While international humanitarian law (IHL) serves as the legal framework regulating the conduct of hostilities in order to limit civilian harm in armed conflict, it does not necessarily prescribe how parties to conflict should implement their obligations in practice. Militaries must create frameworks and tools suitable to avoiding, or in any event minimizing, harm in their operations so that those making decisions about the use of lethal force can do so on the basis of informed judgements in a good-faith effort to comply with their legal obligations. Informed by operational lessons and detailed studies illuminating repeating patterns of civilian harm, US civilian harm mitigation and response (CHMR) policy entails a significant effort to develop upstream capabilities and procedures to better mitigate civilian harm in military operations. Civilian harm risk in armed conflict cannot be reduced to zero, and there will never be a perfect information environment leading up to and during an armed conflict. However, the premise of CHMR is that patterns of harm are often knowable and foreseeable, as are the factors contributing to harm, and therefore some civilian harm can be avoided or at least minimized. This article examines the key elements of CHMR, particularly how increasing and improving information on the civilian environment, projected risks to civilians and the impact of operations on civilians stands to aid in command decision-making and risk management. It also reflects on fundamental gaps in the formulation and implementation of the CHMR policy framework – notably, the lack of measures of performance and the failure to specifically connect CHMR capabilities to the fulfilment of IHL obligations in the conduct of hostilities. It closes with a discussion on tailoring CHMR to match the challenges of large-scale combat and multinational operations and offers potential approaches for national militaries to develop their own capabilities and procedures for effective CHMR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jenny McAvoy (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: