256
principles and thresholds, whose violations may entail international criminal liability. As stated in other decisions the Court held, “in the field of environmental protection, vigilance and prevention are required on account of the often irreversible
character of damage to the environment and of the limitations inherent in the very
mechanism of reparation of this type of damage” (International Court of Justice
1997). This vision is reflected in the 1982 World Charter of Nature, adopted by
United Nations General Assembly on 28 October 1982, urging us to realize that
“nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile
activities” (World Charter of Nature). Such degradation may determine the fall into
an irreversible cycle where man cannot control it anymore.
As a result of this global awareness of the impact of man’s activities on earth,
the incredible expansion of environmental legal instruments during the last 60/70
years has not given rise to a coherent system of protection. Regardless of the efforts
of part of the scientific community in showing us the other face, the dark side of the
industrialization, of technocracy and of the capitalistic paradigm based on the
assumption of unlimited growth and on the absolute right to the extraction of natural
resources, and in parallel of the effects of these concurrent factors in war, environmental law has not found its way to make the environment at the core of the protection issues and to articulate consistently in its body the concerns of scientists.
Although there is no agreement in the scientific community, a new term,
“Anthropocene”, is informally and widely used to refer to a proposed geological
epoch in which the significant human impact is profoundly altering earth’s geology
and ecosystems, including but not limited to anthropogenic climate changes.
Applied science in particular has always been used in support of new means of warfare, with the aim of enhancing security and projecting power. However the more
science advances, the more relevant becomes the protection dilemma. Food war,
bacteriological weapons, contamination, techniques of modification of the environment as a weapon, all these are a constant threat. The major concerns derive by the
use of any of these means by organizations or failed states.
To respond to these dilemmas international humanitarian law, known also as law
of armed conflict, and international criminal law in the context of war, both in their
relationship with international environmental law have broadly expanded. The origin of the Law of War dates to centuries ago. Sun Tzu’s famous book, The Art of
War, was written in the fifth century before Christ, but many examples of legislations can be traced in ancient times, already showing the constant struggle of
humankind to control war. In wars as in peace laws of humanity must continue to
exist and must not be forgotten. Environment must also not be forgotten.
A more schematic legal approach started with the Hague stream which generated, as already commented, several Hague conventions from 1899 to 1907, dictating laws and customs of war on land, prohibiting launching of projectiles and
explosives from balloons, rules on neutrality, limits to naval warfare. Its main goal
was to limit means and methods of warfare, though preservation of the environment
was not the primary goal, but only the effect of an indirect protection. War and military operations in preparation of a war do not happen in a separate universe or in a
totally separated world, but are conducted in a specific space, the environment. Such
G. Colao
principles and thresholds, whose violations may entail international criminal liability. As stated in other decisions the Court held, “in the field of environmental protection, vigilance and prevention are required on account of the often irreversible
character of damage to the environment and of the limitations inherent in the very
mechanism of reparation of this type of damage” (International Court of Justice
1997). This vision is reflected in the 1982 World Charter of Nature, adopted by
United Nations General Assembly on 28 October 1982, urging us to realize that
“nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile
activities” (World Charter of Nature). Such degradation may determine the fall into
an irreversible cycle where man cannot control it anymore.
As a result of this global awareness of the impact of man’s activities on earth,
the incredible expansion of environmental legal instruments during the last 60/70
years has not given rise to a coherent system of protection. Regardless of the efforts
of part of the scientific community in showing us the other face, the dark side of the
industrialization, of technocracy and of the capitalistic paradigm based on the
assumption of unlimited growth and on the absolute right to the extraction of natural
resources, and in parallel of the effects of these concurrent factors in war, environmental law has not found its way to make the environment at the core of the protection issues and to articulate consistently in its body the concerns of scientists.
Although there is no agreement in the scientific community, a new term,
“Anthropocene”, is informally and widely used to refer to a proposed geological
epoch in which the significant human impact is profoundly altering earth’s geology
and ecosystems, including but not limited to anthropogenic climate changes.
Applied science in particular has always been used in support of new means of warfare, with the aim of enhancing security and projecting power. However the more
science advances, the more relevant becomes the protection dilemma. Food war,
bacteriological weapons, contamination, techniques of modification of the environment as a weapon, all these are a constant threat. The major concerns derive by the
use of any of these means by organizations or failed states.
To respond to these dilemmas international humanitarian law, known also as law
of armed conflict, and international criminal law in the context of war, both in their
relationship with international environmental law have broadly expanded. The origin of the Law of War dates to centuries ago. Sun Tzu’s famous book, The Art of
War, was written in the fifth century before Christ, but many examples of legislations can be traced in ancient times, already showing the constant struggle of
humankind to control war. In wars as in peace laws of humanity must continue to
exist and must not be forgotten. Environment must also not be forgotten.
A more schematic legal approach started with the Hague stream which generated, as already commented, several Hague conventions from 1899 to 1907, dictating laws and customs of war on land, prohibiting launching of projectiles and
explosives from balloons, rules on neutrality, limits to naval warfare. Its main goal
was to limit means and methods of warfare, though preservation of the environment
was not the primary goal, but only the effect of an indirect protection. War and military operations in preparation of a war do not happen in a separate universe or in a
totally separated world, but are conducted in a specific space, the environment. Such
G. Colao