Environment
Approximately five million people were killed during the 1990s
in armed conflicts relating to the exploitation of natural resources
such as timber, diamonds, gold and oil. The United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) has found that, over the last
60 years, at least 40% of all internal conflicts have been linked
to the exploitation of natural resources.
Recent conflicts in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Liberia and Angola were not only fought over natural
resources, but the exploitation of those resources in turn funded
the combating parties to acquire weapons. This has given rise to
the phenomena of “conflict resources”, where natural resources
commercialise and prolong conflict. It becomes a vicious selfperpetuating cycle.
Environmental degradation and exploitation can thus be both a
cause and a consequence of armed conflict. The International
Court of Justice has clearly recognised that damage to its
environment may constitute an “essential interest” of a state.
Such recognition will only increase as the world gains further
insights into the broader state of the global environment,
including the disastrous effects of climate change.
Despite all of the evidence, however, deliberate environmental
destruction during warfare is still largely regarded, as rape once
was, as an unfortunate consequence of war.
Accountability
The existing rules under international humanitarian law,
international environmental law and international criminal
law purporting to limit deliberate environmental destruction
44
SABI | DECEMBER 2015/JANUARY 2016
have largely been ineffective and inappropriate. The impact
of environmental destruction has paled when measured
against perceived military advantages. The |United Nations
International Law Commission is currently looking at this issue
in an attempt to establish the relevant applicable principles.
It is, of course, true that war and armed conflict are inherently
destructive of the environment. But that is no reason to allow
leaders to deliberately or recklessly target the environment in
order to achieve their military goals. Deliberate destruction is no
longer acceptable, particularly given the ongoing development
of weapons capable of widespread and significant damage.
There is therefore much more that should be done. Just as
international law has made great strides forward by classifying
rape during armed conflict as a war crime, a crime against
humanity, or even genocide in certain circumstances, we should
recognise that intentional environmental destruction can also
constitute an international crime. Proper modes of accountability
should be incorporated into the mechanisms of international
criminal justice.
“Crimes against the environment” should therefore be
incorporated as a separate crime within the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court, in order to better protect our most
cherished assets for future generations.
Steven Freeland is the author of Addressing the
Intentional Destruction of the Environment during
Warfare under the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court published in 2015.
Source – TheConversation.com media service