New Approach: Reconciling International Environmental Law and the Law of Armed Conflict

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinah Shelton ◽  
Isabelle Cutting

This article examines the extent to which international legal obligations aimed at protecting the environment apply to military activities in peacetime and during armed conflict. The discussion draws on international environmental law, human rights law, the law of armed conflict, and the law of State responsibility in evaluating the extent to which States have a duty to prevent or mitigate environmental harm and remediate or compensate for any such damage caused by their military activities. The article also examines international law on liability for the injurious consequences of lawful activities, to assess whether this equitable doctrine supports shifting the clean-up costs of environmental harm to the acting State even when there is no breach of international law. The article concludes that international law requires measures be taken to prevent environmental harm and could support a claim for remediation or compensation where norms of international law have been breached. It also suggests the need to develop specific rules in peace treaties and status of forces or bases agreements, to address the consequences of environmental harm resulting from military activities.


1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wil D. Verwey

AbstractAccording to, e.g., some Western governments and the ICRC, existing rules of international law would provide adequate protection of the environment in times of armed conflict. However, a proper analysis of the existing rules, contained in relevant treaties and customary international law, suggests that this protection is currently far from adequate, in times of both international and non-international armed conflict. In order to ensure a better protection of the environment in times of armed conflict, a new approach is required which departs from the obvious necessity of a common recognition of the following three fundamental ideas: 1. the indivisibility of a healthy environment as an indispensable condition for the survival of present and future generations; 2. the necessity to disconnect the legal protection of the environment in times of armed conflict from its anthropocentric legal enclosure; and 3. the need to expand the protective scope of the relevant rules beyond the current level of merely prohibiting the known or expectable and the obsoleteness of the distinction between environment protection pursued by the law of peace and environment protection pursued by the law of armed conflict, as well as recognition of the environment as a common heritage (or at least a common concern) of mankind.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-162
Author(s):  
Tara Smith

At its seventy-first session in 2019, the International Law Commission (ilc) provisionally adopted twenty-eight draft principles related to the protection of the environment before, during and after armed conflict. This article argues that the ilc ought to consider proposing a framework convention as the final outcome of this project, as this could result in better protection of the environment than draft principles. Framework conventions have featured in international environmental law but they have not yet been used to progressively develop the law of armed conflict. This article argues that the hybrid legal nature of protecting the environment during the conduct of hostilities ought to incorporate solutions from relevant fields of international law. To that end, there are many merits to proposing a framework convention approach in the final outcome of the ilc’s programme of work on this issue.


2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (902) ◽  
pp. 515-541
Author(s):  
Jinxing Ma ◽  
Shiyan Sun

AbstractThe restrictions on the use of force at sea exist in different branches of international law: the law of the sea and environmental law, mainly applicable during peacetime, and international humanitarian law (IHL), as the law applicable in times of armed conflict. Different rules from these areas must be compared and analyzed to determine the common principles applicable to restricting the use of force at sea for the purposes of environmental protection. Taking into account the particular problems of protecting the marine environment in the context of the use of force, the law of the sea and international environmental law should be applied to restrict means and methods of using force at sea during armed conflict. The detailed concepts and approaches in the law of the sea and environmental law may complement IHL, and the precautionary principle of international environmental law should be triggered to address the lacunae in IHL protecting the marine environmental during armed conflict.


Emerging technologies have always played an important role in armed conflict. From the crossbow to cyber capabilities, technology that could be weaponized to create an advantage over an adversary has inevitably found its way into military arsenals for use in armed conflict. The weaponization of emerging technologies, however, raises challenging legal issues with respect to the law of armed conflict. As States continue to develop and exploit new technologies, how will the law of armed conflict address the use of these technologies on the battlefield? Is existing law sufficient to regulate new technologies, such as cyber capabilities, autonomous weapons systems, and artificial intelligence? Have emerging technologies fundamentally altered the way we should understand concepts such as law-of-war precautions and the principle of distinction? How can we ensure compliance and accountability in light of technological advancement? This book explores these critical questions while highlighting the legal challenges—and opportunities—presented by the use of emerging technologies on the battlefield.


2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (879) ◽  
pp. 569-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bothe ◽  
Carl Bruch ◽  
Jordan Diamond ◽  
David Jensen

AbstractThere are three key deficiencies in the existing body of international humanitarian law (IHL) relating to protection of the environment during armed conflict. First, the definition of impermissible environmental damage is both too restrictive and unclear; second, there are legal uncertainties regarding the protection of elements of the environment as civilian objects; and third, the application of the principle of proportionality where harm to the environment constitutes ‘collateral damage’ is also problematic. These gaps present specific opportunities for clarifying and developing the existing framework. One approach to addressing some of the inadequacies of IHL could be application of international environmental law during armed conflict. The detailed norms, standards, approaches, and mechanisms found in international environmental law might also help to clarify and extend basic principles of IHL to prevent, address, or assess liability for environmental damage incurred during armed conflict.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document