Russian Military in Ukraine

Russian Military in Ukraine

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

start date
end date
text search
6 Results
sort by:

Airwars wins Sigma data journalism award

Published

March 27, 2024

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.

Continue reading

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)

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

Continue reading
▲ 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

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.

Continue reading
▲ 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)

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.

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)
Continue reading
▲ 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.

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

Published

April 8, 2022

Written by

Sanjana Varghese

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

Continue reading
▲ 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

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

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