![]() ![]() Third, we argue that the implementation of these frameworks remains a challenge, and highlight some of the obstacles that might emerge during this phase Second, we provide an overview of two recent international developments that aim to strengthen the legal protection of the environment during armed conflict: a) the ILC’s efforts to develop new PERAC principles to protect the environment from the consequences of war and conflict, and b) the ICRC updated military guidelines on the protection of the natural environment in armed conflict. First, we argue that there are two specific complications with addressing environmental damage during conflict and in peacebuilding. In addition, various NGOs are promoting the inclusion of “crimes against the Earth” or “ecocide” in the Rome Statute, enabling the International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate and prosecute individuals for destroying the environment. Meanwhile, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) published its Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict in 2020, updated from an earlier version originally prepared at the request of the United Nations General Assembly in 1994. At the United Nations, the International Law Commission (ILC) has worked on new principles for the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict (the PERAC principles). In recent years, several international processes have contributed momentum to environmental protection in armed conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to come up with ways to assess conflict-induced damages and to remediate them. A healthy environment is a precondition for sustainable peace. Environmental destruction in war has resulted in declines in wildlife, deforestation, birth defects, and the introduction of new pollutants and pathogens. Once toxic substances have leaked into groundwater or a forest has been destroyed, the damage may continue to harm the health, livelihoods, and security of people living in the affected area for decades. However, wartime environmental destruction has long-term implications which, if left unattended, will extend far beyond the end of a conflict. So the idea of the environment as a subject with rights remains a radical idea. The environment and nature are often seen as property or a resource. Yet environmental damage has usually had a low policy priority in conflict settings, overshadowed by the urgent need to reduce human suffering. In Syria, the breakdown of the oil industry has led to severe pollution that threatens the health of nearby inhabitants and may have rendered some areas unfit to live in. In parts of Eastern Ukraine, for instance, hazardous substances have leaked into rivers and groundwater due to the destruction of vital infrastructure and hazardous industries. Images of burning oil fields and bombarded industrial plants have made it clear that armed conflict always causes environmental damage.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |