| This blog post is one in a series of blogs and videos looking at an array of issues in 2026 related to weapons use, the arms trade and security assistance, often offering recommendations. |  Laura Boillot |
Over recent years, conflicts around the world have been marked by a devastating pattern of harm: the repeated use of explosive weapons in towns and cities, and the predictable civilian harm that follows. In 2024 alone, two-thirds of all documented incidents of explosive-weapons use occurred in Palestine, while Lebanon, Myanmar, Ukraine, Syria, and Sudan also experienced acute and widespread bombardment. Across these and other contexts, civilians continue to bear the brunt. Children, in particular, are suffering at unprecedented levels: explosive weapons are now the leading cause of child conflict-casualties globally, where more than 60% of child casualties in war zones result from explosive weapons, with nearly 12,000 children killed or injured in 2024 alone - the highest annual figure ever recorded.
The data from last year paint an alarming picture. Attacks with explosive weapons on civilian infrastructure and essential services rose sharply. Use of explosive weapons in attacks on healthcare increased by 64 percent, destroying hospitals and ambulances and killing health workers. Healthcare systems collapse as needs surge, yet services remain critically underfunded. Attacks on education more than doubled, directly affecting children already living through trauma. Strikes on humanitarian aid operations occurred nearly five times more frequently than the previous year.
These are not abstract statistics - they represent communities cut off from essential services upon which they rely, families trying to keep their loved ones safe, and long-term recovery made immeasurably harder, with an entire generation of children facing life-changing harm and trauma.
A wider erosion of norms
The widespread use of explosive weapons in populated areas is one manifestation of a broader erosion of norms protecting civilians in conflict. International rules and long-standing humanitarian disarmament instruments face unprecedented challenges - and in some instances deliberate efforts to roll back protections that have saved lives for decades.
We are witnessing a worrying normalisation of civilian harm - and bombing towns and cities is a consequence of this, frequently met with silence and impunity. This permissive environment reinforces a cycle where the humanitarian consequences of bombing towns and cities persists.
A tool for change: The Political Declaration on EWIPA
The Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, adopted in 2022 sets out practical measures focussed (to its strength) on addressing the use of EWIPA. It will not bring about change overnight but it does provide a meaningful framework for reducing civilian harm - if states take their commitments seriously.
Certain principles should guide the implementation of the Declaration’s commitments, regardless of the endorsing state involved. States should adopt implementation measures that are humanitarian and progressive; pursue a collaborative, well-informed, and transparent process; and nationally internalise and externally promote the Declaration.
The international meeting held in San José, Costa Rica, in November 2025 offered a crucial moment to assess progress and set direction. What we found was clear: the potential of the Declaration remains largely untapped. Most endorsing states have not yet begun the work of implementation at the national level. To make a difference this must change in 2026.
1. Operationalising the Declaration: turning commitments into practice
Implementation cannot remain rhetorical. States must translate commitments into concrete, measurable policy and practice - and they must do so in ways that explicitly address the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.
A critical gap remains the limited engagement of armed forces. Militaries are central stakeholders in this agenda, yet in many countries that have endorsed the Declaration, defence institutions remain disengaged and even cautious of its commitments. This must be a priority for 2026. Dialogue, training, doctrine and operational review, and the development of policies to refrain from the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas are essential.
Tools exist to support this work, including the military implementation toolkit and resources produced by civil society with input from members of armed forces. States do not need to start from scratch. They do, however, need to get started.
2. Addressing humanitarian consequences: meeting the needs of affected communities
Reducing future harm must go hand-in-hand with supporting communities affected by explosive weapon use today. The humanitarian consequences are severe and long-lasting: destroyed infrastructure, unexploded ordnance contamination, disrupted essential services, loss of housing and livelihoods, and widespread physical and psychological trauma. The environmental impacts of explosive weapons - including contamination, damaged water and sanitation systems, and toxic debris - further compound humanitarian crises and threaten public health unless addressed as part of response and recovery efforts.
In many contexts, access constraints further impede the delivery of life-saving assistance, while repeated attacks on healthcare facilities undermine already fragile systems and leave survivors without the treatment, rehabilitation, or mental health support they need. Communities also require sustained investment in explosive ordnance risk education and preparedness to stay safe amid ongoing bombardment, alongside protection measures that reach women, older people, persons with disabilities, and other groups facing heightened risks.
A major gap persists between the Declaration’s commitments and the scale of humanitarian response being put into practice. States should increase support for victim assistance, clearance, reconstruction, and rehabilitation—guided by affected communities. The assessments of humanitarian implementation highlight clear pathways for strengthening this dimension of the Declaration. More must be done, and urgently.
3. Speaking out: building a norm against bombing populated areas
Norms strengthen when states speak clearly and consistently. Critiquing harmful practices and condemning the use of explosive weapons in populated areas - regardless of who is responsible - is an essential tool for influencing behaviour.
Too often, silence or selectivity undermines efforts to build a global standard. In 2026, we urge states to reaffirm the core humanitarian principle at the heart of the Declaration: that the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in cities is unacceptable because of the foreseeable civilian harm. Challenging the status quo is not only possible - it is necessary to reverse the slide toward the normalisation of civilian suffering.
4. Strengthening the multistakeholder approach
Effectively addressing the humanitarian consequences of explosive weapons in populated areas depends on drawing together the practical insights and experiences of armed forces with the field experience of humanitarian organisations, the perspectives of survivors and affected communities, and the expertise of civil society and international bodies. Collaboration is essential not only because it aligns diverse actors around shared humanitarian goals, but also because joint action and knowledge pooling helps ensure that implementation is informed, inclusive, and grounded in real needs. Working together delivers practical benefits - from improving victim assistance and clearing unexploded ordnance to strengthening data-sharing, crisis planning, and reconstruction efforts. This approach is already being demonstrated through the multistakeholder dialogue processes convened by Humanity & Inclusion and Article 36, which have brought together militaries, humanitarian actors, and affected communities to explore practical pathways for implementing the Declaration’s humanitarian and military commitments, generating a series of concrete recommendations for states.
Inclusive dialogue supports the drive for meaningful change within military institutions, ensures the relevance of humanitarian guidance, and grounds policy and practice in the lived experiences of civilians who have survived harm. It also strengthens ownership of the Declaration’s commitments by fostering buy-in from a broader range of actors, making implementation more durable and effective. In 2026, this collaborative approach will be essential to sustaining momentum.
5. Building momentum through national engagement and international opportunities
Both the San José outcome document and this year’s implementation assessments underscore the need for structured, national-level engagement. It is at this level that implementation happens.
At the international level, there are also several important opportunities that lie ahead and which provide opportunities for engagement: Austria’s planned workshop on military training in spring 2026; engagement with African states through a universalisation workshop in Ghana; among other planned exchanges among states and organisations.
States can also draw on a growing range of tools, case studies, and experiences - including civil-society reports, and experiences and lessons shared by states in San José to inform their work.
Looking forward
We enter 2026 with an urgent need to address the widespread civilian harm from EWIPA. The scale of civilian harm caused by explosive weapons in populated areas is unacceptable, but it is something we can take tangible steps to address. The Political Declaration gives states a framework to act, it is now up to endorsing states to put it into practice.
This year must be the moment when commitments move off from being words on paper and into military planning and the conduct of operations, humanitarian programming and response, and political leadership by states over the world we want to live in. Civilians living in conflict cannot wait any longer.
The data from last year paint an alarming picture. Attacks with explosive weapons on civilian infrastructure and essential services rose sharply. Use of explosive weapons in attacks on healthcare increased by 64 percent, destroying hospitals and ambulances and killing health workers. Healthcare systems collapse as needs surge, yet services remain critically underfunded. Attacks on education more than doubled, directly affecting children already living through trauma. Strikes on humanitarian aid operations occurred nearly five times more frequently than the previous year.
These are not abstract statistics - they represent communities cut off from essential services upon which they rely, families trying to keep their loved ones safe, and long-term recovery made immeasurably harder, with an entire generation of children facing life-changing harm and trauma.
A wider erosion of norms
The widespread use of explosive weapons in populated areas is one manifestation of a broader erosion of norms protecting civilians in conflict. International rules and long-standing humanitarian disarmament instruments face unprecedented challenges - and in some instances deliberate efforts to roll back protections that have saved lives for decades.
We are witnessing a worrying normalisation of civilian harm - and bombing towns and cities is a consequence of this, frequently met with silence and impunity. This permissive environment reinforces a cycle where the humanitarian consequences of bombing towns and cities persists.
A tool for change: The Political Declaration on EWIPA
The Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, adopted in 2022 sets out practical measures focussed (to its strength) on addressing the use of EWIPA. It will not bring about change overnight but it does provide a meaningful framework for reducing civilian harm - if states take their commitments seriously.
Certain principles should guide the implementation of the Declaration’s commitments, regardless of the endorsing state involved. States should adopt implementation measures that are humanitarian and progressive; pursue a collaborative, well-informed, and transparent process; and nationally internalise and externally promote the Declaration.
The international meeting held in San José, Costa Rica, in November 2025 offered a crucial moment to assess progress and set direction. What we found was clear: the potential of the Declaration remains largely untapped. Most endorsing states have not yet begun the work of implementation at the national level. To make a difference this must change in 2026.
1. Operationalising the Declaration: turning commitments into practice
Implementation cannot remain rhetorical. States must translate commitments into concrete, measurable policy and practice - and they must do so in ways that explicitly address the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.
A critical gap remains the limited engagement of armed forces. Militaries are central stakeholders in this agenda, yet in many countries that have endorsed the Declaration, defence institutions remain disengaged and even cautious of its commitments. This must be a priority for 2026. Dialogue, training, doctrine and operational review, and the development of policies to refrain from the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas are essential.
Tools exist to support this work, including the military implementation toolkit and resources produced by civil society with input from members of armed forces. States do not need to start from scratch. They do, however, need to get started.
2. Addressing humanitarian consequences: meeting the needs of affected communities
Reducing future harm must go hand-in-hand with supporting communities affected by explosive weapon use today. The humanitarian consequences are severe and long-lasting: destroyed infrastructure, unexploded ordnance contamination, disrupted essential services, loss of housing and livelihoods, and widespread physical and psychological trauma. The environmental impacts of explosive weapons - including contamination, damaged water and sanitation systems, and toxic debris - further compound humanitarian crises and threaten public health unless addressed as part of response and recovery efforts.
In many contexts, access constraints further impede the delivery of life-saving assistance, while repeated attacks on healthcare facilities undermine already fragile systems and leave survivors without the treatment, rehabilitation, or mental health support they need. Communities also require sustained investment in explosive ordnance risk education and preparedness to stay safe amid ongoing bombardment, alongside protection measures that reach women, older people, persons with disabilities, and other groups facing heightened risks.
A major gap persists between the Declaration’s commitments and the scale of humanitarian response being put into practice. States should increase support for victim assistance, clearance, reconstruction, and rehabilitation—guided by affected communities. The assessments of humanitarian implementation highlight clear pathways for strengthening this dimension of the Declaration. More must be done, and urgently.
3. Speaking out: building a norm against bombing populated areas
Norms strengthen when states speak clearly and consistently. Critiquing harmful practices and condemning the use of explosive weapons in populated areas - regardless of who is responsible - is an essential tool for influencing behaviour.
Too often, silence or selectivity undermines efforts to build a global standard. In 2026, we urge states to reaffirm the core humanitarian principle at the heart of the Declaration: that the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in cities is unacceptable because of the foreseeable civilian harm. Challenging the status quo is not only possible - it is necessary to reverse the slide toward the normalisation of civilian suffering.
4. Strengthening the multistakeholder approach
Effectively addressing the humanitarian consequences of explosive weapons in populated areas depends on drawing together the practical insights and experiences of armed forces with the field experience of humanitarian organisations, the perspectives of survivors and affected communities, and the expertise of civil society and international bodies. Collaboration is essential not only because it aligns diverse actors around shared humanitarian goals, but also because joint action and knowledge pooling helps ensure that implementation is informed, inclusive, and grounded in real needs. Working together delivers practical benefits - from improving victim assistance and clearing unexploded ordnance to strengthening data-sharing, crisis planning, and reconstruction efforts. This approach is already being demonstrated through the multistakeholder dialogue processes convened by Humanity & Inclusion and Article 36, which have brought together militaries, humanitarian actors, and affected communities to explore practical pathways for implementing the Declaration’s humanitarian and military commitments, generating a series of concrete recommendations for states.
Inclusive dialogue supports the drive for meaningful change within military institutions, ensures the relevance of humanitarian guidance, and grounds policy and practice in the lived experiences of civilians who have survived harm. It also strengthens ownership of the Declaration’s commitments by fostering buy-in from a broader range of actors, making implementation more durable and effective. In 2026, this collaborative approach will be essential to sustaining momentum.
5. Building momentum through national engagement and international opportunities
Both the San José outcome document and this year’s implementation assessments underscore the need for structured, national-level engagement. It is at this level that implementation happens.
At the international level, there are also several important opportunities that lie ahead and which provide opportunities for engagement: Austria’s planned workshop on military training in spring 2026; engagement with African states through a universalisation workshop in Ghana; among other planned exchanges among states and organisations.
States can also draw on a growing range of tools, case studies, and experiences - including civil-society reports, and experiences and lessons shared by states in San José to inform their work.
Looking forward
We enter 2026 with an urgent need to address the widespread civilian harm from EWIPA. The scale of civilian harm caused by explosive weapons in populated areas is unacceptable, but it is something we can take tangible steps to address. The Political Declaration gives states a framework to act, it is now up to endorsing states to put it into practice.
This year must be the moment when commitments move off from being words on paper and into military planning and the conduct of operations, humanitarian programming and response, and political leadership by states over the world we want to live in. Civilians living in conflict cannot wait any longer.
Laura Boillot is Director, Article 36.
Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade expert list and the publication of these posts does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The opinions expressed are the views of each post's author(s).
Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade expert list and the publication of these posts does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The opinions expressed are the views of each post's author(s).
RSS Feed