War and Environmental Law: Strategies for Sustainable Warfare

By Fouad Sabry

What is War and Environmental Law

It is common for countries that are engaged in a conflict to prioritize their military needs over environmental considerations for the duration of the conflict. This is because war can cause significant damage to the environment. It is the intention of certain international laws to restrict the damage done to the environment.

How you will benefit

(I) Insights, and validations about the following topics:

Chapter 1: War and environmental law

Chapter 2: List of international environmental agreements

Chapter 3: War crime

Chapter 4: Fourth Geneva Convention

Chapter 5: Law of war

Chapter 6: Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Chapter 7: International humanitarian law

Chapter 8: Customary international law

Chapter 9: Protocol I

Chapter 10: Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

(II) Answering the public top questions about war and environmental law.

Who this book is for

Professionals, undergraduate and graduate students, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and those who want to go beyond basic knowledge or information for any kind of War and Environmental Law.

• Language: English
• Publisher: One Billion Knowledgeable
• Release date: Jun 22, 2024

Book preview

Chapter 1: War and environmental law

It is common for countries that are engaged in a conflict to prioritize their military needs over environmental considerations for the duration of the conflict. This is because war can cause significant damage to the environment. It is the intention of certain international laws to restrict the damage done to the environment.

It should come as no surprise that war and military actions have evidently negative effects on the environment. Weaponry, troop movements, land mines, the creation and destruction of buildings, the destruction of forests through defoliation or general military usage, the poisoning of water sources, the target-shooting of animals for practice, the consumption of endangered species out of desperation, and other examples are just some of the examples of how military activities (such as training, base construction, and transportation of weaponry) can be harmful to the environment during times of war as well as during times of peace. Both scorched earth and poisoning the well are examples of such an impact that are considered to be classic. There have been recent examples such as Iraq's use of depleted uranium in Kosovo in 1999, the use of air fuel bombs in Afghanistan since 2001, and the oil dump and fire that Iraq caused in Kuwait in 1990/1991.

The protection of the environment during times of war and military activity is partially addressed by international environmental law. This provides a legal framework for the protection of the environment. Additional sources can be found in several areas of law, including general international law, the laws of war, human rights law, and the local laws of each country that has been affected. Nevertheless, the environment is the primary topic of discussion in this article, and the fact that two countries are engaged in a conflict about it highlights the fact that the issue is of significance on a global scale. Therefore, the focus here is on international environmental law, which is enforced by the Security Council of the United Nations. Compared to other areas of international law, the law of armed conflict is not nearly as developed as other areas of international law. To control its development and execution, as well as to monitor its adherence, the United Nations Security Council is the only body that possesses the capacity and jurisdiction to conduct such activities.

During times of armed conflict and military actions, the protection of the environment is addressed in papers that are based on customary international law as well as soft law. Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1954) is a document that was produced by the International Law Commission (ILC).

It is imperative that the effects of nuclear weapons and any other instruments of mass devastation be spared human beings and the environment in which they live.

It is imperative that states work for immediate agreement, the international organizations that are pertinent, on the elimination and complete destruction of such weapons": Principle 26 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration → Chapter 11 of the Brundtland Report: Peace, Security, Development, the Environment, as well as.

When the World Charter for Nature was adopted in 1982, it stated that Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile activities.

There is no denying that warfare is intrinsically harmful to sustainable development.

Therefore, states are obligated to uphold international law that provides protection for the environment during times of armed conflict and to collaborate in the creation of environmentally friendly policies, as necessary: Principle 24 1992 Rio Declaration → paragraph 39.6 of the Agenda 21: measures in accordance with international law should be considered to address, periods when there is violent warfare, The damage of the environment on a massive scale, which cannot be justified under international law.

According to Resolution 47/37 (1992) of the United Nations General Assembly, [D]estruction of the environment, not justified by military necessity and carried out wantonly, is clearly contrary to existing international law.

There are provisions in a number of United Nations treaties, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention, the 1972 World Heritage Convention, and the 1977 Environmental Modification Convention, that are designed to reduce the negative effects that conflict or military actions have on the environment.

Within the framework of international law, Iraq was held accountable for the environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources that occurred as a consequence of the unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait, as stated in Resolution 687 (1991) of the United Nations Security Council.

According to Resolution 47/37 (1992) of the United Nations General Assembly, Destruction of the environment, not justified by military necessity and carried out wantonly, is clearly contrary to existing international law..

An international treaty known as the Environmental Modification Convention prohibits the use of environmental modification techniques that are widely used by the military or other hostile actors, enduring or severe consequences on the body.

Weather warfare is prohibited by the Convention, which refers to the practice of employing weather manipulation techniques with the intention of causing damage or disaster.

This treaty is currently in effect and has been ratified, which means that powerful military nations have agreed to abide by its terms.

Only a small number of States have ratified the treaty.

Parties are prohibited from participating in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread application., consequences that are either long-lasting or severe as a technique of destruction, damage or injury' to any other party ← Agent Orange use in Vietnam.

Protocol of Geneva on Gas in 1925

Art from the Geneva Convention IV of 1949.

53(4) ← Hague Regulations art.

Except in cases of absolute military necessity, 23(g) prohibits the destruction of property by occupying powers.

Convention on Biological Weapons, held in 1972

Convention of 1980 on Certain Conventional Weapons and its five protocols are as follows: The art produced by Protocol III (incendiary weaponry).

(forest and plant cover) number two-four; 2003 Protocol V (clearance of explosive remnants) ← 1997 Anti-Personnel Mines Convention (Ottawa Treaty); → 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions

Convention of the World Heritage from 1972

Neither herbicides nor their impact on flora were addressed in the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

The nature of the natural environment is considered a civilian object in accordance with international humanitarian law. This is the starting point. Inhabitants and belligerents are under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience, according to the Martens Clause (Preamble, 1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land). This is the case unless otherwise provided for. The ability of belligerents to employ means of inflicting harm on the adversary is restricted by Article 22.

The Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which was ratified by a large number of countries but not by all of them, includes provisions for the protection of the environment, including Article 35(3) (prohibition of methods) and Article 55 (due care). Taken together, these provisions embody a general obligation to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term, and severe environmental damage; the prohibition of methods and means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause such damage; and the prohibition of attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals: paragraph 31 of the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons in 1996; see also ICJ applications Yugoslavia v. UK in 1999 and DR Congo v. Rwanda in 2002.

Uganda, by acts of looting, plundering and exploitation of Congolese natural resources committed by members of the Ugandan armed forces in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and by its failure to comply with its obligations as an occupying Power in Ituri district to prevent acts of looting, plundering and exploitation of Congolese natural resources, violated obligations owed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo under international law : DR Congo v. Uganda (Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo) (International Court of Justice) ruling from 2005.

Art. 15 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II (non-international armed conflicts, less widely ratified than AP I) states that works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes, and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such an attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequently severe losses among the civilian population. Similarly, art. 56(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I states that dams, dykes, and nuclear electrical generating stations are examples of such installations.

"Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental