With the highest number of violent conflicts happening across the world in decades, civilian deaths in armed conflict increased by 72 per cent last year, according to the United Nation’s top aid official Martin Griffiths. Civilians are dying in wars that are running longer, and involving more parties, making them more difficult to resolve.

More conflict also means more civilians needing help. The humanitarian system is overwhelmed and under pressure to reach more people with fewer resources. Alongside this, there’s insufficient attention on, and investment in, the political processes and solutions needed to address the drivers of the violence.

This year marks the 26th anniversary of the UN Security Council placing the Protection of Civilians on its agenda, and the seventh annual Protection of Civilians week. In New York last month, member states, humanitarian organisations, and crisis-affected population representatives met to discuss civilian protection issues ranging from countering disinformation in conflict to easing war-induced hunger and strengthening peacekeeping.

While these are worthy topics, the challenge of holding to account those responsible for civilian harm remains unresolved.

This year’s UN Secretary-General Protection of Civilians report concluded that the situation in conflict zones is “overwhelmingly tragic”. It called for expanding the traditional focus on compliance and accountability to include “effective legal, policy and operational responses”.

With conflict escalating and the Security Council paralysed, states need more tools for protecting civilians

Historically, there has been a preoccupation with the idea of use of force to protect at-risk civilians. However, geopolitical dynamics on the Security Council and the changing nature of conflict has made this difficult, as the forced winding down of peacekeeping missions in Mali, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia have shown. The UN and member states must adapt to this new context and expand the available legal, policy and operational options to protect civilians in danger.

These calls will only grow louder in the context of political stasis in the Security Council. While Security Council inaction is hardly new, it’s entering some uncharted territory. One member has invaded another state and another is increasingly isolated, both over the Gaza crisis and its position on International Criminal Court arrest applications. Overt challenges to the rules-based order are putting civilian protection mechanisms under immense pressure. Unfortunately, the Security Council has failed to act in a timely manner, if at all, for many at-risk civilians. This is true not just in Gaza, but also in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria and Sudan.

What does this mean for Australia?

There is a way forward. Middle powers like Australia can play a critical role in maintaining the rules-based order, often moderating the fallout of great power politics.

Our region has certainly experienced its own share of crises. Timor-Leste, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar top the list, but in the Pacific, civil unrest in New Caledonia is also a potential concern, as are historic political developments in Solomon Islands and Fiji. Violence in Papua New Guinea poses unique challenges compounded by access to weapons and its position as the tenth country most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

But there are also many crises and conflicts beyond our region that affect our society, as the Israel-Gaza crisis has shown. From protest movements at universities to polarised public discourse, the Australian public is being mobilised through exposure to distressing images of unrestricted warfare. People are raising necessary questions about how and why this is happening and asking why we can’t make it stop. Australia is also reconciling its role in Afghanistan.

Protecting civilians in this context must be a central goal of Australia’s approach to foreign policy. The geopolitical landscape is tense and patterns of harm in armed conflict are changing, and therefore the threats to civilians and responders are changing too.

Middle powers that want to preserve the rules-based order and protect civilians, like Australia, must evolve to meet these new challenges. Our previous reliance on international peacekeeping operations won’t be sufficient.

We need a better understanding of which tools can prevent and mitigate civilian harm – especially for handling situations with no peacekeeper presence, a shrinking humanitarian footprint, or both. With decreasing respect for the rules of war and access to affected populations, humanitarian personnel are more constrained than ever. Their soaring death toll prompted a Security Council resolution on protecting humanitarian personnel last month.

But Australia can help realise the UN Secretary-General’s call for more effective legal, policy and operational responses to threats to civilians.

Domestically, that starts with making civilian protection central to the new Humanitarian Strategy expected later this year. The Australian Guidelines for the Protection of Civilians need revisiting for coherence across government, and policymakers should also consider following the lead of other countries and explore new civilian harm mitigation and response commitments.

Internationally, Australia should demonstrate leadership by making stronger civilian protection responses a major theme of its next campaign for a non-permanent Security Council seat. These simple steps would allow Australia to help lay the foundation for more effective civilian protection in its region and the world.