Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T13:18:23.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent studies on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2010

Antoine Bouvier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of protecting the environment in time of armed conflict has given rise to numerous discussions and major studies over the last two years.

In our opinion, there are at least two distinct reasons for the keen interest in this question. In the first place it is quite logically a response to the increasingly energetic efforts to improve, both nationally and internationally, the protection of the environment in peacetime. Secondly, this interest reflects the fears engendered during and after the 1990–1991 Gulf war that set the Middle East ablaze.

Type
Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 32 , Issue 291 , December 1992 , pp. 554 - 566
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

References

2 Statement by Mr. Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, made during the Conference opening ceremony on 3 June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro.

3 For an in-depth analysis of the development of international environmental law see: Kiss, A. and Shelton, D.: International environmental law, Transnational Publishers, Inc., London, 1991.Google Scholar

4 In this connection see The Environmental Legacy of the Gulf War, a Greenpeace Report, 1992.Google Scholar The report also includes a close analysis of already known instances of environmental damage.

5 For further information on these initial studies, see Bouvier, A.: “The protection of the natural environment in time of armed conflict”, IRRC, No. 285, 11–12 1991, p. 570, footnote 14.Google Scholar

6 For this, see the article by Philippe, Antoine, “International humanitarian law and the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict”Google Scholar, published in the present issue of the Review, pp. 517–537.Google Scholar See also Bothe, M., “The protection of the environment in times of armed conflicts: Legal rules, uncertainty, deficiencies and possible developments in the Report on the work of the meeting of experts on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict, ICRC, Geneva, 09 1992 Google Scholar; Bouvier, A., op. cit.; Falk, R.: “The Environmental Law of War: an Introduction” in Plant, G. (ed.). Environmental Protection and the Law of War, Belhaven Press, London and New York, 1992, pp. 78–95 Google Scholar; Saalfeld, M., «Umweltschutz in bewaffneten Konflikten aus völkerrechtsgeschichtlicher Sicht”Google Scholar, in Humanitäres Völkerrecht, No. 1, 1992, pp. 23–31.Google Scholar

7 In this connection see the article by Adam Roberts, “Destruction of the environment during the 1991 Gulf War” published in this issue of the Review, pp. 538–553.Google Scholar See also: Fauteux, P., “Environmental Law and the Gulf War” in International Union for the Conservation of Nature Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 2, 09 1991, pp. 26–27 Google Scholar; Terry, J., “The Environment and the Laws of War; the Impact of Desert Storm”, in Naval War College Review, Vol. XLV, No. 1, pp. 61–67.Google Scholar

8 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.

9 See the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Article 5 g).

10 Doc. C.1/4.2/1: Implementation of IHL, protection of the civilian population and persons hors de combat, pp. 15–23.Google Scholar

11 This conference finally had to be postponed to a later date. An explanation for this postponement is given in an article by Sandoz, Y.: “A propos of the postponement of the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent”, IRRC No. 286, 01–02 1992, pp. 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 The report on the meeting is entitled “Meeting of experts on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict. Report on the work of the meeting”, ICRC, Geneva, September 1992. Cf. also Doc. UN A/ç//328 of 31 July 1992 “Protection of the environment in times of armed conflict”, Report of the Secretary General, pp. 11–14. The meeting was also reported in UNIDIR Newsletter, No. 18, 07 1992, pp. 46–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 This list appears as Annex 5 in the report on the proceedings of the meeting (cf. footnote 12 above).

14 Environmental Assessment of the Gulf Crisis, Report of the Secretary-General of the Conference, doc. A/CONF. 151/PC/72 of 15 July 1991.

15 Cf. doc. Opening Plenary Statement, Prep. Com. III, MrStrong, Maurice F., 26 08 1991.Google Scholar

16 Cf. doc. Protection of the natural environment in time of armed conflict, an overview of IHL and of the position of the ICRC, Geneva, 19 08 1991.Google Scholar

17 Cf. doc. A/CONF. 151/PC/WG III/L.32 as revised.

18 Cf. Lamazières, G.: “The impact of warfare on the environment and related themes at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development” in UNIDIR Newsletter No. 18, 07 1992, p. 15.Google Scholar

19 Cf. in particular the statement by the Secretary-General of the Conference, from which the quotation at the beginning of this article is taken, and those of the Swedish, Iranian, Hungarian, Saudi Arabian, Swiss and ICRC delegations.

20 Cf. statement by the representative of Saudi Arabia.

21 For instance Switzerland: “(…) certainly a large body of written and customary rules exists (…). However all too often these rules are misunderstood, misapplied or interpreted in different ways. States (…) have the obligation to respect them and ensure that they are respected under all circumstances.”

22 Cf. doc. A/Conf.151/5/Rev.1.

23 Cf. doc. A/Conf.151/L.3/Add.39.

24 For a more in-depth analysis of the origins and contents of the ENMOD Convention cf. Goldblat, J.: “The Environmental Convention of 1977: an analysis” in Westings, A., ed: Environmental Warfare, SIPRI/Taylor and Francis, London 1984, Chapter 5, pp. 53–64 Google Scholar; moreover, UNIDIR Newsletter No. 18, 07 1992 Google Scholar includes several articles on this treaty.

25 A summary of the work of the First Review Conference appears in doc. ENMOD/CONF.II/2 of 3 August 1992: “Summary of negotiations leading to the conclusion of the Convention (:::) and of subsequent developments related to the Convention.

26 Cf. ENMOD/CONF.II/1 of 10 April 1992: Report of the Preparatory Committee of the Second Review Conference.

27 For an analysis of this concept, cf. Report of the International Commission on the work of its forty-third session, doc. A/46/10, New York, 1991, pp. 300–302.Google Scholar

28 Cf. doc. ENMOD/CONF.II/11 of 17 September 1992: Final Document of the Second Review Conference, Part II, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar

29 Cf. Doc. ENMOD/CONF. II/11, Annex IV of 17 September 1992: “Proposals and ideas presented at the Conference which did not enjoy consensus for inclusion in the Final Declaration”.

30 Cf. Final Document, p. 11.Google Scholar

31 ibid.

32 ibid., p. 13.

33 Statement by Ms. Peggy Mason, head of the Canadian delegation, at the final session on 13 September (pp. 1 and 3). Similar opinions were expressed at the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly by the representatives of Argentina, Austria and Sweden. Cf. Press Release, GA/J/7 of 1 October 1992, Information Department, Information Service, New York.

34 “Exploitation of the environment as a weapon in times of armed conflict and the taking of practical measures to prevent such exploitation”. For a summary of the discussions at the Forty-Sixth Session cf. Report on the work of the meeting organized by the ICRC (cf. footnote 12), pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

35 Cf. Doc. A/47/328 of 31 July 1992, “Protection of the environment in times of armed conflict”, Report of the Secretary-General.

36 Cf “Protection of the environment in armed conflicts”, statement by the ICRC to the 47th Session of the General Assembly on 1 October 1992.

37 Cf., in particular, the summary of the statements by the representatives of Jordan, Canada, Argentina, Austria and the United Kingdom (on behalf of the EEC), in Press Release GA/J/7 of 1 10 1992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Information Department, Information Service, New York.

38 Cf. in particular the statement by Argentina on 1 October 1992, ibid.

39 Since various drafts of the resolution are still being negotiated while this article is being written, it is not possible to state precisely what follow-up the General Assembly intends to give to the discussions. From the information available at the moment it would seem that the tendency is towards a resolution inviting States to accede to the instruments in force and to disseminate as widely as possible (particularly by having them included in military handbooks). In addition, the ICRC will probably be encouraged to continue its work and to present a report to the 48th session of the General Assembly.