Regulating weapons to limit suffering in armed conflict

Even in times of armed conflict, laws apply to the conduct of the fight. These rules are set out mainly in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. Put simply, parties to a conflict must not attack people or objects unless they are legitimate military targets. And when attacking a legitimate military target, they must take steps to avoid or minimise harm to civilians, and must not launch attacks that would cause civilian harm that is excessive compared with the anticipated military advantage.

These rules are backed up by other instruments that focus on particular weapons, as well as formal commitments that States have made. One of the key precautions that an armed actor can take in their attack is their choice of weapon. Some weapons inherently cause more collateral damage and more suffering than others. International humanitarian law – also known as the laws of war – requires parties to a conflict to take constant care to spare civilians and civilian objects. Where a military goal can be achieved without using weapons that are likely to cause greater incidental harm, those weapons should not be used.

In this blog we highlight two key instruments - relating to explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) and arms trade - as a reminder of the role that weapons regulation plays in limiting suffering in armed conflict. In both cases, it is clear that States can and should do more to give full effect to these frameworks.

Explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA)

In response to the devastating impacts of explosive weapons in populated areas on civilians and vital civilian infrastructure, States have come together to reaffirm that international humanitarian law applies to the use of explosive weapons in all situations of armed conflict.

Australia is one of 90 states that have endorsed the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.

This is an acknowledgement that the obligation to avoid, and in any event minimise, civilian harm when conducting military operations, cannot be upheld within populated areas when such weapons are used. As a result, they should not be used in these environments. Continued efforts are needed to implement this commitment and embed it in national policy and operational practice.

As the ICRC has noted, “in the three years since the Declaration’s adoption, the use of heavy explosive weapons in cities continues to cause unacceptable civilian harm – death, injury, lifelong disability and severe psychological trauma – on a shockingly large and ever-increasing scale throughout the world.” This suffering is exacerbated when basic services such as water, health care, electricity, or waste management are also disrupted by the explosive weapons.

At the Second International Follow-up Conference to the Political Declaration in November 2025 (2^nd EWIPA Conference), key champions of the Political Declaration Costa Rica, Ireland, and Norway, called upon States and partners ‘to sustain and further advance this collective endeavour, ensuring that the protection of civilians remains at the heart of global efforts to prevent and alleviate human suffering in armed conflict’. Australia’s statement to the 2nd EWIPA Conference notes ‘[o]ur existing military policies, practices and processes support the tenets of the EWIPA Declaration with the Australian Defence Force’s Law of Armed Conflict Doctrine referring specifically to the Declaration.’ This is an important step and Australian Red Cross encourages the continued reflection by States, including Australia, on the recommendations of the 2^nd EWIPA Conference and how they can best be implemented – both domestically and through their influence with partners.    

Weapons trade  

The Arms Trade Treaty was adopted in April 2013 by the UN General Assembly following a final negotiating conference on the text chaired by Australia’s Ambassador Peter Woolcott. Australia is one of 118 States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty’s aim is not to regulate the use of a particular weapon, but rather to regulate the trade of conventional weapons (such as tanks, combat aircraft, warships, missiles and small arms and light weapons), their parts and components, and their ammunition/munitions.

Among other things, the treaty requires States not to authorise the transfer of weapons if it has knowledge those weapons would be used to commit grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions or other war crimes. It also requires States not to authorise the transfer of weapons in situations where they have no such knowledge, but there exists an overriding risk that the weapons may be used to commit such crimes.

The implementation of this treaty requires a robust approach to import and export control laws and for States to evaluate risk. Faithful implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty can play a significant role in delivering on the obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law and Australian Red Cross encourages States, including Australia, in their continued attention to this obligation.