Background 

Depleted uranium (DU) is a dense, heavy metal produced as a by-product of the enrichment of natural uranium. Because of its high density and pyrophoric properties, DU has been used in armour-piercing munitions and certain military equipment. When DU munitions strike hard targets, they can aerosolise into fine particles that contaminate soil, dust, and scrap metal. These particles can persist in the environment for long periods, posing potential long-term risks to human health and hindering post-conflict recovery. 

Communities exposed to DU contamination often face significant uncertainty about the nature of the hazard and the steps they should take to protect themselves. Victims may struggle to access clear, science-based information about the risks of exposure, available health services, or the legal and institutional channels through which they can raise concerns. In many affected areas, communication between authorities, health systems, and civilians is fragmented or inconsistent, leaving survivors without guidance on monitoring, medical follow-up, or avenues for assistance. 

Effective communication is therefore essential to ensure that people can understand the risks, seek timely support, and participate in decisions regarding remediation and long-term monitoring. Transparent, accessible, and culturally appropriate communication mechanisms strengthen public trust, reduce misinformation, and help ensure that affected individuals are not left without the information they need to safeguard their health and claim their rights. 

Current Communication Schemes and Practices

In most countries affected by DU contamination, victims (potentially) can receive information through a combination of governmental bodies, international organisations, and civil society actors. Typically, national authorities—most often ministries of health, environment, or defence—are capable of issuing technical reports and environmental monitoring updates following conflict-related DU use. These documents, however, are seldom designed with affected communities in mind: they are usually highly technical, rarely translated into local languages in a timely manner, and often disseminated only through official websites or press releases with limited local outreach. 

International organisations such as UNEP and WHO have played a central role by carrying out environmental assessments in post-conflict settings and producing risk-communication materials based on their findings. While their reports contribute to the scientific understanding of DU contamination, communication with local populations tends to be indirect, usually passing through national authorities or partner NGOs. As a result, many victims encounter this information only when it is reported in the media or circulated informally, rather than through structured communication lines. 

Local and international NGOs often represent the most accessible and trusted source of information. In many affected areas, NGOs translate scientific findings into simpler language, engage directly with communities, and provide practical guidance on minimising exposure. Yet their capacity varies widely, and their work is rarely integrated into formal state-led communication systems. In the absence of consistent official communication, many victims rely on community leaders, word-of-mouth, and media coverage—channels that can perpetuate confusion or misinformation when official data are incomplete or unclear. 

Significant gaps persist across nearly all DU-affected contexts. Governments frequently do not designate a specific institution responsible for communicating with impacted communities, leading to unclear responsibilities and fragmented information flows. Transparency is limited, especially where environmental data or health assessments are politically sensitive, and long-term follow-up is rare once initial assessments are completed. Moreover, communication rarely includes information about avenues for remedy, such as the possibility of submitting complaints to UN human rights mechanisms. This disconnect leaves victims without awareness of their rights or the procedures available to raise concerns at the international level. And it is against this background that ICBUW has started working on a hand-out paper to inform victims about respective procedural options, especially in regard to the Special (communication) Procedures of the Human Rights Council. 

Examples from practice illustrate how these communication shortcomings manifest in concrete contexts. In Iraq, for instance, UNEP and WHO shared their findings with the government, but dissemination to local communities was inconsistent, and many residents first learned about DU risks through media reports or NGOs rather than governmental channels. Similar issues occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo, where initial post-conflict assessments included outreach components, but long-term engagement with communities diminished once international missions concluded. In Serbia and Montenegro, civil society organisations stepped in to fill the void left by limited governmental communication, organising information sessions and environmental sampling campaigns to make contamination data accessible to the public. In Afghanistan, insecurity and limited state capacity further restricted communication efforts, leaving many communities without information on potential risks for years. 

Overall, while communication and information schemes do exist, they are often fragmented, inconsistent, and insufficiently linked to human rights obligations. Victims frequently lack the clear, accessible, and continuous information they need to understand risks, access support, or seek remedy through national or international mechanisms. 

Effectiveness Analysis 

The effectiveness of current communication practices for victims of depleted uranium contamination varies widely across contexts, and a closer analysis reveals both valuable practices and persistent weaknesses. In many cases, the most effective elements are those that prioritise clarity, accessibility, and community-level engagement. For example, when international organisations or NGOs translate technical reports into non-specialist language, hold in-person meetings, or conduct awareness campaigns directly in affected areas, these approaches are generally associated with higher levels of understanding and trust. Similarly, communication efforts that combine environmental data with practical guidance— such as how to avoid contaminated scrap metal or which health services are available—tend to be far more effective than purely informational or scientific briefings. Transparency, early disclosure of risks, and ongoing updates over time also contribute significantly to effective communication, as they help establish a relationship of trust between institutions and affected communities. 

Despite these strengths, most existing communication arrangements remain limited in their overall effectiveness. One major challenge is the scarcity of long-term, institutionalised communication mechanisms. Initial environmental assessments by UNEP or WHO often generate substantial information, but once these missions conclude, regular updates rarely continue. This creates a vacuum in which victims are left without guidance as conditions evolve over months or years. Additionally, communication is hindered by the political sensitivity of DU contamination in several affected states. 

Governments sometimes release information selectively or delay publication of environmental data, making it difficult for communities to receive timely or complete facts. A further obstacle is the predominance of highly technical language in official reports, which restricts accessibility and contributes to misunderstandings. Many victims also lack access to digital platforms where information is commonly posted, meaning that official communication often fails to reach those most at risk. 

Another critical weakness lies in the limited integration of human rights considerations into the communication area. While DU contamination raises clear issues related to the rights to health, information, remedy, and participation, most states do not link their communication strategies to these obligations. Victims are rarely informed of their right to seek remedy through UN complaints and communication procedures, national human rights institutions, or other accountability mechanisms. As a result, communication remains largely descriptive rather than empowering, providing information without enabling victims to take action or seek redress. Furthermore, there is little coordination between different entities—governments, international organisations, NGOs—leading to inconsistent messaging, duplication of efforts, or, in some cases, contradictory information. 

Assessing the effectiveness of communication schemes requires attention to several key indicators. Accessibility is a primary benchmark: information must be available in local languages, shared through channels that communities actually use, and presented in formats understandable to nonspecialists. Another indicator is transparency, measured by how promptly data are released, whether uncertainties are acknowledged, and whether victims have access to full environmental and health assessments. Continuity is equally important, as one-off communication efforts do not meet the longterm needs of communities living in contaminated environments. Trust provides a further essential indicator, reflected in whether victims perceive official information as credible and whether they are willing to follow recommended guidance. Finally, a strong human-rights indicator is whether communication procedures inform individuals of available mechanisms for remedy and participation, allowing them not only to understand the risks they face but also to seek assistance or accountability where needed. 

Taken together, these factors show that while certain communication initiatives have had positive impacts, the overall system remains uneven and insufficiently responsive to victims’ rights and long-term needs. A standard communication arrangement in DU-contaminated contexts should include: (i) prompt risk notification to affected communities through accessible channels; (ii) early public release of available environmental data, including available information on firing locations; (iii) structured community outreach through local actors and NGOs; (iv) integration of health monitoring with ongoing information updates; and (v) long-term periodic reporting through accessible public databases.

Normative Framework 

The communication rights of DU-affected communities and individuals are grounded in a body of international norms that, while not forming a single binding instrument, collectively establish clear obligations on states and international actors.

At the disarmament level, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a series of resolutions on the effects of the use of armaments and munitions containing depleted uranium, most recently A/RES/79/49 (2024), building on a sequence dating back to A/RES/62/30 (2007). These resolutions consistently call on states to apply a precautionary approach, ensure transparency regarding DU use and provide assistance to affected states. Notably, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Israel have consistently voted against these resolutions, reflecting the political resistance that continues to undermine even non-binding commitments on transparency and victim assistance. The International Law Commission’s Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts (PERAC, 2022) provide further normative grounding. Draft Principle 18 requires states to share and grant access to information necessary to facilitate post-conflict remedial measures, while Draft Principle 26 establishes an obligation to remove or render harmless toxic remnants of war. The case of Iraq, where US forces acknowledged the use of over 118,000 kilograms of DU ammunition while declining to share location data with UNEP or the Iraqi authorities, illustrates how these obligations remain systematically unmet.

At the human rights level, CESCR (Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) General Comment No. 14 (2000) calls on states to refrain from actions that expose populations to harmful substances and to ensure access to relevant health information. Read alongside the right to an effective remedy and the right to participate in environmental decision-making, recognised under Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, this framework finds its most developed legal expression in the Aarhus Convention. Adopted in 1998 and in force since 2001, it is widely regarded as one of the first international treaties to confer environmental protection rights directly on individuals, guaranteeing access to environmental information, public participation in decision-making, and access to justice where these guarantees are denied. Its membership remains regional, limited to the UNECE (UN Economic Commission for Europe) area, though together with the Escazú Agreement (2018), which extends equivalent protections to Latin America and the Caribbean, it forms one of the only legally binding instruments to give practical effect to Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. The three-pillar structure it establishes, information, participation, and justice, offers a coherent reference point for what meaningful communication with affected populations should entail, including beyond Europe in contexts of post-conflict contamination such as DU-affected areas. Taken together, these obligations require that affected communities receive not only information about risks but also meaningful access to mechanisms for redress. The March 2025 ruling by the court in Pančevo, Serbia, the first judgment in the Balkans to formally establish a causal link between DU exposure and a citizen’s illness and to hold the state liable, confirms that these obligations are justiciable.

Recommendations 

To strengthen communication procedures for victims of depleted uranium contamination, several concrete measures are needed. First, governments and international organisations should prioritise the production and dissemination of clear, accessible, and culturally appropriate information. This includes translating materials into local languages, using visual aids or low-literacy formats, and ensuring that technical findings are accompanied by practical guidance on health and safety. Second, all actors should establish standardised and transparent referral pathways, linking affected communities to medical, psychosocial, and legal support. Clear roles and responsibilities among government agencies, NGOs, and international bodies are essential to prevent confusion and duplication of efforts. Third, communication strategies must integrate human-rights considerations, ensuring that victims are informed of their right to seek remedy through national or international mechanisms and enabling their meaningful participation in decision-making processes. Fourth, organisations should invest in community-based engagement and sustained follow-up, moving beyond one-off awareness campaigns to maintain long-term dialogue with affected populations. Fifth, coordination between all stakeholders—including local authorities, UN agencies, and civil society— should be strengthened to provide consistent messaging, monitor effectiveness, and respond rapidly to emerging needs. By implementing these measures, governments, NGOs, and the UN can ensure that DU victims receive timely, actionable information, empowering them to protect their health and access their rights. 

Conclusion 

Effective communication with DU-affected communities is not a secondary concern. It is a precondition for any meaningful response to contamination. The evidence from Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan shows that fragmented, delayed or inaccessible information leaves victims without the guidance they need to protect their health or seek remedy.

States bear primary responsibility for risk communication and information dissemination to affected populations. International organisations such as UNEP and WHO can provide technical and assessment support, while NGOs frequently act as intermediaries at community level, particularly where state capacity or public trust is limited. In practice, these roles are rarely formalised, and the absence of clearly assigned responsibilities remains one of the main structural causes of the failures documented in this paper.

Closing this gap requires sustained institutional commitment, clearer integration of human rights obligations, and continuous engagement with affected communities, not as a matter of good practice, but as a legal and moral obligation. ICBUW is going to continue working in this direction while offering its own possible role and contribution within DU communication and information schemes.

(Carmen Marino & Ilenia Perreca, Members, ICBUW Team)