No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Remedying the environmental impacts of war: Challenges and perspectives for full reparation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2023
Abstract
While the law of State responsibility, particularly the principle of full reparation, provides general guidance for achieving full reparation, it is not quite obvious what kinds of reparation qualify as “full” and how to actualize full reparation. This article centres on the principles, approaches and methods surrounding full reparation for armed conflict-related environmental damage in the law of State responsibility. It examines how the environment is legally defined as an object of protection under international law, and discusses practical challenges in international compensation for wartime environmental damage. In doing so, it ascertains the underlying objective of full reparation, develops an approach to assessing wartime environmental damage, and draws on experiences of international jurisprudence to quantify compensation for wartime environmental damage.
- Type
- Accountability and Remedies
- Information
- International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 105 , Issue 924: Protecting the Environment in Armed Conflict , December 2023 , pp. 1441 - 1462
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the ICRC
Footnotes
The advice, opinions and statements contained in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICRC. The ICRC does not necessarily represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided in this article.
References
1 International Court of Justice (ICJ), Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), General List No. 182, Order, 16 March 2022, para. 74.
2 Conca, Ken and Wallace, Jennifer, “Environment and Peacebuilding in War-Torn Societies: Lessons from the UN Environment Programme's Experience with Post-conflict Assessment”, Global Governance, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2009, p. 486CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 UNEP, The Environmental Impact of the Conflict in Ukraine: A Preliminary Review, Nairobi, 2022.
4 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 205 CTS 277, 18 October 1907 (entered into force 26 January 1910). Despite the absence of a specific rule addressing the protection of the environment explicitly, Hague Convention IV indirectly protects the environment during armed conflict. Several provisions of the Hague Regulations are considered relevant for the environment through their regulation of the means and methods of warfare – i.e., Article 22 and the Martens Clause contained in the preamble. In addition, the environment is indirectly protected by Article 23(g), which governs the protection of civilian objects and property, and Article 55, which sets forth the rules of usufruct for the Occupying Power. See UNEP, Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: An Inventory and Analysis of International Law, Nairobi, 2009, pp. 14, 16, 19.
5 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I).
6 ILC, Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/77/10, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 2, 2022 (ILC Draft Principles), Principle 9.
7 Low, Luan and Hodgkinson, David, “Compensation for Wartime Environmental Damage: Challenges to International Law after the Gulf War”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1994, pp. 412–413Google Scholar.
8 See, generally, Anne Dienelt, Armed Conflicts and the Environment: Complementing the Laws of Armed Conflict with Human Rights Law and International Environmental Law, Springer Nature, Cham, 2022; Bothe, Michael, Bruch, Carl, Diamond, Jordan and Jensen, David, “International Law Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: Gaps and Opportunities”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 879, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, Series A, No. 9, p. 21.
10 PCIJ, Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Claim for Indemnity, Judgment No. 13, 1928, Series A, No. 17, p. 47.
11 ILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/56/10, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 2, 2001 (ARSIWA), Art. 31. See also UNGA Res. 56/83, 12 December 2001, Annex.
12 ARSIWA, above note 11, Art. 34. See also Crawford, James, State Responsibility: The General Part, Cambridge University Press, Oxford, 2013, p. 511CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 59 Stat 1055, 33 UNTS 993, 26 June 1945 (entered into force 24 October 1945), Art. 38. See also Payne, Cymie R., “Defining the Environment: Environmental Integrity”, in Stahn, Carsten, Iverson, Jens and Easterday, Jennifer S. (eds), Environmental Protection and Transitions from Conflict to Peace, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017, p. 45Google Scholar.
14 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 UNTS 151, 10 December 1976 (entered into force 5 October 1978) (ENMOD Convention).
15 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998 (entered into force 1 July 2002) (Rome Statute).
16 Karen Hulme and Doug Weir, “Environmental Protection in Armed Conflict”, in Malgosia Fitzmaurice et al. (eds), Research Handbook on International Environmental Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2021, p. 401.
17 Ibid., p. 402; see also UNEP, above note 4, p. 12; A. Dienelt, above note 8, pp. 60–61.
18 Dinstein, Yoram, “Protection of the Environment in International Armed Conflict”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 5, 2001, pp. 526–530Google Scholar; Hulme, Karen, War Torn Environment: Interpreting the Legal Threshold, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2004, pp. 72–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wyatt, Julian, “Law-Making at the Intersection of International Environmental, Humanitarian and Criminal Law: The Issue of Damage to the Environment in International Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 879, 2010, pp. 619–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 C. R. Payne, above note 13, p. 53.
20 See A. Dienelt, above note 8, pp. 44–58; K. Hulme, above note 18, p. 111.
21 A. Dienelt, above note 8, pp. 282–287.
22 Peacetime treaties may continue in operation during armed conflict, including treaties protecting the environment. For the effects of armed conflicts on treaties, see ILC, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Sixty-Third Session, UN Doc. A /66/10, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 2, 2011, pp. 106–130.
23 See, generally, A. Dienelt, above note 8; Sjöstedt, Britta, The Role of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Reconciliatory Approach to Environmental Protection in Armed Conflict, Hart, Oxford, 2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Boyle, Alan, “Reparation for Environmental Damage in International Law: Some Preliminary Problems”, in Bowman, Michael and Boyle, Alan (eds), Environmental Damage in International and Comparative Law: Problems of Definition and Valuation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 20Google Scholar.
25 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, 36 ILM 700, 21 May 1997 (entered into force 17 August 2014).
26 ILC, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Sixth Session, UN Doc. A/49/10/1994, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 2, 1994, para. 6 of the commentary to Art. 21.
27 ILC, Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/61/10, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 2, 2006, Principle 2(b).
28 Ibid., para. 19 of the commentary to Principle 2.
29 Ibid., para. 20 of the commentary to Principle 2.
30 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996 (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion), para. 29.
31 UNSC Res. 687, 3 April 1991, para. 35. Created in 1991, the UNCC is mandated with processing reparation claims related to Iraq's 1990–91 invasion of Kuwait.
32 UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Fifth Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2005/10, 30 June 2005, para. 58.
33 Permanent Court of Arbitration, Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 24 May 2005, UNRIAA 27, para. 58.
34 ICJ, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Compensation, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2018, para. 41; ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Reparations, Judgment, 9 February 2022, para. 348.
35 C. R. Payne, above note 13, pp. 62–63.
36 ILC Draft Principles, above note 6, para. 7 of the commentary to Principle 14.
37 C. R. Payne, above note 13, p. 62.
38 ILC, Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts: Comments and Observations Received from Governments, International Organizations and Others, UN Doc. A/CN.4/749, 17 January 2022, p. 174.
39 ILC Draft Principles, above note 6, para. 9 of the commentary to Principle 13.
40 Karen Hulme, “Natural Environment”, in Elizabeth Wilmshurst and Susan Breau (eds), Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, p. 208.
41 ILC Draft Principles, above note 6, para. 8 of the commentary to Principle 12. See also Sands, Philippe and Peel, Jacqueline, Principles of International Environmental Law, 4th ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, p. 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “The concept of the environment, however, encompasses ‘both the features and the products of the natural world and those of human civilization’.”
42 Jianguo Liu et al., “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural System”, Science, Vol. 317, No. 5844, 2007, p. 1513.
43 C. R. Payne, above note 13, p. 69.
44 ICJ, Certain Activities, above note 34, para. 74.
45 Ibid., para. 87.
46 Gautier, Philippe, “Environmental Damage and the United Nations Claims Commission: New Directions for Future International Environmental Cases?”, in Ndiaye, Tafsir Malick and Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2007, p. 207Google Scholar.
47 UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Third Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2003/31, 18 December 2013, para. 48 (emphasis added).
48 Ibid.
49 UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning Part One of the Fourth Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2004/16, 9 December 2004, para. 50; UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning Part Two of the Fourth Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2004/17, 9 December 2004, para. 41.
50 Cymie R. Payne, “Legal Liability for Environmental Damage: The United Nations Compensation Commission and the 1990–1991 Gulf War”, in Carl Bruch, Carroll Muffett and Sandra Nichols (eds), Governance, Natural Resources, and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, Earthscan, Abingdon, 2016, p. 736.
51 ICJ, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2012 (I), para. 14; ICJ, Certain Activities, above note 34, para. 72; ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 34, para. 145.
52 Marie G. Jacobsson, Preliminary Report on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN Doc. A/CN.4/674, 2014, p. 208; see also ILC, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Sixty-Third Session, UN Doc. A/66/10, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part 2, 2011, Annex E, “Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts”, p. 351.
53 ICRC, Strengthening Legal Protection for Victims of Armed Conflicts, Geneva, 2011, p. 18.
54 Cymie R. Payne, “Environmental Claims in Context: Overview of the Institution”, in Cymie R. Payne and Peter H. Sand (eds), Gulf War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commission: Environmental Liability, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011, p. 6.
55 Rule 44 of the ICRC Customary Law Study provides: “Methods and means of warfare must be employed with due regard to the protection and preservation of the natural environment. In the conduct of military operations, all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental damage to the environment. Lack of scientific certainty as to the effects on the environment of certain military operations does not absolve a party to the conflict from taking such precautions.” Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), Rule 44, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/rules. See also ILC Draft Principles, above note 6, Principle 14 and para. 8 of the commentary.
56 P. Sands and J. Peel, above note 41, pp. 229–240.
57 Sand, Peter H., “Compensation for Environmental Damage from the 1991 Gulf War”, Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2005, p. 246Google Scholar.
58 ICRC, above note 53, p. 18.
59 UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the First Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2001/16, 22 June 2001, para. 32.
60 Ibid., para. 17.
61 UNCC, above note 47, para. 32. See also Larraine Wilde, “Scientific and Technical Advice: The Perspective of Iraq's Experts”, in C. R. Payne and P. H. Sand (eds), above note 54, p. 97; Peter H. Sand, “Environmental Principles Applied”, in C. R. Payne and P. H. Sand (eds), above note 54, p. 179.
62 Carsten Stahn, Jens Iverson and Jennifer S. Easterday, “Protection of the Environment and Jus Post Bellum: Some Preliminary Reflections”, in C. Stahn, J. Iverson and J. S. Easterday (eds), above note 13, p. 5.
63 K. Conca and J. Wallace, above note 2, p. 493.
64 Ibid.
65 The difficulties encountered in the Trail Smelter and Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project cases are illustrative of this. See Hanqin Xue, Transboundary Damage in International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 179–182.
66 P. Gautier, above note 46, p. 209.
67 UNCC, above note 59, para. 34.
68 UNCC, Part One of the Fourth Instalment, above note 49, paras 333–336.
69 UNCC, above note 32, para. 178.
70 L. Wilde, above note 61, p. 103.
71 ICJ, Certain Activities, above note 34, para. 76. See also ibid., Declaration of Judge Gevorgian, para. 6.
72 Kindji, Kévine and Faure, Michael, “Assessing Reparation of Environmental Damage by the ICJ: A Lost Opportunity?”, Questions of International Law, Vol. 57, 2019, p. 14Google Scholar.
73 ICJ, Diallo, above note 51, paras 14, 49.
74 Alexandre Kiss and Dinah Shelton, Guide to International Environmental Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2007, p. 20.
75 ICRC, above note 53, p. 18.
76 C. R. Payne, above note 50, p. 734. See also, A. Kiss and D. Shelton, above note 74, p. 263: “separating out the causation has been a difficult matter, particularly in the absence of baseline information”.
77 P. Gautier, above note 46, p. 209.
78 UNCC, above note 47, para. 47.
79 UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Second Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2002/26, 3 October 2002, para. 25.
80 ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 34, para. 94.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid., paras 95–97.
83 ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 34, para. 93.
84 Ibid., para. 98.
85 UNCC, Part One of the Fourth Instalment, above note 49, para. 40.
86 ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 34, paras 221, 253.
87 UNCC, Part One of the Fourth Instalment, above note 49, para. 40.
88 UNEP, Environmental Rule of Law: First Global Report, Nairobi, 2019, p. 217.
89 Marja Lehto, Second Report on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN Doc. A/CN.4/728, 27 March 2019, para. 134; Cymie R. Payne, “Developments in the Law of Environmental Reparations: A Case Study of the UN Compensation Commission”, in C. Stahn, J. Iverson and J. S. Easterday (eds), above note 13, p. 353.
90 ARSIWA, above note 11, para. 3 of the commentary to Art. 36.
91 ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1997, para. 140.
92 ARSIWA, above note 11, para. 2 of the commentary to Art. 36.
93 P. Sands and J. Peel, above note 41, pp. 749–750.
94 By contrast, extensive practice in this area exists at the national and regional levels. See e.g. Brans, Edward H. P., Liability for Damage to Public Natural Resources: Standing, Damage and Damage Assessment, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2001Google Scholar; Rudall, Jason, Compensation for Environmental Damage under International Law, Routledge, Oxon, 2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
95 ARSIWA, above note 11, para. 6 of the commentary to Art. 36.
96 Shelton, Dinah, Remedies in International Human Rights Law, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, p. 180Google Scholar.
97 Payne, Cymie R., “Environmental Integrity in Post-Conflict Regimes”, in Stahn, Carsten, Easterday, Jennifer S. and Iverson, Jens (eds), Jus Post Bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, p. 503Google Scholar.
98 DAC Network on Environment and Development Cooperation, Strategic Environment Assessment and Post-Conflict Development, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, November 2010, p. 4.
99 Ursign Hofmann and Pascal Rapillard, “Post-Conflict Mine Action: Environment and Law”, in C. Stahn, J. Iverson and J. S. Easterday (eds), above note 13, p. 397.
100 ICJ, Certain Activities, above note 34, para. 42.
101 ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 34, para. 348. However, the claim for environmental damage resulting from deforestation was dismissed on the ground that the Democratic Republic of the Congo did not provide any basis for assessing damage to the environment, in particular to biodiversity, through deforestation, and the Court was thus unable to determine the extent of injury, even on an approximate basis. Ibid., para. 350.
102 As economists have emphasized, “[m]any ecosystem services are public goods or the product of common assets that cannot (or should not) be privatized. … Their value in monetary units is an estimate of their benefits to society expressed in units that communicate with a broad audience.” Costanza, Robert et al., “Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 26, 2014, p. 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
103 UNCC, above note 32, para. 80; ICJ, Certain Activities, above note 34, para. 52.
104 UNCC, above note 32, para. 81.
105 P. Sands and J. Peel, above note 41, p. 758.
106 ICJ, Certain Activities, above note 34, paras 78–83.
107 C. R. Payne, above note 50, pp. 737–738.
108 Desvousges, William H., Gard, Nicholas, Michael, Holly J. and Chance, Anne D., “Habitat and Resource Equivalency Analysis: A Critical Assessment”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 143, 2018, pp. 83–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
109 ICJ, Certain Activities, above note 34, paras 79–82.
110 UNGA Res. 76/300, 28 July 2022.
111 UNHCR, UNHCR Environmental Guidelines, Geneva, 2005, p. 5.
112 Merryl Lawry-White, “Victims of Environmental Harm during Conflict: The Potential for ‘Justice’”, in C. Stahn, J. Iverson and J. S. Easterday (eds), above note 13, p. 376.
113 A. Dienelt, above note 8, pp. 260–264.
114 See e.g. UNCC, above note 32, paras 519–522, 710–713.
115 See e.g. ibid., paras 274–277, 687–692.
116 See e.g. ibid., paras 282–285, 503–505, 701–704.
117 Ibid., para. 68.
118 Peter H. Sand and James K. Hammitt, “Public Health Claims”, in C. R. Payne and P. H. Sand (eds), above note 54, p. 215.
119 ICJ, Diallo, above note 51, paras 21, 24, 33.
120 Permanent Court of Arbitration, Trail Smelter Case (United States, Canada), 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941, UNRIAA 3, p. 1920.
121 ICJ, Certain Activities, above note 34, para. 35.
122 ICJ, Armed Activities, above note 34, para. 106.
123 ICJ, Certain Activities, above note 34, para. 31; ibid., Declaration of Judge Gevorgian, para. 9.
124 UNEP, above note 4, p. 6.