Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:40:31.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law-making at the intersection of international environmental, humanitarian and criminal law: the issue of damage to the environment in international armed conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2010

Julian Wyatt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between international environmental law and international humanitarian law, like relationships between many other subsystems of contemporary international law, has not yet been articulated. The problem of environmental damage in international armed conflict lies at the intersection of these two branches and thus provides an ideal opportunity to investigate this relationship. Rather than simply evaluating the applicable international law rules in their context, we break them into elements that we separately assess from both (international) environmental law and international humanitarian/international criminal law perspectives. By doing so, we identify how international law rules for cross-sectoral problems may appropriately combine the existing expertise and institutional strengths of simultaneously applicable branches of international law, and also discover how an evaluation of the ultimate appropriateness of the cross-sectoral rules adopted may be substantially affected by the different frames of reference that are used by those working within the different fields.

Type
Environment
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 92 , Issue 879: Environment , September 2010 , pp. 593 - 646
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2010

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.)

References

1 See Barry Jones, Globalization and Interdependence in the International Political Economy: Reality and Rhetoric, Pinter, London and New York, 1995, pp. 11–15; Sheila Croucher, Globalization and Belonging: The Politics of Identity in a Changing World, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, 2004, p. 10; Simon Reich, What is Globalization? Four Possible Answers, Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame, Working Paper No. 261, December 1998, available at: http://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/261.pdf (last visited 7 September 2010).

2 International Law Commission (ILC), Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, 18 July 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.702, para. 10.

3 Certain judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) were particularly prominent in raising this concern. Former ICJ Judge Oda, in particular, was unambiguous in his 1980s criticism of the ICJ chambers procedure (Oda, Shigeru, ‘Further thoughts on the chambers procedure of the International Court of Justice’, in American Journal of International Law (AJIL), Vol. 82, 1988, pp. 556–562Google Scholar) and was somewhat more aggressive in his 1990s critique of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Oda, Shigeru, ‘The International Court of Justice and the settlement of ocean disputes’, in Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, Vol. 244, 1993, pp. 127–155Google Scholar). A wider range of fragmentation issues was then discussed at several conferences in the late 1990s, including a 1995 American Society of International Law (ASIL) forum, the Fourth EC/International Law Forum of 1997, and a 1998 New York University/PICT symposium. For proceedings, see Laurence Boisson de Chazournes (ed.), Implications of the Proliferation of International Adjudicatory Bodies for Dispute Resolution, ASIL, 1995; Malcolm Evans (ed.), Remedies in International Law: The Institutional Dilemma, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 1998; and New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1999, respectively.

4 See e.g. Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, ‘L'unité de l'ordre juridique international: cours général de droit international public’, in Recueil des cours, Vol. 297, Hague Academy of International Law, 2002Google Scholar. With regard to potentially diverging interpretations of different international courts and tribunals see, in particular, Gilbert Guillaume, The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Outlook for the International Legal Order, Speech to the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, 26 October 2000, press release available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/9/3069.pdf (last visited 10 September 2010). See further Rosario Huesa Vinaixa and Karel Wellens (eds), L'influence des sources sur l'unité et la fragmentation du droit international, Bruylant, Brussels, 2006.

5 See e.g. the now abundant literature on the openness of the World Trade Organization (WTO) system to public international law, including, for example, Marceau, Gabrielle, ‘A call for coherence in international law: praises for the prohibition against “clinical isolation” in WTO dispute settlement', in Journal of World Trade, Vol. 33, 1999, pp. 87–152Google Scholar; Pauwelyn, Joost, ‘The role of public international law in the WTO: how far can we go?’, in AJIL, Vol. 95, 2001, pp. 535–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bartels, Lorand, ‘Applicable law in WTO dispute settlement proceedings’, in Journal of World Trade, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2001, pp. 499–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Böckenförde, Markus, ‘Zwischen Sein und Wollen: über den Einfluss umweltvölkerrechtlicher Verträge im Rahmen eines WTO Streitbeilegungsverfahrens’, in Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Vol. 63, 2003, pp. 971–1005Google Scholar.

6 Gunther Teubner's theoretical writings focusing on private international law are the main exception. Indeed, in 1992 he had already predicted that should ‘the law of a global society become entangled within sectoral interdependences, a wholly new form of conflicts law will emerge; an “intersystemic conflicts law,” derived not from collisions between the distinct nations of private international law, but from collisions between distinct global social sectors’. Gunther Teubner, Law as an Autopoietic System, Blackwell, Cambridge MA, 1993, p. 100. See further Julian Wyatt, Beyond Fragmentation: WTO Jurisprudence, Environmental Norms and Interactions Between Subsystems of International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, 2008.

7 Jay E. Austin and Carl E. Bruch (eds), The Environmental Consequences of War, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, p. 1. For a text disputing the veracity of this account, see Ridley, Ronald, ‘To be taken with a pinch of salt: the destruction of Carthage’, in Classical Philology, Vol. 81, No. 2, 1986, pp. 140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 See e.g. David A. Bell, The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 2007.

9 Jacques Reclus, La révolte des Taï-Ping: prologue de la Révolution chinoise, Le Pavillon, Paris, 1972, p. 234; James M. McPherson, ‘From limited war to total war in America’, in Stig Förster and Jörg Nagler (eds), On the Road to Total War: The American Civil War and the German Wars of Unification, 1861–1871, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, pp. 295–310.

10 Nasson, Bill, ‘Waging total war in South Africa: some centenary writings on the Anglo-Boer War, 1899–1902’, in Journal of Military History, Vol. 66, No. 3, July 2002, pp. 813–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ralf Blank, ‘Die Kriegsendphase an Rhein und Ruhr 1944/45’, in Bernd-A. Rusinek (ed.), Kriegsende 1945. Verbrechen, Katastrophen, Befreiungen in nationaler und internationaler Perspektive, Wallstein Verlag, Göttingen, 2004, pp. 88–124. See generally William Thomas, Scorched Earth, New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, 1995.

11 See e.g. Asit K. Biswas, ‘Scientific assessment of long-term environmental consequences’, in J. E. Austin and C. E. Bruch, above note 7, p. 307.

12 Karen Hulme, War Torn Environment: Interpreting the Legal Threshold, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2004, p. 5.

13 J. E. Austin and C. E. Bruch, above note 7, p. 1; K. Hulme, above note 12, p. 5.

14 J. E. Austin and C. E. Bruch, above note 7, p. 2; K. Hulme, above note 12, pp. 11 and 73.

15 See Elisabeth Mann-Borgese, ‘The protection of the marine environment in the case of war’, in René-Jean Dupuy (ed.), L'avenir du droit international de l'environnement/The Future of the International Law of the Environment, Colloque, La Haye, 12–14 November 1984, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1985, pp. 105–106.

16 Samira Omar, Ernest Briskey, Raafat Misak, and Adel Asem, ‘The Gulf War impact on the terrestrial environment of Kuwait: an overview’, in J. E. Austin and C. E. Bruch, above note 7, pp. 321–322. Such incidents prompted comment from the United Nations General Assembly: see UN General Assembly Resolution 47/37 (1992).

17 Details of the environmental effects of the NATO bombing campaign can be found in the Yugoslavian Application and Yugoslavian Memorial dated 5 January 2000 in ICJ, Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and United Kingdom), ICJ Reports 1999. The allegations were never tested because the case never got to the merits, separate proceedings against all defendants being dismissed after preliminary objections for want of jurisdiction.

18 See K. Hulme, above note 12, p. 188.

19 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Environmental Assessment of the Gaza Strip Following the Escalation of Hostilities in December 2008–January 2009, Nairobi, UNEP, 2009, pp. 30–31.

20 Ibid., p. 34.

21 ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape’ (Justice Blackburn in Fletcher v. Rylands, LR 1 Ex 265 (Exchequer Chamber, 1866), cited approvingly in UK House of Lords, Rylands v. Fletcher, judgment of Lord Cairns, 3 HL 330, (1868) LR 3 HL 330, [1868] UKHL 1 (17 July 1868)).

22 Allgemeines Landrecht für die Preußischen Staaten (1794), para. 93: ‘Wer den andern in der Ausübung seines Rechts hindert, beleidigt denselben, und wird ihm, für allen daraus erwachsenen Schaden und Nachtheil, verantwortlich’ (present author's translation).

23 Bundesgesetzbuch (German Civil Code), esp. para. 823: ‘Schadensersatzpflicht’, and para. 826: ‘Sittenwidrige vorsätzliche Schädigung’.

24 See Johan Gerrit Lammers, Pollution of International Watercourses, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1984, p. 570.

25 See Greenlee, Mark B., ‘Echoes of the Love command in the halls of justice’, in Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1995, pp. 255–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 See e.g. Boyle, Alan, ‘Globalising environmental liability: the interplay of national and international law’, in Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 17, 2005, pp. 3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Convention for Settlement of Difficulties Arising from Operation of Smelter at Trail, B.C., U.S. Treaty series No. 893, signed at Ottawa, 15 April 1935; ratifications exchanged 3 Aug. 1935, Art. IV.

28 ‘Trail smelter arbitration (United States v Canada)’, 1938, in Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA), Vol. 3, 16Google Scholar April 1938 and 11 March 1941, esp. p. 1920; and ‘Trail smelter arbitration (United States v Canada)’, 1941, in RIAA, Vol. 3, 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941, pp. 1947Google Scholarff.

29 ICJ, Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania), Merits, Judgment of 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 4.

30 ‘Trail smelter’, above note 28, p. 1965. See further Perrez, Franz X., ‘The relationship between “permanent sovereignty” and the obligation not to cause transboundary environmental damage’, in Environmental Law, Vol. 26, 1996, pp. 1187–1212Google Scholar.

31 See ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 29. See further André Nollkaemper, ‘Sovereignty and environmental justice in international law’, in Jonas Ebbeson and Phoebe Okowa (eds), Environmental Law and Justice in Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, pp. 253–269.

32 See e.g. Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 236–237.

33 Kofi A. Annan, United Nations Department of Public Information, and United Nations Secretary-General, ‘We the Peoples’: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, United Nations Department of Public Information, New York, 2000, para. 254, available at: http://www.un.org/millennium/sg/report/full.htm (last visited 10 September 2010).

34 Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 16 November 1945, entered into force on 4 November 1946, preamble, available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/pdf/UNESCO_E.PDF (last visited 10 September 2010).

35 See e.g. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), opened for signature 3 March 1973, entered into force 1 July 1975, 993 UNTS 243.

36 UN General Assembly Resolution 2398 (XXIII), 3 December 1968, ‘Problems of the Human Environment’.

37 ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries’, text adopted by the ILC at its fifty-third session, 2001, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, 2001Google Scholar, Part Two.

38 ‘States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction’ (Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 16 June 1972, 1972 UNYB 319, 11 ILM 1416 (1972) (‘Stockholm Declaration’), Principle 21); and Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Annex I, 12 August 1992, UN Doc. A/Conf. 151/26, Vol. I, Principle 2.

39 Text adopted by the ILC at its fifty-third session, 2001, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission's report covering the work of that session. The report, which also contains commentaries on the draft articles, appears in Official Records of the General Assembly (GAOR), Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, 2001, Part Two.

40 Goldblat even finds such practice that pre-dates the birth and codification of international environmental law, with examples including the United States' payment of compensation to Japan for the effects of radioactive fallout from a nuclear explosion it set off in the Pacific in 1954 (though the payment to the crew of the Lucky Dragon was technically made ex gratia, i.e. without admitting responsibility) and to Spain for the radioactive contents of hydrogen bombs that accidentally fell from a US bomber over Palomares, Spain, in 1966, damaging crops and fields. Goldblat, Jozef, ‘The environmental warfare convention: how meaningful is it?’, in Ambio, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1977, pp. 216–221Google Scholar.

41 See Rio Declaration, above note 38, Principle 16. See also Hans Christian Bugge, ‘The polluter pays principle: dilemmas of justice in national and international contexts’, in J. Ebbeson and P. Okawa, above note 31, pp. 411–428.

42 See Alexandre Kiss, ‘Present limits to the enforcement of state responsibility for environmental damage’, in Francesco Francioni and Tullio Scovazzi, International Responsibility for Environmental Harm, Graham & Trotman, London, 1991, pp. 3–14.

43 Benedetto Conforti, ‘Do states really accept responsibility for environmental damage?’, in F. Francioni and T. Scovazzi, above note 42, pp. 179–180.

44 Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer, opened for signature 22 March 1985, 1513 UNTS 293, entered into force 22 September 1988; Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, opened for signature 16 September 1987, 1522 UNTS 3, entered into force 1 January 1989.

45 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 9 May 1992, 31 ILM 854 (1992), entered into force 21 March 1994; Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 11 December 1997, 37 ILM 22, entered into force 16 February 2005.

46 ICJ, Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 78, para. 140. Cited approvingly in ICJ, Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, para. 185.

47 See Christian von Bar and Joachim Schmidt-Salzer (eds), Internationales Umwelthaftungsrecht II: Tagung des Instituts für Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung des Fachbereichs Rechtswissenschaften der Universität Osnabrück am 8. und 9. April 1994 in Osnabrück, C. Heymann, Köln, 1995, p. 229. The difficulties encountered by the ICJ when dealing with the proof of environmental damage in the recent Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay case support this view. See ICJ, Pulp Mills case, above note 46.

48 Malgosia Fitzmaurice, ‘International environmental law as a special field of international law’, in Diversity in Secondary Rules and the Unity of International Law: Special Volume Marking the 25th Anniversary of the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 1994, p. 209.

49 See ICJ, Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros case, above note 46.

50 For the main elements of definition for international environmental law, see Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Richard Desgagné, Makane Mbengue, and Cesare Romano, Protection internationale de l'environnement, 2nd edition, Pedone, Paris, 2005, p. 1; Patricia Birnie and Alan Boyle, International Law and the Environment, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, pp. 1–2; and P. Sands, above note 32, p. 15.

51 See ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, above note 31.

52 See e.g. WTO Appellate Body, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Appellate Body, 12 October 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R.

53 See e.g. European Court of Human Rights, Öneryildiz v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 June 2002, Application No. 48939/99 [2002] ECHR 491. See more generally Cesare Paolo R. Romano, The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes: A Pragmatic Approach, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2000.

54 See e.g. Arbitral Tribunal constituted under annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Decision of 4 August 2000.

55 See e.g. Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, International Arbitration under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 7 August 2005.

56 Henry Dunant, Un souvenir de Solferino, 2nd edition, Joel Cherbuliez Libraire, Geneva and Paris, 1862.

57 Francis Lieber, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code), originally issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1898, Arts. 34–36.

58 See Pfanner, Toni, ‘Editorial’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 859, 2005, p. 416CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Bible, Deuteronomy 20:19–20: ‘When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege: Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued’.

60 Holy Qur'an, 59:5: ‘Whether ye cut down (o ye Muslims!) the tender palm-trees or ye left them standing on their roots it was by leave of Allah and in order that He might cover with shame the rebellious transgressors’.

61 See International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC in WWI: Efforts to Ban Chemical Warfare, 11 January 2005, available at: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JQGS (last visited 10 September 2010).

62 Heller and Lawrence cite as examples Articles 23 and 55 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. See Jessica C. Lawrence and Kevin Heller, Jon, ‘The first ecocentric environmental war crime: the limits of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute’, in Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Vol. 20, 2007, p. 62Google Scholar.

63 Nagendra Singh, ‘The environmental law of war and the future of mankind’, in R.-J. Dupuy, above note 15, p. 419.

64 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, Geneva, 17 June 1925, entered into force 8 February 1928.

65 General Assembly Resolution 2603 (XXIV) of 16 December 1969, 24th Session, 1836th plenary meeting.

66 Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Resolution 1346 (XLV) (1968) and General Assembly Resolution 2398 (XXIII) of 3 December 1968.

67 Stockholm Declaration, above note 38.

68 The identification of two distinct approaches, argued for here specifically in relation to environmental treaties and armed conflict, has certain parallels with the ILC's distinction between a subjective and objective test discussed in paragraph 9 of the ILC Report, The Effect of Armed Conflict on Treaties: An Examination of Practice and Doctrine, 1 February 2005, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_550.pdf (last visited 6 September 2010), esp. paras. 9ff, with the strict treaty law approach ultimately involving an appreciation of the subjective intention of the treaty drafters and the ICJ's approach clearly depending on an objective evaluation of whether the operation of the treaty provision is compatible with the conduct of warfare.

69 P. Birnie and A. Boyle, above note 50, p. 149. Notable, albeit rare, examples include Part XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, 21 ILM 1261, entered into force 16 November 1994, Part XII – Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment (which is essentially a mini multilateral environmental agreement for the marine environment), esp. Article 236 excluding the application of the provisions of that part to ‘to any warship, naval auxiliary, other vessels or aircraft owned or operated by a State’; and the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, adopted 29 November 1969, 973UNTS 3, entered into force 19 June 1975, Art. III(2)(a), which excludes, inter alia, damage resulting from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, or insurrection. See E. Mann-Borgese, above note 15, pp. 105–108. See further Richard Desgagné, ‘The prevention of environmental damage in time of armed conflict’, in Horst Fischer and Avril McDonald (eds), Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 3, 2000, esp. pp. 122–126.

70 The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus is reflected in Article 62(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, entered into force 27 January 1980, which allows the suspension of the operation of a treaty after a fundamental change of circumstances.

71 See further Michael Bothe, Antonio Cassese, Frits Kalshoven, Alexandre Kiss, Jean Salmon, and Kenneth R. Simmonds, Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, Report established by a study group constituted by European Communities, European Commission, Brussels, 1985.

72 ICJ, Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, above note 31, para. 30.

73 Ibid., paras. 31–32.

74 Lieber Code, above note 57.

75 See the relevant Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, all available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO?OpenView (last visited 7 September 2010).

76 See the Geneva Conventions of 1949, all available at: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView (last visited 7 September 2010).

77 Note that, once specific rules had been developed, the lex specialis derogate legi generali rule had a non-neutral application as between the two subsystems of international law, requiring that the specific provisions developed within international humanitarian law apply in place of pre-existing general international environmental law rules on environmental damage (but not in wartime) or general international humanitarian law rules on wanton destruction (but not specifically destruction of the natural environment).

78 Alexandre Kiss, ‘Les protocoles additionels aux Conventions de Genève de 1977 et la protection de biens de l'environnement’, in Christophe Swinarski (ed.), Études et essais sur le droit international humanitaire et sur les principes de la Croix-Rouge en l'honneur de Jean Pictet, Martinus Nijhoff, La Haye, 1984, p. 182.

79 Australia's Whitlam Government was elected in 1972, ending a twenty-three-year conservative stranglehold on federal power. Pioneering legislation passed by this short-lived government included the wide-ranging consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act of 1974 and the socially-progressive Family Law Act of 1975.

80 See A. Kiss, above note 78, p. 182.

81 Ibid., pp. 183–184.

82 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (hereafter ‘Additional Protocol I’), opened for signature 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1978).

83 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (hereafter ‘Additional Protocol II’), opened for signature 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (entered into force 7 December 1978).

84 A. Kiss, above note 78, p. 184.

85 See General Assembly Resolution 3264 (XXIX) of 9 December 1974.

86 See General Assembly Resolution 3475 (XXX) of 11 December 1975, introductory paragraph 5.

87 General Assembly Resolution 31/72 of 10 December 1976.

88 See e.g. Susana Pimiento Chamorro and Edward Hammond, Addressing Environmental Modification in Post-Cold War Conflict: The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) and Related Agreements, Edmonds Institute Occasional Papers Series, 2001, available at: http://www.edmonds-institute.org/pimiento.html (last visited 20 September 2010).

89 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, (hereafter ‘ENMOD Convention’), adopted 10 December 1976, opened for signature at Geneva on 18 May 1977 (entered into force 5 October 1978). See further Daniel Bodanksy, Legal Regulation of the Effects of Military Activity on the Environment, Research Report 201 18 103 for the German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Erich Schmidt, Berlin, 2003, p. 26.

90 Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 10 October 1980, available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515 (last visited 20 September 2010), Art. 2(4): ‘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’. As can be seen, this provision is heavily compromised by an explicitly broad notion of military objectives, such that it would not even find the US activities in Vietnam in breach.

91 UN General Assembly Resolution 37/7 of 28 October 1982: ‘5. Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile activities; … 20. Military activities damaging to nature shall be avoided’.

92 ‘Agenda 21’, Annex II to the Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3 to 14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26: ‘39.6.a) Measures in accordance with international law should be considered to address, in times of armed conflict, large-scale destruction of the environment that cannot be justified under international law. The General Assembly and the Sixth Committee are the appropriate fora to deal with this subject. The specific competence and role of the International Committee of the Red Cross should be taken into account’.

93 ENMOD Convention, above note 89, Art. I: ‘Each State Party … as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party’. As noted above, Additional Protocol I expressly applies only to international armed conflict and no environmental damage provision was included in Additional Protocol II, which regulates non-international armed conflict.

94 See sources cited in J. E. Austin and C. E. Bruch, above note 7, pp. 3–5.

95 For their customary nature see Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law: Volume I: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, pp. 142–143, now available at: http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter14_rule4 (last visited 7 September 2010). Even if norms of precisely this nature are considered to have been the subject of sufficiently constant and widespread state practice with accompanying opinio juris to have become customary, which in the present author's view is doubtful, the persistent objector notion would seem to prevent these rules being applied in relation to certain key militarily active states.

96 See e.g. Additional Protocol I, Part V, Section II.

97 Additional Protocol I, Art. 91. See further Stanislaw Nahlik, ‘Le problème des sanctions en droit international humanitaitre’, in C. Swinarksi, above note 78, pp. 469–481.

98 See Frits Kalshoven, Reflections on the Law of War, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2007, pp. 596–597. See also Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War? Cases, Documents, and Teaching Materials on Contemporary Practice in International Humanitarian Law, 2nd edition, ICRC, Geneva, 2006.

99 Marco Sassòli, ‘Humanitarian law and international criminal law’, in Antonio Cassese (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, pp. 111–122.

100 P. Birnie and A. Boyle, above note 50, p. 150.

101 See e.g. Geneva Convention IV, Arts. 49, 50, 129, and 146; Additional Protocol I, Art. 85(1).

102 See Michael Bothe, Peter Macalister-Smith, and Thomas Kurzidem (eds), National Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1990.

103 Cassese, Antonio, ‘On the current trends towards criminal prosecution and punishment of breaches of international humanitarian law’, in European Journal of International Law, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998, p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Ibid., p. 6.

105 Sharp, Peter, ‘Prospects for environmental liability in the International Criminal Court’, in Virginia Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 217, 1999, p. 220Google Scholar.

106 A. Cassese, above note 103, p. 7. The General Assembly had already drawn up plans for an international criminal court in the immediate aftermath of World War II, complete with a draft statute. See UN General Assembly Resolution 489 (V) of 12 December 1950 and a reproduction of the statute in American Journal of International Law, Supplement, Vol. 46, 1942, pp. 1–13; and for the problems seen to have plagued that project, see Julius Stone, ‘The proposed international criminal court’, in Julius Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict: A Treatise on the Dynamics of Disputes- and War-Law, Rinehart, New York, 1954, pp. 377–379.

107 The Nuremberg Statute already contained the distinction between genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, as did the Tokyo, ICTY, and ICTR statutes. See Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Annex to the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis (London Agreement), 8 August 1945, 82 UNTS 279.

108 Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY Statute’), adopted 25 May 1993 by Security Council Resolution 827; as amended 13 May 1998 by Resolution 1166 and 30 November 2000 by Resolution 1329, Art. 3.

109 See ICTY Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Decision of 2 October 1995, para. 94. See further Anne-Marie La Rosa, Dictionnaire de droit international pénal: Termes choisis, Presses universitaires de France, Paris, 1998, pp. 31–32.

110 Richard Falk, ‘Environmental warfare and ecocide’, in Richard Falk (ed.), The Vietnam War and International Law, Vol. 4, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1976, p. 300.

111 See e.g. M. Sassòli, above note 99, p. 122.

112 Nuremberg International Military Tribunal: Judgment and Sentences, in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 41, 1947, p. 221.

113 Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law.

114 See Clean Air Act, 42 USC Section 7413(c)(1): ‘Any person who knowingly violates any requirement or prohibition of an applicable implementation plan (during any period of federally assumed enforcement or more than 30 days after having been notified …)’.

115 See ibid., Section 7413(c)(5)(A): ‘Any person who knowingly releases into the ambient air any hazardous air pollutant listed … and who knows at the time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine under title 18, or by imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or both’.

116 Spanish Constitution, Art. 45 [Environment]: ‘(1) Everyone has the right to enjoy an environment suitable for the development of the person as well as the duty to preserve it. (2) The public authorities shall concern themselves with the rational use of all natural resources for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of life and protecting and restoring the environment, supporting themselves on an indispensable collective solidarity. (3) For those who violate the provisions of the foregoing paragraph, penal or administrative sanctions, as applicable, shall be established and they shall be obliged to repair the damage caused’.

117 Bowman Gilfillan, ‘Chapter 55: South Africa’, in The International Comparative Legal Guide to Environmental Law 2009, Global Legal Group, 2009, pp. 397–398.

118 Some authors, such as Freeland, Weinstein, and Sharp, consider that other provisions in the ICC Statute – such as those pertaining to genocide or crimes against humanity – may be applicable to acts of wartime environmental damage. The present author does not share this view. Most environmental damage is unlikely to be sufficiently localized to have the effect of deliberately targeting a specific national, ethnical, racial, or religious group and to reach the high threshold rightly imposed by the ICC Statute's genocide provision (Article 4), while crimes against humanity, which generally require ‘great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health’ (see ICC Statute, Art. 7(1)(k)), at the most only capture attacks against the environment directly causing, with knowledge, substantial human suffering, not simply ‘environmental’ crimes. See Steven Freeland, ‘Crimes against the environment: a role for the International Criminal Court?’, in La Revue Juridique Polynésienne, Hors Série, 2005, pp. 335ff.; Weinstein, Tara, ‘Prosecuting attacks that destroy the environment: environmental crimes or humanitarian atrocities?’, in Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Vol. 17, 2005Google Scholar; and P. Sharp, above note 105.

119 The scope of this article has been limited to international armed conflict not simply because the relevant international criminal law is restricted to international conflicts (see ICC Statute, Art. 8(2)(b) (chapeau); ICC Preparatory Commission, Elements of Crimes, ICC Doc: ICC-ASP/1/3 (hereafter ‘Elements of Crimes’)), but also to avoid the analysis of a significant further branch of international law – human rights law – and the detailed discussion that its interaction with both international environmental law and international humanitarian law in this context would merit.

120 It should be noted that in defining the scope of her study of Transboundary Damage in general, Xue Hanqin uses four elements of definition which overlap substantially with those outlined here. See Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 4.

121 Understandings Appended to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques by the Conference of the Committee of Disarmament (hereafter ‘CCD Understandings’), available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/460?OpenDocument (last visited 20 September 2010).

122 J. Goldblat, above note 40, p. 217.

123 Charter of the United Nations, opened for signature 26 June 1945, 1 UNTS 16, entered into force 24 October 1945, Art. 51.

124 ENMOD Convention, above note 89, Art. I; Additional Protocol I, Arts. 35(3) and 55(1); ICC Statute, Art. 8(2)(b)(iv).

125 UN Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), UN Doc. S/RES/687 (1991), emphasis added; Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 19 of Security Council resolution 687 (1991), UN Doc. S/22559, 2 May 1991. For context and discussion, see Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Danio Campanelli, ‘The United Nations Compensation Commission: time for an assessment?’, in Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Hans-Peter Gasser, Thilo Marauhn, and Natalino Ronzitti (eds), Peace in Liberty: Festschrift für Michael Bothe zum 70. Geburtstag, Nomos/Dike, Baden-Baden/Zürich, 2008, pp. 3–17.

126 See e.g. the Well Blowout Control Claim, Report of 15 November 1996, UN Doc. S/AC.2/Dec.40, 36 ILM 1343 (1997), 1356, paras. 85–86 (approved by Governing Council Decision 40, 17 December 1996 (S/AC.26/Dec.40), reproduced in I.L.R., Vol. 109, p. 669). See further Alford, Roger P., ‘Well Blowout Control Claim. UN Doc. S/AC.2/Dec.40, 36 ILM 1343 (1997)’, in AJIL, Vol. 92, No. 2, 1998, pp. 287–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

127 ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities Under International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Geneva, 2009, p. 53.

128 See e.g. the 1996 Draft Code of the Crimes Against Humanity, Art. 20 (War Crimes): ‘(g) … cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and thereby gravely prejudice the health or survival of the population’ (emphasis added).

129 See ENMOD Convention, above note 89, Article II: ‘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’; Eric Jensen, Talbot, ‘The international law of environmental warfare: active and passive damage during armed conflict’, in Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 38, 2005, pp. 150–152Google Scholar.

130 A. Kiss, above note 78, p. 188.

131 Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Forty-third Session, 29 April–19 July 1991, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10, Doc. A/46/10 (hereafter ‘ILC 1991 Commentary’), para. 4 of commentary to draft Article 26, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/A_46_10.pdf (last visited 7 September 2010). The ILC 1991 Commentary remains the most detailed on this point, as the draft provision was subsequently altered.

132 ENMOD Convention, above note 89, Art. I, emphasis added.

133 A. Kiss, above note 78, p. 189.

134 René Provost, ‘International criminal environmental law’, in Guy S. Goodwin-Gill and Stefan Talmon (eds), The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999, p. 447.

135 ILC 1991 Commentary, above note 131, p. 107, para. 5 of commentary to draft Article 26.

136 See CCD Understandings, above note 121. See also L. Boisson de Chazournes et al., above note 50, p. 645.

137 K. Hulme, above note 12, p. 92.

138 See Dietrich Schindler and Jiří Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nihjoff Publishers, Leiden, 1988, pp. 164–169.

139 See Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski, and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva, 1987, Article 55 of Additional Protocol I, para. 2136, and sources cited therein.

140 See e.g. International and Operational Law Department, US Army, Operational Law Handbook (2007), p. 232, available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/law2007.pdf (last visited 5 September 2010).

141 ILC 1991 Commentary, above note 131, p. 107, para. 5 of commentary to draft Article 26.

142 ENMOD Convention, above note 89. See also L. Boisson de Chazournes et al., above note 50, p. 645.

143 ICRC, Report to the UN General Assembly 1993, UN Doc A/48/269, para. 34; see also the similar conclusion reached by K. Hulme, above note 12, pp. 92–95, after an extensive analysis of the provision.

144 UNEP and United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment and Human Settlements, UNEP and UNCHS, Switzerland, 1999, p. 61; see further K. Hulme, above note 12, p. 195.

145 K. Hulme, above note 12, p. 96.

146 CCD Understandings, above note 121.

147 Additional Protocol I, Art. 55(1), emphasis added.

148 ‘Failing to admit that the environment had itself come to represent something of intrinsic value … the Geneva Protocol could only envisage it in terms of the protection that it affords to humans’. A. Kiss, above note 78, pp. 191–192 (present author's translation).

149 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, opened for signature 13 November 1979, 1302 UNTS 217, entered into force 16 March 1983, Art. 1(a). Note, however, the impasse between states on setting an appropriate threshold for damage in negotiations for the annex on comprehensive liability for harm to the Antarctic environment required under Article 16 of the 1991 Environment Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty. See further Louise de La Fayette, ‘The concept of environmental damage in international liability regimes’, in Michael Bowman and Alan Boyle, Environmental Damage in International and Comparative Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, pp. 180–182.

150 ICJ, Pulp Mills case, above note 46, p. 58, para. 198, quoting from the Statute of the River Uruguay (UNTS, Vol. 1295, No. I–21425, p. 340, Art. 40) as authoritatively interpreted in the CARU Digest (E3), Title I, Chapter I, Section. 2, Art. 1(c).

151 See e.g. ICC Statute, Art. 8(2)(b)(vi): ‘Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion’.

152 Gerhard Werle and Jessberger, Florian, ‘“Unless otherwise provided”: Article 30 of the ICC Statute and the mental element of crimes under international criminal law’, in Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2005, pp. 35–55Google Scholar, esp. p. 39.

153 Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary, ICRC/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 162.

154 It should be noted that the ‘launching’ of an attack is the expression used in the grave breaches provision of Article 85 of Additional Protocol I (in reference to the grave breach for the non-environmental limb of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute). This is probably the origin of the use of this word in the ICC Statute. Interestingly, Article 85 of the French version of Additional Protocol I uses ‘lancer une attaque’.

155 K. Dörmann, above note 153, p. 162.

156 Elements of Crimes, above note 119, p. 21.

157 S. Omar et al., above note 16, pp. 321–322.

158 J. E. Austin and C. E. Bruch, above note 7, p. 2.

159 ICC Statute, Art. 25(3)(f).

160 Note that, in contradistinction to Article 55, Article 35 of the French version of Additional Protocol I uses the future of the verb causer (‘dont on peut attendre qu'ils causeront’), which in the context has the same meaning as the slightly less grammatically correct Article 55 formulation (‘dont on peut attendre qu'ils causent’).

161 Y. Sandoz et al., above note 139, para. 3479.

162 See above note 17 and text thereto.

163 ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 13 June 2000, para. 22, available at: http://www.icty.org/x/file/Press/nato061300.pdf (last visited 20 September 2010).

164 K. Dörmann, above note 153, p. 176.

165 See ICTY, Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Case No. IT–96–21-T, Judgment of 16 November 1998, para. 393; affirmed in Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Case No. IT–96–21-A, Judgment of 20 February 2001, para. 238; ICC Statute, Art. 28. See further Eugenia Levine, ‘The mens rea requirement’, in Global Policy Forum, February 2005, paras. 45–58.

166 Elements of Crimes, above note 119, p. 132, footnote 37.

167 None of the cases currently before the ICC involve a charge under either limb of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the ICC Statute, the only provision containing this particular ‘knowledge of facts’-style requirement.

168 Drumbl, Mark A., ‘Waging war against the world: the need to move from war crimes to environmental crimes’, in Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 22, 1998, p. 130Google Scholar. Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Humanitarian law and the environment’, in Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2003, pp. 265 and 281Google Scholar.

169 See ICTY, above note 163, in particular paras. 21–25. See also D. Bodansky, above note 89.

170 See e.g. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, opened for signature 29 March 1972, 961 UNTS 187, entered into force 1 September 1972, available at: http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/liability.html (last visited 7 September 2010). See further A. Boyle, above note 26.

171 Swedish Environmental Code, adopted 1998, entered into force 1 January 1999, Part Six ‘Penalties’, Chapter 29, ‘Penalty provisions and forfeiture’, Sections 1–4.

172 ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

173 ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al., Judgment of 14 January 2000, para. 524.

174 It should be noted that Article 14 of the Lieber Code, above note 57, also combines into one provision the linked elements of necessity and proportionality: ‘… indispensable for securing the ends of war [necessity] and lawful according to the modern laws of war [proportionality]’. See further Carnahan, Burrus M., ‘Lincoln, Lieber and the laws of war: the origins and limits of the principle of military necessity’, in AJIL, Vol. 92, No. 2, 1998, pp. 213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

175 B. M. Carnahan, above note 174, p. 230.

176 Jean Allain and Jones, John, ‘A patchwork of norms: a commentary on the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind’, in European Journal of International Law, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1997, p. 115Google Scholar.

177 K. Dörmann, above note 153, pp. 171–176.

178 Stephen Freeland, Human Security and the Environment: Prosecuting Environmental Crimes in the International Criminal Court, paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law, Canberra, Australia, 18–20 June 2004, p. 7.

179 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, above note 31, para. 30.

180 General Assembly Resolution 47/37 of 25 November 1992.

181 Terminology copied in the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II), 1342 UNTS 168, 19 ILM 1529, entered into force 2 December 1983; as amended 3 May 1996, 35 ILM 1206.

182 Waldemar A. Solf, ‘Article 52: general protection of civilian objects’, in Michael Bothe, Karl Josef Partsch, and Waldemar A. Solf (eds), New rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1982, p. 324.

183 Ibid., p. 325.

184 Whether the damage was excessive in the context is to be judged, according to footnote 37 included by the PrepCom in its Elements of Crimes document (above note 119), on the basis of the information available to the perpetrator at the time of his or her decision to launch the attack (i.e. whether the disproportionality was foreseeable).

185 T. Weinstein, above note 118, p. 697.

186 ‘The Hostages Trial (Wilhelm List and Others)’, in Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. 8, 1948, pp. 66–69Google Scholar.

187 Chris Hedges ‘Serbian town bombed by NATO fears effects of toxic chemicals’, in New York Times, 14 July 1999, emphasis added. See also UNEP and United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), above note 144, p. 32.

188 See WTO Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Appellate Body Report of 12 October 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R.

189 See Gabrielle Marceau and Julian Wyatt, ‘Trade and the environment: the WTO's efforts to balance economic and sustainable development’, in Rita Trigo Trindade, Peter Henry, and Christian Bovet (eds), Economie environnement ethique: De la responsabilité sociale et sociétale. Liber Amicorum Anne Petitpierre-Sauvain, Schulthess, Zurich/Basel/Geneva, 2009, pp. 225–235.

190 WTO Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres (DS 332), 3 December 2007, para. 171. See also WTO Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (DS 285), 7 April 2005, para. 291. See further G. Marceau and J. Wyatt, above note 189, pp. 232–233.

191 See e.g. ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case, above note 46, para. 55, where the Court suggested alternative means by which Hungary could have protected its environmental concerns without abandoning the joint works.

192 See Charnovitz, Steve, ‘The WTO's environmental progress’, in Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2007, pp. 685–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

193 See J. Wyatt, above note 6. See also Tomer Broude, Fragmentation(s) of International Law: On Normative Integration as Authority Allocation, paper delivered at the International Law Review 2008 Symposium, 15 February 2008, esp. p. 5, available at: http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publications/ilrsymposium/2008sym/broude_normative_integ_paper.pdf (last visited 20 September 2010).

194 Jessica C. Lawrence and Kevin Heller, Jon, ‘The limits of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute: the first ecocentric environmental war crime’, in Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2007, p. 62Google Scholar.

195 ICC Statute, Art. 22(2).

196 Thilo Marauhn, ‘Environmental damage in times of armed conflict: not “really” a matter of criminal responsibility?’, in International Review of the Red Cross, No. 840, 2000, p. 1036.

197 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, opened for signature 22 March 1989, 1673 UNTS 57, 28 ILM 657 (entered into force 5 May 1992), Art. 4, paras. 3 and 4.

198 ICC Statute, Preamble.

199 Prabhu, for example, sets out five such features: Prabhu, Mohan, ‘General report on crimes against the environment’, in International Review of Penal Law, Vol. 64, 1994, p. 703Google Scholar.

200 Cassese, Antonio, ‘Terrorism is also disrupting some crucial legal categories of international law’, in European Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2001, pp. 993–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

201 Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007, pp. 84–86.

202 R. Provost, above note 134, p. 440.

203 ‘In fact, for a violation of a jus in bello rule to have the particular consequence of engaging individual criminal responsibility, one must establish not only the existence of a violation of a rule of international law but also the existence of a secondary rule, normally customary, which attributes this particular consequence to a violation of that rule’. Georges and Rosemary Abi-Saab, ‘Chapitre 21: les crimes de guerre’, in Hervé Ascensio, Emmanuel Decaux, et Alain Pellet (eds), Droit international pénal, Pedone, Paris, 2000, p. 278 (present author's translation).

204 Ibid., pp. 284–285.

205 R. Provost, above note 134, p. 442.

206 S. Freeland, above note 178, p. 12.

207 ICC Statute, Art. 77.

208 P. Sharp, above note 105, p. 219.

209 For the reasons why terrorism as such was not included in the Rome Statute, see A. Cassese, above note 200, p. 994.

210 India's proposal in this respect at the negotiations of the Rome Statute was defeated. See Marlies Glasius, ‘Expertise in the Cause of Justice: Global Civil Society Influence on the Statute for an International Criminal Court’, in Marlies Glasius, Mary Kaldor and Helmut Anheier (eds), Global Civil Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 137.

211 The notion of ‘complexification’ of the international legal order is drawn from Georges Abi-Saab, ‘Fragmentation or unification: some concluding remarks’, in New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1999, pp. 919–933Google Scholar.