At a session of the UN General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security on October 15, 2026, civil society organizations presented 22 statements on a range of topics, including autonomous weapons systems, cluster munitions, explosive weapons in populated areas, incendiary weapons, the international arms trade, landmines, nuclear weapons, the protection of the environment in armed conflict, and torture-free trade.
Catherine Pilishvili of the Forum on the Arms Trade delivered the following joint civil society statement on humanitarian disarmament, which was endorsed by 5 global campaigns and 82 civil society organizations, all of which are listed below.
This post expresses the views of the statement’s signatories and does not purport to represent the views of Havard Law School or Harvard University.
Catherine Pilishvili of the Forum on the Arms Trade reads the civil society statement on humanitarian disarmament at the UN General Assembly’s First Committee on October 16, 2026. Credit: Laura Varella, 2026.
I read this statement on behalf of 82 civil society organizations and 5 global humanitarian disarmament campaigns.
Three decades ago this month, states convened for the opening meeting of the Ottawa Process, which launched negotiations of the Mine Ban Treaty and established humanitarian disarmament as an effective way to address the human suffering and environmental harm inflicted by arms.
Humanitarian disarmament is now facing challenges including a shifting geopolitical climate, an increased number of armed conflicts, and repeated breaches of and growing disregard for international law. Despite these challenges, the movement has demonstrated resilience in the past, and its preventive and remedial measures remain valuable tools for promoting civilian protection.
Over the past year, the widespread and unlawful use of explosive weapons in populated areas, antipersonnel landmines, and cluster munitions, along with an expanding arms trade fueled by record levels of defense spending by governments, have caused significant harm to civilians.
Some states have abused consensus decision-making processes to weaken draft elements of an instrument on autonomous weapons systems and impede efforts to address the problems of incendiary weapons at Convention on Conventional Weapons meetings. They have also blocked the adoption of outcome documents at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
At the same time, large cuts in funding to humanitarian actors have had major impacts on the research, monitoring, advocacy, clearance operations to remove explosive hazards, and victim assistance measures that are all essential to humanitarian disarmament.
Nevertheless, the movement has also demonstrated its ongoing impact in 2026. For example, support for humanitarian disarmament instruments is growing. Lebanon acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty during an armed conflict, which served as a reminder of the treaty’s importance for protecting civilians. More than 100 states are now either parties or signatories to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and over 90 states have endorsed the Political Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.
States parties have held the line on core principles in key forums, such as the Third Review Conference of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The final conference report condemned “any use of cluster munitions by any actor and under any circumstances” and called for an investigation into the use of cluster munitions on a state party’s territory.
In November, high contracting parties to the Convention on Conventional Weapons have the opportunity to strengthen the humanitarian disarmament agenda by choosing to initiate negotiations of a legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems.
To bolster humanitarian disarmament’s ongoing effectiveness in challenging times, states and other proponents should:
Maintain a humanitarian focus in the process of disarmament;
Defend the norms of humanitarian disarmament, including during times of heightened insecurity;
Demonstrate the political will and creativity to pursue the bold moves that have long made humanitarian disarmament effective;
Highlight humanitarian disarmament’s wide-ranging achievements to demonstrate the effectiveness of international law;
Invest financial, human, and other resources in this work; and
Pursue humanitarian disarmament efforts in partnerships, joining forces with like-minded states, international organizations, and civil society and ensuring that affected communities are included at every stage of the decision-making process.
Thank you.
Supporting Global Campaigns
Control Arms
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
International Campaign to Ban Landmines–Cluster Munition Coalition
International Network on Explosive Weapons
Stop Killer Robots
Supporting Organizations
Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy (AIDD)
Action on Armed Violence (AOAV)
ACTORS RWANDA (ARO)
Arab Human Security Network
Alianza por el Desarme Nuclear
Aotearoa New Zealand Campaign on Military Spending
Aotearoa New Zealand Joint Working Group on Landmines and Cluster Munitions
Aotearoa New Zealand Network on Explosive Weapons
Associazione Italiana Medicina per la Prevenzione della Guerra Nucleare (IPPNW Italy)
Associazione nazionale vittime civili di guerra
Azerbaijan Campaign to Ban Landmines
Ban Landmines Campaign Nepal (NCBL)
Campaña Colombiana Contra Minas (CCCM)
Centre for Development and Assistance in Conflict (CEDAC)
Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC)
Centro de Estudios Ecuménicos
CODEPINK
Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft – Vereinigte KriegsdienstgegnerInnen e.V. (DFG-VK)
Development and Ability Organization (DAO)
Dhesarme–Brazilian Action for Humanitarian Disarmament
ECPAT/SEHLAC
Frauennetzwerk für Frieden e. V / Women’s Network for Peace, Germany
Human Rights Now
Human Rights Watch
Humanity & Inclusion
ICAN Aotearoa New Zealand
ICAN France
InterAgency Institute
International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School
Kurdish Organizations Network Coalition for the International Criminal Court (KONCICC)
Kurdistan Organizations Network to Abolish Nuclear and Mass Destruction Weapons (KONW)
Kurdistan without Genocide
Legacies of War
Maat for Peace, Development and Human Rights
Massachusetts Peace Action
Medical Association for Prevention of War
Middle East Treaty Organization
Mines Action Canada
NH Peace Action
Nonviolence International
Norfolk Catholic Worker
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
NVMP-Artsen voor vrede
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
Organization Against Weapons of Mass Destruction in Kurdistan
Organization of the Justice Campaign (OJC)
Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG)
PAX
Pax Christi USA
Peace Action Maine
Peace Boat
Peace Movement Aotearoa
Permanent Peace Movement
PROTECTION
Qazaq Nuclear Frontline Coalition
Regional Centre for International Development Cooperation (RCIDC)
Réseau d’Action Sur les Armes Légères en Afrique de l’Ouest (RASALAO)
Réseau d’Action Sur les Armes Légères en Afrique de l’Ouest, section Côte d’Ivoire (RASALAO-CI)
Rete Italiana Pace Disarmo
Saferworld
SANE Policy Institute
Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Security Research and Information Centre (SRIC)
Seguridad Humana para América Latina y el Caribe (SEHLAC)
Serviço de Paz (SERPAZ)
SMEX
Soka Gakkai International
Somali Human Rights Association (SOHRA)
Somerville (MA) Human Rights Commission
Stop Killer Robots Aotearoa New Zealand Campaign
Sustainable Peace and Development Organization (SPADO)
Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society
Swedish Physicians against Nuclear Weapons
Swansea Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR)
Vision GRAM-International
West Virginia Campaign to Ban Landmines and Cluster Munitions
Women for Peace and Democracy Nepal
Women, Peace and Security Network Aotearoa New Zealand
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
World without Chemical and Biological Weapons (WWW)
At a session of the UN General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security on October 15, 2026, civil society organizations presented 22 statements on a range of topics, including autonomous weapons systems, cluster munitions, explosive weapons in populated areas, incendiary weapons, the international arms trade, landmines, nuclear weapons, the protection of the environment in armed conflict, and torture-free trade.
Catherine Pilishvili of the Forum on the Arms Trade delivered the following joint civil society statement on humanitarian disarmament, which was endorsed by 5 global campaigns and 82 civil society organizations, all of which are listed below.
This post expresses the views of the statement’s signatories and does not purport to represent the views of Havard Law School or Harvard University.
I read this statement on behalf of 82 civil society organizations and 5 global humanitarian disarmament campaigns.
Three decades ago this month, states convened for the opening meeting of the Ottawa Process, which launched negotiations of the Mine Ban Treaty and established humanitarian disarmament as an effective way to address the human suffering and environmental harm inflicted by arms.
Humanitarian disarmament is now facing challenges including a shifting geopolitical climate, an increased number of armed conflicts, and repeated breaches of and growing disregard for international law. Despite these challenges, the movement has demonstrated resilience in the past, and its preventive and remedial measures remain valuable tools for promoting civilian protection.
Over the past year, the widespread and unlawful use of explosive weapons in populated areas, antipersonnel landmines, and cluster munitions, along with an expanding arms trade fueled by record levels of defense spending by governments, have caused significant harm to civilians.
Some states have abused consensus decision-making processes to weaken draft elements of an instrument on autonomous weapons systems and impede efforts to address the problems of incendiary weapons at Convention on Conventional Weapons meetings. They have also blocked the adoption of outcome documents at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
At the same time, large cuts in funding to humanitarian actors have had major impacts on the research, monitoring, advocacy, clearance operations to remove explosive hazards, and victim assistance measures that are all essential to humanitarian disarmament.
Nevertheless, the movement has also demonstrated its ongoing impact in 2026. For example, support for humanitarian disarmament instruments is growing. Lebanon acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty during an armed conflict, which served as a reminder of the treaty’s importance for protecting civilians. More than 100 states are now either parties or signatories to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and over 90 states have endorsed the Political Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.
States parties have held the line on core principles in key forums, such as the Third Review Conference of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The final conference report condemned “any use of cluster munitions by any actor and under any circumstances” and called for an investigation into the use of cluster munitions on a state party’s territory.
In November, high contracting parties to the Convention on Conventional Weapons have the opportunity to strengthen the humanitarian disarmament agenda by choosing to initiate negotiations of a legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems.
To bolster humanitarian disarmament’s ongoing effectiveness in challenging times, states and other proponents should:
Thank you.
Supporting Global Campaigns
Supporting Organizations
(KONCICC)
Share this:
Like this: