Suchergebnisse

The environment suffers enormously during armed conflicts and, despite the increasing awareness of the pressing need to protect the planet, devastating environmental damage can occur legally at times of war. This book suggests that – apart from the protection offered under law of armed conflict – environmental treaties or multilateral agreements (MEAs) can complement and strengthen environmental protection when war occurs. Previous research has focused on the protection offered under the law of armed conflict (in particular international humanitarian law) and customary international environmental law concerning wartime environmental damage, or whether environmental treaties remain applicable at times of armed conflict. This book, however, is the first in-depth scholarly examination of how environmental treaties can apply in wartime and how they can contribute to the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict. It also offers an updated study of environmental protection under the law of armed conflict, including the latest developments in the International Law Commission's work on this underexplored topic.

This article analyses the application of the 1972 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention (the WHC) in the context of the armed conflicts that have taken place in the Virunga National Park (the Park), a natural world heritage site in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC). Instead of addressing wartime environmental damage under the law of armed conflict, this article seeks to establish how such damage can be addressed using multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). MEAs often consist of general principles and vague obligations and their relevance or applicability during situations of armed conflict may be questioned. However, a number of MEAs, including the WHC, authorise their convention bodies to develop detailed and substantive obligations applicable to their parties. Thus, the decisions and recommendations adopted by the World Heritage Committee, a body established under the WHC, provide substantive content to the provisions of the WHC. These decisions and recommendations may, however, run counter to the requirements of military necessity thereby affecting the application of the law of armed conflict. While the position adopted by the World Heritage Committee does not inevitably imply a clash between the obligations in the WHC and the law of armed conflict, it does raise the question of whether the outstanding values of world heritage should trump the rules of military necessity and other pressing concerns during armed conflict. On an informal basis, the World Heritage Committee and the UN peacekeeping forces deployed in the DRC have agreed to perform operations that jointly address the interconnected concerns of security and conservation of natural resources in the region of the Park. This cooperative 'green-keeping' operation represents a useful approach to regime interaction and the harmonisation of obligations set out in different legal regimes that are applicable to the same subject matter.

This chapter analyses the international humanitarian legal ordering of human and other relationships during armed conflict and disaster by looking at two examples, namely the 'natural' environment and human-scientific constructed AI-powered swarms of drones. Drawing on these examples, as well as post-anthropocentric and posthuman legal scholarship, the authors argue that International Humanitarian Law (IHL) has some potential in developing in a post-anthropocentric direction, specifically in reorienting its focus from armed conflicts to violent outbursts by making use of the Deleuze-Guattarian notion of 'war-machines'. The authors argue that this will enable IHL to offer a better protection on a less anthropocentric and more inclusive and equal basis in a shared posthuman ecology. The chapter offers an overview of current legal regulations as well as a theoretical and practice-oriented outline for the development of IHL.

AbstractIn the face of the triple planetary crisis, which includes climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, there is growing recognition that the environment needs to be re-evaluated and better protected. Recent developments, such as a values assessment by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),1 the concept of biocultural rights and the acknowledgment of granting rights to nature, emphasize the intrinsic value of the environment and endorse the understanding of the interconnectedness between humans and non-human entities. These developments are also increasingly evident in legal frameworks; for instance, several domestic legal systems now accept the rights of nature and grant legal standing to natural entities. This expansion in our understanding of the environment challenges the traditional anthropocentric focus of international law, which has primarily prioritized human rights and interests, perceiving humans as having dominance over nature and the liberty to harness its resources. Simultaneously, international environmental law is increasingly recognizing the interdependence of ecosystems and species. This acknowledgment drives the promotion of approaches to environmental management and conservation that centre around ecosystems and local communities. The present article looks at how to reconcile these heightened environmental values and the legal norms in armed conflict by examining two examples: the safeguarding of protected areas and the restoration of the environment post-conflict. By analyzing the changing values and legal developments in this area, the article offers legal and practical tools to support the protection of nature's intrinsic value in future warfare.