255
strongly announces that States have “the responsibility to ensure that activities
within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other
States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” Principle 26 of the
Stockholm declaration places the accent on the importance for States of recognizing
their role and responsibility in advancing in the level of cooperation. Because of the
specific concerns regarding the impact of armed conflict and of certain dangerous
weapons on the environment, it reminds the international community that “man and
his environment must be spared from the effects of nuclear weapons and all other
means of mass destruction. States must strive to reach prompt agreement, in the
relevant international organs, on the elimination and complete destruction of such
weapons”.
These major concerns about environmental security and the need for a more
holistic approach in environmental issues led the international community to enter
a third phase that prompted several more agreements, among which the 1992
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1992 Convention on the
Conservation of Biological Diversity and in particular to the 1992 Rio Declaration
(“Rio Declaration on Environment and Development” 1992). The latter document
echoed the utmost importance of the prevention aspect. In principle 24 it is in fact
said that “warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall
therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in
times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary”.
Since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August 1945,
nuclear weapons have been detonated over two thousand times for testing and demonstrations. They produce enormous blast energy creating a devastating shock wave
causing a huge amount of heat and lethal ionizing radiations, radioactive debris and
dust propelled by winds high into the atmosphere, and then settling to earth as radioactive fallout. In regards to human life it is such an enormous toll in destruction,
death, injury, and sickness of incomparable scale with any other single weapon with
a disproportionate effect under the rules established by applicable conventions, and
certainly with long-lasting effects on the environment, such as large quantities of
contaminated wastes on land, or sea and in the air and contaminated plants and
animal life. The repercussion on the environment were legally evaluated in 1996
when the ICJ stated in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons that “the environment is not an abstraction but represents the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn” (“Advisory Opinion on Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapon” 1996). Though the ICJ observed in their opinion that the principal purpose
of environmental treaties and norms is the protection of the environment in times of
peace, in remarking that “the environment is under daily threat and that the use of
nuclear weapons could constitute a catastrophe for the environment”, it reminded
our consciences that even in the most tragic human event like war there are limits
bypassing which the possibilities for conservation of a healthy environment may be
lost, the sustainability of life and the survival of ecosystems could be degraded for ever.
Restriction in the use of force and in the means and methods of warfare is the
scope of the branches of international law regulating and limiting it through
Environmental Damages and Armed Conflict
strongly announces that States have “the responsibility to ensure that activities
within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other
States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” Principle 26 of the
Stockholm declaration places the accent on the importance for States of recognizing
their role and responsibility in advancing in the level of cooperation. Because of the
specific concerns regarding the impact of armed conflict and of certain dangerous
weapons on the environment, it reminds the international community that “man and
his environment must be spared from the effects of nuclear weapons and all other
means of mass destruction. States must strive to reach prompt agreement, in the
relevant international organs, on the elimination and complete destruction of such
weapons”.
These major concerns about environmental security and the need for a more
holistic approach in environmental issues led the international community to enter
a third phase that prompted several more agreements, among which the 1992
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1992 Convention on the
Conservation of Biological Diversity and in particular to the 1992 Rio Declaration
(“Rio Declaration on Environment and Development” 1992). The latter document
echoed the utmost importance of the prevention aspect. In principle 24 it is in fact
said that “warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall
therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in
times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary”.
Since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August 1945,
nuclear weapons have been detonated over two thousand times for testing and demonstrations. They produce enormous blast energy creating a devastating shock wave
causing a huge amount of heat and lethal ionizing radiations, radioactive debris and
dust propelled by winds high into the atmosphere, and then settling to earth as radioactive fallout. In regards to human life it is such an enormous toll in destruction,
death, injury, and sickness of incomparable scale with any other single weapon with
a disproportionate effect under the rules established by applicable conventions, and
certainly with long-lasting effects on the environment, such as large quantities of
contaminated wastes on land, or sea and in the air and contaminated plants and
animal life. The repercussion on the environment were legally evaluated in 1996
when the ICJ stated in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons that “the environment is not an abstraction but represents the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn” (“Advisory Opinion on Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapon” 1996). Though the ICJ observed in their opinion that the principal purpose
of environmental treaties and norms is the protection of the environment in times of
peace, in remarking that “the environment is under daily threat and that the use of
nuclear weapons could constitute a catastrophe for the environment”, it reminded
our consciences that even in the most tragic human event like war there are limits
bypassing which the possibilities for conservation of a healthy environment may be
lost, the sustainability of life and the survival of ecosystems could be degraded for ever.
Restriction in the use of force and in the means and methods of warfare is the
scope of the branches of international law regulating and limiting it through
Environmental Damages and Armed Conflict