The United Nations General Assembly is expected to adopt new principles to protect the environment from foreseeable damage before, during and after armed conflict. Experts say the principles articulate valuable norms for militaries to avoid the worst environmental impacts of war.
鈥淢ilitary operations 鈥� that includes training, building weapons and of course war 鈥� are incredibly destructive to the environment,鈥� says at the University of Oxford. In Ukraine, for instance, invading Russian forces have churned through farmland and biodiverse wetlands, destroyed industrial infrastructure and risked the release of radioactive materials by fighting near nuclear power plants.
Existing international laws already prohibit militaries from causing extreme environmental damage and from using environmental modification in war; international humanitarian law also indirectly protects the environment 鈥� by protecting culturally significant sites, for instance. But these laws have rarely been implemented.
Advertisement
The new proposal clarifies and extends militaries鈥� obligations to the environment under international law, including designating environmentally important zones, protecting indigenous lands and helping remediate environmental damage following a conflict. Notably, the principles apply to periods before and after conflicts, including domestic armed conflicts, and extend these obligations to occupying powers as well.
鈥淐ompared to what was there before, this is a quantum leap forward,鈥� says at the Conflict and Environment Observatory, a research and advocacy group in the UK.
In the 1970s, the Geneva Convention was amended to prohibit 鈥渨idespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment鈥�. A separate prohibited militaries from using environmental modification techniques in war, a product of the outcry over the US military鈥檚 use of the herbicide known as Agent Orange to defoliate forests during the Vietnam war.
In 2009, the UN Environment Programme that these existing rules were inadequate, setting too high and too vague a threshold for environmental damage. Efforts to hold states and other actors accountable for environmental damage during armed conflict have mostly failed. One exception is Iraq, which had to pay $5.3 billion in damages after retreating Iraqi forces ignited more than 600 oil wells during the Gulf war, says , the UN International Law Commission鈥檚 (ILC) special rapporteur for this issue.
Lehto says the ILC has spent the past decade developing the new set of principles in consultation with UN member states, expert legal consultants and humanitarian organisations.
In August, the ILC released the 鈥� known as the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts, or PERAC 鈥� which will be debated during the UN General Assembly this fall. Observers expect a resolution accepting these principles will be adopted, though some states will probably register objections, says Weir.
States with nuclear weapons may object to provisions that could be seen to limit their freedom to use nuclear weapons, says Weir. He thinks Israel might object to the portions regarding environmental obligations of occupying powers. Vietnam or Brazil might object to the measures protecting the lands and territories of Indigenous peoples. Globally, indigenous lands contain as much as 80 per cent of the world鈥檚 biodiversity.
鈥淭he big question is what happens next?鈥� says at Human Rights Watch, a US watchdog organisation. If the principles are to be more than rules on paper, he says they must be incorporated into national and regional laws, used by international courts and included in militaries鈥� standard operating procedures.
If adopted, the principles wouldn鈥檛 bind states to do anything beyond their obligations within existing treaties, but 鈥渘orms do matter鈥�, says Crawford, drawing a parallel to how militaries now pay more attention to civilian protection than they did 50 years ago. 鈥淚t may take years, but this is essential,鈥� she says.
