The ICRC’s updated Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict, presented in this blog a few days ago, seek to bridge the gap between the reality of current conflicts and the narrow focus of the existing treaty rules specifically addressing conflict-related environmental harm by collecting existing international humanitarian law rules of relevance. These assessments, together with related research, have revealed a whole range of environmental effects of armed conflicts from immediate destruction to long-term degradation, resulting not only from the conduct of hostilities but also from toxic or hazardous remnants of war, excessive exploitation of conflict resources, unsustainable survival strategies of affected populations, or institutional collapse. Few IHL provisions explicitly address environmental protection during armed conflict, and those that do are inadequate’.Ĭonclusions like this were prompted by the results of post-conflict environmental assessments conducted since the 1990s in various parts of the world by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Bank and others. This concern was aptly summarized in an influential 2010 article, according to which ‘he direct and indirect protections that IHL offers for the environment during armed conflict are of problematic value. Overcoming the disconnect: environmental protection and armed conflictsįrom time to time, frustration has been expressed regarding the seeming disconnect between existing international law and the reality of environmental destruction and degradation in conflict-affected areas.
0 kommentar(er)
