Strengthening the Thin Green Line: A call for an international monitoring mechanism for environmental peacbuilding law

art by Shar Tuiasoa (Hawai’i, USA)

Dr. Stavros-Evdokimos Pantazopoulos (University of Helsinki and Athens Public International Law Center); Dr. Mara Tignino (Geneva Water Hub and University of Geneva)

An international mechanism is urgently needed to monitor the implementation of the applicable legal frameworks during and after armed conflicts relating to environmental protection. Such a monitoring mechanism could improve the compliance of actors in post-conflict settings with applicable environmental laws, and hence serve as an indispensable tool for environmental peacebuilding where it is most needed.

Context

Environmental damage during and after armed conflicts harms the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable people and populations, degrades sensitive ecosystems, and undermines the prospects for lasting peace. This has been clear in Iraq where the Islamic State’s attacks on oil infrastructure led to widespread contamination; in biodiverse Colombia, with its spiraling rates of deforestation and habitat loss; and in Afghanistan, where the legacy of decades of conflict-linked environmental degradation have left it acutely vulnerable to climate change. Environmental remediation and restoration in the aftermath of armed conflicts remains under-prioritized, if not entirely neglected.

On top of the above challenges, adherence to the applicable international legal rules of environmental peacebuilding remains poor. For one, belligerent parties tend to push the observance of environment-related provisions to the background. The attendant lack of accountability after the cessation of hostilities only serves to reinforce such irresponsible and unlawful conduct. Moreover, the scope and the contours of related norms suffer from lack of clarity. Without a robust international mechanism tasked with the restoration of wartime environmental damage, responses remain fragmented and ineffective. To this end, we urgently need an international mechanism to keep track of the implementation of the law of environmental peacebuilding, which, in turn, may strengthen the prospects of an enduring peace where it is most needed.

What’s been done

The international community has undertaken various legal initiatives in its attempt to strengthen the normative landscape of environmental peacebuilding. The 1991 establishment of the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) by the United Nations Security Council to address reparation claims following the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait marked a watershed moment, as the UNCC was also endowed with the competence to adjudicate environmental claims. The UNCC, a subsidiary quasi-judicial organ of the UN Security Council, was established as a claims resolution facility to settle a large number of claims in a reasonable time. Even though the UNCC made significant contributions to ‘evidence, burdens and standards of proof, questions of causation, standards of reparation, the importance of allocating funds for assessment’, its achievements were unique, for the conditions that enabled its creation are unlikely to be recreated. 

Turning to more recent times, a plethora of legal initiatives have been pursued by different international actors, which aim to clarify different aspects of the law of environmental peacebuilding. The growing momentum is aptly evidenced by the 2019 draft principles on the ‘Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts’ adopted, on first reading, by the UN International Law Commission, the 2019 Geneva List of Principles on the Protection of Water Infrastructure, the 2020 updated International Committee of the Red Cross Guidelines, and the 2020 Harvard Principles for Assisting Victims of Toxic Remnants of War. 

All these initiatives draw from the wide spectrum of norms of international law applicable during and after armed conflicts which includes—but it is not limited to—international humanitarian law, human rights law and international environmental law. These different areas of international law constitute the different facets of the law of environmental peacebuilding which should be taken into account for long-term peace. Despite the increasing efforts of the international community, compliance with the applicable provisions in post-conflict settings remains poor. Accordingly, the proposed international monitoring mechanism carries the potential to influence the post-conflict environmental performance of the actors involved, serving at the same time as a valuable instrument of environmental peacebuilding. 

Looking ahead

These are important steps, but the field of environmental peacebuilding suffers from the lack of a clear and mutually recognized monitoring system for implementation. Although it is well-known that states are primarily responsible for implementation, it is often the case that civil society actors attempt to lure states into compliance. The Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), a UK-based NGO, has already undertaken a review of UK’s and Canada’s environmental conduct relating to armed conflicts with reference to the ILC’s draft principles. 

The international community should create a solid monitoring international mechanism that will be assessing the environmental conduct of relevant stakeholders, such as states, international organizations, and non-state armed groups, pertaining to environmental peacebuilding. This implementation mechanism should ensure the widest possible participation of interested and affected stakeholders and should operate transparently. In addition, local actors should be better included in the process of monitoring the applicable law dealing with environmental peacebuilding. Local communities are the most affected by the lack of compliance with international norms. Interested actors could participate in monitoring the implementation of the applicable laws, exchanging information, and adopting recommendations for both States and non-State actors so as to prevent and remediate environmental damage in conflict-affected areas. Improved compliance with the applicable environmental peacebuilding law reduces the chances of a relapse into conflict and enhances the prospects for durable peace.

At this critical juncture for the future of environmental peacebuilding, the international community should build on the increasing momentum around environmental peacebuilding and create an independent mechanism monitoring the compliance of actors operating in conflict-affected settings with their commitments and best practices.