Practice Relating to Rule 44. Due Regard for the Natural Environment in Military Operations

Additional Protocol I
Article 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 55(1). Article 55 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 209.
Convention on Biodiversity
Principle 3 of the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity states:
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, … the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. 
Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, Principle 3.
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 … take every practical measure, during periods of armed conflict, to protect the environment against harm.” 
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)(a).
Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment
Principle 21 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment provides:
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, … the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. 
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5–6 June 1972, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/rev.1, 16 June 1972, Principle 21.
World Charter for Nature
Principle 5 of the 1982 World Charter for Nature provides: “Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile activities.” 
World Charter for Nature, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 37/7, 28 October 1982, Principle 5.
World Charter for Nature
Principle 20 of the 1982 World Charter for Nature provides: “Military activities damaging to nature shall be avoided.” 
World Charter for Nature, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 37/7, 28 October 1982, Principle 20.
Rio Declaration
Principle 2 of the 1992 Rio Declaration provides:
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. 
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 13 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 12 August 1992, endorsed by the UN General Assembly, Res. 47/190, 22 December 1992; see also Res. 47/191, 22 December 1992 and Res. 49/113, 19 December 1994, Principle 2.
Rio Declaration
Principle 24 of the 1992 Rio Declaration provides:
Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary. 
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 13 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 12 August 1992, endorsed by the UN General Assembly, Res. 47/190, 22 December 1992; see also Res. 47/191, 22 December 1992 and Res. 49/113, 19 December 1994, Principle 24.
Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict
The 1994 Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict provides:
(5) International environmental agreements and relevant rules of customary law may continue to be applicable in times of armed conflict to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the applicable law of armed conflict. Obligations concerning the protection of the environment that are binding on States not party to an armed conflict (e.g. neighbouring States) and that relate to areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (e.g. the high seas) are not affected by the existence of the armed conflict to the extent that those obligations are not inconsistent with the applicable law of armed conflict.
(11) Care shall be taken in warfare to protect and preserve the natural environment. 
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, §§ 5 and 11.
San Remo Manual
The 1994 San Remo Manual provides:
35. … Due regard shall also be given to the protection and preservation of the marine environment [of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf].
44. Methods and means of warfare should be employed with due regard for the natural environment taking into account the relevant rules of international law. 
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, §§ 35 and 44.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states: “Those responsible for planning and conducting military operations have a duty to ensure that the natural environment is protected.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 545.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Those responsible for planning and conducting military operations have a duty to ensure that the natural environment is protected.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 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: “During the operations of war, one must take care to protect the natural environment against widespread, persistent and significant damage.” 
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. 15.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), under the heading “Protection of Civilian Objects” and in a section entitled “Special Protection”, lists “the natural environment”. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 230, § 543.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 1 (Instruction of first-year trainee officers):
IV.1. Natural environment
Military leaders, in their military planning, should always consider the effects their operations could have on the natural environment.
… The specific provisions of the law show that:
- in the conduct of military operations, care shall be taken to protect the natural environment. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 35; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 32.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
In addition to the chosen method or means, the type of target attacked can also lead to environmental changes. An attack on a factory or laboratory where chemical, biological or nuclear products are developed or made may have major consequences for the natural environment. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0465.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) prohibits the use of weapons damaging the natural environment. 
Republic of Korea, Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 129.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states: “Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage”. 
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, § 217.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
2.3.5.3. If combat is conducted in the mountains it is necessary to take into account the probability of rockslides, snow avalanches, and cloudburst floods that are likely to endanger persons and objects protected by the laws of war …
2.3.5.4. If combat is conducted in the forest, it is necessary to take into account the probability of forest fires that are likely to endanger persons and objects protected by international humanitarian law. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 2.3.5.3–2.3.5.4.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In its chapters on air operations and on maritime warfare, the UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Methods and means of warfare should be employed with due regard for the natural environment, taking into account the relevant rules of international law.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 12.24. (air operations) and 13.30. (maritime warfare).
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual states: “Regard must be had to the natural environment in the conduct of all military operations.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.20.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides: “Methods and means of warfare should be employed with due regard to the protection and preservation of the natural environment.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 8.1.3.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states:
It is not unlawful to cause collateral damage to the natural environment during an attack upon a legitimate military objective. However, the commander has an affirmative obligation to avoid unnecessary damage to the environment to the extent that it is practicable to do so consistent with mission accomplishment. To that end, and as far as military requirements permit, methods or means of warfare should be employed with due regard to the protection and preservation of the natural environment. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 8.4.
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).
No data.
China
At the Meeting on Human Environment in 1972, China condemned the United States for causing “unprecedented damage to the human environment” in South Vietnam through the use of “chemical toxic and poisonous gas”. It also accused the United States of destroying “large areas of rich farming land with craters”, poisoning “rivers and other water resources”, destroying forests and crops and threatening “some of the species with extinction”. 
China, Address to the Meeting of Human Environment on Our Government’s Position on the Protection and Improvement of Human Environment, 10 June 1972, Selected Documents of the Chinese Delegation to the United Nations, The People’s Press, Beijing, 1972, pp. 257–258.
Colombia
In 1997, Colombia’s Defensoría del Pueblo (Ombudsman’s Office) denounced guerrilla attacks on oil pipelines as a violation of IHL insofar as oil spills inflicted damage on the environment, which affected both natural water sources and the productivity of the land. 
Colombia, Defensoría del Pueblo, En defensa del pueblo acuso: Impactos de la violencia de oleoductos en Colombia, 1997, p. 33, §§ 2–4.
Colombia
The Report on the Practice of Colombia states that it is Colombia’s opinio juris that “the parties to the conflict must protect the environment, endeavouring to prevent the damage to the natural environment caused by war operations”. 
Report on the Practice of Colombia, 1998, Chapter 4.4.
Costa Rica
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1995, Costa Rica stated:
Due to the length of the State practice and continued State expression of maintenance and protection of the environment, the Human Right to the Environment may be considered a part of customary international law. Whether it is recognized as a full legal right, it is clear that the Human Right to the Environment would be violate[d] by the threat or use of nuclear weapons. 
Costa Rica, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, July 1995, pp. 8–9.
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:
In addition, in the war of occupation of Iraq by the United States, the harm caused inter alia to the environment … has been devastating. This situation has been repeated, in the last few months, during the bombings carried out by NATO against the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. 
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.
Egypt
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Egypt stated that it considered the principle whereby every State must ensure that activities within its jurisdiction or under its control do not cause damage to the environment to be a “general rule”. Referring to the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment and the 1992 Rio Declaration, in which this rule was stated, Egypt argued that they “must be seen as declaratory of evolving normative regulation for the protection of the environment”. 
Egypt, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, September 1995, § 70.
France
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, France denied the existence in contemporary international law, either as lex lata or as lex ferenda, of a customary principle concerning the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict. It also indicated its view that in general none of the multilateral environmental agreements were applicable in times of armed conflict. 
France, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, § 27; see also Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 2 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/24, § 45.
Germany
In December 1991, during a parliamentary debate on the consequences of the Gulf War, a member of the German Parliament stated:
The immediate improvement of international law providing protection from environment-destructive warfare is necessary. This implies … the ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions without reservations by all NATO partners, including the Federal Republic of Germany [and] a general priority to be given to the fight against ecological damage over military secrecy in the case of armed conflict … In addition, a review is required of the existing priority of military necessity for specific acts of warfare to be legitimate over ecological needs – a very central point; furthermore, the general prohibition of the use of environmental destruction as a weapon is necessary. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by a Member of Parliament, Dr. Klaus Kübler, 5 December 1991, Plenarprotokoll 12/64, p. 5509.
This view was supported by another parliamentary group; the other parliamentary groups neither supported nor rejected it. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Proposal by the Alliance 90/The Greens, Nationale und internationale Konsequenzen der ökologischen Auswirkungen des Golf-krieges, BT-Drucksache 12/779, 17 June 1991, p. 5528.
During the same debate, a member of the parliamentary group which had supported the first speaker stated that, in the view of her group,
it is inevitable to take steps in order to give more effectiveness and respect to international law in force and to enable also the UN to prevent and punish warfare against the environment as well as violations of international conventions for the protection of the environment. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by a Member of Parliament, Birgit Homburger, 5 December 1991, Plenarprotokoll 12/64, p. 5528.
Germany
In 1991, the President of Germany, commenting on the effect on the environment of Iraqi means and methods of warfare, stated: “We are witnesses to an unprecedented disregard for the natural environment.” 
Germany, Statement by the President, Richard von Weizsäcker, 29 January 1991, Bulletin, No. 7, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 30 January 1991, p. 57.
The German Chancellor considered this particular type of warfare as falling within possible “crimes against the environment”. 
Germany, Statement by the Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, 9 April 1991, Bulletin, No. 35, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 12 April 1991, p. 255.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1991, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on protection of the environment in armed conflict, the Islamic Republic of Iran stated:
Turning to the law on the protection of the environment, … the general principles of customary international law clearly contained specific rules on the protection of the environment. One such rule was the obligation of States not to damage or endanger the environment beyond their jurisdiction, a rule which had been enshrined in numerous international and regional agreements.
With regard to the application of environmental law in time of war, … the relationship between a party to the conflict and a neutral State was essentially governed by the law in time of peace and, consequently, belligerent parties had an obligation to respect environmental law vis-à-vis non-belligerent States. There was no universally accepted rule concerning the application of international law on the protection of the environment to belligerent parties, and some argued that the relationship was governed by the law of armed conflict, which meant that with the outbreak of war, the application of rules on the protection of the environment was suspended. However, others argued that in such cases, under treaty law and customary law, international legal rules protecting the environment were neither suspended [n]or terminated, since the law of armed conflict itself tended to protect the environment in time of war. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/ 46/SR.18, 22 October 1991, §§ 30–31.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the Islamic Republic of Iran stated:
[The] prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, due to their huge destructive and modifying effects, could also be understood from the rules of international law relating to the environment. First of all, reference can be made to Principle 21 of [the] 1972 Stockholm Declaration on Human Environment which, as a customary rule, stipulated that States are responsible for any acts in their territory having adverse effects on the environment of other States. The same idea is also reflected in Principle [2] of [the] Rio Declaration of 1992. It can be argued that, while States are prevented from such conducts in their own territory, they are duly bound to refrain from any such acts against other States.
The progressive development of international environmental law in recent years has resulted in the adoption of a series of treaties, such as:
– Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985)
– United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)
– Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)
which is indicative of the awareness of [the] international community and the emergence of an opinio juris concerning the preservation of the environment. Therefore, the use of nuclear weapons, having the most destructive effects on the environment, is a great concern of [the] international society. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Written statement submitted to the ICJ Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, pp. 4–5, § c.
Islamic Republic of Iran
The Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that the Iranian Government holds Iraq responsible for attacking oil tankers in the Gulf and polluting the sea during the Iran–Iraq War. The Islamic Republic of Iran also denounced Iraq for using chemical weapons, which resulted in the pollution of the air, water, soil and consequent effects on the ecosystem. The report adds that it is the Islamic Republic of Iran’s opinio juris that “the environment must be protected against pollution during armed conflict”. 
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 4.4.
Kuwait
The Report on the Practice of Kuwait states that it is Kuwait’s opinio juris that States shall not resort to military operations that entail consequences for the environment. When such consequences occur, the report considers that Chapter VII of the UN Charter should be applied. 
Report on the Practice of Kuwait, 1997, Chapter 4.4.
Lebanon
A training document for the Lebanese army regards “offences against the environment” as “a ‘conventional’ war crime” and includes them in the list of acts considered to amount to war crimes. 
Lebanon, Training document, L’Etat de droit et les opérations disciplinées, 1996, p. 8-4 and p. 12-11.
Malaysia
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Malaysia expressed the view that “the principle of environmental safety is now recognized as part of international humanitarian law”. 
Malaysia, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, undated, p. 10.
Mexico
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1994, Mexico stated: “The threat or use of nuclear arms in an armed conflict would constitute a breach of principles of international environmental law generally accepted.” 
Mexico, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 9 June 1994, pp. 10–11, §§ 35–41.
Netherlands
In 1991, in a letter to the President of the Dutch Parliament concerning the environmental aspects of the Gulf War, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, of Development Cooperation and of Defence of the Netherlands stated that they considered the intentional draining of oil and setting alight of hundreds of oil wells by Iraq in Kuwait to be “serious crimes against the environment”. 
Netherlands, Lower House of Parliament, Letter from the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, of Development Cooperation and of Defence concerning the environmental aspects of the Gulf War, 1990–1991 Session, Doc. 21664, No. 68.
Peru
At the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1995, Peru stressed the need to establish rules determining the liability of States for damage caused to the environment by the use of certain conventional weapons that may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects. 
Peru, Statement at the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (First Session), Vienna, 25 September–13 October 1995, UN Doc. CCW/CONF.I/SR 5, 3 October 1995, §§ 67–69.
Philippines
The Report on the Practice of the Philippines states: “There are no specific rules which categorically state that the environment should be spared and protected during armed conflicts.” It refers to some information provided by non-governmental organizations, according to which, in most cases, the forest serves as a shield for civilians fleeing bombing, shelling and gun battles between combatants, resulting in damage to the area and the resources contained therein. 
Report on the Practice of the Philippines, 1997, Chapter 4.4.
Qatar
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Qatar referred to the emergence within the international community “of an opinio juris concerning the preservation of the environment”. 
Qatar, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 10 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/29, §§ 28–29.
Solomon Islands
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Solomon Islands argued that “the use of nuclear weapons violates international law for the protection of human health, the environment and fundamental human rights”. 
Solomon Islands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, Section B.
In its oral pleadings, Solomon Islands reiterated the argument whereby multilateral environmental agreements applied also in times of war, unless expressly provided otherwise. 
Solomon Islands, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 14 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/32, § 22.
Sri Lanka
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, Sri Lanka stated: “The protection of the environment in times of armed conflict has … emerged as an established principle of international law.” 
Sri Lanka, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, undated, p. 3.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United Kingdom condemned Iraq for inflicting environmental damage by causing oil spills and oil fires in Kuwait, and underlined the substantial contribution made by the UK Government to the international effort in response to this damage. 
United Kingdom, Letter dated 13 February 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22218, 13 February 1991; see also Letter dated 23 April 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22522, 23 April 1991.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
According to the Report on UK Practice, during the Rio Summit on Environment and Development in 1992, the UK Minister of State for the Armed Forces supported the principle that “States should respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict”. 
Report on UK Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.4.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United Kingdom stated that the argument “that the general provisions in environmental treaties have the effect of outlawing the use of nuclear weapons” cannot be sustained because:
These treaties … make no reference to nuclear weapons. Their principal purpose is the protection of the environment in times of peace. Warfare in general, and nuclear warfare in particular, are not mentioned in their texts and were scarcely alluded to in the negotiations which led to their adoption. 
United Kingdom, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 15 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/34, p. 42.
United States of America
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United States refuted the possibility of inferring a principle of “environmental security” from existing international environmental treaties, which would form part of the law of war, being that none of these treaties refers to such a principle, nor was any of them negotiated “with any idea that it [the treaty] was to be applicable in armed conflict”. 
United States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, pp. 34–35; see also Written comments on the submissions of other States submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 20 June 1995, pp. 10–19 and Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 15 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/34, pp. 64–66.
The United States went on to state: “Even if these treaties were meant to apply in armed conflict … the language of none of them prohibits or limits the actions of States in any manner that would reasonably apply to the use of weapons.” With reference to the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, the United States maintained that “nothing in the Declaration purports to ban the use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict”. 
United States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 39.
Lastly, the United States stated that, although Principles 1, 2 and 25 of the 1992 Rio Declaration had been relied upon to maintain that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict would constitute a breach of generally accepted principles of international environmental law, … none of these principles addresses armed conflict or the use of nuclear weapons”. 
United States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 41.
Yemen
In 1991, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the environmental impact of the Gulf War, Yemen, referring in particular to the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1976 ENMOD Convention, stated:
The damage caused to the environment as a result of the war had emphasized the importance of adherence to the legal norms on the prohibition on causing damage to the environment in times of armed conflict, norms which had been incorporated in a number of international conventions in the field of humanitarian law.  
Yemen, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/46/SR.20, 22 October 1991, § 30.
Zimbabwe
The Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe recalls Zimbabwe’s adoption of the 1992 Rio Principles as evidence that environmental protection during armed conflict forms an important component of Zimbabwe’s view of IHL. It also refers to “various pieces of legislation” dealing with environmental protection and setting up standards to be observed at all times, “whether or not there is armed conflict”, as evidence of Zimbabwe’s view that the environment should be protected even in times of armed conflict. 
Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, 1998, Chapter 4.4.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1991, the UN Security Council reaffirmed Iraq’s responsibility
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 as a result of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait. 
UN Security Council, Res. 687, 3 April 1991, § 16, voting record: 12-1-2.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on international cooperation to mitigate the environmental consequences on Kuwait and other countries in the region resulting from the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, the UN General Assembly:
Aware of the disastrous situation caused in Kuwait and neighbouring areas by the torching and destruction of hundreds of its oil wells and of the other environmental consequences on the atmosphere, land and marine life,
Bearing in mind all relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular section E of resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 [asserting Iraq’s international responsibility for environmental damage caused during Kuwait’s occupation],
Profoundly concerned at the deterioration in the environment as a consequence of the damage, especially the threat posed to the health and well-being of the people of Kuwait and the people of the region, and the adverse impact on the economic activities of Kuwait and other countries of the region, including the effects on livestock, agriculture and fishing, as well as on wildlife. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 46/216, 20 December 1991, preamble; see also Res. 47/151, 18 December 1992, preamble, voting record: 135-0-1-30.
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 and invited:
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 General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2001 on observance of the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict, the UN General Assembly:
Considering that damage to the environment in times of armed conflict impairs ecosystems and natural resources long beyond the period of conflict, and often extends beyond the limits of national territories and the present generation,
1. Declares 6 November each year as the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 56/4, 5 November 2001, preamble and § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Also calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, which gravely threaten their natural resources, namely the water and land resources, and pose an environmental hazard and health threat to the civilian populations. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/183, 22 December 2005, § 7, voting record: 156-6-8-21.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the human rights situation arising from the Israeli military operations in Lebanon, the UN General Assembly deplored “the environmental degradation caused by Israeli air strikes against power plants in Lebanon and their adverse impact on the health and wellbeing of children and other civilians”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/154, 19 December 2006, § 7, voting record: 112-7-64-9.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on an oil slick on Lebanese shores, the UN General Assembly:
Noting with great concern the environmental disaster caused by the destruction by the Israeli Air Force on 15 July 2006 of the oil storage tanks in the direct vicinity of the El-Jiyeh electric power plant in Lebanon, causing an oil slick that covered the entirety of the Lebanese coastline and extended beyond,
1. Expresses its deep concern over the adverse implications of the destruction by the Israeli Air Force of the oil storage tanks in the direct vicinity of the Lebanese El-Jiyeh electric power plant for the achievement of sustainable development in Lebanon;
2. Considers that the oil slick has heavily polluted the shores of Lebanon and consequently has serious implications for human health, biodiversity, fisheries and tourism, all four of which in turn have serious implications for livelihoods and the economy of Lebanon;
3. Calls upon the Government of Israel to assume responsibility for prompt and adequate compensation to the Government of Lebanon for the costs of repairing the environmental damage caused by the destruction, including the restoration of the marine environment. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/194, 20 December 2006, preamble and §§ 1–3, voting record: 170-6-0-16.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium, the UN General Assembly:
Guided by the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of humanitarian international law,
Convinced that as humankind is more aware of the need to take immediate measures to protect the environment, any event that could jeopardize such efforts requires urgent attention to implement the required measures,
Taking into consideration the potential harmful effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium on human health and the environment,
1. Requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States and relevant international organizations on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium, and to submit a report on this subject to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/30, 5 December 2007, preamble and § 1, voting record: 136-5-36-15.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 concerning an oil slick on Lebanese shores, the UN General Assembly:
Noting again with great concern the environmental disaster caused by the destruction by the Israeli Air Force on 15 July 2006 of the oil storage tanks in the direct vicinity of el Jiyeh electric power plant in Lebanon, resulting in an oil slick that covered the entirety of the Lebanese coastline and extended to the Syrian coastline,
2. Reiterates the expression of its deep concern about the adverse implications of the destruction by the Israeli Air Force of the oil storage tanks in the direct vicinity of the Lebanese el Jiyeh electric power plant for the achievement of sustainable development in Lebanon;
3. Considers that the oil slick has heavily polluted the shores of Lebanon and partially polluted Syrian shores and consequently has had serious implications for livelihoods and the economy of Lebanon, owing to the adverse implications for natural resources, biodiversity, fisheries and tourism, and for human health, in the country;
4. Requests the Government of Israel to assume responsibility for prompt and adequate compensation to the Government of Lebanon and other countries directly affected by the oil slick for the costs of repairing the environmental damage caused by the destruction, including the restoration of the marine environment. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/188, 19 December 2007, preamble and §§ 2–4, voting record: 169-8-3-12.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the economic and living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population of the occupied Syrian Golan and the exploitation by Israel, the occupying Power, of their natural resources,
8. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the dumping of all kinds of waste materials in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, which gravely threaten their natural resources, namely, water and land resources, and pose an environmental hazard and health threat to the civilian populations.  
ECOSOC, Res. 2006/43, 27 July 2006, preamble and § 8, voting record: 45-3-3.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, the UN Human Rights Council noted with concern “the environmental degradation caused by Israeli strikes against power plants and their adverse impact on health”. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-2/1, 11 August 2006, preamble, voting record: 27-11-8.
UN Compensation Commission
In 1991, with regard to the environmental consequences of the Gulf War, the Governing Council of the UNCC expressed “its concern about the environmental damage that occurred during the armed conflict in the Gulf area, which resulted in the pollution of the waters of the area by oil, air pollution from burning oil wells and other environmental damage to the surrounding areas”. 
UNCC, Governing Council, Decision 16/11, 31 May 1991, § A.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In 2001, in a report on the environmental impact of the war in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on south-east Europe, the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly noted that the military operations conducted by NATO against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the 1999 Kosovo crisis had caused serious damage to the country’s natural environment and that the damage had extended to several other countries of south-east Europe. The report stated that “the military operations violated the rights of Yugoslav citizens and people in neighbouring countries, first and foremost the right to a healthy environment”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, Report on the Environmental Impact of the War in Yugoslavia on South-East Europe, Doc. 8925, 10 January 2001, § 59.
No data.
International Court of Justice
In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1996, the ICJ made reference to the Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), in which it held that its order in that case was “without prejudice to the obligations of States to respect and protect the natural environment”. The Court stated: “Although that statement was made in the context of nuclear testing, it naturally also applies to the actual use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict.” 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, § 32.
International Court of Justice
In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1996, the ICJ stated:
The Court recognizes that the environment is under daily threat and … also recognizes that the environment is not an abstraction but represents the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn. The existence of the general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control is now part of the corpus of international law relating to the environment. 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, § 29.
International Court of Justice
In its judgment in the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project case in 1997, the ICJ considered whether protection of the environment amounted to an “essential interest” of a State that could be invoked in order to justify, by way of “necessity”, actions that were not in conformity with that State’s international obligations. The Court, stressing that a state of necessity could only be invoked in exceptional circumstances, answered in the affirmative. It quoted the International Law Commission in this regard, which stated that a state of necessity could include “a grave danger to … the ecological preservation of all or some of [the] territory [of a State]” and that “it is primarily in the last two decades that safeguarding the ecological balance has come to be considered an ‘essential interest’ of all States”. The Court then quoted paragraph 29 of its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case in order to show that it had recently stressed “the great significance that it attaches to respect for the environment, not only for States but also for the whole of mankind”. 
ICJ, Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project case, Judgment, 25 September 1997, §§ 50–53.
ICRC
In 1992, in a report submitted to the UN Secretary-General on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict, the ICRC stated:
In addition to the rules of law pertaining to warfare, general (peacetime) provisions on the protection of the environment may continue to be applicable. This holds true in particular for the relations between a belligerent State and third States. 
ICRC, Report on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict submitted to the UN General Assembly, reprinted in Report of the UN Secretary-General on the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict, UN Doc. A/47/328, 31 July 1992, § 11.
American Law Institute
The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, adopted and promulgated by the American Law Institute in 1986, provides:
(1) A state is obligated to take such measures as may be necessary, to the extent practicable under the circumstances, to ensure that activities within its jurisdiction or control
(a) conform to generally accepted international rules and standards for the prevention, reduction, and control of injury to the environment of another state or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction; and
(b) are conducted so as not to cause significant injury to the environment of another state or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
(2) A state is responsible to all other states
(a) for any violation of its obligations under Subsection 1(a), and
(b) for any significant injury, resulting from such violation, to the environment of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
(3) A state is responsible for any significant injury, resulting from a violation of its obligations under Subsection (1), to the environment of another state or to its property, or to persons or property within that state’s territory or under its jurisdiction or control. 
The American Law Institute, Restatement Third. Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, American Law Institute Publishers, St. Paul, 1987, § 601.
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A)
In a resolution adopted in 1991, the Politico-Military High Command of the SPLM/A stated: “The SPLM/SPLA shall do everything to halt the destruction of our wildlife resources and to protect and develop them for us and for posterity.” 
SPLM/A, PMHC Resolution No. 17: Wild Life and the Environment, 11 September 1991, § 17.1, Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 4.3.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
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:
(a) observe, outside areas of armed conflict, all international environmental rules by which they are bound in times of peace;
(b) take care to protect the environment against avoidable harm in areas of armed conflict. 
IUCN, Commission on Environmental Law, Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development, Bonn, March 1995, Article 32(1).
Convention on Biodiversity
Paragraph 9 of the preamble to the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity states that “where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat”.  
Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, preamble, para. 9.
Rio Declaration
Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration states:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. 
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 13 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 12 August 1992, endorsed by the UN General Assembly, Res. 47/190, 22 December 1992, Principle 15; see also Res. 47/191, 22 December 1992 and Res. 49/113, 19 December 1994.
No data.
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).
No data.
France
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation) in 1995, France argued that it was uncertain whether the precautionary principle had become a binding rule of international law. It went on to state that France does carry out an analysis of the impact of its activities on the environment, and described all the measures it took to ensure that the tests would not have a negative effect. It described these measures as being precautions that were in keeping with its obligations under international environmental law and therefore France did exercise sufficient diligence. However, it denied that the precautionary principle could have the effect of shifting the burden of proof as New Zealand asserted. 
France, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), 12 September 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/20, pp. 56–62.
New Zealand
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), New Zealand argued, in its request for an examination of the situation, that, under customary international law, a State is under an obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment “in relation to any activity which is likely to cause significant damage to the environment, particularly where such effects are likely to be transboundary in nature”. 
New Zealand, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), undated, § 89.
New Zealand also referred to the “precautionary principle” as a “very widely accepted and operative principle of international law” and which has the effect that “in situations that may possibly be significantly environmentally threatening, the burden is placed upon the party seeking to carry out the conduct that could give rise to environmental damage to prove that that conduct will not lead to such a result”. 
New Zealand, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), undated, § 105.
New Zealand indicated that France had accepted this rule because it was contained in French law No. 95-101 of 1995 in the following terms:
The precautionary principle, according to which the absence of certainty, having regard to scientific and technical knowledge at the time, should not hold up the adoption of effective and proportionate measures with a view to avoiding a risk of serious and irreversible damage to the environment at an economically acceptable cost. 
New Zealand, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), undated, § 107.
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
On 14 August 2000, KFOR troops assisted UNMIK and UNMIK-Police in taking control of a lead-smelting plant in Zvecan, part of the Trepca mining complex in northern Kosovo. As a justification for the military action, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Kosovo explained that the Zvecan plant had been producing unacceptable levels of air pollution and therefore presented a serious threat to public health. 
KFOR, Acting KFOR Spokesman, News Update, COMKFOR’s Zvecan Smelter Plant Closure Statement, Pristina, 14 August 2000, see website www.kforonline.com/news/updates/ nu_14aug00.htm.
In a press conference at the UN Headquarters, the chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the UN said that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia rejected the Special Representative’s claim that KFOR was acting to prevent lead pollution. He maintained that daily air measurements corresponded to Yugoslav government regulations, adding that, even if high air pollution had been the problem, “it was not sufficient to justify such a crude use of military force”. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Press Conference by the Permanent Mission of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the UN, New York, 22 August 2000.
UN Economic Commission for Europe
The meeting of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) in 1990 issued the Bergen ECE Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development. Article 7 of this Declaration formulated the precautionary principle in these terms:
In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. 
UN Economic Commission for Europe, Bergen ECE Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development, 15 May 1990, Article 7.
UN Secretary-General (Special Representative for Kosovo)
On 14 August 2000, KFOR troops assisted UNMIK and UNMIK-Police in taking control of a lead-smelting plant in Zvecan, part of the Trepca mining complex in northern Kosovo. As a justification for the military action, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Kosovo explained that the Zvecan plant had been producing unacceptable levels of air pollution and therefore presented a serious threat to public health. 
KFOR, Acting KFOR Spokesman, News Update, COMKFOR’s Zvecan Smelter Plant Closure Statement, Pristina, 14 August 2000, see website www.kforonline.com/news/updates/ nu_14aug00.htm.
In a press conference at the UN Headquarters, the chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the UN said that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia rejected the Special Representative’s claim that KFOR was acting to prevent lead pollution. He maintained that daily air measurements corresponded to Yugoslav government regulations, adding that, even if high air pollution had been the problem, “it was not sufficient to justify such a crude use of military force”. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Press Conference by the Permanent Mission of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the UN, New York, 22 August 2000.
UN Environment Programme
In its report in 1996, the Working Group of Experts on Liability and Compensation for Environmental Damage Arising from Military Activities, which was established by UNEP in 1994 within the purview of the Montevideo Programme II, provided a practical contribution to the work of the UN Compensation Commission, inter alia, by recommending the criteria for evaluating “environmental damage”. The Working Group examined four kinds of damages in respect of which claims for compensation were allowed:
a) Abatement and prevention of environmental damage (including expenses directly relating to fighting oil fires and stemming the flow of oil in coastal and international waters);
b) Reasonable measures already taken to clean and restore the environment or future measures which can be documented as reasonably necessary to clean and restore the environment;
c) Reasonable monitoring and assessment of the environmental damage for the purpose of evaluating and abating harm and restoring the environment; and
d) Reasonable monitoring of public health and performing medical screening for the purposes of investigation and combating increased health risks as a result of the environmental damage.  
UNEP, Report of the Working Group of Experts on Liability and Compensation for Environmental Damage Arising from Military Activities, adopted at the Third Meeting of the Working Group, London, 17 May 1996.
As to the first type of damages, the Working Group concluded that: “The methodology for determining the amount of compensation would be the costs actually incurred in taking such measures [to abate or prevent environmental damage].” It added that, although not expressly mentioned, “it would … be appropriate to infer a limitation on compensation to measures which themselves are reasonable, and to costs that are reasonable in amount”, while “in the light of the precautionary principle some latitude would be warranted in relation to costs incurred in an emergency situation requiring a prompt response in the face of limited information”. 
UNEP, Report of the Working Group of Experts on Liability and Compensation for Environmental Damage Arising from Military Activities, adopted at the Third Meeting of the Working Group, London, 17 May 1996, §§ 61 and 62.
As to the other type of damages, reference was also made by the Working Group to the precautionary principle as an element to be taken into due account for determining the “reasonableness” of the activities in question. 
UNEP, Report of the Working Group of Experts on Liability and Compensation for Environmental Damage Arising from Military Activities, adopted at the Third Meeting of the Working Group, London, 17 May 1996, §§ 65 and 73.
United Nations Compensation Commission
In June 2001, within the framework of the activities of the UNCC, the “F4” Panel of Commissioners submitted its first report to the Governing Council dealing with claims for losses resulting from environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources. The report addressed only the first instalment of “F4” claims, which included claims submitted by the governments of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey for compensation for expenses resulting from monitoring and assessment activities undertaken or to be undertaken by the claimants to identify and evaluate environmental damage suffered as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait (“monitoring and assessment claims”). In particular, these activities related to damage from air pollution and oil pollution caused by the ignition of hundreds of oil wells and by the release of millions of barrels of oil into the sea by Iraqi forces in Kuwait. 
UNCC, Governing Council, Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning the first instalment of F4 claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2001/16, 22 June 2001, p. 9, §§ 13–14.
In deciding whether expenses incurred for monitoring and assessment activities were compensable, the Panel declared that it had considered “whether there was evidence that the activity proposed or undertaken could produce information that might be helpful in identifying environmental damage and depletion of natural resources, or that could offer a useful basis for taking preventive or remedial measures”. 
UNCC, Governing Council, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2001/16, Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning the first instalment of F4 claims, 22 June 2001, p. 15, § 35.s
No data.
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1995)
The 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1995 adopted a resolution on protection of the civilian population in period of armed conflict in which it called upon parties to conflict “to take all feasible precautions to avoid, in their military operations, all acts liable to destroy or damage water sources”. 
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Res. II, § F(b).
International Court of Justice
The ICJ’s order in the Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation) in 1995 turned on procedural aspects and did not consider the merits of the arguments relating to the need for a prior assessment and the application of the precautionary principle. The order only made a reference in the most general terms to “obligations of States to respect and protect the natural environment, obligations to which both New Zealand and France have in the present instance reaffirmed their commitment”. 
ICJ, Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), Order, 22 September 1995, § 64.
International Court of Justice
In his dissenting opinion in the Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation) in 1995, Judge Weeramantry referred to the precautionary principle as one “which is gaining increasing support as part of the international law of the environment” and the principle requiring an environmental impact assessment as “gathering strength and international acceptance”. 
ICJ, Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, 22 September 1995, pp. 342 and 344.
International Court of Justice
In his dissenting opinion in the Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation) in 1995, Judge Palmer stated:
87. … As the law now stands it is a matter of legal duty to first establish before undertaking an activity that the activity does not involve any unacceptable risk to the environment. …
91. What those principles of international law establish in my view are the following propositions:
(d) the norm involved in the precautionary principle has developed rapidly and may now be a principle of customary international law relating to the environment. 
ICJ, Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Palmer, 22 September 1995, §§ 87 and 91.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that:
Targets for particular weapons and fire units shall be determined and assigned with the same precautions as to military objectives, specially taking into account the tactical result desired … and the destructive power of the ammunition used (… possible effects on the environment). 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 433.
ICRC
In 1993, in a report submitted to the UN General Assembly on the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict, the ICRC stated, with respect to the applicability of the precautionary principle to the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict:
This principle is an emerging, but generally recognized principle of international law. The object of the precautionary principle is to anticipate and prevent damage to the environment and to ensure that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone any measures to prevent such damage. 
ICRC, Report on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict submitted to the UN General Assembly, reprinted in Report of the UN Secretary-General on the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict, UN Doc. A/48/269, 29 July 1993, § 91.
No data.