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

Additional Protocol I
Article 35(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
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 35(3). Article 35 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 101.
Additional Protocol I
Article 55(1) 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. 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. 
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.
Additional Protocol II (negotiation)
A draft provision submitted by Australia in Committee III of the CDDH read as follows: “It is forbidden to employ methods and means of combat which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/215/Rev.1, Report of Committee III, Geneva, 3 February-18 April 1975, p. 324.
This proposal was adopted in Committee III by 49 votes in favour, 4 against and 7 abstentions. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/215/Rev.1, Report of Committee III, Geneva, 3 February-18 April 1975, p. 294, § 146.
The provision was rejected in the plenary by 25 votes in favour, 19 against and 33 abstentions. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 114.
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
The preamble to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons recalls that “it is prohibited to employ methods and means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 10 October 1980, preamble.
ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[i]ntentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
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 employing or threatening to employ methods or means of combat 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. 
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)(b).
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Pursuant to Article 22(d) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “employing methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment” is an exceptionally serious war crime. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, UN Doc. A/46/10, 1991, Article 22(d).
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 6.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.5.
Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict
Paragraph 11 of the 1994 Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict provides:
It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause wide-spread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and thereby prejudice the health or survival of the population. 
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. 11.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Pursuant to Article 20(g) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the following constitutes a war crime:
In the case of armed conflict, using methods or means of warfare not justified by military necessity with the intent to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and thereby gravely prejudice the health or survival of the population and such damage occurs.  
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(g).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 6.3 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides: “The United Nations force is prohibited from employing methods of warfare … which are intended, or may be expected to cause, widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 6.3.
UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(iv), “[i]ntentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(iv).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides: “The natural environment must be protected against widespread, long-term and severe damage.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.03.
The manual also restates Article 35 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 1.04(3).
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states:
It is prohibited to use methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and thereby jeopardise the survival or seriously prejudice the health or survival of the population. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 909.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states:
Any method or means of warfare which is planned, or expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and thereby jeopardise the survival or seriously prejudice the health of the population is prohibited. In this context, “long-term” means continuing for decades. Means or methods which are not expected to cause such damage are permitted even if damage results. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 713.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
Any method or means of warfare which is planned, or expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and thereby jeopardise the survival or seriously prejudice the health of the population is prohibited. In this context, “long-term” means continuing for decades. Means or methods which are not expected to cause such damage are permitted even if damage results. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.14; see also § 5.50.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) prohibits the use of “methods or means of warfare … which cause such damage to the natural environment that they prejudice the health or survival of the population”. The manual specifically prohibits “methods or means of warfare that are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, pp. 27–28.
With respect to weapons, the manual states that the basic principle whereby the only legitimate goal in war is to weaken the enemy’s military forces would be violated if weapons or other means of warfare were used which “would cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 37.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states that it is prohibited “to use means and methods of warfare which are likely to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule III, p. 12.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “It is prohibited to use means or methods of war which cause … widespread, long-term and serious damage to the natural environment.” 
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; see also Part I bis, pp. 7, 19, 32, 40, 81 and 93.
The Regulations also states: “This protection [of the natural environment as a civilian object] endeavours to avoid that war causes widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which may compromise the health and survival of the population.” 
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. 35; see also Part I bis, p. 88.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states:
83. Care shall be taken in an armed conflict to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.
84. Attacks which are intended or may be expected to cause damage to the natural environment that prejudices the health or survival of the population are prohibited. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, pp. 4-8/4-9, §§ 83–84; see also p. 6-5, § 44.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on targeting:
1. Care shall be taken in an armed conflict to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.
2. Attacks, which are intended or may be expected to cause damage to the natural environment, which prejudices the health or survival of the population, are prohibited. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 446.1–2.
In its chapter on land warfare, the manual further states:
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. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 620.1.
In its chapter on air warfare, the manual similarly states:
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. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 709.1.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police): “The following prohibitions must be respected: … using methods of combat likely to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section 1.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that it is prohibited to cause “severe damage to the natural environment” and that to do so is 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. 78.
Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) states that “the use of weapons which cause unnecessary and indiscriminate, widespread, long-term and severe damage to persons and the environment” is prohibited. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, pp. 49–50.
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
… The specific provisions of the law show that:
- it is prohibited to use methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, thereby prejudicing the health or survival of the population. 
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; Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 38.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) restates the prohibition on employing methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment set out in Article 35 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
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 Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides: “It is prohibited to use means or methods of warfare which are intended or of a nature … to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
Germany, Taschenkarte, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Bearbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, Zentrum Innere Führung, June 1991, p. 5.
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 Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, §§ 401 and 403; see also § 1020 (naval warfare).
Germany
Germany’s IHL Manual (1996) states: “It is prohibited to use means or methods of warfare which are intended or of a nature … to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, § 302.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states: “It is prohibited to use means or methods which are intended or of a nature … to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 5.
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states: “It is prohibited to use means and methods of warfare, which may cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 7.
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides that it is forbidden “to use methods of warfare which are specifically intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 3; see also Précis No. 2, p. 2.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states: “It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IV-1, § 1.
The manual explains that the part of the 1977 Additional Protocol I concerning the general protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities repeats this prohibition (in Article 55) with the proviso that “the damage to the natural environment has to be such that the health or the survival of the civilian population is endangered”. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. V-9, § 7.
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states: “Attention must be paid to the protection of the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.” 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-44.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
Section 13 - Methods or means which alter the natural environment
0464. AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I] contains a prohibition of the employment of methods or means of warfare which are intended or expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and thus endanger the health or chances of survival of the civilian population. In other words, the concern here is for environmental damage which meets all the conditions of a prohibited act. In this case the environment is a “victim” of a given weapon or method (though only if the health or chances of survival of the population are impaired).
During the 1974–1977 Diplomatic Conference which established the Additional Protocols, attention was paid to the large-scale deforestation during the war in Viet Nam (in the 1960s and 70s). However, the prohibition is couched in vaguer terms. Thus the Conference took the adjective “long-term” to mean a few decades. The damage caused to the environment during the 1990–91 Gulf War does not appear to fall within the scope of this definition. With hindsight, the damage caused by burning and leaking oil wells turned out less than expected, although approximately 100 million tonnes of oil leaked into the sea. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0464.
In its chapter on peace operations, the manual states that the use of methods and means which “cause widespread, long-term and serious damage to the natural environment, or are expected to do so,” must be avoided. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1216.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states:
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(1) and 614(1).
[emphasis in original]
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “It is prohibited to use weapons that can … cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 26.e.(2); see also §§ 27.c.(2).(b) and 31.b.(1).(b).
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “It is prohibited to use weapons that can … cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 27(e), p. 236; see also § 31(b)(1)(b), p. 248; § 29(c)(2)(b), pp. 237–238 and § 154(b)(1), p. 338.
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. 
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).
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states in its section on protected places: “Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions takes this [protection] further by forbidding means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause long-term damage to the environment.” 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 51(b).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states:
There is a serious concern today about the protection of the natural environment which is translated in the law of war in the form of three specific prohibitions to use means and methods of warfare which would cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment (Articles 35 and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1976 ENMOD Convention). 
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, §§ 1.3.d.(4) and 4.5.b.(4).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
Current concern over the protection of the natural environment is reflected in the law of war in three specific prohibitions of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment (Articles 35 and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1976 ENMOD Convention). 
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, § 1.3.d.(4); see also §§ 2.3.b.(3), 3.1.d.(7), 4.5.b.(4) and 7.3.b.(2).(c).
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) refers to Article 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I as providing that “the parties shall exercise caution so that widespread, long-term and severe damage [to the natural environment] can be avoided”. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, p. 62.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) prohibits the employment of means of warfare likely to cause “serious and long-term damage to the natural environment”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 17.
The manual further states: “During military operations, care must be taken to protect the environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 25(3).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
14.5 Natural environment
217 Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.
218 Methods and means of warfare that are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the environment are prohibited. 
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, §§ 217–218.
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states that it is prohibited “to use means and methods of warfare which are likely to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 12.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
1.3.1. Prohibitions and limitations on the choice of methods and means of warfare for the belligerents are set forth in order to avoid [the] …infliction of severe and long-term damage to the natural environment related to warfare.
1.3.3. The following means of warfare are prohibited:
- influencing the environment so as to cause long-term severe damage. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.3.1–1.3.3.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states that it is forbidden “to use methods of warfare which are specifically intended to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. This rule does not prohibit the use of nuclear weapons against military objectives.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 4, p. 14, § 5(h).
In a subsequent section, the manual states:
The following are prohibited in international armed conflict:
g. weapons (other than nuclear weapons) intended or which may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 5, p. 20, § 1(g).
[emphasis in original]
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) restates the relevant provision of the 1977 Additional Protocol I: “It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.29; see also § 6.3 (weapons).
United States of America
The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980) states:
Weapons that may be expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment are prohibited. This is a new principle, established by [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. Its exact scope is not yet clear, though the United States does not regard it as applying to nuclear weapons. It is not believed that any presently employed conventional weapon would violate this rule. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 6-2(c).
United States of America
The US Operational Law Handbook (1993) states: “The following measures are expressly prohibited by the law of war and are not excusable on the basis of military necessity: … (i) using weapons which cause … prolonged damage to the natural environment”. 
United States, Operational Law Handbook, JA 422, Center for Law and Military Operations and International Law Division, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781, 1993, p. Q-182, § (i).
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) provides: “It is prohibited to use means and methods of warfare which are designed to or likely to cause massive, long-term and serious damage to the environment.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 97.
Armenia
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), “ecocide”, namely “mass destruction of flora and fauna, pollution of the atmosphere, soils and water resources, as well as other acts having caused an ecological disaster”, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 394.
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with regard to serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.38 War crime excessive incidental death, injury or damage
(2) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator launches an attack; and
(b) the perpetrator knows that the attack will cause:
(i) damage to civilian objects; or
(ii) widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment; and
(c) the perpetrator knows that the damage will be of such an extent as to be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty for a contravention of this subsection: Imprisonment for 20 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.38, pp. 327–328.
Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment … of such an extent as to be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” in international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.38(2).
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that the use of methods and means of warfare which cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116.0.2.
Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999), in a part dealing with “crimes against the peace and the security of mankind and war crimes”, provides for the punishment of “ecocide”, namely “mass destruction of the fauna and flora, pollution of the atmosphere and water resources as well as any other act liable to cause an ecological disaster”. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 131.
The Code also provides for the punishment of “wilfully causing widespread, long-term and serious damage to the natural environment”. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 136(2).
Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :
22. intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(22).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :
12. intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(12).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998), it is a war crime to order or commit “long-lasting and large-scale environmental devastation which may be detrimental to the health or survival of the population”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 154(2).
The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provision. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 433(2).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) contains the following war crimes provision:
Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law in time of war or armed conflict, orders or perpetrates any of the following acts:
c) Long-lasting and large-scale environmental devastation, which may be detrimental to the health or survival of the population.
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years or long-term imprisonment. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 173(2)(c).
Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:
B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
d) launching a deliberate attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(d).
Canada
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
Colombia
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict, uses methods or means of warfare which are intended to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 164.
Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes set out in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), in a part dealing with “war crimes against the civilian population”, provides for the punishment of:
whoever, in violation of the rules of international law in times of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders … long-term and widespread damage to the natural environment which can prejudice the health or survival of the population. Such punishment shall also be imposed on whoever commits [such] acts. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 158(2).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by:
Whoever violates the rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation by ordering [or committing] an attack … which results in extensive and long-lasting damage to the environment and may impair the population’s health. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 158(2).
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).
Estonia
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), “a person who knowingly affects the environment as a method of warfare, if major damage is thereby caused to the environment”, commits a war crime. 
Estonia, Penal Code, 2001, § 104.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 270.- War Crimes against the Civilian Population.
Whoever, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation organizes, orders or engages in, against the civilian population and in violation of the rules of public international law and of international humanitarian conventions:
(n) using any means or method of combat against the natural environment to cause widespread, long term and severe damage and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population …
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to twenty-five years, or, in more serious cases, with life imprisonment or death. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 270.
Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), any war crime provided for by the 1998 ICC Statute which is not explicitly mentioned in the Code, such as “intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” in international armed conflict, is a crime. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 413(d).
Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) provides:
Anyone who, in connection with an international armed conflict, carries out an attack with military means which may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which could be excessive in relation to the overall concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, shall be liable to imprisonment for not less than three years. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 12(3).
Ireland
Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Articles 35(3) and 55(1), is a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Kazakhstan
Under Kazakhstan’s Penal Code (1997), “ecocide”, namely “mass destruction of the fauna or flora, pollution of the atmosphere, agricultural or water resources, as well as other acts which have caused or are capable of causing an ecological catastrophe”, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind. 
Kazakhstan, Penal Code, 1997, Article 161.
Kyrgyzstan
Under Kyrgyzstan’s Criminal Code (1997), “ecocide”, namely “mass destruction of the flora and fauna, poisoning of the atmosphere or water resources, as well as other acts capable of causing an ecological catastrophe”, is punishable by deprivation of liberty. 
Kyrgyzstan, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 374.
Mali
Mali’s Penal Code (2001) punishes as a war crime the “the launching of a deliberate attack knowing that it will cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(4).
Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such an attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” is a crime, when committed in an international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(5)(b).
New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).
Peru
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
Any member of the military or police who in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict carries out an attack knowing that it will cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly disproportionate in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated shall be punished with a penalty of no less than six and no more than 15 years’ of deprivation of liberty. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 101.
This article is no longer in force. Along with certain other articles in this legislation, it was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (en banc decision for case file No. 0012-2006-PI-TC, 8 January 2007) because it does not stipulate a crime committed in the line of duty that would fall under the jurisdiction of a military court pursuant to Article 173 of Peru’s Constitution.
Peru
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010) states:
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not more than six and not less than fifteen years if he or she, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces have assumed control over the internal order, carries out an attack with military means that is disproportionate to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, that is not sufficiently justified and that results in foreseeable extensive, long-term and irreparable damage to the natural environment. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 97.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the following war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts:
[launching] an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 13(3).
Republic of Moldova
Under the Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002), “ecocide”, namely “the deliberate and massive destruction of the fauna and flora, the pollution of the atmosphere or poisoning of water resources, as well as other acts capable of causing an ecological catastrophe”, is punishable by deprivation of liberty. 
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 2002, Article 136.
Russian Federation
Under the Russian Federation’s Criminal Code (1996), “ecocide”, namely “massive destruction of the fauna and flora, contamination of the atmosphere or water resources, as well as other acts capable of causing an ecological catastrophe”, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind. 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Article 358.
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or committing an attack causing “long-term and extensive damage to the environment that may be detrimental to health of persons or survival of the population”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 372(2).
Slovenia
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), “infliction of long-term and large-scale damage to the environment, which may endanger the health or survival of the population” is a war crime. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 374(2).
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts:
intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (b)(iv).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) provides for the punishment of:
anyone who, during armed conflict, uses methods or means of combat, or orders them to be used, which are … conceived to cause, or with good reason are expected to cause, extensive, permanent and severe damage to the natural environment, endangering the health or the survival of the population. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 610.
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:
Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict employs or orders the employment of prohibited means or methods of combat … that are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population … shall be punished with ten to 15 years’ imprisonment, without prejudice to a penalty for the results of such acts. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 610.
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces
[m]ust not use means and methods of warfare prohibited by International Humanitarian Law … that are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, [thus] compromising the health or survival of the population. 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 114.
Tajikistan
Under Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998), “ecocide”, namely “mass extermination of flora or fauna, poisoning the atmosphere or water resources, as well as other acts capable of causing an ecological catastrophe”, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 400.
Ukraine
Under Ukraine’s Criminal Code (2001), “ecocide”, namely “mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning of air or water resources, and any other acts that may cause an ecological disaster”, constitutes a criminal offence. 
Ukraine, Criminal Code, 2001, Article 441.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).
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:
12. Intentionally launching an attack which may be expected to cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.12.
Viet Nam
Under Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1990), “ecocide, destroying the natural environment”, whether committed in time of peace or war, constitutes a crime against humanity. 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1990, Article 278.
Viet Nam
Under Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1999), “acts of ecocide or destroying the natural environment”, whether committed in time of peace or war, constitute crimes against humanity. 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1999, § 342.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, in a part dealing with “war crimes against civilians”, provides for the punishment of:
any person who may order the following in violation of the rules of international law during armed conflict or occupation: … long-term and widespread damage to the natural environment which may harm the health or survival of the population, or any person who may commit [such] acts. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 142(2).
Canada
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Australia
At the CDDH, Australia stated that the adoption of Article 48 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 55) “might well fill a gap in humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts”. 
Australia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/SR.20, 14 February 1975, p. 171, § 2.
Australia
During the negotiations on the 1977 Additional Protocol II at the CDDH, environmental aspects were first addressed at the initiative of Australia, which proposed the addition of an Article 28 bis concerning the protection of the natural environment, stressing that “destruction of the environment should be prohibited not only in international but also in non-international conflicts”. 
Australia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.20, 14 February 1975, p. 176, § 37.
Australia
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Australia stated that “in recent times the issue of the protection of the environment in armed conflict has been a particular international concern” and referred to a number of international treaties including the relevant provisions of the 1976 ENMOD Convention, the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. It stated that these instruments provided “cumulative evidence that weapons having … potentially disastrous effects on the environment, and on civilians and civilian targets, are no longer compatible with the dictates of public conscience reflected in general principles of humanity”. 
Australia, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 30 October 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/22, § 31.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 1992, in identical letters to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN Security Council, Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
In Tuzla, the aggressor has attacked a major chemical facility, which could cause a massive ecological catastrophe encompassing much of southern Europe. Stocks of chlorine there are 128 times larger than they were in Bhopal, India, before the disaster. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Identical letters dated 6 June 1992 to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24081, 10 June 1992, p. 2.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 1993, in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council, Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
On 1 December, at 2115, from the direction of Korenita Strana near the town of Koraj, Serbian forces fired two “Volkov” rockets in the direction of the chemical plant complex [in Tuzla]. One rocket landed within the fenced-in area of the complex. Fortunately, this rocket did not hit the storage tanks holding the chlorine and other chemicals, and a major humanitarian and ecological disaster did not occur … As per the request of the Mayor of Tuzla, we ask that the Security Council send a team of international experts to Tuzla to assess the potential humanitarian and ecological consequences if the chemical plant is hit by artillery. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Letter dated 3 December 1993 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/26870, 13 December 1993, p. 2.
Ecuador
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Ecuador stated:
The effects of the use of nuclear weapons will, in all cases, have devastating effects on the environment. Consequently, it is contrary to the humanitarian conditions that prohibit the destruction of the environment, which is the only guarantee of the survival of the human species, and of the whole chain of life of the planet. 
Ecuador, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 3.
Egypt
At the CDDH, Egypt held the position that “any substantial deterioration of the environment in wartime must be forbidden”. 
Egypt, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. III, CDDH/III/SR.22, 24 February 1975, p. 156.
France
Upon ratification of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, France stated:
The fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on The Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which reproduces the provisions of Article 35, paragraph 3, of Additional Protocol I, applies only to States parties to that Protocol. 
France, Reservations made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 4 March 1988.
France
Upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, France declared:
The risk of damage to the natural environment as a result of the use of methods and means of warfare, as envisaged in article 8, paragraph 2(b)(iv), must be weighed objectively on the basis of the information available at the time of its assessment. 
France, Interpretative declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 9 June 2000, § 7.
France
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, France stated:
The Government of the French Republic considers that the risk of damaging the natural environment which results from the use of certain means or methods of warfare, as derives from the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 35 as well as those of Article 55, shall be examined objectively on the basis of information available at the time of its assessment. 
France, Declarations and reservations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 11 April 2001, § 6.
Germany, Federal Republic of
At the CDDH, the Federal Republic of Germany declared that it joined in the consensus on Article 33 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 35) “with the understanding that … paragraph 3 of this article is an important new contribution to the protection of the natural environment in times of international armed conflict”. 
Germany, Federal Republic of, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 115.
Germany
In 1988, a member of the German Parliament pointed out that the rules in the 1977 Additional Protocols referring to the protection of the environment were indeed new norms. He suggested that this opinion was shared by all parliamentary groups and no protest was raised. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by Member of Parliament, Günter Verheugen, 10 November 1988, Plenarprotokoll 11/106, p. 7344, § (C).
Germany
The memorandum annexed to Germany’s declaration of ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocols referred to the rules on the protection of the environment as “new norms”. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Memorandum annexed to the declaration of ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 14 February 1991, BT-Drucksache 11/6770, p. 112.
Germany
In 1991, the German Minister for Family Affairs and Senior Citizens accused Saddam Hussein of “fighting not according to the methods of international humanitarian law, but … of terrorism”, referring, inter alia, to the “massive destruction of the environment by Iraqi forces”. 
Germany, Statement by the Federal Minister for Family Affairs and Senior Citizens, Hannelore Rönsch, 5 February 1991, Bulletin, No. 18, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 19 February 1991, p. 124.
The German Minister for the Environment accused Saddam Hussein of “brutal terrorism … against the environment”. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by the Federal Minister for the Environment, Protection of Nature and Nuclear Safety, Dr. Klaus Töpfer, 31 January 1991, Plenarprotokoll 12/6, p. 191.
India
In its counter memorial submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, India stated: “The customary as well as conventional law of war prohibits the use of methods and means of warfare that may cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment.” 
India, Counter memorial submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, undated, p. 12, § d (vi).
India
According to the Report on the Practice of India, although Indian military and police regulations do not explicitly refer to the protection of the natural environment in times of internal conflict, the obligation to maintain public order can be interpreted as including the prevention of a serious threat to the natural environment. Furthermore, the report maintains that such an approach would be in line with an extensive interpretation of the right to life and personal freedom under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the relevant jurisprudence of the Indian Supreme Court. 
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Chapter 4.4.
Iraq
In 1991, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General, Iraq affirmed that it was willing “to do everything to protect the environment and natural resources and not to exploit them as a weapon in times of armed conflict” and drew attention to the “appalling environmental damage caused by coalition forces in Kuwait and Iraq”. 
Iraq, Letter dated 12 August 1991 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/46/358-S/22931, 13 August 1991, p. 1.
A similar statement was made in 1991 during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the environmental impact of the Gulf War. 
Iraq, Statement before the Sixth Committee of UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/ 46/SR.20, 22 October 1991, § 42.
Iraq
According to the Report on the Practice of Iraq, “it is not permissible to violate the existing environmental system” and “to use it as a means of oppression”. The report concludes that “the violation of this principle is considered a war crime”. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 4.4.
Ireland
At the CDDH, Ireland referred to the adoption of Article 48 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 55) as an “event in the history of international humanitarian law”. 
Ireland, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.38, 10 April 1975, p. 412, § 52.
Ireland
At the CDDH, Ireland, which was one of the countries that voted in favour of Article 20 of the draft Additional Protocol II, explained that it was “particularly concerned” to retain paragraph 3 of this article “because of the development of methods of warfare capable of causing widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and the danger that such methods may be used by one side even in a non-international armed conflict”. 
Ireland, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 120.
Ireland
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Ireland stated:
In ensuring that care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage and taking account of the 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 thereby prejudicing the health or survival of the population, Ireland declares that nuclear weapons, even if not directly governed by Additional Protocol I, remain subject to existing rules of international law as confirmed in 1996 by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Ireland will interpret and apply this Article in a way which leads to the best possible protection for the civilian population. 
Ireland, Declarations and reservations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 19 May 1999, § 11.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1991, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the exploitation of the environment as a weapon in times of armed conflict, the Islamic Republic of Iran cited
various provisions of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions which related to the protection of the environment and led to the conclusion that that instrument clearly prohibited attacks on the environment and the use of the environment as a tool of warfare. 
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, § 29.
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, with respect to Article 35 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I: “No doubt, this prohibition applies to nuclear weapons for their enormous destructive and long term effect on the environment.” 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, p. 4, § c. on the applicability of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to nuclear weapons; see also Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, undated, p. 2.
Islamic Republic of Iran
According to the Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, following the bombardment of Iranian oil wells in the Gulf during the Iran–Iraq War, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ambassador to Kuwait announced that “Iraq had violated Articles 35 and 37 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 4.4.
Israel
The Report on the Practice of Israel states that the Israel Defense Forces “[do] not utilise or condone the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 4.4.
Italy
At the CDDH, while expressing its readiness to join in a consensus on the adoption of Article 48 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 55), Italy stated that this article “marked a big step forward in the protection of the natural environment in the event of international armed conflict”. 
Italy, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 208, § 20.
Jordan
In 1991, in a note verbale to the 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:
In a world where all humanity is ecologically vulnerable, it has become evident that warfare is no longer a tenable policy option for civilized nations. It is common knowledge that the recent military conflict in the Gulf had an impact of tragic proportions on both the people of the region and the environment. Scientists have calculated that it will take decades to recover from the environmental damage resultant from the confrontation. This emphasizes the urgent necessity to prevent any further exploitation of the environment as a means of indiscriminate destruction. The environment must be taken into consideration from the initial stages of conflict decision-making by both politicians and military decision makers. In our approach to the next millennium, it is evident that closer cooperation between all nations is essential if we are to avoid further environmental destruction and conflict. All should realize that environmental degradation is not limited to the confines of any one nation State. 
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, § 1.
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 1977 Additional Protocol I, the following principles of international law provide additional protection for the environment in times of armed conflict: “a) Article 55 of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] requires States parties to take care in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage”. 
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(a).
Kuwait
In 1991, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General, Kuwait expressed support for Jordan’s request to include 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 because of its “substantial concern and interest in protecting the environment and natural resources, which are the property of the entire mankind, and preventing their use as a weapon of terrorism as we witnessed during the war of Kuwait’s liberation”. 
Kuwait, Letter dated 12 July 1991 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/1035-S/22787, 15 July 1991, p. 1.
Kuwait
In 1998, during a lecture given at the Centre of Near and Middle East Studies of the London School of Oriental and African Studies, the Chairman of the Kuwaiti Public Authority on Environment accused Iraq of having caused “the greatest premeditated environmental catastrophe ever experienced in the history of mankind”. He expressed concern about the adverse effects of “Iraqi crimes against the marine environment in Kuwait”. 
“Kuwait Environmental Disaster Worst Ever Experienced”, Kuwait Times, 21 October 1998.
Lesotho
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Lesotho stated: “Any use of nuclear weapons, even in self-defence, would violate international humanitarian law, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which prohibit as practices of war, … causing long-term or severe damage to the environment”. 
Lesotho, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 2.
Marshall Islands
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the Marshall Islands was of the view that “any use of nuclear weapons violates laws of war including the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the United Nations Charter. Such laws prohibit … the causing of long-term damage to the environment.” 
Marshall Islands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 22 June 1995, p. 4.
Nauru
In its response to submissions of other States to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1995, Nauru stated: “It is also a violation of customary international law … to use weapons that cause severe damage to the environment”. 
Nauru, Written comments on other written statements submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 15 June 1995, Part 1, p. 11.
New Zealand
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, New Zealand stated:
Protection of the global environment is now a major concern of the international community, with widespread support for progressive development of international treaty law in this area. The condemnation of the large-scale environmental damage wreaked upon Kuwait by Iraqi forces during the “Gulf War” in 1991 was in part a reflection of this concern. It would be a matter for consideration by the Court whether the avoidance of widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment during war could yet be regarded as itself a rule of customary law. 
New Zealand, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, § 73.
New Zealand
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, New Zealand invoked a principle of IHL whereby “parties to a conflict must not use methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
New Zealand, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 9 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/28, p. 27.
Portugal
At the CDDH, Portugal, which was one of the countries that voted in favour of Article 20 of the draft Additional Protocol II, explained that it regarded “the article as a fundamental humanitarian provision the adoption of which will not imperil the authority of the State”. 
Portugal, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 123.
Rwanda
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1993, Rwanda stated that a State which uses nuclear weapons endangers human health and the environment and violates its obligations under IHL. 
Rwanda, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 8 December 1993, p. 2.
Samoa
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1994, Samoa stated that it considered that “the use of nuclear weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict would be a violation of international customary law and conventions, including the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions”, adding that “such law and conventions prohibit the use of weapons … which cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment”. 
Samoa, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 16 September 1994, p. 3.
Samoa
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Samoa, while arguing that the question as to whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons was permitted under international law should be answered in the negative, referred to the nuclear tests in the Pacific and to their “significant and long term effects on the health of Pacific people and the environment”, adding that it had “a large stake in safeguarding its environment, and the survival of the planet”. 
Samoa, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 15 June 1995, p. 1.
Saudi Arabia
At the CDDH, Saudi Arabia, which was one of the countries that voted against Article 20 of the draft Additional Protocol II, stated: “Since the legitimate party to an internal conflict is the de jure State … we consider that the article was merely a repetition in contradiction with draft Protocol II.” It also stated: “In Islamic society war’s sole aim is to repel aggressors without exposing … the environment to danger.” 
Saudi Arabia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 123.
Solomon Islands
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Solomon Islands maintained:
The extraordinary power of nuclear weapons and the enormity of their effects on human health and the environment necessarily means that their use violates, directly or indirectly, those rules of the international law of armed conflict which prohibit:
– the use of weapons that render death inevitable;
– the use of weapons which have indiscriminate effects;
– any behaviour which might violate this law.
Additionally, international law now also regulates the methods and means of warfare with the aim of ensuring appropriate protection for the environment. It establishes, in particular, an absolute prohibition on the use of weapons which will cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment”. [Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are quoted.] There can be little doubt that any use of nuclear weapons would cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage” to the environment, engendering a violation of Articles 35(3) and 55 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] and the customary obligation reflected therein. 
Solomon Islands, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, §§ 3.63 and 3.78.
In its oral pleadings, Solomon Islands further invoked “the existence of a customary norm prohibiting significant environmental damage in war”. 
Solomon Islands, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 14 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/32, § 19.
Sweden
At the CDDH, while expressing satisfaction at the adoption of the two 1977 Additional Protocols, Sweden pointed out that “there were now for the first time explicit rules against … environmental warfare”. 
Sweden, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.58, 9 June 1977, p. 307, § 133.
Sweden
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Sweden stated:
In accordance with an established basic principle, expressed, for example, in the Declaration made by the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, there are impediments to the use of weapons which cause extensive, long-term and serious damage to the environment. 
Sweden, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 5; see also Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 20 September 1994, p. 5 (extracts from the Report of the Swedish Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs).
Switzerland
In 1981, Switzerland’s Federal Council qualified Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I as stating a “new prohibition”. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Message concernant les Protocoles additionnels aux Conventions de Genève, 18 February 1981, p. 38, § 211.411.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Environment
Attacks and combat methods that can cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment are expressly prohibited by the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The general principles of Customary international law such as the principles of Distinction and Proportionality ensure protection of the environment. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, p. 20.
Switzerland
In 2012, in a speech on the occasion of Public International Law Day, the head of Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs stated:
Today we have at our disposal a developed body of law whose aim, for above all humanitarian reasons, is to limit the effects of armed conflicts and to protect those who take no part in hostilities. That law, which also protects cultural property and the natural environment, let us not forget it, is international humanitarian law. …
International humanitarian law then seeks to limit the consequences of armed conflicts. … It also prohibits intentionally destroying the natural environment without which a society cannot develop. 
Switzerland, Speech by the head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs on the occasion of the Public International Law Day, 19 October 2012.
Ukraine
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1994, Ukraine stated that it was “deeply convinced that, in view of the health and environmental effects, the use of nuclear weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict would be a breach of its obligation under international law”. 
Ukraine, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 16 May 1994, p. 1.
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:
Articles 35(3) and 55 of Additional Protocol I are broader in scope than the [1976 ENMOD] Convention, in that they are applicable to the incidental effects on the environment of the use of weapons. They were, however, innovative provisions when included in Additional Protocol I, as was made clear in a statement by the Federal Republic of Germany on the adoption of what became Article 35 of the Protocol [see infra]. As new rules, the provisions of Articles 35(3) and 55 are subject to the understanding … that the new provisions created by Additional Protocol I do not apply to the use of nuclear weapons. The view that the environmental provisions of Protocol I are new rules and thus inapplicable to the use of nuclear weapons is confirmed by a number of commentators. 
United Kingdom, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 16 June 1995, § 3.77.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the United Kingdom declared with respect to Articles 35(3) and 55:
The United Kingdom understands both of these provisions to cover the employment of methods and means of warfare and that the risk of environmental damage falling within the scope of these provisions arising from such methods and means of warfare is to be assessed objectively on the basis of the information available at the time. 
United Kingdom, Reservations and declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 28 January 1998, § e.
United States of America
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State stated:
We, however, consider that another principle in article 35, which also appears later in the Protocol, namely that the prohibition of methods or means of warfare intended or expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment, is too broad and ambiguous and is not a part of customary law.
The United States, however, considers the rule on the protection of the environment contained in article 55 of Protocol I as too broad and too ambiguous for effective use in military operations … Means and methods of warfare that have such a severe effect on the natural environment so as to endanger the civilian population may be inconsistent with the other general principles, such as the rule of proportionality. 
United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, pp. 424 and 436.
United States of America
In 1991, in response to an ICRC memorandum on the applicability of IHL in the Gulf region, the US Department of the Army stated: “U.S. practice does not involve methods of warfare that would constitute widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment.” 
United States, Letter from the Department of the Army to the legal adviser of the US Army forces deployed in the Gulf region, 11 January 1991, § 8(P), Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 4.4.
United States of America
In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United States stated:
In a development with potential devastating consequences for the environment of the Gulf, we would like to report that a vast oil slick occurred in the northern Gulf this week. Iraqi occupation forces created this slick by opening the Sea Island terminal pipelines and an oiling buoy on approximately 19 January, allowing oil to flow directly into the northern Gulf. We have evidence that Iraqi forces simultaneously emptied five oil tankers moored at piers at the Mina al-Ahmadi oil field. As of 28 January the resulting oil slick was at least 35 miles long and 10 miles wide. This is the largest oil slick in history.
On 26 January after full consultation with oil and environmental experts and the Governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, United States aircraft destroyed two manifold areas used for pumping oil along pipelines. We believe this action has halted the discharge of oil into the Gulf. At the request of the Government of Saudi Arabia, the United States dispatched expert personnel and specific equipment to help contain the slick and minimize its environmental impact. Several other countries have also sent teams to provide assistance. 
United States, Letter dated 30 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22173, 30 January 1991, pp. 2–3.
United States of America
In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United States stated: “Iraqi authorities have deliberately caused serious damage to the natural environment of the region.” 
United States, Letter dated 13 February 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22216, 13 February 1991, p. 2.
United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of hostilities in the Gulf War, the US Department of Defence declared, with particular reference to the applicability of Articles 35 and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
Even had Protocol I been in force, there were questions as to whether the Iraqi actions would have violated its environmental provisions. During that treaty’s negotiation, there was general agreement that one of its criteria for determining whether a violation had taken place (“long term”) was measured in decades. It is not clear the damage Iraq caused, while severe in a layman’s sense of the term, would meet the technical-legal use of that term in Protocol I. The prohibitions on damage to the environment contained in Protocol I were not intended to prohibit battlefield damage caused by conventional operations and, in all likelihood, would not apply to Iraq’s actions in the Persian Gulf War. 
United States, Department of Defence, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, pp. 636–637.
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 1977 Additional Protocol I, the following principles of international law provide additional protection for the environment in times of armed conflict: “a) Article 55 of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] requires States parties to take care in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage.” 
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(a).
United States of America
In 1994, in a memorandum on a depleted uranium tank round, the US Department of the Army stated that Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I “do not codify customary international law, but nonetheless are obligations the United States has respected in its conduct of military operations since promulgation of the 1977 Additional Protocol I”. 
United States, Department of the Army, Memorandum on M829A2 Cartridge, 120mm, APFSDS-T, 27 December 1994, p. 5.
United States of America
Upon ratification of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the United States stated:
The United States considers that the fourth paragraph of the preamble to the Convention, which refers to the substance of provisions of article 35(3) and article 55(1) of additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949, applies only to States which have accepted those provisions. 
United States, Statements of understanding made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 24 March 1995.
United States of America
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United States stated, with respect to the prohibition on the use of “methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment” as embodied in Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I: “This is one of the new rules established by [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] that … do not apply to nuclear weapons.” 
United States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, pp. 29–30, § 8; see also Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 10 June 1994, pp. 30–31, § 8.
United States of America
In November 2006, the US Departments of State and Defense released the details of a joint letter forwarded by those departments to the ICRC President regarding US Initial Reactions to the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law. This letter stated, in part:
Protection of the environment during armed conflict obviously is desirable as a matter of policy, for reasons that include issues of civilian health, economic welfare, and ecology. The following discussion should not be interpreted as opposing general consideration, when appropriate and as a matter of policy, of the possible environmental implications of an attack. Additionally, it is clear under the principle of discrimination that parts of the natural environment cannot be made the object of attack unless they constitute military objectives, as traditionally defined, and that parts of the natural environment may not be destroyed unless required by military necessity.
Nevertheless, the Study fails to demonstrate that rule 45, as stated, constitutes customary international law in international or non-international armed conflicts, either with regard to conventional weapons or nuclear weapons. First, the Study fails to assess accurately the practice of specially affected States, which clearly have expressed their view that any obligations akin to those contained in rule 45 flow from treaty commitments, not from customary international law … Second, the Study misconstrues or overstates some of the State practice it cites. Third, the Study examines only limited operational practice in this area and draws flawed conclusions from it.
Summary. States have many reasons to condemn environmental destruction, and many reasons to take environmental considerations into account when determining which military objectives to pursue. For the reasons stated, however, the Study has offered insufficient support for the conclusion that rule 45 is a rule of customary international law with regard to conventional or nuclear weapons, in either international or non-international armed conflict. 
United States, Joint letter to the ICRC President, Dr Jakob Kellenberger, from US Department of State Legal Adviser, John B. Bellinger, and US Department of Defense General Counsel, William J. Haynes, on US Initial Reactions to the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, 3 November 2006.
United States of America
In 2008, the US Senate approved the ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, subject to certain understandings and a declaration:
Section 1. Senate Advice and Consent Subject to Understandings and a Declaration.
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, concluded on May 14, 1954 (Treaty Doc. 106–1(A)), subject to the understandings of section 2 and the declaration of section 3.
Section 2. Understandings.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following understandings, which shall be included in the instrument of ratification:
(3) It is the understanding of the United States of America that the rules established by the Convention apply only to conventional weapons, and are without prejudice to the rules of international law governing other types of weapons, including nuclear weapons.
Section 3. Declaration.
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject to the following declaration:
With the exception of the provisions that obligate the United States to impose sanctions on persons who commit or order to be committed a breach of the Convention, this Convention is self-executing. This Convention does not confer private rights enforceable in United States courts. 
United States, Advice and Consent to Ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, 2008, Sections 1–3.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
At the CDDH, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated: “Biological and ecological warfare, as developed more particularly in Vietnam, should be placed under the ban of the new body of international humanitarian law.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. V, CDDH/SR.11, 5 March 1975, p. 105, § 22.
This view was supported by Hungary and North Vietnam. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.16, 10 February 1975, p. 139, § 55 (Hungary); Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.17, 11 February 1975, p. 143, § 10 (North Vietnam).
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
In 1999, following the NATO bombing of the petrochemical complex in Pancevo in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Yugoslav Federal Minister for Development, Science and Environment warned “the European and the world-wide public of the danger which will, with repeated attacks on such industrial complexes, affect lives and health of people and cause environment pollution”. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Appeal by the Federal Minister for Development, Science and Environment to Ministers for Environment Protection, 17 April 1999.
On the occasion of World Day of the Planet Earth, on 22 April 1999, the Yugoslav Federal Minister for Development, Science and Environment launched an appeal to stop NATO’s bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which he stated had already provoked an “environmental catastrophe”. In particular, the Minister referred to attacks by NATO forces on national parks and nature reserves harbouring protected species of flora and fauna, as well as on chemical, oil and pharmaceutical plants. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Federal Ministry for Development, Science and the Environment, Appeal for stopping NATO aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 22 April 1999.
Another appeal by the Ministry dated 30 April 1999 aimed at informing the international community of the effects on the environment of NATO’s military operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, accused NATO forces of bombing civilian industrial facilities, including the petrochemical complex in Pancevo and the refinery in Novi Sad, thereby causing the spillage of harmful chemical substances which posed a “serious threat to human health in general and to ecological systems locally and in the broader Balkan and European regions”. According to the Ministry, “the nineteen countries of NATO are committing an ‘ecocide’ as it were against the population and environment of Yugoslavia”. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Appeal by the Federal Ministry for Development, Science and the Environment, Information about the Effects of the NATO Aggression on the Environment in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 30 April 1999.
The accusations were reiterated in a subsequent appeal dated 25 May 1999, which provided information on the actual and potential environmental impacts of NATO’s attacks on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Appeal by the Federal Ministry for Development, Science and the Environment, Preliminary Information on Actual and Potential Environmental Impacts of the NATO Aggression in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 25 May 1999.
In a further appeal to the international community issued on 3 June 1999, the Yugoslav Federal Minister for Development, Science and Environment denounced daily attacks on chemical and electrical power plants by NATO forces, which he said had resulted in the emission of large quantities of dangerous substances “with negative consequences for people, plants and animals”. The Minister maintained that “the NATO aggression on Yugoslavia contains essential elements of ecocide”, adding that “man’s right to safe and healthy environment is endangered by the NATO aggression”. He also referred to the violation by NATO of “humanitarian law provisions, especially the Geneva Conventions with the related Protocols”, as well as of “international agreement provisions in the field of environment” and “the basic proclaimed principles of environmental protection”. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Appeal by Minister of the Federal Government, 3 June 1999.
In a letter to the UNEP Executive Director, the Minister for Development, Science and Environment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stressed “the environmental consequences inflicted by the NATO aggression on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. After accusing NATO of targeting on a daily basis “national parks, nature reservations, monuments of cultural and natural heritage, rare and protected plants and animal species, among which are those of international importance”, the Minister stated that “NATO by its aggression is causing ecocide in the environment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and wider, in the whole Balkans and considerable part of Europe. The real ecological catastrophe is going on in the heart of Europe with unforeseeable time and space range.” 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Letter from the Federal Ministry for Development, Science and Environment to the UNEP Executive Director, undated.
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
In the Legality of Use of Force cases in 1999, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia initiated proceedings before the ICJ against ten NATO member States (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom and United States) on the ground, inter alia, that:
- by taking part in the bombing of oil refineries and chemical plants, [the respective States had] acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of [their] obligation not to cause considerable environmental damage.
- by taking part in the use of weapons containing depleted uranium, [the respective States had] acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of [their] obligation not to use prohibited weapons and not to cause far-reaching health and environmental damage. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Applications instituting proceedings submitted to the ICJ, Legality of Use of Force cases (Yugoslavia v. Belgium; Yugoslavia v. Canada; Yugoslavia v. France; Yugoslavia v. Germany; Yugoslavia v. Italy; Yugoslavia v. Netherlands; Yugoslavia v. Portugal; Yugoslavia v. Spain; Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom; Yugoslavia v. United States of America), 29 April 1999.
Zimbabwe
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Zimbabwe stated that it fully shared the analysis by other States that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons violates the principles of humanitarian law prohibiting the use of weapons or methods of warfare that … cause long term and severe damage to the environment”. 
Zimbabwe, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 15 November 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/35, p. 27.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the United Nations Decade of International Law, the UN General Assembly, referring to the 1994 Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict:
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.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1991, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly condemned “the disgraceful attack on the environment represented by Iraq’s fouling of the Gulf with oil, with catastrophic effects which can be considered a crime against humanity”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 954, 29 January 1991, § 6.
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. It argued that, since it was “highly predictable” that NATO’s military action “would have grave environmental consequences”, and such consequences had been “fairly evident right from the start of the air strikes”, “the militarily inflicted environmental damage can be presumed to have been deliberate”. 
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, § 60.
The Committee therefore concluded that:
The military operations violated the environmental-protection rule laid down in the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention[s]. In particular, bombing environmentally hazardous installations is a flagrant breach of that protocol. 
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, § 61.
Following this report, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly adopted a recommendation, in which it noted with concern “the serious environmental impact of military operations over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia between 25 March and 5 June 1999”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 1495, 24 January 2001, § 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly stated:
As was the case for operations in Bosnia and Chechnya, states involved in these operations disregarded the international rules set out in Articles 55 and 56 of Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 intended to limit environmental damage in armed conflict. In the Assembly’s view, these rules should be strengthened and enforced in order to prevent or at least lessen such violations of fundamental human rights in any future conflict. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 1495, 24 January 2001, § 2.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
In a declaration adopted in 1991 on the environmental situation in the Gulf, the OECD Ministers of the Environment condemned Iraq’s burning of oil fields and discharging of oil into the Gulf as a violation of international law and a crime against the environment, and urged Iraq to cease to resort to environmental destruction as a weapon. 
OECD, Communiqué SG/Press (91), Déclaration des Ministres de l’Environnement sur la situation écologique dans le Golfe, 30 January 1991, quoted in Paul Fauteux, “L’utilisation de l’environnement comme instrument de guerre au Koweït occupé”, in Brigitte Stern (ed.), Les aspects juridiques de la crise et de la guerre du Golfe, Montchrestien, Paris, 1991, p. 234.
Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law
At the CDDH, the concluding report of the Working Group which drafted Articles 33(3) and 48 bis of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Articles 35(3) and 55 respectively) stated that it was “the first occasion on which an attempt has been made to provide in express terms for the protection of the environment in time of war”. It stated that, therefore, “it is not surprising that the question should have given a great deal of difficulty to the Working Group”. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/275, Report to Committee III on the work of the Working Group submitted by the Rapporteur, Geneva, 3 February–18 April 1975, p. 358.
CSCE Committee of Senior Officials
In a decision adopted in 1992, the CSCE Committee of Senior Officials drew attention to the human and environmental catastrophe which could result from continued shelling of the city of Tuzla, which was home to one of the largest chemical complexes in the Balkans. This plant contained large and potentially hazardous chemicals. Fire or explosion could result in a serious threat to the human health and to the environment. 
CSCE, Committee of Senior Officials, 12th Session, Prague, 8–10 June 1992, Decision, annexed to Letter dated 11 June 1992 from Czechoslovakia to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/47/269-S/24093, 12 June 1992, § 6.
International Court of Justice
In his dissenting opinion in the Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation) in 1995, Judge Koroma stated: “Under contemporary international law, there is probably a duty not to cause gross or serious damage which can reasonably be avoided, together with a duty not to permit the escape of dangerous substances.” 
ICJ, Nuclear Tests case (Request for an Examination of the Situation), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma, 22 September 1995, p. 378.
International Court of Justice
In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1996, the ICJ held that Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I
provide additional protection for the environment. Taken together these provisions embody a general obligation to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe environmental damage; the prohibition of methods and means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause such damage; … These are powerful constraints for all the States having subscribed to these provisions. 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, § 31.
International Court of Justice
In the Legality of Use of Force cases in 1999, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia initiated proceedings before the ICJ against ten NATO member States (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom and United States) on the grounds, inter alia, that:
- by taking part in the bombing of oil refineries and chemical plants, [the respective States had] acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of [their] obligation not to cause considerable environmental damage.
- by taking part in the use of weapons containing depleted uranium, [the respective States had] acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of [their] obligation not to use prohibited weapons and not to cause far-reaching health and environmental damage. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Applications instituting proceedings submitted to the ICJ, Legality of Use of Force cases (Yugoslavia v. Belgium; Yugoslavia v. Canada; Yugoslavia v. France; Yugoslavia v. Germany; Yugoslavia v. Italy; Yugoslavia v. Netherlands; Yugoslavia v. Portugal; Yugoslavia v. Spain; Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom; Yugoslavia v. United States of America), 29 April 1999.
After the ICJ had found in 1999 that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction in the cases against Spain and the United States and had ordered the removal of these cases from the ICJ’s general list, 
ICJ, Legality of Use of Force cases (Yugoslavia v. Spain; Yugoslavia v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Orders, 2 June 1999, ICJ Reports 1999, pp. 761 and 916.
it further found, in its 2004 Judgments on the Preliminary Objections, that it lacked jurisdiction also with regard to the remaining eight cases. 
ICJ, Legality of Use of Force cases (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium; Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada; Serbia and Montenegro v. France; Serbia and Montenegro v. Germany; Serbia and Montenegro v. Italy; Serbia and Montenegro v. Netherlands; Serbia and Montenegro v. Portugal; Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgments, 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, pp. 279, 429, 575, 720, 865, 1011, 1160 and 1307.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its Final Report to the ICTY Prosecutor in 2000, the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated:
14. The NATO bombing campaign did cause some damage to the environment. For instance, attacks on industrial facilities such as chemical plants and oil installations were reported to have caused the release of pollutants, although the exact extent of this is presently unknown. The basic legal provisions applicable to the protection of the environment in armed conflict are [Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I].
15. Neither the USA nor France has ratified Additional Protocol I. Article 55 may, nevertheless, reflect current customary law (see however the 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, where the International Court of Justice appeared to suggest that it does not (ICJ Rep. (1996), 242, para. 31)). In any case, Articles 35(3) and 55 have a very high threshold of application. Their conditions for application are extremely stringent and their scope and contents imprecise. For instance, it is generally assumed that Articles 35(3) and 55 only cover very significant damage. The adjectives “widespread, long-term, and severe” used in [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] are joined by the word “and”, meaning that it is a triple, cumulative standard that needs to be fulfilled. Consequently, it would appear extremely difficult to develop a prima facie case upon the basis of these provisions, even assuming they were applicable. For instance, it is thought that the notion of “long-term” damage in [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] would need to be measured in years rather than months, and that as such, ordinary battlefield damage of the kind caused to France in World War I would not be covered. The great difficulty of assessing whether environmental damage exceeded the threshold of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] has also led to criticism by ecologists. This may partly explain the disagreement as to whether any of the damage caused by the oil spills and fires in the 1990/91 Gulf War technically crossed the threshold of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 14 June 2000, §§ 14–15.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “It is prohibited to use weapons of a nature to cause … b) widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 394.
ICRC
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC invited States not party to the 1977 Additional Protocol I to respect, in the event of armed conflict, Article 55 of the Protocol because its content stemmed “from the basic principle of civilian immunity from attack”. 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 14 December 1990, § II, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 25.
ICRC
In 1993, in a report submitted to the UN Secretary-General on the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict, the ICRC stated regarding the threshold set by Articles 35(3) and 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
The question as to what constitutes “wide-spread, long-term and severe” damage and what is acceptable damage to the environment is open to interpretation. There are substantial grounds, including from the travaux préparatoires of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], for interpreting “long-term” to refer to decades rather than months. On the other hand, it is not easy to know in advance exactly what the scope and duration of some environmentally damaging acts will be; and there is a need to limit as far as possible environmental damage even in cases where it is not certain to meet a strict interpretation of the criteria of “widespread, long-term and severe”. 
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, § 34.
ICRC
In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC, emphasizing the customary law nature of the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, considered that “wilfully causing widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment” in international or non-international armed conflicts was a war crime to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 14 February 1997, §§ 2(ii) and 3(viii).
International Institute of Humanitarian Law
During a meeting of the Institute of International Humanitarian Law held in 1993 as part of the process which resulted in the drafting of the 1994 San Remo Manual, a special rapporteur on the protection of the environment in armed conflict emphasized that “the experience of the Gulf War (1991) showed very clearly that there was at least an emerging rule forbidding the use of the marine environment as an instrument of warfare”. 
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, p. 119, Explanation, § 44.4.
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:
(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).
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 Konflikten – Handbuch, 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).