Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Protection of the Environment in Armed Conflict: Legal Obligations in the Absence of Specific Rules

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

While a general rule of ‘eco-protection’ in armed conflict may be derived from the basic principles of distinction, proportionality, avoidance of unnecessary suffering and humanity, international humanitarian law provides little by way of more specific rules for the protection of the natural environment except for in extreme situations that can rarely be expected to occur. Nevertheless, opinio juris has changed since the adoption of pertinent instruments in 1977. This development needs to be balanced against a still prevailing general reluctance to accept specific ecological obligations and procedures in military operations. Thus a detailed evaluation of planning and decision-making processes appears necessary. Revisiting the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea and the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, this article argues that certain qualifications made in these documents relating to requirements of ‘imperative military necessity’ are to be assessed in the light of their specific implications and should be used with caution. Furthermore, it is suggested that pertinent consequences of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties deserve further study. To this end, interdisciplinary case studies should be conducted to support fact-oriented evaluations of military requirements, ecological assessments and political effects post-conflict, rather than insisting on thresholds for legal regulation that already appeared to be escapist decades ago and which may prove counter-productive in the years to come. New activities aimed at protecting the natural environment in armed conflict should focus on a reaffirmation of existing rules and their effective implementation.

Affiliations: 1: Former Director, International Agreements & Policy, Federal Ministry of Defence, Germany

Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718107-08201002
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/15718107-08201002
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718107-08201002
2013-01-01
2016-12-11

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Nordic Journal of International Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation