Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Throughout history, the environment has remained a mute victim of armed conflict. Militaries, in order to gain advantage over adversaries, have burned crops and fields, sprayed large quantities of chemicals on forests, destroyed dams and dykes and poisoned water supplies. Even in modern times, military commanders place a lot of emphasis on weather and terrain while planning campaigns. They manipulate natural resources for their strategic purposes, and even use natural processes as weapons. In the wake of armed conflict, the focus has always been on the loss of human life and destruction of property. Analysts have never calculated the ecological consequence of such conflicts. The destruction of the environment, depletion of natural resources, and death of flora and fauna has always been overlooked. In many places of the world today the environment is under heavy pressure, affecting the security of man and the community of life. In some places, armed conflicts have caused environmental degradation, while in others environmental degradation has been a factor causing violent conflict. Environmental degradation is increasingly threatening the natural resource base and processes upon which all life on earth depends. Species are becoming extinct at an unprecedented rate, taking with them yet unknown sources of medicines, nutrition and other benefits.
A number of analysts have predicted that environmental change in general and climate change in particular will have enormous impacts on humanity. In April 2007, the United Nations Security Council debated the link between climate change and conflict. The argument was that climate change would aggravate traditional and long-standing security issues, and six areas of linkage were identified: border disputes, migration, energy supplies, resource shortage, societal stress, and humanitarian crises. Christian Aid claims that an estimated 1 billion people will be forced to leave their homes between now and 2050, which might destabilize whole regions where increasingly desperate populations compete for dwindling food and water. Homer-Dixon is of the view that climate change will catalyze insurgencies, genocide, guerrilla attacks, gang warfare, and global terrorism. It has been reported that the future impacts of climate change will be more than threat multipliers; they will serve as catalysts for instability and conflict. The impacts of extreme weather in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, such as prolonged drought, flooding, and resulting food shortages, desertification, population dislocation and mass migration, and sea level rise would pose serious security challenges to the governments.
Environment
The word 'environment' is derived from the French word environner, meaning to encircle. By broadly applying to surroundings, the environment can include the aggregate of natural, social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or community. Geographically, the environment can refer to a limited area or encompass the entire planet, including the atmosphere and stratosphere. The term 'environment', according to Article 2 of the UN Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment, includes: (i) natural resources both biotic and abiotic, such as air, water, soil, fauna and flora and the interactions between the same factors; (ii) property which forms part of the cultural heritage; and (iii) the characteristic aspects of landscape.
A look at national laws shows that there is no general agreement on the definition of the term 'environment. The Environmental Protection Act of Bulgaria defines environment as a complex of natural and anthropogenic factors and elements that are mutually interrelated and affect the ecological equilibrium and the quality of life, human health, the cultural and historical heritage and the landscape. The Environment Act of India — includes water, air and land and the interrelationship which exists among and between water, air and land, and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property in its definition of the environment. According to the British Act, the environment consists of all, or any, of the following media, namely, the air, water and land; and the medium of air includes the air within buildings and the air within other natural or man-made structures above or below ground. The United States Council on Environment Quality defines the term environment as man's total environmental system including not only the biosphere but also his interactions with his natural and manmade surroundings. These definitions, however, exhibit one common aspect that the environment is not confined to national boundaries and it embraces all forms of life on this planet.
Despite the inability of the international legal community to agree on a useful definition of environment, it is clear that the trend is to view the environment as a very broad and inclusive entity. The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm represented a first taking stock of the global human impact on the environment, and attempted to forge a common outlook on how to address the challenge of preserving and enhancing the human environment. It proclaimed that:
Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has been reached when, through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the manmade, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights the right to life itself.
The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world; it is the urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all Governments.
Unfortunately, the damage and destruction of the environment has remained unchecked for the last five decades, not only because of its exploitation and haphazard economic development, but also due to armed conflict. Armed conflict has a direct impact on the environment through toxic hazards from the bombardment of industrial sites and urban infrastructure; landmines, unexploded ordnance and munitions including depleted uranium; use of hazardous chemicals; environmental damage caused by human displacement; use of extractive industry to fund conflicts; loss of infrastructure for water supply, sanitation and waste disposal; and scorched-earth tactics that directly affect the resources necessary for the livelihood.
War or Armed Conflict
The terms 'war' and 'armed conflict' have been used interchangeably by historians. After the adoption of the United Nations Charter, the use of the term 'armed conflict' has been preferred over 'war'. The use of the term 'armed conflict' is not entirely new in international law. It has always been seen as the manifestation or expression of the concept of war. The Hague Convention IV of 1907 stressed that parties should make an effort to find means of preserving peace and preventing "armed conflict" between nations. As a rule, armed conflicts are generally defined as the use of armed forces by one or more states against another state or several states (international armed conflict or IAC), or between one or more armed groups against their own government or between armed groups themselves (noninternational armed conflict or NIAC).
The modern international law of war is now called the 'law of armed conflicts' or 'international humanitarian law (IHL)'. Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably. IHL has been defined as "international rules, established by treaties and customs, which are specifically intended to solve humanitarian problems directly arising from international or noninternational armed conflicts and which, for humanitarian reasons, limit the rights of the parties to a conflict to use the methods and means of warfare of their choice or protect persons and property that are, or may be, affected by conflict."
IHL distinguishes two types of armed conflicts: (a) IAC, involving two or more opposing states; and (b) NIAC, between governmental forces and nongovernmental armed groups, or between such groups only. An IAC occurs when one or more states take recourse to armed force against another state, regardless of the reasons or the intensity of the conflict. The provisions of IHL may be applicable even in the absence of open hostilities. Moreover, no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required. The existence of an IAC, and as a consequence, the possibility of applying IHL to the situation, depends on what actually happens on the ground. It is based on factual conditions. For example, there may be an IAC, even though one of the belligerents does not recognize the government of the adversary. NIACs are armed confrontations occurring within the territory of a single State and in which the armed forces of no other State are engaged against the central government. IHL treaty law makes a distinction between two types of NIACs, as se out in common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the definition provided in Article 1 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II. Internal disturbances and tensions (such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, or other acts of a similar nature) do not amount to a NIAC. They also do not encompass conflicts extending to the territory of two or more States. When a foreign State extends its military support to the government of a State within which a NIAC is taking place, the conflict remains non-international in character. Conversely, if a foreign State extends military support to an armed group acting against the government, the conflict becomes international in character.
Today, no one would deny that the nature of armed conflict is changing. The distinction between the two kinds of armed conflict–IAC and NIAC–is becoming less relevant and is gradually disappearing. In reality NIAC are often 'mixed' conflicts, that is, they take place largely within the territory of one State, but take place in an internationalized setting with a high level of foreign intervention involving both State and non-State actors. These conflicts both affect and are affected by the actions of neighbouring states and the international community at large. Thus, it is becoming increasingly difficult to categorize these conflicts as either IAC or NIAC. The changing tactics used in armed conflict have resulted in a shift in the casualties of war from combatant soldiers to innocent civilians, with an estimated nine civilian deaths for every death of a soldier. Armed conflict has moved from conventional battlefields to urban and rural centres, causing massive numbers of residents to flee to regions which lack adequate resources and infrastructure. This gives rise to not only economic, social and moral crises, but also massive pressure on the environment. The one thing common to these conflicts is that the environment is a constant victim, and the scale of destruction has increased over time.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has concluded that as the technology of weapons has increased, the number of munitions used to kill an enemy soldier has increased correspondingly. Thus, the amount of environmental damage resulting from warfare is also escalating. The IHL instruments discourage the excesses of armed conflict, including the targeting of non-combatants, ill-treatment of prisoners of war, and destruction of dams and nuclear power stations. However, with the increasingly devastating potential of modern weapons and warfare, it has become apparent that the existing provisions of IHL do not fully address the danger that armed conflict poses to the environment. The danger may take the form of the indiscriminate use of landmines, the explosive remnants of war, radioactive hazardous wastes, damaged military machinery, or environmental destruction caused by mass movements of displaced persons. While there are relatively few instances of the deliberate targeting of the environment during IAC, there are a large number of NIACs, in which the environment is deliberately targeted, both by the government as well as the opposing forces.
Armed conflict was common in many parts of the world during the period of the Cold War, but today, almost all NIACs are concentrated in the poorest and most vulnerable areas of the world, i.e. Africa and Asia. According to the United Nations Environmental Programme, 40 per cent of all the intra-state conflicts since 1960 have had a link to natural resources, and these conflicts are twice as likely as IACs to recur within five years. The damage to the environment caused by these conflicts is not only deplorable in itself, but may increase the vulnerability of affected populations as well. For example, it may lead to the displacement of the population and the fleeing of increasing numbers of refugees to other countries. When civilian populations are displaced by armed conflict, the effects on the environment can be as great as those of direct military activities. Once damaged, degraded or destroyed in armed conflict, the natural resources become future causes of conflict.
Armed Conflict and the Environment
Environmental degradation and armed conflict are interconnected issues. Throughout history, armed conflict has always left its mark on the environment. Until the late seventeenth century, the environmental impacts of war were largely limited to the areas of conflict and the source locations for metal and wood. The damage to the environment became more severe with advances in technology. Warfare and together with it, environmental damage, took a new dimensions in Europe in the 1790s, when under Napoleon, France increased the intensity of warfare and expanded its reach. By the late 1800s, accurate rifles and machine guns transformed the battlefield, and more powerful explosives were invented to damage both urban and rural targets. World War I saw a new level of environmental destruction as new weapons capable of producing terrifying results were unleashed. In the battle of Somme, 250,000 acres of farmland was destroyed and became unfit for agriculture. As a direct impact of war, almost 500,000 acres of French forests were destroyed. According to Lanier-Graham, in order to keep the Allied war effort going, over 20 billion board feet of timber was harvested. In all, the effects of World War I on the environment were far-reaching, spreading across the globe.
The level of environmental devastation reached a new high in World War II. The nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the two single most destructive events in human history. The massive amounts of radiation released made soil and water, inhospitable to both plants and animals. A few battlefields of WW I and II still remain unfit for cultivation or dangerous to population because of unexploded devices (especially mines) and projectiles embedded in the soil.
The post-World War II period saw an escalation with competition between the superpowers for developing military technology of increasing sophistication. The developed countries competed to build successive generations of ships, aircraft, missiles and fighting machines. The existing weapons, including chemical arsenal grew larger and more lethal. The Vietnam War witnessed large-scale use of chemicals defoliants and destruction of forests, and attempts at rain-making by the US. In addition 14 million tons of bombs and shells, American planes sprayed 44 million litres of Agent Orange and 28 million litres of other defoliants over Vietnam. Nearly three million tons of bombs were dropped creating millions of craters. Many of these craters still exist 45 years after the end of the conflict. The result was serious damage to 1.7 million hectares of upland forest and mangrove marshes, widespread soil poisoning or loss of soil, and destruction of wildlife and fish habitat. These were widely criticized and resulted in international efforts to tackle the environmental consequences of warfare.
Destruction of the environment during Operation Desert Storm is a recent reminder of the military's destructive capability. The major factors that led to environmental destruction were: the explosive remnants of war left by the coalitions forces; and the deliberate destruction of oil wells by the Iraqi force. The daily release of heat from Kuwait's 950 oil wells was estimated to be about 86 billion watts, equivalent to that of a 500 acre forest fire. The fires burned nearly 5,000,000 barrels of oil daily and smoke spread as far as 800 miles south of Kuwait. During the Persian Gulf War, the plumes of burning oil wells darkened skies for months far downwind causing heavy pollution on nearby deserts, farmlands, and the Gulf's waters.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Armed Conflict and Environmental Damage"
by .
Copyright © 2014 U C Jha.
Excerpted by permission of Vij Books India Pvt Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
