Practice Relating to Rule 45. Causing Serious Damage to the Natural Environment

Note: For practice concerning the prohibition of herbicides under the 1976 ENMOD Convention, see Rule 76.
ENMOD Convention
Article I of the 1976 ENMOD Convention provides:
1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.
2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article. 
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 31/72, 10 December 1976, Article I.
The understanding relating to Article I of the 1976 ENMOD Convention submitted, together with the text of the draft convention, by the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament to the UN General Assembly states:
It is the understanding of the Committee that, for the purpose of this Convention, the terms “widespread”, “long-lasting” and “severe” shall be interpreted as follows:
(a) “widespread”: encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometres;
(b) “long-lasting”: lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season;
(c) “severe”: involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets. 
Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, Understanding relating to Article I of the 1976 ENMOD Convention, UN Doc. A/31/27, 1976, pp. 91–92.
ENMOD Convention
Article II of the 1976 ENMOD Convention provides:
As used in article I, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. 
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 31/72, 10 December 1976, Article II.
The understanding relating to Article II of the 1976 ENMOD Convention submitted, together with the text of the draft convention, by the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament to the UN General Assembly states:
It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in article II of the Convention: earthquakes; tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.
It is further understood that all the phenomena listed above, when produced by military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, would result, or could reasonably be expected to result, in widespread, long-lasting or severe destruction, damage or injury. Thus, military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques as defined in article II, so as to cause those phenomena as a means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party, would be prohibited.
It is recognized, moreover, that the list of examples set out above is not exhaustive. Other phenomena which could result from the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in article II could also be appropriately included. The absence of such phenomena from the list does not in any way imply that the undertaking contained in article I would not be applicable to those phenomena, provided the criteria set out in that article were met. 
Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, Understanding relating to Article II of the 1976 ENMOD Convention, UN Doc. A/31/27, 1976, pp. 91–92.
African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Article XV of the 2003 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources provides: “The Parties shall … refrain from using the destruction or modification of the environment as a means of combat or reprisal.” 
African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (Revised Edition), adopted by the Second Ordinary Session of the African Union in Maputo, Mozambique, 11 July 2003, Article XV(1)(c).
Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict
Paragraph 12 of the 1994 Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict provides:
The military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State party is prohibited. The term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. 
Revised Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross and presented to the UN Secretary-General, annexed to Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Decade of International Law, UN Doc. A/49/323, 19 August 1994, pp. 49–53, para. 12.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) prohibits environmental modification techniques. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 409.
The manual adds:
Australia, as a signatory to the [1976 ENMOD Convention], has undertaken not to engage in any military or hostile use of environmental modification techniques which would have widespread, long lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other state which is a party to the Convention. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 714 and 545(e).
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
4.11 Environmental modification techniques having widespread, long lasting or severe effects are prohibited …
7.15 Australia, as a signatory to the UN’s Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification … Techniques [1976 ENMOD Convention], has undertaken not to engage in any military or hostile use of ENMOD techniques which would have widespread, long lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other state which is a party to the Convention. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 4.11 and 7.15; see also § 5.50.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “utilizing environmental modification techniques” constitutes a “grave breach” of IHL. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, pp. 45 and 115.
The Regulations also states that “the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes or any other hostile purpose” is prohibited. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 58.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “Environmental techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects are prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-3, § 22.
The manual further states:
45. In addition, Canada as a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention) has undertaken not to engage in any military or hostile use of environmental modification techniques as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other state which is party to the Convention.
46. An “environmental modification technique” is any technique for changing, through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes, the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth which would have widespread, long-term or severe effects. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-5, §§ 45–46.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Restrictions on the use of weapons” that “environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects are prohibited”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 514.
In its chapter on land warfare, the manual further states:
1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare that are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.
2. In addition, Canada as a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention) has undertaken not to engage in any military or hostile use of environmental modification techniques as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other state, which is a party to the Convention.
3. An “environmental modification technique” is any technique for changing, through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes, the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth which would have widespread, long-term or severe effects. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 620.
Similarly, in its chapter on air warfare, the manual states:
1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare, which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.
2. In addition, Canada as a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) has undertaken not to engage in any military or hostile use of environmental modification techniques as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other state, which is party to the Convention.
3. Environmental modification techniques are defined by the ENMOD Convention as any technique for changing, through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes, the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, which would have widespread, long-term or severe effects. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 709.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that the “use of techniques [for] changing the environment” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and thus a war crime. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 108.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states:
The Stockholm Convention of 10 December 1976 (ENMOD), which has not been signed by France, prohibits the use of environmental techniques for military or any other hostile purposes. France has not adhered to this convention because it is of the opinion that it contains vague provisions which render its application uncertain, particularly with respect to nuclear dissuasion. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 63.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states:
401. It is particularly prohibited to employ means or methods which are intended or of a nature … to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
403. “Widespread”, “long-term” and “severe” damage to the natural environment is a major interference with human life or natural resources which considerably exceeds the battlefield damage to be regularly expected in a war. Damage to the natural environment by means of warfare (Art. 35 para 3, 55 para 1 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]) and severe manipulation of the environment as a weapon (ENMOD) are likewise prohibited. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, §§ 401 and 403; see also § 1020 (naval warfare).
Indonesia
Indonesia’s Military Manual (1982) states: “It is prohibited to use environment modification as a means of warfare.” 
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law, Legal Division of the Indonesian Armed Forces, 1982, § 134.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states:
Besides conventional and non-conventional arms, there is another category of arms – those that have an impact on the natural environment. The 1970’s saw a growing deep awareness for environmental protection, rousing in its wake an aversion to the United States’ conduct during the Vietnam War, in which it destroyed forests and crops by chemical means (more than 54% of the forests in South Vietnam were destroyed), and even tested means for altering the weather in Indochina (bringing down rain so as to create mud and flooding in North Vietnam). In 1977 a convention was signed banning the use of environment-modifying technologies for war purposes, if such use has “large-scale, long-term or severe effects on another country that is a party to the Convention”. The Convention (which Israel has not signed) defines the modification of the natural environment as “any change – through the intervention of natural processes – to the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth”.
The Gulf War:
During the Gulf War, Iraq flagrantly violated the Convention on the prohibition against modifying the environment during the military occupation of Kuwait (both countries signed the convention). Immediately following the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf War, the Iraqis opened Kuwait’s marine oil pipes, flooding the Persian Gulf with oil slicks. In addition, the Iraqi army set ablaze more than 700 oil wells when retreating. The resulting damage to the natural environment and the death of thousands of cormorants in oil puddles (without giving Iraq any military advantage whatsoever) was irreparable. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 17.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
Damage to the environment. An additional convention deals with weapons that affect the natural environment. During the 1970s, consciousness of the environment increased in the world resulting in criticism of the Vietnam War, in the course of which the United States destroyed forests and crops by means of chemical weapons (more than 54% of the forests in South Vietnam were destroyed) and it even performed experiments to attempt to change the weather in the Indo-China area (rainfall to create mud and flooding in north Vietnam). In 1977, a convention was signed prohibiting the use of technologies for altering the natural environment for the purpose of warfare, should this use have “extensive, long-term or serious effects on another member state”.
This convention, to which Israel is not a signatory, defines change to the natural environment as “interference in the dynamic processes of nature, the composition or structure of the Earth”. The Convention does not mention specific phenomena, but it speaks of phenomena such as causing earthquakes, the creation of tsunamis, disrupting the ecological balance and causing storms and changes to the condition of the ozone layer and the ionosphere.
The First Gulf War
In the course of the military conquest of Kuwait during the Gulf War (1991), Iraq blatantly breached the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (both countries are the signatories to the Convention). Immediately after the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf War, the Iraqis opened Kuwait’s marine oil pipelines and covered the Persian Gulf with oil slicks. In addition, the Iraqi army set fire to more than 700 oil wells during its retreat. The damage caused to the natural environment was irreparable, and thousands of cormorants were killed by the pools of oil. Setting fire to the oil brought no military advantage to Iraq, of course. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 16.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
0466. While the prohibition of AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I] addresses the consequences of a method or means used, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (also known as the ENMOD Convention) takes a different approach to the environment. This Convention prohibits modification of the living environment (environmental modification techniques) in order to use the environment as a weapon. The threshold of application of this Convention is lower: the consequences must be widespread, long-lasting or severe (ENMOD Article I).
In the negotiations leading to the ENMOD Convention, the following explanations of the terms widespread, severe and long-lasting were accepted:
Widespread: the consequences should be noticeable over a surface area of several hundred square kilometres.
Serious: consequences leading to serious or marked disruption or damage of human existence, natural or economic sources of support, or other assets.
Long-lasting: consequences which are noticeable for a period of several months or around one season.
0467. Environmental modification techniques are defined as any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its flora and fauna, lithosphere (the Earth’s crust), hydrosphere (water on Earth) and atmosphere, or of outer space (ENMOD Article II).
In the negotiations concerning the ENMOD Convention, the following examples were quoted:
provoking an earthquake or tsunami, disrupting the ecological balance of a region, changing weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones or tornados), changing the climate, the courses of rivers, the ozone layer or the ionosphere.
Thus the diversion of a river or construction of a dam will affect the river basin, thus having a long-lasting impact on water levels and weather conditions. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0466–0467.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states:
Parties to the [1976 ENMOD] Convention have undertaken not to engage in any military or hostile use of environmental modification techniques which would have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other States Party to the Convention.
“Environmental modification techniques” are defined by ENMOD as any technique for changing, through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes, the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or outer space. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 505(2)–(3) and 614(2)–(3).
[emphasis in original]
Republic of Korea
Referring to the Republic of Korea’s Military Law Manual (1996), the Report on the Practice of the Republic of Korea states that the 1976 ENMOD Convention applies only to contracting parties. 
Report on the Practice of the Republic of Korea, 1997, Chapter 4.4, referring to Military Law Manual, 1996.
With respect to the Operational Law Manual (1996), the report states: “It is a principle not to use weapons injuring the natural environment.” 
Report on the Practice of the Republic of Korea, 1997, Chapter 4.4, referring to Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 129.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) states that “substances which have widespread, long-term and severe consequences on the environment” are prohibited means of warfare, referring in particular to the 1976 ENMOD Convention. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 6(g).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
The following shall be prohibited to use in the course of combat operations: … environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 9.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “It is prohibited to … [u]se environmental modification that may have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects (as the means of destruction, damage or injury to another nation).” 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 44.
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) provides that “military use of environment modification techniques” is prohibited. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 56(f)(iii).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) includes among prohibited methods of warfare all military or other hostile uses of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-term or severe effects, which are adopted as a means of destruction, damage, or injury to any other State. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 3.3.(b).6.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “It is prohibited to use environmental modification techniques for military or hostile purposes, which could cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment, as a means to cause destruction, damage or harm to another State.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 3.3.b.(6); see also § 3.1.d.(7).
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states:
Committing an act or activity prohibited by any of the following conventions or protocols constitutes a crime under international law:
2. the 1976 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-5(2).
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
48. Using environmental modification techniques for military, combat or other hostile purposes which have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects, understanding as “environmental modification techniques” all techniques for changing, through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes, the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.48.
No data.
Australia
In 1992, in its opening statement, Australia, presiding the Second ENMOD Review Conference, questioned
whether the protection afforded by the Convention should be restricted to the States parties and whether activities such as deliberate “low-tech” environmental damage came within its purview. The absence so far of any accusations that the provisions of the Convention had been violated could be interpreted as meaning that its scope was so narrow that it had little practical application. 
Australia, Statement at the Second ENMOD Review Conference, Geneva, 14–21 September 1992, United Nations Disarmament Yearbook, Vol. 17, 1993, p. 229.
Cuba
In 2011, in a response to UN General Assembly Resolution 63/51 on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control, the representative of Cuba stated:
It is … important to highlight the relevance and importance of the [1976] Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, ratified by Cuba on 10 April 1978, which is still fully in force and should be universally accepted. 
Cuba, Response by the representative of Cuba to UN General Assembly Resolution 63/51 on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control, 7 June 2011, p. 2.
Germany
In its memorandum annexed to the ratification instrument of the 1976 ENMOD Convention, the Government of Germany declared that the terms “widespread”, “long-term” and “severe” were necessary to clarify the extent of the prohibition. It also underlined that only those significant cases of environmental damage or cases of deliberate attack on the environment should be covered by the relevant prohibitions. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Denkschrift zur ENMOD Konvention, 6 September 1982, BT-Drucksache 9/1952, p. 12.
As to the non-inclusion of a norm protecting the environment from the harmful effects caused by attacks against dams, dykes or nuclear power plants, the same memorandum stressed that the fact that such a norm was not included did not imply that these attacks were lawful under international law. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Denkschrift zur ENMOD Konvention, 6 September 1982, BT-Drucksache 9/1952, p. 13.
Jordan
In 1991, in a note verbale to UN Secretary-General, Jordan requested the inclusion of the item “exploitation of the environment as a weapon in times of armed conflict and the taking of practical measures to prevent such exploitation” in the provisional agenda of the 46th Session of the UN General Assembly. 
Jordan, Note verbale dated 5 July 1991 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/46/141, 8 July 1991.
In an explanatory memorandum supporting its request, Jordan stated:
The existing 1977 [ENMOD Convention] was revealed as being painfully inadequate during the Gulf conflict. We find that the terms of the existing convention are so broad and vague as to be virtually impossible to enforce. We also find no provision for a mechanism capable of the investigation and settlement of any future disputes under the Convention. Furthermore, the Convention does not provide for advanced environmental scientific data to be made available to all States at the initial stages of crisis prevention. 
Jordan, Explanatory memorandum, annexed to Note verbale dated 5 July 1991 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/46/141, 8 July 1991, p. 2, § 2.
Jordan
In 1992, in a memorandum annexed to a letter to the Chairman of the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Jordan and the United States noted that for those States party to the 1976 ENMOD Convention, the following principles of international law provide additional protection for the environment in times of armed conflict:
e) The 1977 Convention (ENMOD) prohibits States parties from engaging in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques (i.e., any techniques for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of earth, its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space) having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State party. 
Jordan, International Law Providing Protection to the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, annexed to Letter dated 28 September 1992 to the Chairman of the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/47/3, 28 September 1992, § 2(e).
Malaysia
In its written comments submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1995, responding to the UK and US submissions whereby the 1976 ENMOD Convention would not prohibit the use of nuclear weapons, being that such use is not intended to deliberately manipulate the natural environment, Malaysia stated:
It is a general principle of law that the foreseeable consequences of an act are interpreted as an intention to bring them about. It is disingenuous, therefore, in view of what scientists have described as the enormously damaging environmental and climatic consequences of a nuclear exchange to assert that these would be mere “unintended side-effects”. 
Malaysia, Written comments on other written statements submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 19 June 1995, p. 28.
Nauru
In its response to submissions of other States to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1995, Nauru stated:
It is a general principle of law that the foreseeable consequences of an act are interpreted as an intention to bring them about. It is disingenuous, therefore, in view of what scientists have described as the enormously damaging environmental and climatic consequences of a nuclear exchange to assert that these would be mere “unintended side effects”. 
Nauru, Written comments on other written statements submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 15 June 1995, Part 2, p. 28.
Solomon Islands
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Solomon Islands stated:
The [1976 ENMOD] Convention signals widespread recognition of the need to limit the use of the environment as a weapon of war, without diminishing in any way the customary and treaty obligations establishing clear norms for the protection of the environment which must be followed in times of war and armed conflict. As supplemented by the more detailed and emphatic obligations of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], it is submitted that [the 1976] ENMOD [Convention] now reflects the customary obligation not to cause “widespread, long-lasting or severe” harm to the environment. 
Solomon Islands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, § 3.79; see also Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 9 June 1994, §§ 4.1–4.46.
Ukraine
In 1992, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict, Ukraine qualified the release of large quantities of oil into the sea and the setting alight of numerous well-heads as a “clear illustration of the hostile use of environmental modification techniques in contravention of international law”. 
Ukraine, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/47/SR.9, 6 October 1992, p. 8, § 35.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United Kingdom stated:
The [1976 ENMOD] Convention was designed to deal with the deliberate manipulation of the environment as a method of war … While the use of a nuclear weapon may have considerable effects on the environment, it is unlikely that it would be used for the deliberate manipulation of natural processes. The effect on the environment would normally be a side-effect of the use of a nuclear weapon, just as it would in the case of use of other weapons. 
United Kingdom, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 16 June 1995, § 3.7513–3.116.
United States of America
In 1992, in a statement at the Second ENMOD Review Conference, the United States expressed the view that:
The [1976 ENMOD] Convention is not an Environmental Protection Treaty; it is not a treaty to prohibit damage to the environment resulting from armed conflict. Rather, the [1976 ENMOD] Convention fills a special, but important niche reflecting the international community’s consensus that the environment itself should not be used as an instrument of war. 
United States, Statement of 15 September 1992 at the Second ENMOD Review Conference, Geneva, 14–21 September 1992.
United States of America
In 1992, in a memorandum annexed to a letter to the Chairman of the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Jordan and the United States noted that for those States party to the 1976 ENMOD Convention, the following principles of international law provide additional protection for the environment in times of armed conflict:
The 1977 Convention (ENMOD) prohibits States parties from engaging in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques (i.e., any techniques for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of earth, its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space) having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State party. 
United States, International Law Providing Protection to the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, annexed to Letter dated 28 September 1992 to the Chairman of the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/47/3, 28 September 1992, § 2(e).
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the United Nations Decade of International Law, the UN General Assembly referred to the 1994 Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict. The General Assembly:
Invites all States to disseminate widely the revised guidelines for military manuals and instructions on the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict received from the International Committee of the Red Cross and to give due consideration to the possibility of incorporating them into their military manuals and other instructions addressed to their military personnel. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/50, 9 December 1994, § 11, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
The programme of activities for the final term (1997–1999) of the UN Decade of International Law, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996, states:
In connection with training of military personnel, States are encouraged to foster the teaching and dissemination of the principles governing the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict and should consider the possibility of making use of the guidelines for military manuals and instructions prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/157, 16 December 1996, Annex, § 19, adopted without a vote.
UN Environment Programme
In a decision in 1991, UNEP’s Governing Council stated that, with regard to the environmental effects of warfare, it was aware of the general prohibition on employing methods or means of warfare that were intended, or could be expected, to cause widespread, long-term or severe damage to the natural environment, laid down in the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1976 ENMOD Convention. 
UNEP, Governing Council, Decision 16/11, 31 May 1991, preamble.
The Governing Council recommended that:
Governments consider identifying weapons, hostile devices and ways of using such techniques that would cause particularly serious effects on the environment and consider efforts in appropriate forums to strengthen international law prohibiting such weapons, hostile devices and ways of using such techniques. 
UNEP, Governing Council, Decision 16/11, 31 May 1991, § 2.
No data.
Conference of Government Experts on Weapons
A report on the discussion concerning laser weapons which took place at the Conference of Government Experts on Weapons which may Cause Unnecessary Suffering or have Indiscriminate Effects in Lucerne in 1974 states:
Geophysical warfare
270. The expert who put forward the subject of geophysical warfare for consideration stated that it included such activities as the modification of weather or climate and the causing of earthquakes. He stated that man already possessed the ability to bring about on a limited scale certain geophysical changes for which military applications were conceivable. In his view these would inevitably be indiscriminate, and could give rise to unforeseeable environmental changes of prolonged duration.
271. Another expert made the observation that any attempt to divert or release forces of nature would require an input of energy equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of energy or force diverted or released.
Environmental warfare
272. The expert who put forward the subject of environmental warfare for consideration meant it to include the modification of the natural environment for the purpose of denying an enemy access to an area, or reducing the availability of natural cover for concealment, or of denying or preventing the growth of food or other crops. He observed that certain of the potential means of environmental warfare, such a chemical-warfare agent, did not fall within the category of conventional weapons. He also stated that environmental warfare, in his understanding of the term, was closely linked with geophysical warfare; other experts preferred to treat the two subjects as one.
273. The view was expressed by one expert that environmental warfare, like geophysical warfare, was by its nature indiscriminate. A distinction might be drawn between intentional and unintentional environmental warfare, the latter denoting the environmental impact of large-scale employment of conventional weapons.
274. One expert drew the attention of the Conference to the draft convention on environmental warfare recently submitted by his government to the General Assembly of the United Nations, the scope of the convention also including geophysical means of warfare. He expressed the opinion that the importance of the convention, which, if agreed internationally, would in his view greatly promote the cause of disarmament, lay in its attempt to prevent, at an early stage, the introduction of a novel and threatening warfare technique. Several experts supported this proposal and this opinion.
Evaluation
277. Some experts were of the opinion that, because the effects of potential future weapons could have important humanitarian implications, it was necessary to keep a close watch in order to develop any prohibitions or limitations that might seem necessary before the weapon in question had become widely accepted. 
Conference of Government Experts on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, Lucerne, 24 September–18 October 1974, Report, ICRC, Geneva, 1975, §§ 270–274 and 277.
No data.
No data.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
In 1995, the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law, in cooperation with the International Council of Environmental Law, issued the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development, which was intended to stimulate consideration of a global instrument on environmental conservation and sustainable development. Article 32(1) provides:
Parties shall protect the environment during periods of armed conflict. In particular, Parties shall:
(c) not employ or threaten to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term, or severe harm to the environment and ensure that such means and methods of warfare are not developed, produced, tested, or transferred; and
(d) not use the destruction or modification of the environment as a means of warfare or reprisal. 
IUCN, Commission on Environmental Law, Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development, Bonn, March 1995, Article 32(1).