United States 2024
Emerging Leader
Country summary
In recent years, the US has taken notable steps to reduce civilian harm from its military operations. The Department of Defense has introduced expansive policy frameworks that set clear policies for all aspects of CHMR, including tracking and investigation of, and responding to harm. It has further allocated considerable financial and human resources to CHMR activities. Challenges remain in ensuring that these policies are applied consistently and despite having a dedicated budget for ex gratia payments, few such payments have been made in recent years. Further, the US can improve its transparency on civilian harm. Current reporting on civilian harm often lacks key details, for instance on methods of investigation and on responses to reported harm, limiting a clear external understanding of how the DoD assesses and addresses civilian harm. The US has made substantial progress in creating policies and structures aimed at protecting civilians, but needs to ensure adequate implementation. There is further the question how current policy and practice may be affected by a change in government as of January 2025.
1. National policy
LThe national policy or system of policies, strategies, and guidance adopted by the executive branch of government and its organs (including security institutions) that establishes clear authorities, responsibilities, and guidance for the prevention, mitigation, and response to civilian harm. A national policy framework, when combined with effective implementation of its provisions and formalised engagement with civil society actors can be helpful for communicating a government's commitment to mitigate harm to civilians.
Read More
The national policy or system of policies, strategies, and guidance adopted by the executive branch of government and its organs (including security institutions) that establishes clear authorities, responsibilities, and guidance for the prevention, mitigation, and response to civilian harm. A national policy framework, when combined with effective implementation of its provisions and formalised engagement with civil society actors can be helpful for communicating a government’s commitment to mitigate harm to civilians.
1.1 National policy framework
LThe government has adopted a comprehensive national policy framework on mitigating and responding to civilian harm resulting from its own military operations, including clear definitions of key terminology such as 'civilian harm'.
1.2 Clear policy language
LThe policy contains clear and actionable language and commitment to civilian harm mitigation and response.
1.3 Clear implementation guidance
ELPolicy and implementation guidance is clear and includes defined roles and responsibilities.
1.4 Budget and resources
ELFunding, personnel and time are given toward implementation of CHMR policies.
2. Civilian harm tracking
EAn internal (military or security force) process by which an armed actor gathers and analyses data about civilian harm incidents in order to better prevent, mitigate, and address harm in the future.
Read More
The US has implemented some degree of civilian harm tracking in most of its military operations since 2011. The DoD is currently working on further improvements to tracking and analysis mechanisms, for instance through plans to standardise civilian harm-related data collection, assessments, and investigations. This includes creating a centralised database to track harm and identify trends, which would be used to inform both current operations and broader organisational learning. However, development of this database is still in progress, and without interim solutions, there is a risk that ongoing cases may be overlooked. While the DoD aims to implement more uniform standards, the quality of current tracking of and reporting on civilian harm varies significantly across individual Combatant Commands.
2.1 Tracking mechanism
ELThe government has or plans for the capabilities, resources, personnel, and systems needed to track civilian harm, i.e., to systematically collect and analyse information on harm.
2.2 Tracking to reduce harm through analysis
EThe tracking mechanism is effectively designed to produce meaningful analysis and insights that are used by military leaders to change tactics or procedures. The express and stated purpose of the tracking mechanism in policy and practice is to prevent, mitigate, and address harm and promote institutional and operational learning.
2.3 Coordination with investigation mechanisms
ETracking mechanisms interact effectively with civilian harm investigations.
2.4 Data management
ETracking mechanisms have reliable access to accurate information and sufficiently detailed records about military operations (e.g., troop movements, airstrikes, incident reports). Incidents and analyses are properly archived and retrievable years later.
3. Investigations
EFormal inquiries (often in the form of administrative or criminal investigations) that can be used to elucidate facts, to understand the cause of harm, to identify relevant state and/or individual responsibilities, to facilitate the appropriate response and/or remedy, and even to exonerate.
Read More
The US DoD has made significant efforts in recent years toward improving how it investigates reports of civilian harm, also moving beyond a narrow focus on casualties alone. Recent policies outline the intent to standardise the investigation process, ensuring that both internal and external sources of information are considered in assessments. However, the extent to which these new policies have been fully integrated into current operations remains unclear and gaps in implementation remain. Additionally, public reports on civilian harm often do not specify the investigative means and methods that were used or how certain conclusions were reached, nor are these reports standardised across individual Combatant Commands.
3.1 Investigates all credible reports
EPromptly investigates all credible reports of civilian harm, whether or not it is immediately clear that a violation of international law has occurred. Obtains relevant information from all internal, and, to the extent feasible, all external sources.
3.2 Conducts witness interviews and site visits
EInvestigating officers conduct site visits and/or conduct witness interviews or provide reasons why doing so is infeasible. If this is infeasible, there is clarity on how evidentiary gaps will be addressed.
3.3 Reports of investigation
ELReports of investigations include a description of the process followed, the evidence consulted and included (including witness statements), information about its factual and legal findings, and recommendations for preventing a recurrence of civilian harm.
3.4 Interaction with response mechanisms
EInvestigations connect meaningfully to response mechanisms. Civilians who report incidents are informed of the possible response they can expect from the state. Acknowledgements of harm following the conclusion of an investigation address the next steps in terms of amends.
3.5 Criminal investigations
UIncidents of a suspected criminal nature are referred to an independent, impartial investigative authority for investigating criminal violations.
4. Public reporting & transparency
ELSystems and procedures to ensure that the public and institutions of public oversight are made sufficiently aware of civilian harm, and to protect the right of victims to pursue remedy. Information may be limited or redacted due to privacy concerns for affected civilians, to safeguard other ongoing investigations or for national security reasons, but these reasons should be subject to review.
Read More
The DoD demonstrates efforts to disclose information about civilian harm, but the level of transparency warrants improvement. Combatant Commands regularly publish reports on strikes, but the level of detail and the consistency of reporting varies across individual commands. There are additional transparency gaps related to the processes, criteria, and outcomes of investigations. While some information, such as mitigation tactics and basic assessments, is made available, key details – such as the determination of civilian status, explanations of credibility assessments, or the provision of amends – are often excluded. Overall, this impedes external assessments of the effectiveness of US civilian harm mitigation practices.
4.1 Discloses time and location of operations
EMakes public information, to include time and location, of operations including airstrikes, except in circumstances when doing so would place civilians or security personnel at risk.
4.2 Civilian harm reporting
ELRegularly issues and disseminates reports on civilian harm resulting from military operations that includes an estimate of casualties, the source of harm, the type of harm experienced, and the location of the incident(s) and any reasons for discrepancies with estimates or accounts from other sources such as NGOs or the media.
4.3 Public disclosure of process and records
EReleases information about mitigation tactics, investigative processes and records to the public whenever possible. Shares criteria used for the 'credibility' assessment and investigation of harm allegations.
5. Post-harm response
EEfforts to acknowledge and express condolence for harm, to include offers of monetary and non-monetary forms of post-harm assistance.
Read More
The US government has established a formal process to address civilian harm resulting from military operations, including both monetary and non-monetary forms of amends. Recent policies have introduced new regulations, further systematising post-harm response practices. However, while recent policy frameworks mandate acknowledgment of harm at individual and community levels, there is no formal policy or guidance for issuing apologies. The exclusion of compensation claims by civilians deemed ‘unfriendly’ to the US is problematic and raises the concern that post-harm response practices may be implemented inconsistently across different conflict theatres. Notably, the process for civilian harm amends has evolved over the last few years and recent policies show a clear commitment to amending civilian harm caused by US operations.
5.1 Process for amends
EThe government implements a functional, timely, and adequately resourced process to receive and process requests and proactively provides monetary and non-monetary amends for harm caused by operations.
5.2 Acknowledgement
ELThe government publicly acknowledges responsibility for harm.
5.3 Comprehensive, victim-centred condolence
EPolicies governing the offer and provision of condolences should be broadly defined, culturally appropriate and sensitive to local needs as defined by those affected.
Resources
Highlighted
- USDP, “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response”, n.d. [Link ]
Government
- Legal Information Institute “Foreign Claims Act: 10 U.S. Code § 2734 - Property Loss; Personal Injury or Death: Incident to Noncombat Activities of the Armed Forces; Foreign Countries,” [Link ]
- “American Service-Members’ Protection Act,” 2003 [Link ]
- US Department of Defense. “Law of War Manual,” June 2015 (Updated July 2023). [Link ]
- The White House. “Executive Order - United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike,” July 1, 2016. [Link ]
- 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, section 1057 [Link ]
- 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, section 1057 [Link ]
- The White House. “Executive Order on Revocation of Reporting Requirement – the White House,” March 6, 2019. [Link ]
- US Under Secretary of Defense. “Interim regulations for condolence and sympathy payments to friendly for injury or loss that is incident to military operations,” June 22, 2020. [Link ]
- Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas — UNODA. “The Political Declaration,” 2022. [Link ]
- The White House. “Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM) Governing Direct Action in Counterterrorism Operations Outside Areas of Active Hostilities,” 2022. [Link ]
- US Department of Defense. “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR- AP),” August 25, 2022. [Link ]
- US Department of Defense “Payment of Expenses to Help Respond to Civilian Harm,” 2023. [Link ]
- US Department of Defense. “DOD Instruction Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response 3000.17,” December 21, 2023. [Link ]
- United States Africa Command. “Civilian Harm Reporting” n.d. [Link ]
- US Department of Defense. “2023 Annual Report on Civilian Casualties in US Military Operations,” December 19, 2024. [Link ]
Civil Society
- Human Rights Watch. “Getting Away with Torture? Command Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees.” April 2005. [Link ]
- American Civil Liberties Union. “ACLU Letter Urges President Obama to Reject Targeted Killings Outside Conflict Zones,” American Civil Liberties Union, April 27, 2010. [Link ]
- See Wu, Nichlas and John Fritze, “Trump Pardons Servicemembers in High Profile War Crimes Cases,” USA TODAY, November 16, 2019. [Link ]
- Center for Civilians in Conflict & Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute. “In Search of Answers: U.S. Military Investigations and Civilian Harm,” 2020. [Link ]
- Mahanty, Daniel R. and Annie Shiel, “Protecting Civilians Still Matters in Great-Power Conflict,” Defense One, April 13, 2021. [Link ]
- Shiel, Annie. “DOD’S New Ex Gratia Policy: What’s Right, What’s Wrong, and What’s Next.” Just Security, June 2, 2021. [Link ]
- Burke, Roseanne and Mark Lattimer. “Reparations for civilian harm from military operations: Towards a UK policy” Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, November 2021. [Link ]
- McNerney, Michael J., Gabrielle Tarini, Karen M. Sudkamp, Larry Lewis, Michelle Grisé, and Pauline Moore. “U.S. Department of Defense Civilian Casualty Policies And Procedures: An Independent Assessment.” RAND, January 27, 2022. [Link ]
- Airwars. “Analysis: US Declares Its Military Actions Worldwide Killed No Civilians in 2022,” https://airwars.org/research/analysis-us-declares-its-military-actions-worldwide-killed-no- civilians-in-2022/. See also Airwars. “US forces in Somalia,” n.d. [Link ]
- Karlshoej-Pedersen, Megan. “US-UK Strikes in Yemen Raise Questions About Commitments on Civilian Harm Mitigation.” Just Security, May 1, 2024. [Link ]
- Naples-Mitchell, Joanna, and Annie Shiel. “For Another Year, DoD Fails to Make Condolence Payments to Civilian Harm Victims.” Just Security, May 8, 2024. [Link ]
- Center for Civilians in Conflict & Stimson Center. “Tracking implementation of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP),” November 2024. [Link ]
Media
- The New York Times. “The Civilian Casualty Files,” n.d. [Link ]
- CBS News. “Marine Gets No Jail Time for Haditha Killings,” January 24, 2012. [Link ]
- BBC. “Decorated US soldier 'admitted murder in CIA job interview'”. BBC, 14 December, 2018. [Link ]
- The New York Times. “How a U.S. Drone Strike Killed the Wrong Person,” September 10, 2021. [Link ]
- Nezhat, Omar, Meg Kelly, Alex Horton and Imogen Piper. “U.S. officials walk back claim drone strike killed senior al-Qaeda leader,” The Washington Post, May 18, 2023. [Link ]
- Horton, Alex and Meg Kelly. “U.S. forces thought they killed a terrorist. They got the wrong man,” The Washington Post, May 2, 2024. [Link ]
- Kelly, Meg and Missy Ryan. “Pentagon urged to make payments for slain, injured civilians.” The Washington Post, November 16, 2024. [Link ]