Record, investigate, and publish harm to civilians from military operations, and make amends to the victims
Steps to make it happen
- The military records every case in which ordinary people are hurt or killed in its operations.
- The government sets up a office that also takes reports from local people and reporters.
- Investigators outside the military chain of command find out what really happened.
- The government regularly tells the public what the investigations found, and how many people were harmed and where.
- The government gives apologies and payments to the people who were harmed and to their families.
- The military changes its training and the way it carries out operations so the same harm does not happen again.
- Even in war, counting civilian harm and working to reduce it becomes the normal thing to do.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers every operation carried out by a country's military or security forces. That includes fighting and air strikes abroad and attacks by drones, as well as operations run together with the forces of other countries and the deployment of troops inside the country. The harm to be recorded is not only civilian deaths and injuries but also damage to homes, hospitals, schools, and the things daily life depends on, such as water and electricity. When the unit in charge of an operation learns of possible harm, it enters it in an internal record within a set number of days. Investigations are carried out by a separate, independent office outside the chain of command that directed the operation, and it reports to the legislature and to independent audit bodies. This office accepts reports from residents, aid groups, and news organizations, including anonymous reports and reports in local languages. Publication happens in two stages. Total numbers of harm and trends by region are released regularly, while the findings on individual cases are released after a set period, with attention to the safety of the operation. However, there is a maximum limit on how long publication can be delayed, and any delay must come with a stated reason. Payments to victims are separated from the question of whether legal responsibility is admitted, and can be made through a simple process as condolence or sympathy payments. When unlawful conduct is suspected, the case is handed over separately to criminal proceedings. The causes found in investigations are used to review education and training, rules of engagement, and the choice of weapons.
BenefitsThe truth about harm becomes known and repeats can be prevented
The biggest benefit is that where and why civilians were harmed is kept on record, which leads to lessons for not repeating the same mistakes. Harm that is not counted cannot be reduced, and only with records can we look again at which weapons and ways of fighting are dangerous. Independent investigation and regular publication also narrow the gap between government announcements and the voices of local people, and leave less room for groundless rumors and exaggerated propaganda to spread. For the people who were harmed, having what happened acknowledged and receiving amends is itself a restoration of dignity. If the trust of local residents is won, cooperation in the area of operations becomes easier to get, and it is thought that resentment will be used less often to recruit for armed groups. For a country's own soldiers, the records also give proof that they are fighting by the rules, and can be expected to ease distrust from public opinion at home and abroad. Being able to show a commitment to the law through concrete records in international settings also helps raise a country's credibility.
DrawbacksIt may weaken the safety of operations and fighting strength
The heaviest concern from those who oppose the proposal is that information about operations getting out could put soldiers and allies in danger. If the place, time, and cause of harm are published, the enemy may be able to guess the performance of the weapons used, the movements of units, and the ways information is gathered. It is also possible that the other side will deliberately send in large numbers of false reports or use published content for propaganda. In particular, when the other side does no similar recording or publishing at all, a sense of unfairness arises that only one's own side reveals its hand and is put at a disadvantage in international opinion. In areas where fighting continues, it is also hard just to go to the site and check, so keeping the quality of investigations high is not easy. Some also point out that if the burden of recording and investigating falls heavily on front-line units, commanders may hesitate to decide, and operations may be delayed, causing harm to allies and residents instead. There are also worries that paying amends could be taken in practice as an admission of responsibility, leading to the prosecution of individual soldiers and lower morale.
Learn the background
Modern armed conflicts increasingly take place in crowded cities. When weapons with great explosive power are used in residential areas, people who are not fighting are easily caught up in the violence. International humanitarian law, the international rules that must be followed even in wartime, requires that fighters be told apart from civilians and that harm not be excessive compared with the military gain expected. But in many countries the means of checking whether these rules were actually followed are not good enough. It is not unusual for the number of casualties announced by a government to differ greatly from the number collected by local groups and the press, and it often stays impossible for anyone to judge which is right. Families who suffered harm are left with no explanation and no apology, and their helpless anger can lead to new conflicts or to joining armed groups. Some countries and international forces are developing policies to reduce civilian harm, but there are still few cases where recording, investigation, publication, and making amends are firmly in place as one connected system.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes