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.