261
years. Clearly the compliance with international law to avoid damages, liabilities
and claims is not an easy task during an armed conflict or even in the transition from
conflict to peace as demonstrated by many examples of case studies on post conflict
reparations. The environmental protection in post conflict times constitutes a tremendous challenge for the management and disposal of assets. Countries that have
gone through a devastating war and are in transition to peace, especially unstable
peace, somehow don’t list environmental diligence as a priority.
We cannot conclude this short paper on environmental damages in armed conflicts without touching the issue of processing environmental claims arising out of
such events. According to the International Law Commission, there is an internationally wrongful act of a State when: (a) conduct consisting of an act or omission
is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) that conduct constitutes a
breach of an international obligation of the State (International Law Commission
(I.L.C.)). However, the responsibility of the State in cases of violations of the law of
armed conflict goes beyond the normal principles of State responsibility. Article 3
of Hague Convention IV states: A belligerent party which violates the provisions of
the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It
shall be responsible for all acts committed by members of its armed forces.
The State shall be responsible for acts or omissions committed by its organs in
violation of provisions of jus in bello, the legal framework described for the legitimate use of the force, that have caused environmental damages. In the example of
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 the Security Council condemned the act as an
illegal invasion and violation of the jus ad bellum rule, prohibited by the UN Charter.
The conflict caused extensive damages to the environment and around the Gulf
waters and originated a huge amount of environmental claims. Environmental damage of three types occurred: 1—damage to the marine environment as large quantities in the order of ten million barrels of oil were released by Iraq from the Sea
Island Terminal in Kuwait affecting 1500 Kms of coasts; 2—damage to an extensive
area of the environment, including the air, caused by the burning by Iraqi forces of
over 500 oil wells in Kuwait; and 3—land degradation arising out of the aerial bombardment, existing minefields, the construction of defensive fortifications such as
trenches, and the land campaign conducted by armed forces, both the Iraqi and the
coalition forces.
The Security Council Resolution 674 (1990) considered Iraq liable under international law it for any loss, damage or injury arising in regard to Kuwait and third
States, and their nationals and corporations, as a result of the invasion and illegal
occupation of Kuwait by Iraq and invited States to collect information about potential claims. Resolution 687 (1991), that was adopted after the end of the fighting,
again reiterated Iraqi’s responsibility descending by the illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait as well as the connected liability under international law for any
direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural
resources, or injury to foreign governments, nationals and corporations. Following
this decision, it was also established a Compensations Commission which would
settle all the claims under a fund established with Iraqi’s revenue of oil sales. It must
be reminded though that the commission is not a court, but it acts as a subsidiary
Environmental Damages and Armed Conflict
years. Clearly the compliance with international law to avoid damages, liabilities
and claims is not an easy task during an armed conflict or even in the transition from
conflict to peace as demonstrated by many examples of case studies on post conflict
reparations. The environmental protection in post conflict times constitutes a tremendous challenge for the management and disposal of assets. Countries that have
gone through a devastating war and are in transition to peace, especially unstable
peace, somehow don’t list environmental diligence as a priority.
We cannot conclude this short paper on environmental damages in armed conflicts without touching the issue of processing environmental claims arising out of
such events. According to the International Law Commission, there is an internationally wrongful act of a State when: (a) conduct consisting of an act or omission
is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) that conduct constitutes a
breach of an international obligation of the State (International Law Commission
(I.L.C.)). However, the responsibility of the State in cases of violations of the law of
armed conflict goes beyond the normal principles of State responsibility. Article 3
of Hague Convention IV states: A belligerent party which violates the provisions of
the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It
shall be responsible for all acts committed by members of its armed forces.
The State shall be responsible for acts or omissions committed by its organs in
violation of provisions of jus in bello, the legal framework described for the legitimate use of the force, that have caused environmental damages. In the example of
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 the Security Council condemned the act as an
illegal invasion and violation of the jus ad bellum rule, prohibited by the UN Charter.
The conflict caused extensive damages to the environment and around the Gulf
waters and originated a huge amount of environmental claims. Environmental damage of three types occurred: 1—damage to the marine environment as large quantities in the order of ten million barrels of oil were released by Iraq from the Sea
Island Terminal in Kuwait affecting 1500 Kms of coasts; 2—damage to an extensive
area of the environment, including the air, caused by the burning by Iraqi forces of
over 500 oil wells in Kuwait; and 3—land degradation arising out of the aerial bombardment, existing minefields, the construction of defensive fortifications such as
trenches, and the land campaign conducted by armed forces, both the Iraqi and the
coalition forces.
The Security Council Resolution 674 (1990) considered Iraq liable under international law it for any loss, damage or injury arising in regard to Kuwait and third
States, and their nationals and corporations, as a result of the invasion and illegal
occupation of Kuwait by Iraq and invited States to collect information about potential claims. Resolution 687 (1991), that was adopted after the end of the fighting,
again reiterated Iraqi’s responsibility descending by the illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait as well as the connected liability under international law for any
direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural
resources, or injury to foreign governments, nationals and corporations. Following
this decision, it was also established a Compensations Commission which would
settle all the claims under a fund established with Iraqi’s revenue of oil sales. It must
be reminded though that the commission is not a court, but it acts as a subsidiary
Environmental Damages and Armed Conflict