Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Biodiversity and nature are severely impacted by armed conflict, particularly those fought in biodiversity-rich environments. Whether harm is caused directly by bullets and bombs, through the seepage of toxic chemicals into rivers and soils, the ground-churning tracks of tanks, or the ‘conservation vacuum’ the result is often the same — severe, possibly permanent, ecological change. International humanitarian law (IHL) has consistently come up short in delivering environmental protection on the battlefield. Can international environmental law (IEL) fare any better? The International Law Commission (ILC) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have both submitted major new guidelines in the last two years, following more than a decade of in-depth analysis of the IHL rules governing protection of the environment in relation to armed conflict. However, neither body was able to analyse the applicability of IEL obligations during armed conflict. Several authors have more recently entered this space, but none have so far undertaken a rule-by-rule analysis and spanning such a range of treaties. This article assesses the potential of the main biodiversity and nature conservation treaties to offer further environmental protection during armed conflict. Identifying complementary IEL obligations, particularly in relation to the conduct of hostilities, could be valuable to both mirror and reinforce IHL protections, and would ensure that IEL treaty bodies and third states have a basis upon which to promote conservation work with the parties to the conflict.
Karen Hulme (Tue,) studied this question.