Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Over the past century, it has been more evident that one manifest consequence of conflict is the detrimental impact on the environment. Although there has been beneficial growth in international environmental law, the environment has nonetheless suffered from following international armed conflicts, including the Kosovo conflict, the Iraq war, the Israel-Lebanon war, and Ukraine. In fact, there has been no legal responsibility imposed on any State for violating the responsibilities outlined in Articles 35 and 55 of Additional Protocol I. Remarkably, the International Court of Justice ICJ has acknowledged that environmental damage is eligible for compensation and to take "active restoration measures". the main problem is that the environmental damage persists even after the war has ceased. This article attempts to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the State responsibility for environmental damage during wartime before the ICJ. This article shows the significant contributions from ICJ to protect the environment but while also showing the ambiguity related to the development of reparation for the damage caused during wartime. The purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which international law could apply to environmental damage in wartime. How much environmental damage needs to happen how much reparation must be deliberated? The article explores a methodology for evaluating environmental damage caused during a conflict by the ICJ and takes the lessons learned from the jurisprudence of the ICJ to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for such damage. This article examines the ineffectiveness of the current international legal framework for dealing with environmental damage during wartime. It provides an overview of the historical context of environmental damage in armed conflicts and a review of existing customary and conventional laws.
Baroudy et al. (Fri,) studied this question.