Collect, share, and make publicly available disaggregated data on the direct and indirect effects on civilians and civilian objects of military operations involving the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, where feasible and appropriate”. Despite the UK representative in Dublin noting during the signing ceremony that “the UK already has policies and procedures in place to support the implementation”, this has to date not been evident when it comes to public reporting on the effects of UK military actions.

As it stands, the UK maintains that it has evidence of only a single civilian casualty from its actions in the seven year anti-ISIS campaign, for example, despite extensive military involvement. The US, by comparison, has admitted to over 1,400 civilian casualties as part of the Coalition. When challenged, UK officials tend to emphasise that they are aware that is not a case of lower civilian casualties than in previous conflicts – but of poor evidence gathering. This position was summarised by former Armed Forces Minister, Mark Lancaster, who emphasised in 2019 that; “[I]t is not our position that there has been only a single civilian casualty as a result of our military action. What we are saying is that we have evidence of only a single, or what we believe to have been a single, civilian casualty.”

In spite of this oft-repeated recognition that the evidence gathering mechanisms of the UK are not able to accurately reflect the reality on the ground, there is, to our knowledge, no process in place to improve this approach and little willingness to engage with civil society to address this. If this is not addressed, there will be a significant gap between the rhetoric of UK leadership when it comes to EWIPA and the reality on the ground.

States must build clarity on who is responsible for implementing the EWIPA declaration on a national level

The second step states must take to implement the EWIPA declaration is to gain better internal understandings of who will be involved in its implementation. This must include those focusing specifically on EWIPA, but also those focusing on topics such as human security, the protection of civilians, humanitarian response, development, diplomacy, and all the other elements required to protect those caught in conflict from being harmed by explosive weapons.The structures behind overseas military engagements are complex, quick changing, and lines of responsibility are often murky. Yet it is only if all involved in such operations, across parliament, ministries of defence, and ministries of foreign affairs and overseas development, are dedicated to limiting the use of EWIPA, understanding their impact, and tracking civilian harm that occurs if they are used, that implementation will be effective.

States must be open to civil society inclusion in the implementation of the EWIPA declaration

Civil society actors, many of us united under the INEW banner, played a significant role in the development of the EWIPA declaration and the advocacy that brought states to the process, a fact that was acknowledged by a large number of states at the conference in Dublin. We stand ready to support the implementation in national contexts and across international coalitions. Many civil society organisations have spent years – sometimes decades – developing protection mechanisms and civilian harm tracking mechanisms, as well as conducting research into valuable lessons on the impact of EWIPA. Civil society organisations are also often direct links to the communities affected. It is in all of our interests that these resources are effectively shared with those in power.

In those states where there is a history of poor transparency and accountability on civilian harm and civilian harm tracking, governments and their militaries must also commit to a certain level of transparency on the implementation of the EWIPA declaration. They should work with civil society actors to understand the gaps in their current approach and set up milestones for implementation.

Looking forward

The endorsing ceremony was a promising step towards recognising the immense harm that these weapons have caused in recent years – and the harm they will continue to cause as their impact reverberates through communities. If the declaration is implemented well, fewer civilians will be harmed by explosive weapons in their cities, towns, and camps.

Yet there are pitfalls each state must avoid if their implementation of the declaration is to be meaningful. They must be frank about current gaps in their system and must be willing to address them. They must gain an oversight of everyone who will play a role in the effective implementation of EWIPA. And they should work with civil society actors who have resources to share and stand ready to support implementation.

Additional resources:

Implementation Brief: Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, CIVIC, November 2022 (here) Safeguarding Civilians: A Humanitarian Interpretation of the Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, Human Rights watch and the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law school, October 2022 (here) Implementing the Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas: Key Areas and Implementing Actions, INEW and Article 36, November 2022 (here) Over 80 Countries Committed to Curb Use of Explosive Weapons, Now Comes the Hard Part, Bonnie Docherty, Human Rights Watch for Just Security, November 23rd 2022 (here)

▲ The signing ceremony for the Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (EWIPA) on November 18th 2022 in Dublin Castle. Over 80 state delegations such as the UK (pictured) officially endorsed the declaration.

SNP launches paper on the protection of civilians with extensive civil society input

Published

November 23, 2022

Written by

Airwars Staff

Header Image

The SNP Foreign and Defense front bench launch the new policy approach, "A Scottish approach to the protection of civilians in conflict" in Westminster on November 22nd 2022 (Image via Airwars staff)

Web link

The Scottish National Party launched a protection of civilians paper on Tuesday, becoming the largest European party to have such plans. The paper was written with significant civil society input, coordinated and led by Airwars.

The newly-launched paper dictates how a future independent Scotland would conduct conflict and protect civilians before, during, and after Scottish operations.

It includes a pledge to introduce oversight of special forces, a strong focus on the importance of tracking civilian harm and being transparent about the findings, as well as a commitment to limit the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

As SNP Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs, Alyn Smith MP said during the launch, “making these points isn’t just about an independent Scotland but it’s about what we can all do to get the world to a better place than where we are now. The protection of civilians needs to be higher up the agenda.”

The SNP currently controls Holyrood, the devolved Scottish parliament, and is the third largest party in the UK national parliament. It advocates for an independent Scotland and is campaigning for a fresh Scottish independence referendum in the coming years.

A small, but growing number of countries have declared civilian harm mitigation policies. In response to civil society and media pressure, the United States recently rewrote its entire policy to try and reduce the number of civilians it kills. The Netherlands is undergoing a similar process through its Roadmap Process.

Yet the UK has not kept up with allies and lacks a detailed, transparent policy on how it will mitigate harm, and respond when it does occur. With this paper, the SNP distances itself from this approach. As well as dictating how a future independent Scotland would engage in conflict, the policy also outlines the key beliefs of the SNP in regard to how the UK should fight wars. These include a firm commitment to monitoring the civilian impact of conflicts, as well as to transparency about where and when strikes are committed.

It also commits the party to a UN-backed declaration to limit the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, which disproportionately kill civilians who make up more than 90% of those killed when such weapons are used. Last week, delegates from over 80 countries, including the US and the UK, signed an agreement committing to limit their use in Dublin.

🌎Today @ChrisLawSNP, @AlynSmith & I have published a new policy paper on the protection of civilians in conflict. UN Security Council Resolution 1265 was adopted more than 20 years ago, but the failure to protect civilians in conflict is stark. The world needs a fresh approach. pic.twitter.com/HNJDxClzs8

— Stewart McDonald (@StewartMcDonald) November 22, 2022

Airwars coordinated the extensive civil society input into the policy, ensuring that each section was written – and reviewed – by experts on the respective areas covered in the paper, such as women, peace, and security, climate change and atrocity prevention.

“With the release of their paper, Scotland is joining others in setting a new standard for how to protect civilians caught in conflict,” said Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen, Policy Specialist at Airwars. “The policy is unique in the extent to which it has allowed for meaningful civil society engagement, and its focus on civilian harm tracking is a nod to the vital importance of acknowledging when harm has occurred and learning important lessons.

While the ongoing war in Ukraine has brought civilian harm to the forefront of news outlets and political debate, such harm is not new. Over the last eight years, the US-led coalition against ISIS in Iraq and Syria caused 8,197–13,252 deaths, yet contributors to the coalition have all failed to account for these. To date, the UK acknowledges only a single civilian casualty from its own contribution. With their new paper, SNP are outlining that an independent Scotland would distance itself from this approach and instead become a leader on the protection of civilians.

Read the full policy approach here.

▲ The SNP Foreign and Defense front bench launch the new policy approach, "A Scottish approach to the protection of civilians in conflict" in Westminster on November 22nd 2022 (Image via Airwars staff)

Dutch Parliament set to debate improvements in policies to protect civilians

Published

October 27, 2022

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Web link

Airwars and PAX release briefing for Dutch MPs ahead of Parliamentary debate, expected to cover civilian casualties from Dutch military operations and the impact of 2015 airstrike on Hawija.

In preparation for a debate in the Dutch Parliament on November 3rd, in which the Minister of Defence is expected to cover a range of topics including progress on the Roadmap process and improvements within the protection of civilians from Dutch military actions, Airwars and PAX released a briefing for Dutch MPs today.

The briefing gives an overview of Dutch efforts to improve the mitigation and response to civilian harm to date, and the challenges that are yet to be addressed to ensure that the Dutch protection framework is up to scratch. It suggests specific areas MPs should remain aware of, including continued questions on the level of transparency offered by the MOD, the importance of the Ministry of Defence maintaining clear milestones as it implements stronger PoC systems, and rehabilitation payments to Hawija, Iraq.

Click on the briefing below (note this is an informal translation from the original Dutch briefing, which you can find here):

▲ Hawijah, Iraq in 2021. Six years after the Dutch airstrike, parts of the town remain destroyed (Image courtesy of Roos Boer, PAX)

United States new Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan cautiously welcomed by civil society

Published

August 26, 2022

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Web link

New action plan contains positive steps - the focus now is on implementation and renewed efforts to ensure past cases are not forgotten.

Airwars joins our civil society partners in welcoming the publication of the much awaited Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP), released yesterday by the US Department of Defense.

The CHMR-AP reflects a years-long process of sustained pressure by individuals, civil society, journalists, activists and legislators to challenge the way the US military conducts itself in the battlefield, and force the Department of Defense to review practices that have had deadly outcomes for civilians across the globe – from the battles of Mosul and Raqqa in the war against ISIS, to the botched Kabul strike last year.

In response to this sustained pressure, catalysed by a series of Pulitzer-winning New York Times articles exposing serious concerns with US military practices in January 2022, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III issued a memorandum calling for the creation of the CHMR-AP. Austin called for the CHMR-AP to set up a process for the establishment of a new centre of excellence, and a framework for standardising civilian harm reporting, investigation and mitigation.

The 46-page document is an unprecedented move toward transparency, and was put together following a series of key engagements with civil society actors and independent specialists. Presenting a far reaching future-looking agenda, it is applicable to the ‘full spectrum of conflict’ – from current operations, large and small, to any future situations of high-intensity conflict.

Covering 11 distinct objectives – ranging from actions to reduce confirmation bias to implementation of a new data management system; each with a proposed set of phased actions and associated resource plan, the CHMR-AP presents an ambitious set of actions that, if implemented appropriately, could present a radical departure from existing policy in some areas. It sets a strong precedent for future US military action – and, importantly, an example for allies to follow.

Read the DoD factsheet here and the full action plan here.

Why is the CHMR-AP so important?

While the action plan itself is focused on reviewing and reforming the US’ policies on civilian harm mitigation and tracking, it should also have significant implications for the partners that support the US in modern conflicts, such as the UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, and others. As it stands, US allies have been shown to have limited oversight, transparency, or accountability for civilian harm from their own actions. The UK, for instance, admits to only a single civilian casualty from its 8 years of support to the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq and Syria, in which the UK has been second only to the US in the number of munitions dropped in some battlefields. Airwars’ estimates of civilians killed by this coalition could be well over 8,000.

Over the last few years, Airwars and our civil society partners have advocated with several of these states to review and improve national approaches and policies to civilian harm mitigation; yet, while some states have taken on such reviews, none have been as far-reaching or ambitious as the CHMR-AP.

Beyond these national processes to improve approaches to civilian harm mitigation, the CHMR-AP also comes out in the context of a new international agreement on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, due to be signed by the US and key allies in October this year. The CHMR-AP’s introduction of the term ‘civilian environment’ presents a broad understanding of civilian harm – with reference to the need to understand population density, urban systems and the ‘the interconnected relationships between the civilian population, natural resources, infrastructure, and essential services’. This is an important move towards acknowledging the long-term consequences of military action on civilians caught in conflict.

What does this mean for civilians harmed by the US in past actions?

Perhaps the biggest gap in the CHMR-AP is that it includes no reference to reviewing past cases of alleged civilian harm; including addressing the 37 cases that are still open pending assessment for civilian harm claims made against the US-led Coalition in the war against ISIS.

According to Airwars’ archive, the likely death toll resulting from the actions of the US-led Coalition’s actions in the war against ISIS alone could be at least 8,192 and as many as 13,247 civilians. The US has conceded causing overall at least 1,417 civilian fatalities – but has rejected 2,674 harm claims. These rejected cases could account for thousands of casualties.

Total estimates for the last twenty years of US actions reach as many as 48,308 civilian deaths – with over 90,000 declared strikes across seven major conflict zones throughout the so-called ‘forever wars’.

Key questions therefore remain unanswered: will the remaining open cases be reviewed? Will they be reviewed with this new policy in mind? How might the new policy change the outcome of those investigations? And if these open cases are reviewed in line with new policies – what does that mean for the cases that have previously been rejected as ‘non-credible’ under a system that has now been widely acknowledged to have been in need of reform?

Looking back at past cases has significant implications for commitments to amends processes – a section outlined as an objective in the CHMR-AP, although with no mention of how the new action plan would affect outstanding claims or clear detail on implementation of future processes.

What should we be looking out for now?

The implementation of the CHMR-AP will be key. While the action plan outlines a comprehensive set of actions and resource plans, it is yet to be determined the extent to which the policy will be implemented effectively and with continued consultation with independent voices. This is particularly important as US actions are on-going across the globe – Airwars has recorded an uptick in strikes in Somalia since Biden announced his decision to redeploy troops in May this year, while a new set of strikes were announced in Syria on Iran-backed militants just as the CHMR-AP was released.

Additionally, as noted by Human Rights Watch Washington Director Sarah Yager in a comment to CNN, the staffing and resources required must be arranged as soon as possible in order to ensure that “the principles and values behind doing this are deeply embedded in the Pentagon”, before any significant leadership change in the US administration, which could delay or even derail current plans for improvements.

Allies of the US should also take notice – and take action. Particularly with key sections of the CHMR-AP including reference to the application of the new action plan to multinational operations, US allies will have to review their own practices.

Several crucial points in the action plan are also still lacking clarity, and it will likely be some time before the full extent of the policy has been reviewed in its entirety by experts. Airwars is coordinating closely with our civil society partners in the US to ensure a comprehensive and thorough review of the proposed action plan, in order to ensure appropriate oversight and support from civil society as the action plan enters into the next phase of implementation.

▲ Ruins of a family home in which 35 civilians died at Mosul on June 13th 2017 - in what is now known to have been US and Australian airstrikes (Image courtesy of the Al Saffar family. All rights reserved.)

Civil society releases joint recommendations for US Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Plan

Published

July 8, 2022

Written by

Airwars Staff

Web link

Airwars joins partners in publishing guidance to the US Department of Defense (DoD), ahead of its own civilian harm review

Recommendations published today urge the Department of Defense to revise its assessment and investigation processes, including through practical steps such as routinely engaging with civil society to ensure that civilian harm policies are informed by civilians affected by US and partnered actions, and casualties are recorded and tracked through transparent processes that are fit for purpose.

Airwars joined Amnesty International USA, CARE, Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), Human Rights Watch, Humanity & Inclusion, InterAction, Norwegian Refugee Council, Oxfam America, and PAX in preparing and publishing the recommendations.

Read the full list of recommendations here.

To date, serious concerns with US civilian harm policies undermine effective routes to accountability for affected populations. These concerns have been raised by civil society and in recent Pulitzer-prize winning investigations in the New York Times.

While the US reform process is intended to be forward-looking, significant questions still remain about civilians harmed in US and partnered operations over the past two decades – not least in the war against the Islamic State. Overall, the US-led Coalition has conceded killing at least 1,437 civilians in the war against ISIS – while Airwars believes the likely tally could be significantly higher; with between 8,192 and 13,243 civilian deaths recorded in the Airwars archive.

▲ President Joe Biden holds a meeting with military and civilian defense leadership, including Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, April 2022 (Image via DoD)

Airwars joins ten civil society organisations to call for the UK to urgently address civilian harm policies

Published

May 27, 2022

Written by

Airwars Staff

Web link

On the final day of Protection of Civilians Week, eleven civil society organisations request to meet the UK Secretary of State for Defence to discuss improvements on the way the UK mitigates, accounts and investigates instances of civilian harm.

As the UN Secretary General’s annual Protection of Civilians report welcomes steps by the United States to develop new civilian harm mitigation and tracking mechanisms, a coalition of civil society organisations specialised in the subject call on the United Kingdom to follow suit.

After devastating revelations published in The New York Times late last year revealed critical failures by the US-led Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) in the prevention of civilian harm in Iraq and Syria, the Biden administration has launched a review to improve policies on data collection, reporting and acknowledgement of civilian harm, improvements which aim to overhaul processes and create a Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMRAP), as well as a civilian protection ‘center of excellence’.

These revelations add to the strong evidence base of civilian harm from CJTF-OIR operations built up by researchers, humanitarian agencies, and international organisations over the years.

Developments in the US have substantial implications for the UK’s own approach to civilian harm, as the UK played an important role in CJTF-OIR. The UK must now engage with civil society on these issues and implement urgent reforms.

The use of explosive weapons, with wide area effects, in urban areas continues to be a cause of immense human suffering – with nine out of ten casualties being civilians.

“We believe that the UK for its part has an opportunity to be a global leader on civilian protection issues” – Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), Airwars, Amnesty International UK, Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), Crisis Action, Every Casualty Counts, Iraq Body Count, Reprieve, Save the Children, and War Child call for Rt. Hon. Ben Wallace MP to act urgently.

Read our full letter here and below:

Rt. Hon. Ben Wallace Secretary of State for Defence Ministry of Defence Whitehall SW1A 1HB

27th May 2022

Dear Secretary of State,

RE: Protection of Civilians Week – time to address UK policy on civilian harm mitigation, transparency, and oversight

On the occasion of UN Protection of Civilians Week, the undersigned civil society organisations are writing to you to develop a constructive dialogue and request a meeting with you to discuss the UK’s policy on civilian harm mitigation, transparency and oversight. As some of our closest allies have begun to reform their approach to civilian harm in military operations, we believe there is an urgent need for the UK to learn from developing practice on this issue.

Revelations published in the New York Times in 2021 about critical failures by Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) to prevent, respond to, and be held accountable for civilian harm caused in Iraq and Syria add to the strong evidence base of civilian harm from CJTF-OIR operations built up by researchers, humanitarian agencies, and international organisations over the years. This public disquiet partly spurred, as you will know, the US Secretary of State of Defense to direct the Department of Defense (DoD) to improve policies on data collection, reporting and acknowledgement of civilian harm, improvements which aim to overhaul processes and create a Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMRAP), as well as a civilian protection ‘center of excellence.’

Given the important role of UK forces in combined operations as part of CJTF-OIR, these developments clearly have substantial implications for the UK’s own approach to civilian harm.

All states participating in CJTF-OIR, including the US and UK, should ensure that all instances of reported civilian harm are investigated and accounted for. We urge for constructive dialogue around the hundreds of civilian-harm claims from local communities that indicate that large-scale civilian harm occurred as a direct result of CJTF-OIR operations.

We believe that the UK for its part has an opportunity to be a global leader on civilian protection issues. We would like to discuss the following with you:

● Engagement with civil society on these issues and involvement of civil society in implementing improvements

● Implications from the reviews of US practice and the CHMRAP for the UK’s own approach to civilian harm mitigation and response

● How the UK could contribute to developing the knowledge base on civilian harm mitigation and response

● How civilian protection concerns are included in UK support for partner forces, lessons learnt from civilian harm incidents and standards set for best practice.

● How the UK can play a leading role in ensuring historic instances of civilian harm allegations resulting from CJTF-OIR actions are properly accounted for.

● How the UK can lead the strengthening of NATO’s Protection of Civilian preparedness.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Action On Armed Violence (AOAV) Airwars Amnesty International UK Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights (CIVIC) Center for Civilians in Conflict Crisis Action Every Casualty Counts Iraq Body Count Reprieve Save the Children War Child

▲ The UK Ministry of Defence, Whitehall

Civilian harm fell in 2021, Airwars annual report finds

Published

May 10, 2022

Written by

Imogen Piper

Web link

Number of civilians killed decreases across monitored conflicts, while focus on explosive weapons use grows

Civilian harm dropped across most of the major conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa in 2021, Airwars’ annual report has found.

The number of allegations of civilians killed by nearly all belligerents monitored by Airwars fell in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, though there was an escalation in the Israel-Palestinian conflict which caused significant human suffering.

Read Airwars’ full annual report here

US actions decline

The United States, which has fought multiple campaigns across the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia over the past two decades, saw a significant decrease in its activities.

Across all the US campaigns Airwars monitors, including in Syria and Iraq, as well as counterterrorism campaigns in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, civilian harm from US actions fell in 2021, continuing a downward trend in recent years.

In Iraq there were no reports of civilian harm from US actions, while in Syria at least 15 and up to 27 civilians were likely killed by US-led Coalition actions in 20 incidents throughout the year – mostly in combined air and ground actions that appeared to target alleged remnant ISIS fighters.

In Yemen at least two civilians were reportedly killed by US strikes during the year while there were no reliable local allegations of civilians likely killed by US strikes in Libya or Pakistan, according to Airwars’ assessment of local sources.

Even taking into account hundreds of airstrikes in Afghanistan which both the Trump and Biden administrations had initially kept secret, 2021 saw the lowest numbers of declared US military strikes globally since 2006.

However, 2021 was also a year in which focus was again placed on civilian harm caused by historic US actions.

To mark the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist atrocities, Airwars conducted an investigation to estimate how many civilians were likely killed by US forces alone in the subsequent 20 years of the so-called War on Terror. The research concluded that an estimated 22,000 to 48,000 civilians had been killed directly by US actions in two decades of war according to public records – the vast majority of fatalities were in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The findings were cited in the opening remarks of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing “’Targeted Killing’ and the Rule of Law: The Legal and Human Costs of 20 Years of U.S. Drone Strikes,” and were covered by more than 60 news outlets globally, in at least ten languages.

The Pentagon’s troubling management of civilian harm allegations was highlighted by another Airwars investigation during 2021, leading the Pentagon to withdraw and republish their own annual report to Congress. Airwars uncovered nine historic incidents in Iraq and Syria that the US had declared responsibility for killing civilians in, which were actually conducted by US allies including Australia, France, the United Kingdom and Belgium.

Brief but brutal Gaza conflict

In May 2021 an intense and deadly conflict lasting just eleven days erupted between Israeli and Palestinian forces. As on previous occasions, civilians paid the highest price. Airwars documented the human impact of this short but brutal conflict in both Gaza and Israel, working for the first time in three primary languages – Arabic, Hebrew and English.

The research found that Israeli strikes, continually impacting across the densely populated streets of Gaza, led to the likely deaths of between 151 and 192 civilians. Over a third of civilians killed in Gaza were children and in more than 70% of the allegations documented by Airwars, civilians – not militants – were the only documented victims. In Israel, ten civilians were directly killed by rockets fired by Hamas and Islamic Jihad from Gaza.

The report also documented civilian harm from Israeli strikes in Syria, which across eight years had led to the deaths of between 14 and 40 civilians. Comparatively this civilian harm estimate stands in stark contrast to the numbers of those killed in just eleven days. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world, whilst Israeli strikes in Syria were conducted on military targets mostly in sparsely populated areas.

Airwars’ Senior Investigator Joe Dyke partnered with the Guardian on a piece interviewing the residents of a tower destroyed by Israel Defence Forces during the May 2021 conflict. Al-Jalaa Tower was home to dozens of civilians and a number of offices, including those of Associated Press and Al-Jazeera. All were given an hour’s notice to evacuate the tower and scramble together their possessions before seeing their homes destroyed in front of them. The investigation recently won an Amnesty Media Award.

Russian assault in Syria

Long before Russia’s assault on Ukraine in February 2022, Airwars had been tracking civilian harm caused by extensive Russian actions in Syria.

Whilst allegations of civilian harm fell to their lowest rate this year since 2015, after a 2020 ceasefire agreement between Russia and Turkey continued to hold, Putin’s forces continued to strike Idlib and other rebel-held areas of Syria with air and artillery strikes.

Approximately 48% of civilian harm allegations against Russia during 2021 occurred in Idlib, whilst 2% occurred in Hama, and 23% in Aleppo governorate. In total as many as 280 civilians were killed by Russian and/or Syrian regime air and artillery strikes.

This significant but comparatively lower civilian casualty count came alongside Russia’s escalation of military operations in preparation for Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, which has subsequently led to mass civilian harm.

Explosive weapons

An overarching theme throughout Airwars’ work during the year, and a key focus for our advocacy outreach, was on restricting the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA).

Whether in Syria, Iraq, Gaza or any of the other conflicts Airwars monitors, when explosive weapons are used in densely populated areas, the potential for civilian harm dramatically increases.

Throughout 2021, Airwars worked with international partners to support a strongly worded UN-backed international political declaration against the use of EWIPA. The final UN-backed conference debating this declaration will be held in summer 2022, with Airwars playing a key role advocating for change.

▲ An airstrike in Gaza is the front cover image for Airwars' 2021 annual report (Credit: Hani al Shaer)

Airwars/Guardian win Amnesty Media Award

Published

May 6, 2022

Written by

Airwars Staff

Web link

Visual article on Israeli attack in Gaza awarded best use of digital media

Airwars and The Guardian have won a prestigious Amnesty Media Award for their joint investigation into Israel’s striking of residential towers in Gaza.

The article, Countdown to the Airstrike, won in the Best Use of Digital Media category.

The article tells the story of the destruction a single tower in Gaza through their memories of the residents living there. The families were given only a few minutes to evacuate their belongings before Israel jets destroyed the building.

A screenshot of the story on The Guardian

Israel claimed that the tower was being used by the Islamist militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza, though residents strongly reject that claim.

Airwars was also nominated for its interactive mapping of civilian harm in Gaza during the conflict.

The full piece can be read here.

▲ A child uses his mobile device in the ruins of a building in Beit Lahia, Gaza Strip on May 26th 2021. © Mohamed Zaanoun

After Hawija: Dutch Ministry of Defence maps route forward

Published

April 22, 2022

Written by

Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen

Web link

Civil society consortium cautiously welcomes Ministry's letter to Dutch Parliament - but also urges bolder stance.

The Dutch Ministry of Defence, Defensie, has finally outlined to Parliament the steps it expects to take in both the short and long term, to address civilian casualties from Dutch actions.

Since late 2020, Airwars has been part of a consortium of civil society and academic organisations working with the Defensie to help improve the Dutch approach to civilian harm tracking and mitigation. This process was launched in response to revelations that the Dutch MoD was responsible for an airstrike in the Iraqi town of Hawija in 2015, which killed between 70 and 85 civilians. There was then a four-year cover-up of Dutch involvement in the deadly incident.

On April 7th, Minister of Defence Kajsa Ollongren wrote to Parliament outlining the expected route forward for Defensie. According to the Minister, “These steps go further than just transparency. It also involves tightening up internal (military) procedures, decision-making processes, monitoring, evaluation and accountability.”

Ollongren said that the Ministry recognises that preventing civilian harm “is a responsibility that arises not only from international humanitarian law, but also from a moral obligation” and within her letter to Parliament, the Minister laid out ways that that Defensie must act to improve its systems.

These include five thematic short steps concerning the processes of decision-making, monitoring, evaluation, and accountability in future deployments. According to the Minister, these steps aim to ensure that Defensie improves the ways it considers risks to civilians; more clearly communicates transparency, and commits to periodically review the way this is done. Ollongren also highlighted the importance of transparency as a way to improve civilian harm accountability both for affected communities, and in providing more Parliamentary oversight in the Netherlands.

The plans also suggested that future mission evaluations will focus more on civilian casualty concerns. And Ollongren also promised in the letter that Defensie will be more involved in policy making on protection of civilians concerns, alongside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for example through follow-up training and exercises.

While there are positive developments and promising commitments in the letter, several significant gaps remain and vital opportunities were missed. the consortium believes. Below is our joint response to the policy announcement.

▲ Hawijah, Iraq in 2021. Six years after the Dutch airstrike, parts of the town remain destroyed (Image courtesy of Roos Boer, PAX)

As key Geneva meet ends, states edge towards explosive weapons deal

Published

April 8, 2022

Written by

Sanjana Varghese

Web link

International gathering brings nearer a protocol on restricting explosive weapon use in urban areas.

States edged closer to a political declaration on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas on April 8th, after three days of crunch talks in Geneva.

More than 65 states descended on the Swiss city for key talks on the wording of a political declaration that advocates believe would save thousands of lives by restricting the use of wide area effect explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA). Detractors, such as the United States government, argue it would unfairly limit the freedom of their own military actions and have threatened not to sign.

While no final text was agreed upon Friday, all sides struck an optimistic tone at the end of the three-day meet – saying a deal was nearer than ever. Delegates will meet again for one day in two months before an adoption ceremony expected in the summer.

“There are clearly differences of opinion but we have seen a very positive, solution oriented approach,” the chairperson, Ambassador Michael Gaffey of Ireland, said. “We are not simply working on a formula of words in a political declaration – we want to make a real difference and impact on the ground and foster behavioural change.”

The talks were given additional urgency by the ongoing war in Ukraine, and Russia’s extensive use of explosive weapons on its cities. Moscow did not attend the talks.

Even the United States, widely viewed as one of the most hostile states to a declaration with teeth, struck a more positive tone than in previous meets. “There are still tough drafting issues and decisions ahead, and we have to get them right. The US delegation pledges our goodwill, to help to get to a positive outcome. We look forward to doing so.”

Since 2018, Ireland has chaired consultations on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. In the sessions since, the need for such a declaration – which is not legally binding and so does not create new legal obligations – has only become clearer.

“The draft declaration text holds the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the protection of civilians, and negotiations over the past few days have overall been constructive,” Laura Boillot of INEW, a network of NGOs pushing for the protocol, told Airwars.

“But decisions will now need to be made if the final text is going to have humanitarian effect. Most importantly it needs to establish a presumption against the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in towns, cities and other populated areas.”

It will be a failure to leave this room agreeing that simply restating existing laws will reduce civilian harm – a failure for all of us who came here with the intention to reduce that harm in the first place." @alma_osta in HI concluding remarks at #EWIPA negotiations today. pic.twitter.com/pTKpgfqWWU

— HI_Advocacy (@HI_Advocacy) April 8, 2022

Civil society groups and international agencies made a strong case for restricting EWIPA.

Three days of consultations

During three days of focused talks, several key fissures bubbled. While states in attendance – and civil society organisations – repeatedly emphasised the shared desire to produce a tangible and meaningful political declaration that could help save civilian lives on the ground, the practicalities of the process made clear that good intentions weren’t going to be enough.

On the first day of the informal consultations on April 6th, states made general remarks – affirming their support for the proceedings as well as their national positions – after an introductory statement from Ireland, the penholder.

In these general remarks, most states tended towards re-affirming the positions they had made clear in previous negotiations. On the hawkish side, the UK, US, Israel and Canada all emphasized that their positions as militarily active states meant that they would not sign a declaration in its current form, which included strong language about avoiding the use of explosive weapons in urban areas. Throughout the week, the delegates from these countries could often be seen meeting as a bloc outside of formal proceedings.

Many of the sticking points that emerged on the first day continued to dominate both the main floor and side conversations. The predominant line of argument was between those who argued that the declaration needed only to reaffirm the importance of international humanitarian law and provide further guidance about how to do so in this context; and those who asserted that this declaration needed to strengthen existing commitments and add new ones for states around the use of explosive weapons.

The second day of discussions took a more technical turn, with the majority of interventions focused on the wording of specific clauses and paragraphs of the text.

Clause 3.3, which attracted much attention in previous consultations, was once again hotly debated. It is one of the first clauses in Section B, the operative section – which lays out the actions that states have to comply with if they choose to sign onto the declaration.

In the current draft, Clause 3.3 says states must: “Ensure that our armed forces adopt and implement a range of policies and practices to avoid civilian harm, including by restricting or refraining from the use of explosive weapons with wide area effects in populated areas, when the effects may be expected to extend beyond a military objective.”

The bulk of the discussion around this clause was on the second sentence, as many states intervened on the use of “restricting or refraining,” with some suggesting it was strong enough while others lobbied instead for the use of “avoid”.

A split between the majority of civil society organisations and militarily-powerful states was apparent during these parts of the discussions, with NGOs and international agencies pushing for stronger language, rather than trying to place limits on what kinds of civilian harm would be protected under this new declaration.

Airwars’ incoming director and current head of research Emily Tripp also made an intervention – emphasising how crucial it was for states to actually track civilian harm.

Airwars’ incoming director Emily Tripp addresses a UN-backed conference on explosive weapons in Geneva on April 7th, 2022 (Image: Airwars)

At the end of day two INEW, one of the organisers, named nine states – Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Israel, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States – that it said had “worked to weaken declaration provisions.” The UK delegation, for example, agreed that tracking civilian harm was a ‘moral obligation,’ but then highlighted ways in which it claimed this was not feasible – arguing that live hostilities made it near impossible to monitor casualties properly.

But INEW also said that there had been a “shift in the collective tone set by states since the last round of negotiations, with more governments explicitly committed to strengthening the protection of civilians through the declaration.”

The statement said this was likely as a response to the bombing of Ukrainian towns and cities, and the Ukraine crisis loomed large over the conflict. Not only did the majority of states open their remarks with condemnation of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, many also emphasised the importance of a meaningful political declaration with specific reference to Ukrainian cities and towns such as Mariupol, Bucha and Khrarkiv.

There was also an emphasis on the value of protecting civilian objects and infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, with states such as Mexico and the delegate for the Holy See (which holds observer state) urging specific language around the need to protect hospitals, blood transfusion centres, and environmental and religious sites.

Speaking at the end of the latest talks, Ambassador Gaffey said Ireland and organisers would review the submissions from all parties before a month or two of further work on the text. He said states and NGOs would then hold a final one-day consultation in a couple of months, before a political adoption ceremony where states would declare their support for the text.

As Alma Taslidžan Al-Osta, of Humanity and Inclusion, noted in her own concluding remarks to delegates: “Eleven years in Syria, seven years in Yemen and over a month in Ukraine have taught us that explosive weapons with wide area effects should not be used in towns, cities and populated areas. The status quo is no longer an option.”

Civilians increasingly bear the brunt of modern conflicts. Addressing the devastating harm to civilians from Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas is a priority for 🇮🇪. We welcome states, international organisations and civil society to consultations in Geneva this week #EWIPA pic.twitter.com/pAyglwZO9D

— Disarmament IRELAND (@DisarmamentIRL) April 6, 2022

Ireland chaired Geneva talks on restricting urban use of explosive weapons

▲ The three-day EWIPA conference in Geneva sought to reach a deal on the use of explosive weapons in urban environments (Airwars)

Five takeaways from the first day of EWIPA negotiations

Published

April 7, 2022

Written by

Sanjana Varghese

Web link

Crunch talks in Geneva aim to hammer out protocol on explosive weapons in urban areas

The shadow of the Ukraine conflict loomed large over the first day of the informal UN-backed consultations on a political declaration on restricting the use of wide area effect explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA), currently underway in Geneva.

Delegates from more than 65 nations have gathered to fine tune the language of the political declaration, along with more than 15 civil society organisations including Airwars. The chairperson, Michael Gaffey of Ireland, opened the proceedings by calling for a minute of silence for Ukraine.

Nujeen Mustafa, who had fled the war in Aleppo, then powerfully testified via a video message, saying, “throughout history, diplomats have discussed world problems while sitting at a table with a nice coffee. People trapped in a conflict zone cannot do that. Today, you have the possibility to change a terrible situation and protect civilians.”

Nujeen Mustafa, a Syrian who fled Aleppo after it was largely destroyed by explosive weapons, addresses delegates:“While you’ve been negotiating whether a declaration should be made, 11,076 people have fallen victim to these weapons" she sayshttps://t.co/DI9vYhD6nq

— Airwars (@airwars) April 6, 2022

While there are two days of discussion left before proceedings close on Friday evening, many of the most pressing issues arose in proceedings on Wednesday – particularly as states laid out their own positions during opening remarks. Here are five key themes from the first day of EWIPA negotiations.

1. The conflict in Ukraine adds a sense of urgency

The first statement was made by the Ukrainian delegate, who noted that “our cities and towns have been turned into dead ash because of the use of these explosive weapons” – highlighting a new sense of urgency and relevance which the negotiations have taken on.

Every delegate who spoke made reference to the Ukraine conflict, with many emphasising that the violent and horrific violence against Ukrainian civilians must move states to act more effectively. The French delegate noted that Russia did not attend the proceedings, while the Japanese delegation emphasised the importance of documenting civilian harm in Ukraine.

Many other states called on Russia to cease its aggression and indiscriminate bombing of civilians and it was noted multiple times that Russia’s campaign has targeted and destroyed civilian neighbourhoods using wide area effect explosive weapons – referring to the scenes of destruction in Kherson, Mariupol, and Kharkiv.

2. The gap between ‘IHL is enough’ and ‘IHL does not go far enough’

Broadly the delegates and countries fall into two groups – those that believe international humanitarian law (IHL) is enough to protect civilians under attack in urban areas – and those that argue more is needed to protect civilians.

States such as the USA, UK, France and Israel argued that any political declaration could not introduce new legal requirements (which it cannot) and that the requirements currently set out under IHL should be sufficient protection for civilians. Currently, these frameworks emphasise for example that deliberately attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure constitutes a violation of IHL – and that any military actions must be both proportionate, and distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Those backing strong wording to the political declaration text – from Ireland to the ICRC – insist that adherence to IHL alone is not doing enough to protect civilians during much urban fighting.

The US nevertheless called on those states gathered not to produce an “unrealistic impression” that civilians would not be harmed in conflict, while emphasising that explosive weapons are “considered a legitimate and lawful means of warfare when used in accordance with IHL.”

But other states, as well as civil society organisations such as Human Rights Watch, emphasised that any resolution which merely restated the value of IHL – and how states must abide by it – would effectively be useless, as it would be an iteration of what states have already committed to.

States such as Finland and Sweden remarked that there are gaps within IHL around EWIPA , and mere compliance with IHL is not enough to protect civilians. This has been an ongoing fissure during previous consultations, and continues to be a major fault line.

3. Reverberating effects

The particularities of the language used in the eventual political declaration are at the heart of the ongoing consultations in Geneva – with discussions about whether to “avoid” or “restrict” the use of explosive weapons in populated areas already a key sticking point.

An additional area of tension appears to the so-called “reverberating effects” of EWIPA, which are essentially the long-term effects.

An example of a reverberating effect would be the destruction of a bridge. If destroyed, it has the immediate effect of removing a crucial piece of civilian infrastructure. But even after the conflict finishes the destruction could also mean that people can’t travel across a certain river, making it harder to access other kinds of civilian infrastructure such as hospitals or schools.

These long-term impacts were the subject of much discussion on Wednesday – with some states, such as the US, Israel, and the UK all noting that ‘reverberating effects’ is neither a legal term nor – they claimed – a widely accepted term with a clear definition. The US also said it would not accept a ‘novel’ term such as reverberating effects in the eventual political declaration.

However, civil society organisations such as PAX and observer states such as the Vatican suggested that it would be difficult to meaningfully understand the full implications of how civilian populations were impacted without incorporating ‘reverberating’ effects.

4. Focus on the humanitarian impacts

The Holy See opened its own remarks by noting that it believes conventional weapons should be named “weapons of mass displacement,” a nod to the ongoing long term effects that explosive weapons can have. The Danish Refugee Council also noted that the use of EWIPA can contribute to displacement, and in time, continuously produce forms of renewed displacement.

Some other states such as Uruguay emphasised the need to collect and monitor the impacts of EWIPA on specific groups – such as those with disabilities, or those who face discrimination because of their gender. Organisations such as CIVIC, PAX and Humanity and Inclusion also spoke about the psychological and mental effects of the use of explosive weapons, notably the need for a survivor-centric approach to any kind of political declaration.

5. The impact of non-state actors

While the political declaration is primarily a matter between states, the UK, Israel, the US and others asked that the considerations around EWIPA must also extend to non-state actors, such as armed groups, in the interest of maintaining what they termed a balanced account of how explosive weapons are actually used in populated areas.

The US noted for example that “the declaration has to make it clear that all belligerents, including non-state armed groups, must take steps to address the harms to civilians and civilian objects.” The Turkish delegation argued that asking non-state actors to really consider these impacts would also mean they would be considered as legitimate parties to an international armed conflict – which they are currently, for the most part, not.

The declaration has to make it clear that all belligerents, including non state armed groups, must take steps to address the harms to civilians and civilian objects,” says the USA, intervening for the second time today. pic.twitter.com/cNBYvzncqN

— Airwars (@airwars) April 6, 2022

▲ MPs from various European countries attend the first day of EWIPA talks on April 6, 2022 (Photo: INEW)

1 2 3 … 11 next