Are We Waging War Against Our Environment? Discover the Hidden Struggles

Ananya Bhargava is studying law at Jindal Global Law School and is interested in feminist critiques of law and international law from a socio-political perspective.

On the opening day of the COP 29 Summit, climate justice activists protested, urging the world to press Israel to cease its actions in Gaza. The activists highlighted that ongoing wars contribute significantly to global emissions and hinder effective responses to the climate crisis. Unfortunately, the reaction from government officials was tepid, with little acknowledgment of their responsibilities. The subject of military emissions was mostly overlooked in the COP 29 talks, limiting opportunities for addressing the environmental harms of warfare.

The impact of war on the environment is well-documented, but discussions often fall short. International environmental law has a strong anthropocentric focus, as noted by numerous scholars. This perspective often favors the interests of states over genuine ecological concerns. As a result, laws tend to justify environmental harm if it serves a state’s interests, perpetuating existing hierarchies that prioritize state sovereignty over ecological wellbeing.

This state-centered approach leads to weak legislation that permits environmental degradation. The failure to protect ecosystems in wartime highlights a significant gap. This situation creates a harmful dichotomy: state interests versus environmental protection, where the latter is often sacrificed for the former. This issue is especially pronounced during conflicts.

By examining environmental damage during wars, we can see how international laws lack effective eco-centric provisions. It is crucial to rethink these frameworks to ensure that environmental protection is prioritized above state interests.

Understanding Current Wartime Environmental Laws

Most international agreements addressing environmental harm from war are distinctly anthropocentric. They typically prohibit damage to the environment only when it negatively impacts human populations or state interests. Though eco-centric ideas surfaced after the severe environmental harm during the Vietnam War, the resulting agreements still maintain a human-centered approach. A significant flaw in these international agreements is their reliance on the “proportionality” standard, which often favors military action over environmental health.

For example, the Environmental Modification Convention and the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions lay out guidelines that prioritize human safety and state interests. These laws define their concern for the environment mainly in terms of human benefit, falling short of providing genuine ecological protection.

This creates a troubling situation. Environmental destruction can occur incrementally during conflicts, leading to long-term damage that these laws do not adequately address. The clarity of accountability is lacking due to high thresholds for what constitutes significant environmental harm, allowing states to evade responsibility for their actions.

The Question of Ecocide

The concept of “ecocide,” present in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute, might seem non-anthropocentric at first glance. However, this article allows for environmental damage if it does not clearly exceed anticipated military advantages. The legal framework still places military gain above ecological protection, embedding utilitarian thinking into the laws pertaining to environmental harm.

Despite these challenges, recent efforts to develop legal principles for wartime environmental protection show promise. The 2022 UN Draft Principles address environmental protection before, during, and after conflicts, indicating a shift in focus. These principles also extend protections to non-international conflicts, seeking to expand the framework’s effectiveness.

However, residual anthropocentric attitudes persist, suggesting that military necessity may still override environmental concerns. Therefore, while the new principles are a step forward, they may not fully escape the entrenched biases of the existing legal system.

Final Thoughts on the Future of Environmental Law

Current laws on wartime environmental protection require substantial reform. As wars inevitably cause extensive damage, the focus should shift from merely mitigating harm to eliminating it altogether. A new approach that places the environment on equal footing with state interests is necessary. We must dismantle the hierarchies within international law that prioritize state action over ecological sustainability.

Wars have lasting consequences on the environment, leaving ecosystems devastated and uninhabitable. The current legal frameworks are inadequate for addressing these extensive challenges. To foster genuine environmental protection, we need transformative changes in the law. It’s time to recognize the environment and those directly affected by its destruction as essential components of our international legal system.

As David Boyd asserts, today’s legal frameworks are self-destructive. We must embrace an approach grounded in ecology and ethics. We are a part of nature, not separate from it.