Ukraine: Conflict’s Implications on the Natural Environment and the Responses of International Humanitarian Law

The natural environment has long been the silent casualty of war according to the Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). As presented by ICRC, the valid International Humanitarian Law (IHL) does not meet the needs of today’s warfare. Hence, this article builds on the recommendations by the ICRC and aims to underline the necessary changes for environmental protection in war. Drawing on the experiences from the past and applying them to the current conflict in Ukraine, I put forward four broader categories of change. First and foremost, the consensus within the international community is viewed as the basis for any further developments. Politicization has until now prevented agreement, yet the events since the 24th of February 2022 show that there are lessons to be learned. Compromise on the standards and implementation is thus called for, particularly when it comes to the terms severe, long-term, and widespread damage. International condemnation of environmentally harmful practices in warfare is from this point of view limited by the terms’ immoderately broad scope which arguably needs to be lowered. Secondly, I suggest that the mainstreaming of environmental protection during armed conflict holds great importance. Such mainstreaming might be most relevant among military personnel based on the individualistic approach of national military manuals during non-international armed conflicts. At the same time, international armed conflicts might benefit from the mainstreaming also due to the limited number of rules related to the environment in the international customary and treaty law. Thirdly, the interconnectedness between energy and environment, and the dangers that come from energy infrastructure if destroyed must be made very clear. Bombings or destabilization of nuclear power plants might be even more catastrophic than the previous burning and spills of oil wells. The last point of this brief is that accountability for environmental destruction during armed conflict ought to be taken more seriously, especially from a systematic point of view. From this standpoint, the past events such as the establishment of the United Nations Compensation Committee for Kuwait, which also addressed the environmental impacts of the related conflicts, or the ICC decision to focus more on environmental issues could provide inspiration for Ukraine. Besides, Ukraine itself could become a potential landmark case. Consequently, it is the aim of these four propositions to define the most pressing limitations of IHL related to the natural environment, and to outline potential recommendations for policy makers to address the crisis in Ukraine as well as any further conflicts to come.