Main EL

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI
(A State University Established By Act No.9 of 2012)
Navalur Kuttapattu, Srirangam (TK), Tiruchirappalli - 620 009 Tamil Nadu
Research Project on
Environment Protection and Armed Conflict
A Critical Analysis in Contemporary Era.
Submitted to
Prof. Balashanmugam
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty in Charge - Environmental Law
By
R.Faheem Abdul Wahab
BA.LL. B.(Hons), IV Year
Seventh Semester
Section '' A'' - BA0130020
Environment Protection and Armed Conflict, A Critical Analysis in Contemporary Era.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Declaration
 Introduction
 Research Objectives
 Research Methodology
 Sources
 Principle 24 and the Environment in Armed Conflict
 Customary and Treaty Law of Armed Conflict
 ENMOD Convention.
 Geneva Convention and Additional Protocols.
 Other Material Sources.
 Due Regard Obligations for natural environment in Military Operations.
 Conclusion
 Bibliography
Environmental Law. Page 2

DECLARATION
I V. Tamilarasan, Register Number BA0130069, hereby declare that
this project work entitled '' Environment Protection and Armed Conflict, A
Critical Analysis in Contemporary Era. '' has been originally carried out by
me under the guidance and Supervision of Dr. S. Amirthalingam, Associate
Professor of Law, Tamil Nadu National Law school, Tiruchirappalli. This
work has not been submitted either in whole or in part of any Degree/ Diploma
in this Institution or any other Institution / University.
Place: Tiruchirappalli
-------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
War and warfare cause not only human suffering and displacement, but extensively
destroys or degrades the environment totally affects the basic substance of human life.
Environment, which adversely affected, does not consider as a high priority during armed
conflict and very destructive of sustainable development. It is regarded as one of the
misfortunes, but an avoidable consequence of conflict, despite its sometimes-disastrous impact
on human population. Respect for environment is a norm; it should be in confrontations with
the principle of necessity and proportionality. Proportionality means, ''The collateral harm
should not be excessive in relation to the direct military anticipated advantages. '' In the present
day ''customary jus in bellum,'' this principle has more weightage, when the armed attack is
launched, the environmental considerations do play active part in both International and
national framework. It must be borne in mind that all states have to perform their actions in
due regard, which itself in general principle of International Law. The ICJ has declared that the
'' environment is under daily threat'' and that it is not an abstraction of the living space, the
quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn1. It states that
'' The existence of the general obligations of states to ensure that activities
within their jurisdiction and control respect the respect of environment of other states
or of areas beyond national control is now part of the corpus of international law
relating to the environment.2
In Nuclear Weapons case, the ICJ opines that the states do considered the
environmental damage into account, when assessing what is necessary and proportionate in the
pursuit of legitimate military objectives and added that “the destruction of the environment,
not justified by military necessity and carried out want only, is clearly contrary to existing
international law''.
The Projects deals with the co-relation between the sustainable development and laws
of armed conflict in details and projecting the provisions, which protect environment in armed
conflict.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1
Advisory Opinion on '' Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons'' , ICJ Reports 1996,226 et
seq.,(241.¶29
2
Ibid ¶30.

 To know Co- relation between the sustainable development and other international legal
rules that protect environment during war conflict.
 To understand the legal principles which revolve around the environment protection
during armed conflict.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The Methodology is in the nature of Doctrinal and follows the Deductive type of reasoning.
SOURCES
A. Primary Sources such as statues, other Conventions, protocol, and the decisions of the
International Court of Justice.
B. Secondary Sources such as books, Journals, periodicals & dictionaries and other new letters
THE PRINCIPLE 24 AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN ARMED CONFLICT

The Principle 24 of Rio Declaration states

''Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect

international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and co-
operate in its further development, as necessary''.
The Principle 24 is a broad statement of same principles of International Humanitarian
Law formulated in the articles of 35(3) and Art 55 of Protocol I to the Geneva Convention,
article 1 of ENMOD Convention 1976 as well as customary International Law. The First
sentence hides the vivid debate during the preparatory committee convening the opportunities
to condemn the use of mass destruction, particularly weapon. The Final formation reflects the
position of USA and other industrialised states, which places the centre of gravity on
sustainable development and avoids the matters of disarmament. The Second sentence contains
two noticeable components; one is international law going beyond the armed conflict, which
provides very limited explicit protection to the natural environment and including the
international environmental law, human rights law, among others. The second competent
provides for subsequent initiatives taken by UNGA and ILC. The Codification initiatives were
conducted under the ageis of International Committee of Red Cross [ICRC]. This initiatives
lead to the adoption on Guidelines of Military Manuals on the protection of environment in
times of armed conflict, which were subsequently endorsed by the UNGA. The ILC started
codifying efforts on the effects of armed conflict on treaties and more recently on the protection
of environment in relation with armed conflict. The First process leads to the adoption in 2001
of draft articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties.
Unlike other principles of Rio Declaration, Principle 24 has been referred to in International
Jurisprudence not only in substance but as such. In Advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear
weapons, the ICJ referred Principle 24 to assert that..
'' Respect to environment is one of the important elements that go to asserting whether
the action is in conformity with the principles of Proportionality and necessity. This approach
is supported, indeed by terms of Principle 24 of the Rio Declaration.''
Principle 24 could also be relevant in the context of the application submitted by
Marshall Islands against India, Pakistan and conclude negotiations leading nuclear
disarmament, which is in some experts an extension of the questions analysed by ICJ in its
1996 advisory Opinion. Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration 1972 and Principle 2 of the
Rio Declaration 1992 express the common conviction of states concerned that they have a duty
'' to ensure that activities with their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Furthermore,

the Principle 23 of the Rio Declaration states that. '' The environment and natural resources of
people under oppression, domination, and occupation shall be protected.
CUSTOMARY AND TREATY LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

Environmental damage is inevitable in armed conflict and directly endangers the

people's health, livelihoods, and security. To address these risks in the international context,
several international legal texts were incorporated, detailed gave a fundamental protections and
governing armed conflict. There are two major international legal instruments deals with the
protection of environment during armed conflict.
I. ENMOD CONVENTION -1976
Due to various international pressures, The Convention on the prohibition of Military

or any other hostile use of Environment Modification Techniques herein after referred as
ENMOD Convention was adopted on General assembly in 1976 and opened for signature in
1977. This Convention prohibits the use of environmental modification techniques as a weapon
of conflict. It was inspired by the outrage over US defoliation campaigns in the Vietnam War
and it was feared by the nation states that modern technology was reaching a point, where it
could be used to unleash disastrous environmental changes as a weapon in war3
Art 1(1) of the convention states that-
'' Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other
hostile use of the environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting,
or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage, or injury to any other State Party. ''
Art 2 of ENMOD Convention set forth that:
'' As used in article 1, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any
technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the
dynamics, composition, or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere,
hydrosphere, and atmosphere, or of outer space ''.
This Convention does not give answer, where a signatory state attacks a non-state
signatory. Some legal scholars said that ENMOD applied only to signatory and does not apply
to non-signatory This Convention have reached the status of customary international law 4 and
these Convention principles were also incorporated in various military manuals of the states
who may not be party to this convention5. ENMOD Convention reflected the most of the
International community consensus that the environment itself should not be used as an
instrument of war.6
3
Sunshine Project, ENMOD – Hostile Environmental Modification, see http://www.sunshineproject.
org/enmod/
4
J. Henckaerts & L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Law, Vol I, International Committee of the
Red Cross 155 (2005).
5
Ibid at 155.
6
Id at 155.

II. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convections of 1949, and Relating to the
protection of victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
Art 35 (3) states, '' It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are
intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long term and serve damage to the natural
environment''. This Article deals with situations in which, such damages to the natural
environment is produced by the intentional use of method or means of warfare and where such
consequences are foreseeable.
Art 55 (1) states '' Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment
against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of
the use of methods or means of warfare, which are intended or may be expected to cause such
damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health and survival of the
population.''
This Article is in the nature of governing principles requires that the effect or
repercussions of permitted actions do not result in escalating or producing the prohibited '' wide
spread, long term and serve damage to the environment.'' Art 55(2) stipulates the protection by
prohibiting attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals. The main question
which is unanswered by the legal scholars that '' Whether these provision attained the status of
the Customary International Law or not?'' In the Nuclear weapons case, the court said that both
the Art 35(3) and 55 are to be customary in nature and the party to the conflict must observe
them, or must avoid using methods or means of warfare that would destroy or could have
disastrous effects on the environment.7.
Furthermore, the final report of the committee established to review the NATO
Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated that Art 55 of Additional
Protocol I -''may reflect current customary law''. The Position of the ICRC in the study on
customary international humanitarian law revealed that the Art 35(3) and Art 55 are in the
nature of the customary status in regards to conventional weapons, but not nuclear weapons.8
These are the most hard binding international instruments deals with the protection of
Environment during armed conflict.
The ENMOD Convention has the broader application, provides that either of those three
criteria are satisfied, requiring only that the affect on the environment be ‘widespread, long-
term, or severe’. The meaning of these terms in the ENMOD Convention was expanded in the
7
---------------
8

Convention’s First Review Conference in 19849, but the protocol does not provide such as
definition or meaning. The Protocol applies only during armed conflict, whereas the ENMOD
Convention applies during peacetime and armed conflict.
III. OTHER MATERIAL SOURCES.
Protocol III annexed to the Convention on Conventional Weapons.
Art 2(4) states that
''It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by
incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or
camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.''
This is a very limited provision, applying only to “forests or other kinds of plant cover” and
granting protection not against attacks in general, but only those by incendiary weapons.
The Chemical Weapons Convention.
The use of herbicides (chemicals defoliants) for military purposes, primarily, inorder to
deny the enemy sanctuary and freedom of movement in dense forest caught wide attention
during Vietnam War. However, Interpretation goes that the use of herbicides can under certain
conditions '' be equated with environmental modification techniques under Art 2 of the
ENMOD Convention was authoritatively re-affirmed in a Review Conference in 1992.10 In
1993, the new convention came up on, the prohibition of the development; production,
stockpiling, and use of Chemical Weapons and on their Development, states in its 7th
preambular paragraph that
'' Recognizing the prohibition, embodied in the pertinent agreements and relevant
principles of international law, of the use of herbicides as a method of warfare.''
Convention on Law of Sea - Despite containing no provision expressly protecting the marine
environment against the consequences of an armed conflict, it can be assumed that such
protection exists in the context of the provisions with regard to pollution of the sea.
Enforcement Mechanism - It is primarily concerned with the issues of state responsibility
which can easily indentified from the Art 90 of Additional Protocol I. Art 90 provides for an
International Fact - Finding commission with the competencies to enquire into serious
violations and grave breaches of the Geneva Convention and the Protocol. Despite the ENMOD
Convention not having any enforcement or remedial mechanisms, a possible means for
resolution of disputes arising out of the Convention, it is for a State to make a formal complaint
9
10

before the UN Security Council, which can in turn investigate and issue a report condemning
the matter. Although Iraq and Kuwait were not States Parties to the ENMOD Convention, the
United Nations Security Council addressed the environmental damage committed by Iraq
during the First Gulf War.
In Resolution 687, the Security Council held Iraq to be liable for ''any direct loss,
damage, including environmental damage, and the depletion of natural resources'' inflicted
during the invasion of Kuwait. The UN Compensation Commission was established by the
Security Council to administer any claims against Iraq. The Resolution 687 sets the precedent
for future wars and acts as a deterrent for States in order to take environmental factors seriously
when engaging in armed conflict.
DUE REGARD OBLIGATION IN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN MILITARY

OPERATIONS

INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS
The extensive development of international law to protect the environment over the last
few decades has been motivated by recognition of the dangerous degradation of the natural
environment caused by humankind. This development has been such that a State’s interest in
the protection of its natural environment has now been recognized by the International Court
of Justice in the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project case as an “essential interest” that could justify
that State invoking the doctrine of “necessity” to renege from other international obligations.11
The importance of the natural environment as such was taken into account by the UN Security
Council in a resolution adopted in 1991, in which it affirmed Iraq’s responsibility under
international law for environmental damage and depletion of natural resources as a result of its
unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.12 Profound concern at the deterioration of the
environment during that war was also expressed by the UN General Assembly in resolutions
adopted in 1991 and 1992.13 As a result of this concern, the UN General Assembly declared ''6
November each year as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the
Environment in War and Armed Conflict''14. Concern has also been expressed about the
damage to the environment of both Yugoslavia and neighbouring countries by NATO’s
bombing campaign against Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis.15
The need to protect the environment during armed conflict is set forth in several international
instruments.16 The general need to protect the environment during armed conflict is also
articulated in some military manuals, official statements and reported practice.17 It is further,
reflected in condemnations of behaviour in armed conflict that caused severe damage to the
environment.18 In their submissions to the International Court of Justice in the Nuclear
Weapons case and Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, many States emphasized that international
11
ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case, Judgment (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 14, ¶ 121).
12
UN Security Council, Res. 687 (ibid., ¶ 111).
13
UN General Assembly, Res. 46/216 (adopted by 135 votes in favour, none against and one abstention) (ibid., §
112) and Res. 47/151 (adopted by 159 votes in favour, none against and two abstentions) (ibid., § 112).
14
UN General Assembly, Res. 56/4 (ibid., § 115).
15
See, e.g., Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and
Local Authorities, Report on the Environmental Impact of the War in Yugoslavia on South-East Europe (ibid., §
117).
16
See, e.g., World Charter for Nature, Principle 5 (ibid., § 73) and Principle 20 (ibid., § 74); Rio Declaration,
Principle 24 (ibid., § 76); Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, § 11
(ibid., § 77); San Remo Manual, §§ 35 and 44 (ibid., § 78).
17
See, e.g., the military manuals of Australia (ibid., § 79), Republic of Korea (ibid., § 80) and United States (ibid.,
§ 81), the statement of Yemen (ibid., § 109) and the reported practice of Lebanon (ibid., § 96).
18
See, e.g., the statements of China (ibid., § 84), Colombia (ibid., § 85), Germany (ibid., § 91), Islamic Republic
of Iran (ibid., § 93), Netherlands (ibid., § 99) and United Kingdom (ibid., § 105).

law recognizes the importance of the protection of the environment during armed conflict, and
they did not limit themselves to the requirements of treaties specifically applicable to armed
conflict.19 There is also evidence that environmental concerns affected military planning during
the Gulf War, as the Coalition reportedly desisted from certain attacks out of environmental
concerns.20
Furthermore, in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1996, the International Court of Justice
found that States obligation to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect
the environment of other States or areas beyond national control was part of customary
international law.21
Non-international armed conflicts
It can be argued that the obligation to pay due regard to the environment also applies in
non-international armed conflicts if there are effects in another State. This argument is based
on the recognition by the International Court of Justice that safeguarding a State’s ecological
balance was an “Essential interest”22 and its finding that States’ obligation to ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the environment of other States or areas
beyond national control were part of customary international law.23
Furthermore, there are indications that this customary rule may also apply to parties’ behaviour
within the State where the armed conflict is taking place. Some support for drafting a treaty
rule for this purpose existed during the negotiation of Additional Protocol II.24 It was not
adopted then, but the general acceptance of the applicability of international humanitarian law
to non-international armed conflicts has considerably strengthened since 1977. In addition,
many environmental law treaties apply to a State’s behaviour within its own territory (see
19
See the oral pleadings of or the written statements submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case by Egypt
(ibid., § 88), Islamic Republic of Iran (ibid., § 93), Malaysia (ibid., § 97), Qatar (ibid., § 102) and Solomon Islands
(ibid., § 103) and the written statements submitted in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case by Costa Rica (ibid., §
87), Mexico (ibid., § 98) and Sri Lanka (ibid., § 104).
20
A. P. V. Rogers, Law on the Battlefield (ibid., § 68).
21
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion (ibid., § 120); see also the Convention on Biodiversity, Principle
3 (ibid., § 71); Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, Principle 21 (ibid., § 72); Rio Declaration,
Principle 2 (ibid., § 75); the statement of the Islamic Republic of Iran (ibid., § 92); American Law Institute,
Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (ibid., § 123).
22
ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case, Judgment (ibid., § 121).
23
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion (ibid., § 120); see also the Convention on Biodiversity, Principle
3 (ibid., § 71); Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, Principle 21 (ibid., § 72); Rio Declaration,
Principle 2 (ibid., § 75); the statement of the Islamic Republic of Iran (ibid., § 92); American Law Institute,
Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (ibid., § 123)
24
See State practice in the context of the negotiations at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the adoption of the
Additional Protocols (ibid., § 150).

infra). There is also a certain amount of State practice indicating the obligation to protect the
environment that applies also to non-international armed conflicts, including military manuals,
official statements and the many submissions by States to the International Court of Justice in
the Nuclear Weapons case to the effect that the environment must be protected for the benefit
of all.25
Obligation to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize damage to the

environment
Practice indicates that the obligation to take all feasible precautions to avoid, and in any event
to minimize, incidental damage to civilian objects (see Rule 15) equally applies to damage to
the natural environment. This is set forth in the Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment
in Times of Armed Conflict.26 The principle that precautions must be taken to avoid or
minimize damage to the environment is also supported by military manuals and official
statements27. In 1995, the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
called on parties to the conflict to “take all feasible precautions to avoid, in their military
operations, all acts liable to destroy or damage water sources”.28
Precautionary principle
There is practice to the effect that lack of scientific certainty as to the effects on the environment
of certain military operations does not absolve parties to a conflict from taking proper
precautionary measures to prevent undue damage. As the potential effect on the environment
will need to be assessed during the planning of an attack, the fact that there is bound to be some
uncertainty as to its full impact on the environment means that the “precautionary principle” is
25
See, e.g., the military manuals of Italy (ibid., § 10) and Republic of Korea (ibid., § 80); the statements of
Argentina (ibid., § 29) and Colombia (ibid., § 85); the oral pleadings of and the written statements submitted to
the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case by Egypt (ibid., § 88), Islamic Republic of Iran (ibid., § 93), Malaysia (ibid.,
§ 97), Qatar (ibid., § 102) and Solomon Islands (ibid., § 103) and the written statements submitted in the Nuclear
Weapons (WHO) case by Costa Rica (ibid., § 87), Mexico (ibid., § 98), Rwanda (ibid., § 253), Sri Lanka (ibid.,
§ 104) and Ukraine (ibid., § 261).
26
Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, § 4 (ibid., § 5); see also World
Charter for Nature, Principle 20 (ibid., § 74)
27
See, e.g., United States, Naval Handbook (ibid., § 11); the statements of Argentina (ibid., § 29) and Canada
(ibid., §§ 36 and 38); see also Report of an expert meeting on the protection of the environment in time of armed
conflict (ibid., § 60).
28
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Res. II (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 138).

of particular relevance to such an attack. The precautionary principle in environmental law has
29
been gaining increasing recognition. There is, furthermore, practice to the effect that this
environmental law principle applies in armed conflict. In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear
Weapons case, the International Court of Justice stated that the basic principles it recognized
in the Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation) of 1995 would also
apply to the actual use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict.30
This would include, inter alia, the precautionary principle which was central to the
arguments in the latter case.31 The ICRC, in its report submitted in 1993 to the UN General
Assembly on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict, referred to the
precautionary principle as “an emerging, but generally recognized principle of international
law [whose object it is] to anticipate and prevent damage to the environment and to ensure that,
where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not
be used as a reason to postpone any measures to prevent such damage”.32 This assertion was
not contested by any State.
Continued application of environmental law during armed conflict
There appears to be insufficient uniformity of opinion on whether environmental law

treaties continue to be applicable during armed conflict when no reference is made to this in
the treaty concerned. The Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed
Conflict states that international environmental law “may continue to be applicable in times of
armed conflict to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the applicable law of armed
conflict”33
In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case, the International Court of Justice
did not address this issue directly, but stated that environmental law “indicates important
29
See, e.g., Convention on Biodiversity, preamble (ibid., § 126); Rio Declaration, Principle 15 (ibid., § 127); the
statements of France (ibid., § 131) and New Zealand (ibid., § 132); UN Economic Commission for Europe, Bergen
ECE Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development, Article 7 (ibid., § 133)
30
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, § 32
31
ICJ, Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), Order (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 14, § 139).
New Zealand argued that the precautionary principle was a binding rule (ibid., § 132). Although France stated
that it was uncertain whether the precautionary principle had become a binding rule of international law, it
nevertheless stated that it did in practice carry out precautions that were in keeping with its obligations under
international environmental law (ibid., § 131). The ICJ concluded that both France and New Zealand had, in their
submissions, reaffirmed their commitment to respect their obligations to respect and protect the natural
environment (ibid., § 139).
32
ICRC, Report on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict (ibid., § 143).
33
Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, § 5 (ibid., § 77).

factors that are properly to be taken into account in the context of the implementation of the
principles and rules of the law applicable in armed conflict”.34 The few States that analysed the
issue in their submissions to the Court in this case had different views.35
Conclusion
34
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion (ibid., § 62).
35
See the oral pleadings of or the written statements submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case by France
(ibid., § 89), Solomon Islands (ibid., § 103), United Kingdom (ibid., § 107) and United States (ibid., § 108).

Main EL

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Main EL

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

Environmental Law. Page 2

Environmental Law. Page 4

THE PRINCIPLE 24 AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN ARMED CONFLICT

Environmental Law. Page 5

''Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect

Environmental Law. Page 6

CUSTOMARY AND TREATY LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT

Environmental Law. Page 7

Environmental damage is inevitable in armed conflict and directly endangers the

Due to various international pressures, The Convention on the prohibition of Military

Art 2 of ENMOD Convention set forth that:

Environmental Law. Page 8

Environmental Law. Page 9

Environmental Law. Page 10

DUE REGARD OBLIGATION IN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN MILITARY

Environmental Law. Page 11

INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS

Environmental Law. Page 12

Non-international armed conflicts

Environmental Law. Page 13

Obligation to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize damage to the

Environmental Law. Page 14

Continued application of environmental law during armed conflict

There appears to be insufficient uniformity of opinion on whether environmental law

Environmental Law. Page 15

Environmental Law. Page 16

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi