No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 August 2023
Actors engaging in a diverse set of environmental protection activities are experiencing serious difficulties executing their mandates during armed conflict, leading to environmental harm that could otherwise have been mitigated. This article examines to what extent the international legal and policy framework can ensure the protection of environmental protection actors during armed conflict. It is argued that environmental protection actors can be seen either as part of civil defence organizations or as humanitarian relief actors, and are therefore covered by special protections under international humanitarian law. However, two main challenges remain: (1) despite these existing provisions, environmental protection actors may still face access and safety issues during armed conflict, and (2) within this framework, environmental protection activities must be linked to civilian needs and cannot be conducted based on ecocentric motivations. To overcome these challenges, the article introduces the concept of “environmentarian corridors”. Environmentarian corridors would allow for the unimpeded movement of environmental protection workers and resources through contested territory and into emergency areas to protect the environment. They would also serve to increase awareness about obligations to protect the environment and would help to ensure the safety of environmental protection actors during armed conflict, as the role and mandate of these actors is explicitly accepted by stakeholders. Additionally, environmentarian corridors offer potential for conducting environmental protection activities on ecocentric grounds. The article concludes by advocating for stakeholders to employ the provisions and concepts articulated herein as a means to further promote and strengthen initiatives aimed at protecting the environment during armed conflict.
Felicia Wartiainen holds a MA (cum laude) in environmental policy from Sciences Po Paris and a BSc in law with a specialization in international law from the Swedish Defence University. The author wishes to thank Dr Heather Harrison Dinniss and Dr Nobuo Hayashi for their vital guidance in developing this work, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on previous drafts of this article.
The advice, opinions and statements contained in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICRC. The ICRC does not necessarily represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided in this article.
1 Hulme, Karen, War Torn Environment: Interpreting the Legal Threshold, Brill, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 “Earth systems” are defined here as the interacting physical, chemical and biological processes between the atmosphere, cryosphere, land, ocean and lithosphere. Steffen, See Will et al., “The Emergence and Evolution of Earth System Science”, Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020Google Scholar.
3 Al-Duaij, Nada, Environmental Law of Armed Conflict, Transnational Publishers, New York, 2004Google Scholar.
4 Lanier-Graham, Susan D., The Ecology of War: Environmental Impacts of Weaponry and Warfare, Walker, New York, 1993Google Scholar.
5 Richard A. Matthew, Oli Brown and David Jensen, From Conflict To Peacebuilding: The Role Of Natural Resources And The Environment, Policy Paper No. 1, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, 2009; Global Witness, The Sinews Of War: Eliminating The Trade In Conflict Resources, briefing document, November 2006.
6 K. Hulme, above note 1.
7 N. Al-Duaij, above note 3, p. 45.
8 Mosher, David E. et al., Green Warriors: Army Environmental Considerations for Contingency Operations from Planning through Post-Conflict, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Mrema, Elizabeth, Bruch, Carl and Diamond, Jordan, Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: An Inventory and Analysis of International Law, UNEP and Earthprint, Nairobi, 2009Google Scholar.
10 Halpern, Michaela, “Protecting Vulnerable Environments in Armed Conflict: Deficiencies in International Humanitarian Law”, Stanford Journal of International Law, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2015Google Scholar.
11 Smit, Hendrik A. P., “How Green is Your Army? The Military Environmental Narrative of the South African Army”, South African Geographical Journal, Vol. 100, No. 3, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 Paulo Pereira, Ferdo Bašić, Igor Bogunovic and Damia Barcelo, “Russian–Ukrainian War Impacts the Total Environment”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 837, 2022.
13 Olena Yatseno, “Kinburn Spit was under the Threat of Destruction – Denisova”, Ecopolitic, 17 May 2022, available at: https://tinyurl.com/32f4kana (all internet references were accessed in July 2023).
14 Henrike Schulte and Doug Weir, “Do Mention the War: Why Conservation NGOs Must Speak Out on Biodiversity and Conflicts”, Conflict and Environment Observatory, 11 April 2022, available at: https://ceobs.org/do-mention-the-war-why-conservation-ngos-must-speak-out-onbiodiversity-and-conflicts/.
15 World Bank, Implementation Completion and Results Report: Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Strategic Ecosystem Management Project, Report No. ICR00004650, 28 June 2019.
16 As defined in Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Arts 61–67.
17 The definition of humanitarian relief actors is discussed under the section “Environmental Actors as Humanitarian Relief Workers”.
18 See, for example, International Law Commission (ILC), Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN Doc. A/74/10, 9 August 2022, Arts 4, 17.
19 Gillespie, Alexander, “Anthropocentricism”, in Gillespie, Alexander (ed.), International Environmental Law, Policy, and Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Schmitt, Michael N., “Green War: An Assessment of the Environmental Law of International Armed Conflict”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1997Google Scholar.
21 Lawrence, Jessica C. and Heller, Kevin Jon, “The First Ecocentric Environmental War Crime: The Limits of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2007Google Scholar.
22 Lucia, Vito De, “Beyond Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism: A Biopolitical Reading of Environmental Law”, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Michael D. Deiderich Jr, “‘Law of War’ and Ecology – A Proposal for a Workable Approach to Protecting the Environment through the Law of War”, Military Law Review, Vol. 136, 1992, pp. 142–143.
24 Díaz, Sandra et al., “Assessing Nature's Contributions to People”, Science, Vol. 359, No. 6373, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Boyd, David R., “Catalyst for Change: Evaluating Forty Years of Experience in Implementing the Right to a Healthy Environment”, in Knox, John H. and Pejan, Ramin (eds), The Human Right to a Healthy Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, p. 17Google Scholar.
26 Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment, UN Doc. A/Conf.48/14/ Rev.1, 1972.
27 D. R. Boyd, above note 25, p. 17.
28 UNGA Res. 76/300, 28 July 2022.
29 The most recent ruling is the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights which established that there is an inherent relationship between human rights and environmental protection. See, for example, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Medio ambiente y derechos humanos [The Environment and Human Rights], Advisory Opinion No. OC 23-17, Series A, No. 23, 15 November 2017; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Yanomami v. Brazil, Resolution No. 12/85, Case No. 7615, 5 March 1985; Community Court of Justice, Economic Community of West African States, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v. Nigeria, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12, 14 December 2012; European Court of Human Rights, Öneryildiz v. Turkey, Appl. No. 48939/99, Judgment, 30 November 2004, para. 71.
30 Fleck, Dieter (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021, p. 341Google Scholar.
31 Dinstein, Yoram, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016, pp. 204–205Google Scholar.
32 Dieter Fleck, “Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts”, in D. Fleck (ed.), above note 30, p. 341. This principle is codified in Article 2(4) of Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which specifies that only elements of the environment which cover, conceal or camouflage military objectives may be targeted.
33 Richards, Peter J. and Schmitt, Michael N., “Mars Meets Mother Nature: Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict”, Stetson Law Review, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1999Google Scholar.
34 Bothe, Michael, Bruch, Carl, Diamond, Jordan and Jensen, David, “International Law Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: Gaps and Opportunities”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 879, 2010, pp. 569, 577CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 D. Fleck, above note 32.
36 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 UNTS 151, 10 December 1976 (entered into force 5 October 1978) (ENMOD Convention), Art. 63(2).
37 See above note 16.
38 M. D. Deiderich Jr, above note 23, p. 152.
39 M. Bothe et al., above note 34, p. 576.
40 E. Mrema, C. Bruch and J. Diamond, above note 9, p. 237; M. Bothe et al., above note 34.
41 D. Fleck, above note 32, p. 341.
42 M. Bothe et al., above note 34.
43 E. Mrema, C. Bruch and J. Diamond, above note 9.
44 Fleck, Dieter, “The Martens Clause and Environmental Protection in Relation to Armed Conflicts”, Goettingen Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2020Google Scholar.
45 Mrema, E., Bruch, C. and Diamond, J., above note 9, p. 239; Jong, Daniëlla Dam-de and Sjostedt, Britta, “Enhancing Environmental Protection in Relation to Armed Conflict: An Assessment of the ILC Draft Principles”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2021, p. 145; K. Hulme, above note 1Google Scholar.
46 D. Dam-de Jong and B. Sjostedt, above note 45, p. 145; D. Fleck, above note 44.
47 ILC, above note 18, Art. 12.
48 ILC, Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/77/10, 9 August 2022 (PERAC Principles), Art. 12(7). This is also reflected in the final Principles.
49 E. Mrema, C. Bruch and J. Diamond, above note 9, p. 240.
50 Marja Lehto, Third Report on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN Doc. A/CN.4/750, 16 March 2022, paras 46–54.
51 PERAC Principles, above note 48, Art. 4.
52 Ibid., above note 48, Art. 12; see also D. Dam-de Jong and B. Sjostedt, above note 45, p. 137.
53 PERAC Principles, above note 48, Arts 23, 24.
54 Jensen, David and Lonergan, Steven, Assessing and Restoring Natural Resources in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, Earthscan, Abingdon, 2012Google Scholar.
55 Thor Hanson et al., “Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots”, Conservation Biology, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2009.
56 Benjamin Jensen, “How Does It End? What Past Wars Tell Us about How to Save Ukraine”, Center For Strategic and International Studies, 4 March 2022, available at: www.csis.org/analysis/how-does-it-end-what-past-wars-tell-us-about-how-save-ukraine.
57 Plumptre, Andrew J., “Lessons Learned from On-the-Ground Conservation in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2003, pp. 83–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 T. Hanson et al., above note 55, p. 578.
59 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Conflict and Conservation, 28 April 2021.
60 Ibid., p. 55.
61 Jha, U. C., Armed Conflict and Environmental Damage, Vij Books India, New Delhi, 2014, p. 52Google Scholar.
62 Rene L. Beyers et al., “Resource Wars and Conflict Ivory: The Impact of Civil Conflict on Elephants in the Democratic Republic of Congo – The Case of the Okapi Reserve”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 6, No. 11, 2011.
63 Ahmed A. H. Siddig, “Biodiversity of Sudan: Between the Harsh Conditions, Political Instability and Civil Wars”, Biodiversity Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2014, p. 545.
64 Serhiy Zibtsev, “Червона спека” [“Red Heat”], ЕКО-інформ [EKO-Inform], 27 July 2022.
65 UN Security Council 9327th Meeting, UN Doc. SC/15292, 23 May 2023.
66 M. D. Deiderich Jr, above note 23.
67 N. Al-Duaij, above note 3, p. 471.
68 Wright, Claire, “Blueprint for Survival: A New Paradigm for International Environmental Emergencies”, Fordham Environmental Law Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2017, p. 311Google Scholar.
69 ICRC, Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, Geneva, 1994, Art. 36 (emphasis added).
70 Bothe, Michael, Partsch, Karl Josef and Solf, Waldemar A., New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1982, p. 434CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
71 Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC IV), Art. 63(2).
72 AP I, Arts 61–67.
73 Nielsen, Flemming, “Civil Defence in International Humanitarian Relief Work, Seen in the Light of the Geneva Conventions”, Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
74 M. Bothe, K. J. Partsch and W. A. Solf, above note 70, p. 434.
75 F. Nielsen, above note 73.
76 Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987 (ICRC Commentary on the APs), p. 718, para. 2354.
77 M. Bothe, K. J. Partsch and W. A. Solf, above note 70, p. 434; ICRC Commentary on the APs, above note 76, p. 718, para. 2349.
78 Kaitlyn M. Gaynor et al., “War and Wildlife: Linking Armed Conflict to Conservation”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 14, No. 10, 2016.
79 N. Al-Duaij, above note 3.
80 ICRC Commentary on the APs, above note 76, p. 723, para. 2376.
81 Ibid., p. 723, para. 2378.
82 Paulo Pereira, Igor Bogunovic, Wenwu Zhao and Damia Barcelo, “Short-Term Effect of Wildfires and Prescribed Fires on Ecosystem Services”, Current Opinion in Environmental Science and Health, Vol. 22, August 2021.
83 Carlyn J. Matz et al., “Health Impact Analysis of PM2.5 from Wildfire Smoke in Canada (2013–2015, 2017–2018)”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 725, 10 July 2020.
84 Rhoades, Charles, Nunes, João P., Silins, Uldis and Doerr, Stefan H., “The Influence of Wildfire on Water Quality and Watershed Processes: New Insights and Remaining Challenges”, International Journal of Wildland Fire, Vol. 28, No. 10, 2019, p. 721CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
85 N. Al-Duaij, above note 3, p. 6.
86 ICRC Commentary on the APs, above note 76, p. 727, para. 2385.
87 Ibid.
88 The “natural environment” here refers to “the natural world together with the system of inextricable interrelations between living organisms and their inanimate environment, in the widest sense possible”. See ICRC, Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict, Geneva, 2020, p. 17, para. 16.
89 N. Al-Duaij, above note 3, pp. 22–23.
90 M. Bothe, K. J. Partsch and W. A. Solf, above note 70, p. 440.
91 ICRC Commentary on the APs, above note 76, p. 729, para. 2394.
92 Ibid., p. 729, para. 2395.
93 ICRC Commentary on the APs, above note 76, p. 729, para. 2401.
94 M. Bothe, K. J. Partsch and W. A. Solf, above note 70, p. 441.
95 ICRC Commentary on the APs, above note 76, p. 729, para. 2402.
96 Cassese, Antonio, “The Martens Clause: Half a Loaf or Simply Pie in the Sky?”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2000, pp. 212–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D. Fleck, above note 44.
97 M. Bothe, K. J. Partsch, and W. A. Solf, above note 70, p. 441.
98 See also Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians From the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, Explosive Weapons In Populated Areas Dublin Conference, 2022, where the environmental impacts of explosive weapons are recognized (Arts 1.4–1.5) and the obligation to provide rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access and facilitate organizations aimed at protecting and assisting civilian populations and addressing the direct and indirect humanitarian impacts of explosive weapons in populated areas is reaffirmed (Arts 4.4, 4.6).
99 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Arts 3, 9; Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Arts 3, 9; Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Arts 3, 9; GC IV, Arts 3, 10, 59, 61.
100 Article 59 of GC IV provides that “relief schemes … shall consist, in particular, of the provision of foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing”.
101 Mackintosh, Kate, “Beyond the Red Cross: The Protection of Independent Humanitarian Organizations and Their Staff in International Humanitarian Law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 89, No. 865, 2007, p. 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
102 Common Article 9/9/9/10 states that “[t]he provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other impartial humanitarian organization may, subject to the consent of the parties to the conflict concerned, undertake for the protection of [protected persons] and for their relief” (emphasis added).
103 ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, para. 243.
104 Institute of International Law, “Humanitarian Assistance”, Resolution of the 16th Commission, 2 September 2003.
105 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998 (entered into force 1 July 2002), Art. 8(2)(b)(iii). See also, with regard to non-international armed conflict, the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 16 January 2022 (entered into force 12 April 2022), Art. 4(b).
106 See “Rule 31: Humanitarian Relief Personnel Must Be Respected and Protected”, in Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/rules.
107 AP I, Art. 71: “(1) Where necessary, relief personnel may form part of the assistance provided in any relief action, in particular for the transportation and distribution of relief consignments; the participation of such personnel shall be subject to the approval of the Party in whose territory they will carry out their duties. (2) Such personnel shall be respected and protected.”
108 See UNSC Res. 2399, 30 January 2018, para. 1(d); UNSC Res. 2593, 30 August 2021, para. 3; UNSC Res. 2582, 29 June 2021, paras 3–4.
109 Fisher, David, “Domestic Regulation of International Humanitarian Relief in Disasters and Armed Conflict: A Comparative Analysis”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 89, No. 866, 2007, p. 368CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
110 K. Mackintosh, above note 101, p. 125.
111 Article 70 of AP I holds that “[r]elief actions which are humanitarian and impartial in character and conducted without any adverse shall be undertaken, subject to agreement of the Parties concerned in such relief actions”.
112 N. Al-Duaij, above note 3, pp. 470–471.
113 H. Schulte and D. Weir, above note 14.
114 Goniewicz, Mariusz and Goniewicz, Krzysztof, “Protection of Medical Personnel in Armed Conflicts – Case Study: Afghanistan”, European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; K. Mackintosh, above note 101; D. Fisher, above note 109.
115 Roz Price, Humanitarian Pauses and Corridors in Contexts of Conflict, K4D Helpdesk Report, Institute of Development Studies, 17 September 2020.
116 L'Homme, Maelle, “Humanitarian Corridors: Negotiated Exceptions at Risk of Manipulation”, Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2022, p. 48Google Scholar.
117 Ibid.; Stephanie Nebehay, “ICRC Seeks Humanitarian Corridor in South Ossetia”, Reuters, 8 August 2008; ICRC, “How Humanitarian Corridors Work to Help People in Conflict Zones”, 17 May 2022, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/how-humanitarian-corridors-work.
118 M. L'Homme, above note 116, p. 48.
119 Key challenges include the need for party agreement and consensus, UN Security Council authorization, a protective military presence and capacity, and blurring of political and humanitarian lines. See “Why Humanitarians Are Wary of ‘Humanitarian Corridors’”, The New Humanitarian, 3 November 2015.
120 M. L'Homme, above note 116, p. 48.
121 IUCN, above note 59.
122 In a similar way to “humanitarian”, “environmentarian” has here been constructed using the word “environment” and the suffix “-arian”. This suffix forms personal nouns and indicates a person or thing that advocates for, believes in or is associated with something, in this case the environment.
123 K. Mackintosh, above note 101, p. 125.
124 PERAC Principles, above note 48, Art. 4.
125 UNGA Draft Res. A/C.6/77/L.22, 11 November 2022.
126 E. Mrema, C. Bruch and J. Diamond, above note 9, p. 240.
127 ICRC, above note 88, p. 14, para. 14.
128 PERAC Principles, above note 48, Art. 4.
129 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 106, Rule 36, p. 120. The ICRC Customary Law Study considers that this constitutes a rule under customary international law and is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
130 R. Price, above note 115.
131 PERAC Principles, above note 48, Art. 23.
132 Ibid., Arts 5, 24–25.