Madam Chair, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am honoured to address the First Committee on behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Three weeks ago, United Nations Member States adopted the ambitious Pact for the Future. They expressed their determination to protect all civilians in armed conflict; uphold their disarmament obligations and commitments; advance the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons; and address the potential risks posed by the misuse of new and emerging technologies. We commend Member States for having undertaken such wide-ranging and universal commitments. Urgent action on all these fronts has never been more important.
Every day, ICRC staff throughout the world witness the untold suffering of victims of armed conflict. The devastating human toll exacted, and the destruction of critical infrastructure that results, when heavy explosive weapons rain down on cities; the appalling suffering caused by anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, weapons thought to have been relegated to the past; the endless vicious circle of violence fueled by poorly regulated and irresponsible arms transfers; the new risks of harm to civilians caused by the use of new technologies in warfare; and the existential danger that nuclear weapons pose to humanity as a whole: all these are serious humanitarian concerns that this Committee has the responsibility to address, forcefully and urgently.
We have just published our report: “IHL and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts”. The suffering caused by armed conflicts around the world is proof that, despite many instances of respect for international humanitarian law (IHL), compliance clearly falls short of what is required. All too often, violations of IHL are misrepresented as compliant behavior or basic tenets of IHL simply disregarded. The international community must reiterate its political commitment to upholding IHL, in letter and in spirit. This is why the ICRC, together with Brazil, China, France, Jordan, Kazakhstan and South Africa, recently launched a global initiative aimed at strengthening the universal, uniform and faithful application and implementation of IHL. This joint effort complements the objectives of the Pact for the Future. We call on all States to join this initiative and use IHL as a guiding framework to reduce suffering and work towards a peaceful future.
Madam Chair,
Protection of civilians must start where they are most at risk: when war is waged in cities and other populated areas. 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 scale throughout the world, from Beirut to Donetsk, Gaza, Khartoum and Marib, for instance. The plight of civilians is exacerbated when basic services on which they rely for their survival – such as water, electricity, health care or waste management – are disrupted. Those who manage to leave have to endure the dangers and hardships of displacement, often for years. Many others are unable to get away because escape routes are blocked, bombed or contaminated by unexploded ordnance that will continue to maim and kill for decades to come.
Despite overwhelming evidence of the destruction it causes, parties to armed conflicts continue to routinely bomb and shell towns and cities, setting development back decades. It defeats the purpose of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and many of the Actions just decided upon in the Pact for the Future; it takes us further away from a sustainable peace.
Something needs to change.
States must urgently take decisive measures to prevent urban warfare and to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure when urban warfare takes place.
In the last two years States have enshrined this need for change in two landmark documents. The 2022 “Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas”, now endorsed by 87 states, and the Pact for the Future both include commitments to strengthen the protection of civilians and to restrict or refrain from, as appropriate, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas when their use may be expected to cause harm to civilians or civilian objects. We welcome these commitments and urge States to faithfully implement them.
This should include avoiding the use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas, as the ICRC and the entire International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have been calling on all States and parties to armed conflict to do for over a decade. Heavy explosive weapons should not be used in populated areas unless sufficient mitigation measures are taken to limit their wide area effects and the consequent risk of civilian harm. This is necessary to avoid preventable death and destruction and to comply with the IHL rules governing the conduct of hostilities. Indeed, it is very difficult to use heavy explosive weapons in populated areas in compliance with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions.
Madam Chair,
Production, transfer and use of cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines in armed conflicts is on the rise, and the rate of accession to the treaties prohibiting them is stalling. Because of this, and the initiation by a State Party of what could become a first-ever withdrawal from a humanitarian disarmament treaty, the hard-won norms that have been enshrined in the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC) are under threat.
Recently, the 12th Meeting of State Parties of the CCM strongly condemned any use of cluster munitions by any actor, under any circumstances. It further deeply regretted Lithuania’s decision to withdraw from the Convention, and urged Lithuania to reconsider. The ICRC commends States Parties for having risen to this unprecedented situation. Together with the entire International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, we call upon States Parties to do far more to promote and defend the Convention’s core norms.
We call on States Parties and the international community to further strengthen the stigma against any use of cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines. They must do so not only to protect civilians and combatants from the indiscriminate and horrific effects of cluster munitions and anti-personnel landmines, but also to uphold IHL and the multilateral disarmament framework that reduces suffering and saves lives.
Let us not forget why these weapons were outlawed in the first place. Owing to their wide area impact, their indiscriminate effects on civilians and the threat they pose long after they have been used, prohibitions against their use, transfer, production and stockpiling have rightly been cemented by the international community. All the reasons that led to the adoption of the CCM and APMBC remain just as valid today. The appalling human cost exacted by the use of these weapons is not diminished by a changing security environment.
We call on States to redouble their efforts to promote universal adherence to these Conventions and to other instruments prohibiting or restricting the use or transfer of conventional weapons, in particular the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols, and the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The ICRC calls on all States that have not yet done so to join all these instruments without delay.
Widespread availability of arms and ammunition, often the result of irresponsible or poorly controlled transfers, comes with a bloody price. It takes lives, prolongs conflicts, drives displacement and adversely affects the achievement of development goals. The ICRC is deeply concerned about the gap that seems to exist between the commitments made by States to respect and ensure respect for IHL, and to faithfully implement instruments such as the ATT, and the arms transfer practices of too many of them. Of particular concern are exemptions from IHL risk assessments given to certain transfers or recipients; export licenses valid for many years without a requirement for periodic review; and certain measures, aimed at facilitating export of arms produced jointly by several States, that limit contributing states’ ability to challenge the export of the final product on humanitarian grounds.
The law is straightforward: States must refrain from transferring arms where there is a clear risk that they would be used to commit or facilitate IHL violations. In addition, States have a positive obligation to take timely, robust and practical measures that can realistically offset risks of violations. Those who supply the means by which wars are fought assume a special responsibility. They must do everything reasonably in their power to ensure respect for IHL by the recipients of the weapons they provide. Faithful implementation of the ATT and of Article 1 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions can go a long way in preventing serious violations of IHL.
Madam Chair,
We observe a steady increase in the use of emerging and new technologies of warfare in current conflicts. They create new dangers for civilian populations and new forms of harm that compound the devastation caused by more traditional weapons. The ICRC remains convinced that the international community must act now to address the unacceptable humanitarian, ethical and legal risks posed by the unconstrained development and use of new technologies.
This need is particularly acute in the field of autonomous weapon systems. We reiterate the joint appeal made by the President of the ICRC and the Secretary General of the United Nations in October 2023, calling on world leaders to launch negotiations for a new legally binding instrument to set clear prohibitions and restrictions on autonomous weapon systems and to conclude such negotiations by 2026. States must act now to prohibit unpredictable autonomous weapons, and autonomous weapons designed or used to apply force against persons, and to impose strict international legal restrictions on the development and use of all other autonomous weapons.
We therefore warmly welcome the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 78/241 and the subsequent publication of the Secretary-General’s report on lethal autonomous weapon systems. The high number of submissions to this report indicates the importance of this issue to the international community. The submissions show broad support for the development of new international law to regulate autonomous weapon systems. This support must now be translated into action.
Use of autonomous weapons is increasing, and research into, and development of more complex and capable systems is advancing rapidly. We concur with the secretary-general’s conclusion that time is running out for the international community to take preventive action on this issue. We endorse his call for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) to fulfil its mandate as soon as possible. The Group is now working on a rolling text, and we urge States to move ahead decisively and develop this as the basis of a new legally binding instrument.
We also endorse the Secretary-General’s suggestion that the General Assembly continue its consideration of the matter by holding informal consultations. With its almost universal membership and wide substantive scope, the General Assembly can support and accelerate the work of the GGE, including by facilitating discussions on those aspects of autonomous weapon systems that have not been the focus of attention in the GGE.
The ICRC will relentlessly support every effort to build political momentum for the conclusion of a legally binding instrument by 2026. This is no time to limit options or restrict approaches: States must use every available avenue to ensure that autonomous weapons are effectively regulated, before they become ubiquitous.
Madam Chair,
Applications of artificial intelligence (AI), in particular machine learning (ML), by militaries and non-state armed groups can have important humanitarian implications.
The Pact for the Future acknowledges the need to “continue to assess the existing and potential risks associated with the military applications of artificial intelligence and the possible opportunities throughout their life cycle”.
AI-based decision-support systems (AI-DSS) for the use of force are becoming an increasingly prominent military application of AI. The use of AI-DSS may create additional risks for civilians and other protected persons in armed conflict, because of the difficulties inherent in predicting and understanding how and why AI systems produce a given output; the lack of quality data in conflict zones; and human cognitive tendencies such as ‘automation bias’ or over-trust.
A human-centred approach to the use of AI and ML in armed conflicts is critical. We urge militaries and governments to take a precautionary approach to military applications of AI, in order to assess, prevent and mitigate the risks that may arise.
AI-DSS must be designed and used only to support, rather than hinder or replace, human decision-making. Preserving human judgement in decisions, especially in decisions that pose risks to the lives and dignity of persons affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence, is essential to ensuring respect for applicable law, including IHL.
Furthermore, AI-DSS must be used only within legal, policy and doctrinal frameworks that respect IHL. Otherwise, these tools will serve only to replicate and exacerbate unlawful or harmful outcomes at a faster rate and on a larger scale.
Our recent reports (an expert consultation report and an ICRC-commissioned consultant report) propose some concrete measures and constraints relating to the use of AI-DSS in this respect.
Madam Chair,
The Pact for the Future, and in particular the Digital Compact, highlights the immense potential benefits that digital technologies can bring for the well-being and advancement of people and societies. The ICRC is, however, particularly concerned that in times of armed conflict, State and non-state actors use cyber operations to disable civilian infrastructure and systems, especially civilian government services or disrupt the provision of essential services.
We call on you, States, to start engaging in meaningful discussions and find a common understanding of how IHL applies to and restrict such operations. The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for military purposes is a reality in today’s armed conflicts, and we are concerned that this reality is outpacing normative discussions. Two issues need your urgent attention.
First, interpretations of IHL that focus on the protection of civilian objects only against physical damage are inadequate. Most cyber operations conducted in contemporary armed conflicts disrupt services, disable computers and networks or damage or delete data without causing physical damage. When existing rules of IHL are interpreted in ways that do not address this reality, it undermines the protective function of IHL in the ICT environment. If the new kinds of harm resulting from the use of ICT during armed conflict remain unaddressed, additional rules will have to be developed to strengthen the existing legal framework.
Second, the digitalization of armed conflicts is increasingly drawing civilians – individuals, hacker groups and tech companies – closer to hostilities. It is your responsibility – as sovereign States – to ensure that these actors respect IHL when operating in armed conflict, and to make them aware of the risks they take when participating in armed conflict and of the rules that they must respect.
Madam Chair,
The expanding role of space systems in military operations during armed conflicts increases the likelihood of their being targeted, putting at risk the functioning of essential civilian services on earth, which rely on such systems.
Military space operations do not occur in a legal vacuum, but are constrained by existing international law, in particular, the Charter of the United Nations, space law treaties, the law of neutrality and IHL. In particular, IHL contributes to the prevention of an arms race in outer space, as it contains rules that prohibit the development and use of certain weapons, means and methods of warfare.
Given the indispensable role of space systems in the provision of essential civilian services, humanitarian considerations should be a cornerstone of any multilateral discussion or normative development regarding space security. In this connection, we welcome the acknowledgement by States of the importance of space systems in the provision of services critical to civilians, and the concern voiced – in recent multilateral discussions – at the risk of harm arising from threats to these systems. We also welcome and look forward to contributing to such discussions in the upcoming open-ended working group on space security.
Noting that the Pact for the Future strives to “advance further measures and appropriate international negotiations to prevent an arms race in outer space in all its aspects”, we urge States to commit to concrete measures to strengthen the protection of the civilian population on earth from harmful effects of military space operations. The ICRC has made preliminary recommendations on the possible further development of legal instruments, whether binding or non-binding. These include ensuring protection for space systems necessary for the provision of essential civilian services; mitigating the risk of space debris by refraining from developing, testing and using kinetic counterspace capabilities; and enhancing international cooperation to increase the resilience of space-based services that humanitarian relief and emergency response rely on. These recommendations are substantiated in a report, Protecting Essential Civilian Services on Earth from Disruption by Military Space Operations, that we published in June.
Madam Chair,
Let me turn finally to what will occupy this Committee in the coming week: nuclear weapons.
With global and regional tensions rising, the risk of these catastrophic weapons being used is at its highest in decades. It is fuelled by increasingly strident nuclear rhetoric and threats of use, accelerated modernization, and potentially dangerous technological developments, including automation and AI. Meanwhile, nuclear doctrines are being revised to strengthen the role of nuclear weapons and to lower the threshold for their use.
Decisive action is urgently needed. In the Pact for the Future, UN Member States pledged to accelerate the implementation of nuclear disarmament obligations. We urge all States to transform these words into concrete actions now. Humanity cannot afford the lack of progress we have seen over the past few decades, as every further delay brings us closer to the very nuclear catastrophe the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was adopted to prevent.
Nuclear weapons profoundly challenge the basic premises of IHL: weapons capable of spreading radiation across borders and down generations, causing horrific injuries and often untreatable illnesses, and poisoning the environment for decades – if not centuries – to come are fundamentally incompatible with the principles of distinction, proportionality and, above all, humanity. Any threat to use nuclear weapons is abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.
To turn the tide, we must refocus the debate on the catastrophic consequences that any use of nuclear weapons would have for human life and health, and for the environment. The suffering of the Hibakusha – the survivors of the atomic bombing – that the Japanese Red Cross Society and the ICRC witnessed firsthand in 1945, demonstrates why nuclear weapons must be banned. Viewing nuclear weapons through the lens of human security advances the nuclear disarmament dialogue, reinforces the nuclear taboo, and brings us closer to sustainable peace.
In this context, the ICRC welcomes initiatives to conduct new global scientific studies on the effects of nuclear war and encourages all States to support them. We also congratulate Nihon Hidankyo for having been awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Let this show the direction for the international community to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and save humanity from the dangers from the most terrible weapon ever invented.
Pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, States must adopt immediate and concrete nuclear-risk-reduction measures. This includes reducing nuclear arsenals and increasing transparency, lowering the operational readiness levels of nuclear weapons, halting modernization, reducing the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, condemning all nuclear threats – explicit and implicit -, and committing to no-first-use policies. We welcome all initiatives in this regard. Raising awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons and placing them at the centre of decision-making can also be a powerful risk-reduction measure.
Strengthening the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation architecture is essential. Next to the NPT, this framework is made up by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, nuclear-weapon-free zones treaties, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), as well as a number of important bilateral or plurilateral agreements. It is deeply concerning that many of these are not yet in force, have being suspended or risk being not renewed. We urge all States that have not yet done so to join these instruments without delay, and all concerned States not to step back from obligations they have undertaken.
By prohibiting nuclear weapons, the TPNW makes a crucial and effective contribution towards nuclear disarmament. Today, 73 States are party to the TPNW and 25 others have signed it. Signing and ratifying the TPNW is a concrete and practical step towards the only solution for safeguarding humanity from the threat of nuclear weapons: the complete elimination of these weapons. If nuclear weapons continue to exist, humanity may not.
Madam Chair,
Let us never allow the victims of conflicts to be reduced to mere numbers – of three, four, five or sometimes even six digits – on the front pages of newspapers. Let us never forget that each and every one of these victims is a fellow human being who lost their life, leaving behind torn families, shattered communities, and loved ones in unending despair.
Let us remember that disarmament saves lives, disarmament curbs arms races, disarmament moderates the inhumanity of war, disarmament fosters peace.
Let us remember that disarmament treaties that were once deemed unrealistic became a reality, and that States found ways to ban the most terrible weapons and protect us from the untold suffering they can cause.
Let your deliberations throughout this month be guided by the common humanity that unites us all. Let this Committee demonstrate that it can deliver on the ambitious commitment to disarmament just enshrined in the Pact for the Future.
You can count on our tireless support towards this goal.
Thank you.
We acknowledge Source link for the information.
