The case for addressing explosive weapons: Conflict, violence and health Brian Rappert a, * , Richard Moyes b , Iain Lang c, d a Sociology and Philosophy, University of Exeter, United Kingdom b Article 36, Honorary University Fellow, University of Exeter, United Kingdom c National Institute for Health Research Peninsula Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (NIHR PenCLAHRC), University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, United Kingdom d NHS Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, United Kingdom article info Article history: Available online 11 August 2012 Keywords: Armed conflict Explosive weapons Evidence-based decision making Violence abstract In recent years, states and non-governmental organizations have expressed concern about the human- itarian consequences of the category of technologies labelled ‘explosive weapons’, particularly in relation to their use in populated areas. This article seeks to outline the magnitude of these consequences as well as what can be done to reduce harms. In particular, it makes a case for how health approaches could help prevent the harms associated with this category of weapons. Attention is given to the types of evidence and argument that might be required to characterize explosive weapons. An overarching aim is to consider how alternative ways of understanding weapons and violence can create new opportunities for addressing harms from conflict. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction In the last two decades, violence has been identified as a major health problem requiring systematic responses. The World Health Organization, among others, has sought to draw attention to its physical, psychological, economic, and societal consequences (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002; WHO, 1996). As with communicable disease, violence as a health issue is now charac- terized as both substantial and preventable. As a result, numerous efforts have been undertaken to determine its extent, address its causes, and propose interventions. Patterns of collective violence, including armed conflict, have come under this wider scrutiny (OECD-DAC, 2008; UNDP & WHO, 2005). Contributing factors e such as the availability of small arms and light weapons e have been prominent topics of concern over recent years (SAS, 2009; Valenti, Ormhaug, Mtonga, & Loretz, 2007). In response, many governments have committed themselves to the reduction of ‘armed violence’ (UN SG, 2005) through initia- tives such as the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Devel- opment (Geneva Declaration, 2006) and the Oslo Commitments on Armed Violence (Oslo Commitments, 2010). Against this dynamic background, the agendas and preoccupa- tions underpinning research and policy demand scrutiny. Panter- Brick (2010, p. 1) identified three vital lines of enquiry into the relationships between conflict, violence and health: - what are the impacts of violence and which risk and protective factors mediate short- and long-term health impacts? - how is suffering articulated, why do certain types of violence have particular significance, and in what contexts can indi- vidual and collective resilience efface the scars of violence? - what type of action e upstream, at a global policy level e works best to promote e downstream, at a local level e effective, sustainable, and equitable health. Such calls complement previous attempts (e.g., Coupland, 1996, 1999) to establish the determinants of the effects of armed violence through the assessment of specific weapon systems. The purpose of this article is to tackle these topics by examining emerging efforts to establish a new category of concern associated with collective violence e ‘explosive weapons’ e and to posit this as a health issue. The structure of the argument is as follows: in Section two the category of explosive weapons is introduced, describing how it builds on but also provides novel ways for re-thinking established approaches to the appropriateness of force. Section three discusses the humanitarian consequences associated with these weapons. The fourth section asks how health approaches could provide inroads and impetuses for addressing the conse- quences of the use of explosive weapons. The final section offers concluding remarks. Conflict and convention Article 35(1) of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 states ‘in any armed conflict, the right of the * Corresponding author. Department of Sociology and Philosophy, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, United Kingdom. Tel.: þ44 0 1392 723353. E-mail addresses: B.Rappert@ex.ac.uk, B.Rappert@exeter.ac.uk (B. Rappert). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Social Science & Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed 0277-9536/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.003 Social Science & Medicine 75 (2012) 2047e2054