Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are the Targets of Aerial Spraying Operations in Colombia Lawful Under International Humanitarian Law?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Volume 20, 2017

Part of the book series: Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law ((YIHL,volume 20))

Abstract

Since the beginning of the program of aerial spraying of illicit crops with a glyphosate-based chemical mixture in Colombia, local farmers and peasants have claimed that it affects their health, environment, and economy. As a result, the legality of this program has been analyzed from an International Human Rights Law (IHRL) perspective. Nevertheless, when it takes place in situations of armed conflict, it is also regulated by International Humanitarian Law (IHL). After finding that some aerial spraying operations conducted in Colombia amount to “attacks” under IHL, the chapter looks into the alleged protected status of both illicit crops and the farmers who grow them for organized armed groups fighting the Colombian government. The chapter concludes that, unless they lose their protected status, they are unlawful targets for the Colombian government. As a consequence, and without prejudice to the findings of a legality analysis of the aerial spraying program in Colombia from an IHRL perspective, if the Colombian government decides to restart the program, it will have to design its aerial spraying operations so as to make sure that they do not amount to attacks under IHL.

This article is part of the Research Project El terrorismo en la actualidad: un nuevo enfoque político-criminal, DER2015-64983-R, which is funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competition. IP: Ana Isabel Pérez Cepeda. It is also part of the Research Project on “Principios de armonización entre la función y alcance de la Justicia Internacional y las demandas surgidas en los procesos políticos de transición”, which is funded by Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia. IP: Héctor Olasolo. The authors are grateful to Mr. Carlos Fonseca Sanchez for his excellent contribution during the research of this article.

Héctor Olasolo, Law Degree, University of Salamanca; LL.M. in Law, Columbia University; Ph.D. in Law, University of Salamanca. Prof. Olasolo holds the Chair in International Law at Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia, and is chairman of the Ibero-American Institute of The Hague for Peace, Human Rights and International Justice (The Netherlands). He is also director of the Anuario Iberoamericano de Derecho Internacional Penal / Ibero-American Yearbook of International Law (ANIDIP). Prof. Olasolo previously held the Chair in International Criminal Law at the University of Utrecht (2010–2012) and served as Legal Officer in Chambers of the International Criminal Court (2004–2009) and the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (2002–2004). He was Legal Adviser to the Spanish Delegation to the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999–2002) and expert witness before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Felipe Tenorio-Obando, Law Degree, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia; LL.M. in International Criminal Law, Granada University (Spain); LL.M in Legal Theory, Goethe-Universität of Frankfurt. Mr. Tenorio-Obando is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Goethe-Universität of Frankfurt as a DAAD scholarship holder. Mr. Tenorio-Obando has also served as legal adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Colombia (2016–2017).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Glyphosate has been described as “[…] a weak organic acid consisting of a glycine and a phosphonomethyl moiety. The empirical formula is C3H8NO5P. Glyphosate is usually formulated as a salt of the deprotonated acid of glyphosate and a cation, e.g., isopropylamine or trimethylsulfonium. The purity of technical grade glyphosate is generally above 90%. Technical grade glyphosate is an odourless white crystalline powder with a specific gravity of 1.704, a very low vapour pressure, and a high solubility in water. The octanol-water partition coefficient (log Kow) is −2.8. Glyphosate is amphoteric and may exist as different ionic species, dependent on the actual pH”. See World Health Organization 1994.

  2. 2.

    Aerial spraying of illegal crops with herbicides is not a new issue. Such practices have been conducted since Richard Nixon’s famous declaration of the war on drugs on 18 June 1971. The first aerial spraying of illicit crops in the Americas took place in Mexico, where approximately 936 poppy fields and 4500 marijuana fields were fumigated between 1971 and 1972. In 1978, aerial spraying of illicit crops took place in the area of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. At that time, the herbicide paraquat was used. Del Olmo 1990, p 26; Colombian Ombudsman 2002.

  3. 3.

    Colombian Drugs Observatory (2015) Paso histórico hacia una nueva política de drogas: se suspende la aspersión con glisofato [Historic step towards a new drug policy: aerial spraying operations with glyphosate are suspended]. http://www.odc.gov.co/INICIO/Noticias/ArtMID/2976/ArticleID/1167/Paso-hist243rico-hacia-una-nueva-pol237tica-de-drogas-se-suspende-la-aspersi243n-con-glifosato. Accessed 25 February 2018.

  4. 4.

    RCN Radio (2016) ¿Se volverá a fumigar con glisofato? [Will aerial spraying operations with glyphosate be resumed?] http://www.rcnradio.com/nacional/se-volvera-a-fumigar-con-glifosato/. Accessed 25 February 2018.

  5. 5.

    UN Office on Drugs and Crime 2017.

  6. 6.

    United States Executive Office of National Drug Control Policy 2017.

  7. 7.

    United States Secretary of State 2017. See also Isacson A (2017) Colombia and Drugs: Rex Tillerson’s “Coca Confusion”. The Crime Report: Criminal Justice Network. https://thecrimereport.org/2017/06/27/colombia-and-drugs-washingtons-coca-confusion/. Accessed 5 May 2018.

  8. 8.

    Pauker 2003, p 661.

  9. 9.

    Rutledge 2011, p 1079.

  10. 10.

    Wilhite 2006, p 42.

  11. 11.

    Esposito 2010, p 2.

  12. 12.

    United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 2003. See also Pauker 2003, pp 669–671.

  13. 13.

    Knudsen 2012–2013, p 55.

  14. 14.

    Landel 2010, pp 491–513.

  15. 15.

    El Espectador (2011) Santos reconoce el conflicto armado y Uribe lo controvierte [Santos recognizes the armed conflict and Uribe disputes it]. http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/santos-reconoce-conflicto-armado-y-uribe-controvierte-articulo-267421. Accessed 25 February 2018; see also Semana (2011) ¿Qué significa el reconocimiento del conflicto por parte del gobierno? [What does the recognition of the conflict by the government mean?] http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/que-significa-reconocimiento-del-conflicto-armado-parte-del-gobierno/239313-3. Accessed 25 February 2018.

  16. 16.

    Colombian Government and FARC 2016.

  17. 17.

    Washington Office on Latin America 2008, p 4; International Crisis Group 2005, pp 9, 12.

  18. 18.

    Knudsen 2012–2013, p 55; Landel 2010, pp 491–513.

  19. 19.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep 131 (Palestinian Wall case), paras 106–113; ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory opinion, 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep 131 (Nuclear Weapons case), para 25; Doswald-Beck and Vité 1993, p 94; Vinuesa 1998, pp 69–110.

  20. 20.

    Jinks 2014, pp 662–674.

  21. 21.

    Doswald-Beck and Vité 1993, p 94; Vinuesa 1998, pp 69–110.

  22. 22.

    The application of ICL may take place through international criminal tribunals (direct enforcement mechanism) or national courts (indirect enforcement mechanism). See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002), Article 8; UN Security Council (1993) Resolution 827 (1993): Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. S/RES/827 (ICTY Statute), Articles 2, 3; UN Security Council (1994) Resolution 955 (1994): Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, UN Doc. S/Res/955 (ICTR Statute), Article 4.

  23. 23.

    Knudsen 2012–2013, pp 55 et seq.

  24. 24.

    Landel 2010, pp 500–501.

  25. 25.

    International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization 2015.

  26. 26.

    Colombian Constitutional Court, Auto 073, 27 March 2014, A-073-18 (A-073-18 case), para 118; Judgment T-080/17, 7 February 2017 (T-080/17 case), paras 7.14–7.15; Judgment T-736/17, 21 April 2017 (T-736/17 case), paras 4.7, 5.4.

  27. 27.

    Colombian State Council, Judgment, 13 December 13, 2013, Process Number: 11001 0324 000 2004 00227 01 (Glyphosate case), pp 41, 42, 50.

  28. 28.

    Committee of Experts on Herbicides of the Colombian National Health Institute 1986.

  29. 29.

    Colombian Ombudsman 2002, p 9.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., p 11. See also Youngers and Rosin 2004, p 118.

  31. 31.

    Colombian Ombudsman 2002, p 11; see also Zarate-Laun 2001.

  32. 32.

    Colombian Ombudsman 2002, p 11.

  33. 33.

    Ibid.

  34. 34.

    Ibid.

  35. 35.

    United States Congress 2002.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 2003, pp 173–174.

  38. 38.

    Among the thousands of complaints filed between 2003 and 2004, only one had been accepted by the Colombian authorities.

  39. 39.

    United States Senate Committee on Appropriations 2003, pp 173–174.

  40. 40.

    Pauker 2003, pp 669–671.

  41. 41.

    Glyphosate case, above n 27, pp 41–42, 50. The Colombian State Council came to this conclusion after finding that the views given by the Colombian Agricultural Institute and the Colombian Ministry of Social Protection were notably at odds with the views of the Colombian Ombudsman and the Special Administrative Unit for the National Parks System. For the former, the effects of glyphosate on wildlife were either unknown or slightly toxic at best. For the latter, several studies had showed that the use of glyphosate significantly disrupted both the environment and human health, putting at risk special protection areas, such as national parks, and the welfare of the nearby populations. Furthermore, in deciding whether there was a less restrictive measure than aerial spraying with glyphosate to achieve similar effects (e.g., manual eradication of illicit crops), the Colombian State Council acknowledged that there was not yet sufficient objective evidence to enable a comparison between the consequences in the application of both types of measures.

  42. 42.

    A-073-18 case, above n 26, p 118.

  43. 43.

    International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization 2015.

  44. 44.

    Colombian Drugs Observatory (2015) Paso histórico hacia una nueva política de drogas: se suspende la aspersión con glisofato [Historic step towards a new drug policy: aerial spraying operations with glyphosate are suspended]. http://www.odc.gov.co/INICIO/Noticias/ArtMID/2976/ArticleID/1167/Paso-hist243rico-hacia-una-nueva-pol237tica-de-drogas-se-suspende-la-aspersi243n-con-glifosato. Accessed 25 February 2018.

  45. 45.

    El Espectador (2015) El fin de las fumigaciones con glisofato [The end of aerial spraying operations with glyphosate]. http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/el-fin-de-fumigaciones-glifosato-articulo-590103. Accessed 25 February 2018.

  46. 46.

    United States Secretary of State 2017; see also Isacson A (2017) Colombia and Drugs: Rex Tillerson’s “Coca Confusion”. The Crime Report: Criminal Justice Network. https://thecrimereport.org/2017/06/27/colombia-and-drugs-washingtons-coca-confusion/. Accessed 5 May 2018.

  47. 47.

    T-080/17 case, above n 26, paras 7.14, 7.15.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., paras 4.7, 5.4.

  49. 49.

    Knudsen 2012–2013, pp 55 et seq.

  50. 50.

    Landel 2010, pp 491 et seq.

  51. 51.

    Washington Office on Latin America 2008, pp 9, 12.

  52. 52.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, pp 5–8.

  53. 53.

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 12 December 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1979) (AP I), Article 49(1).

  54. 54.

    Sandoz et al. 1987, p 603.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Ibid. See also Melzer 2008a, p 270.

  57. 57.

    Melzer 2008a, p 270.

  58. 58.

    Schmitt 2012, p 290.

  59. 59.

    Schmitt 2013, p 108.

  60. 60.

    Schmitt 2012, p 290.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    Schmitt 2013, p 106.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    Melzer 2008a, p 270.

  66. 66.

    Schmitt 2013, p 107.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., p 108.

  68. 68.

    Ibid.

  69. 69.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, pp 23–25.

  70. 70.

    Moreno 2015, pp 18–21.

  71. 71.

    United States Government Accountability Office 2008, pp 24–26.

  72. 72.

    Melzer 2008a, p 270.

  73. 73.

    Schmitt 2012, p 290.

  74. 74.

    Schmitt 2013, p 106.

  75. 75.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, p 30; see also Schmitt 2013, p 125.

  76. 76.

    International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century 2017, p 329.

  77. 77.

    Sandoz et al. 1987, p 636; Olasolo 2008, p. 121; Rogers 2004, p 64; Gasser 1989, p 87.

  78. 78.

    Kalshoven 1971, pp 110–112; Barras and Erman 1982, p 271.

  79. 79.

    Sandoz et al. 1987, p 636: A very important part of those infrastructures normally used for civilian purposes can also be used for military purposes during armed conflicts. Refurbished schools, hotels and churches can be used to provide accommodation for troops, store military equipment or host command posts. Industrial and power plants can also be used for military purposes. See also Kalshoven 1971, pp 110–112; International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century 2017, pp 335–338.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., p 333. See also Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, Rule 15.

  81. 81.

    International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century 2017, p 340.

  82. 82.

    Dinstein 2016, pp 96–96.

  83. 83.

    Schmitt 2015, p 297.

  84. 84.

    United States Department of the Navy 2017, para 8.2. See also Goodman 2016.

  85. 85.

    International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century 2017, p 341.

  86. 86.

    Ibid.

  87. 87.

    Schmitt 2013, pp 130–131.

  88. 88.

    Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University 2009. See also Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University 2010, p 110.

  89. 89.

    Doswald-Beck 1995, para 60.27.

  90. 90.

    International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century 2017, p 328.

  91. 91.

    Sandoz et al. 1987, p 685.

  92. 92.

    International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century 2017, p 343.

  93. 93.

    Solf 2013, p 367.

  94. 94.

    Sandoz et al. 1987, p 685; International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century 2017, p 343.

  95. 95.

    Schmitt 2015, pp 253–354.

  96. 96.

    Dinstein 2016, p 93.

  97. 97.

    International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century 2017, p 327.

  98. 98.

    Dinstein 2016, p 91.

  99. 99.

    Boivin 2006, pp 15–16.

  100. 100.

    Geiß and Lahmann 2012, p 388.

  101. 101.

    Oeter 2013, p 169.

  102. 102.

    Parks 1990, pp 135–145.

  103. 103.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, p 30.

  104. 104.

    Landel 2010, pp 509–510.

  105. 105.

    Sandoz et al. 1987, p 636.

  106. 106.

    Melzer 2008b, p 1004.

  107. 107.

    Williamson 2010, p 464.

  108. 108.

    Melzer 2008b, p 1007.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., p 1006.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., p 1008.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., p 1021.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., pp 1008, 1021, 1022.

  113. 113.

    Landel 2010, p 506.

  114. 114.

    Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, pp 19–24. See also Boothby 2010, 162; Melzer 2012, 890.

  115. 115.

    On the involvement of civilians in the armed conflicts of the XXI century, see Schmitt 2010, p 5; see also Williamson 2010, pp 464 et seq.

  116. 116.

    Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950), Article 3(1).

  117. 117.

    Article 51 (3) of AP I, above n 53, establishes: “Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.” In turn, Article 13 (3) of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP II) states: “Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.”.

  118. 118.

    Melzer 2008b, p 1012: Although a notion of direct participation in hostilities could have been provided by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Strugar case, it did not do so. See ICTY, Prosecutor v Pavle Strugar, Appeals Judgement, 17 July 2008, Case No. IT-01-42-A, paras 173–175.

  119. 119.

    See the report on the practice in Military Manuals of Ecuador (section 822), the United States (section 830) and the Philippines (section 849) referred to by Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, p 22.

  120. 120.

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1999, chapter IV para 53.

  121. 121.

    Ibid., para 56.

  122. 122.

    Schmitt 2004, pp 519–520.

  123. 123.

    This is the case for missile operators, who may be miles away from military targets, but whose activity is crucial for the implementation of the operation. See McDonald 2004.

  124. 124.

    Williamson 2010, p 463.

  125. 125.

    Such damage may consist of military personnel’s death or injury, the destruction of military infrastructures or the killing, injury or destruction of protected persons or objects. Direct participation in hostilities requires the objective probability that the protected person’s conduct may cause any of these types of damage. Consequently, what must be analyzed is the damage that, under the existing circumstances, can reasonably be expected to be caused by the protected person’s conduct. See Melzer 2008b, pp 1016–1018.

  126. 126.

    According to the ICRC, it is necessary to take into account three factors to determine whether the relationship between the cause (act) and the effect (damage) is sufficiently direct: (i) the existence of a single causal sequence; (ii) the integrity of the military operation as a whole; and (iii) the spatial and temporal proximity, or remoteness, of the act to the area of hostilities. See Melzer 2008b, pp 1019–1020.

  127. 127.

    Those acts which do not aim at harming one party to the conflict and benefiting another do not have the required belligerent nexus. According to the ICRC, this is the situation when: (i) acting in self-defense; (ii) exercising power or authority over persons or property located in a territory; (iii) carrying out civil protest riots; or (iv) resorting to violence between protected persons. See Melzer 2008b, pp 1025–1027.

References

Articles, Books and Other Documents

  • Barras R, Erman S (1982) Forces Armées et Developpement du Droit de la Guerre [Armed Forces and the Development of the Law of War]. Military Law and Law of War Review 21:269–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Boivin A (2006) The Legal Regime Applicable to Targeting Military Objectives in the Context of Contemporary Warfare. University Centre for International Humanitarian Law Research Paper No. 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothby WH (2010) Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Discussion of the ICRC Interpretative Guidance. International Humanitarian Legal Studies 1: p. 143–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombian Goverment and FARC (2016) Acuerdo Final para la Terminación del Conflicto y la Construcción de una Paz Estable y Duradera [Final Agreement to End the Armed Conflict and Build a Stable and Lasting Peace]. http://www.altocomisionadoparalapaz.gov.co/procesos-y-conversaciones/Documentos%20compartidos/24-11-2016NuevoAcuerdoFinal.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2018.

  • Colombian Ombudsman (2002) La ejecución de la estrategia de erradicación aérea de los cultivos ilícitos, con químicos, desde una perspectiva constitucional [The execution of the strategy of aerial eradication of illicit crops, with chemicals, from a constitutional perspective]. http://www.defensoria.gov.co/es/public/Informesdefensoriales/866/La-estrategia-de-erradicaci%C3%B3n-a%C3%A9rea-de-los-cultivos-il%C3%ADcitos-%E2%80%93-Amicus-curiae-Informes-defensoriales—Medio-Ambiente.htm. Accessed 11 June 2018.

  • Committee of Experts on Herbicides of the Colombian National Health Institute (1986) Implicaciones del uso de herbicidas en la erradicación de cultivos ilícitos [Implications of the use of herbicides in the eradication of illicit crops], Serie de notas e informes técnicos [Series of notes and technical reports], Vol. 11. Ministerio de Salud de Colombia, Bogotá

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Olmo R (1990) Herbicidas y Derechos Humanos en América Latina [Herbicides and Human Rights in Latin America]. In: Palacio G (ed) La Irrupción del Paraestado [The Irruption of the Parastate]. ILSA-CEREC, Bogotá, pp 43–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2016) The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Doswald-Beck L (ed) (1995) San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Doswald-Beck L, Vité S (1993) International humanitarian law and human rights law. International Review of the Red Cross 33:94–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito R (2010) The ICJ and the Future of Transboundary Harm Disputes: A Preliminary Analysis of the Case Concerning Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia). Pace International Law Review 2:1–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasser HP (1989) Some Legal Issues Concerning Ratification of the 1977 Geneva Protocols. In: Meyer MA (ed) Armed Conflict and the New Law. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 81–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiß R, Lahmann H (2012) Cyberwarfare: Applying the Principles of Distinction in an Interconnected Space. Israel Law Review 45:381–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman R (2016) The Obama Administration and Targeting “War-Sustaining” Objects in Non-International Armed Conflicts. American Journal of International Law 110:663–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1999) Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia. http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Colom99sp/indice.htm. Accessed 25 February 2018

  • International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization (2015) Evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. IARC Monographs Vol. 112. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2018

  • International Crisis Group (2005) War on Drugs in Colombia. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/andes/colombia/war-and-drugs-colombia. Accessed 8 June 2018

  • International Law Association Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities in the 21st Century (2017) The Conduct of Hostilities and International Humanitarian Law: Challenges of 21st Century Warfare. US Naval War College International Law Studies 93:322–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Jinks D (2014) International Human Rights Law in Time of Armed Conflict. In: Clapham A, Gaeta P (eds) The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 662–674

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven F (1971) Reaffirmation and Development of international humanitarian law applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Conference of Government Experts, 24 May–12 June 1971. In: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 9:107

    Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen G (2012–2013) War is Peace: How Language Begets Power and Helps to Skirt International Law in U.S. Efforts to Eradicate Colombian Coca Crops Using Chemical and Biological Agents. The Crit 6:56–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Landel M (2010) Are Aerial Fumigations in the Context of the War in Colombia a Violation of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law? Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 19:491–513

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald A (2004) The Challenges to International Humanitarian Law and the Principles of Distinction and Protection from the Increased Participation of Civilians in Hostilities. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2008a) Targeted Killing in International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2008b) Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 90:991–1047

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2012) Keeping the Balance between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC’S Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities. NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, 42:831

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno MM (2015) Memoria Histórica de las Fumigaciones 1978–2015 [Historical Memory of the Fumigations 1978-2015]. Indepaz. http://ediciones.indepaz.org.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Memoria-histo_rica-de-las-fumigaciones.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2018

  • Oeter S (2013) Methods and Means of Combat. In: Fleck D (ed) The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 119–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Olasolo H (2008) Unlawful Attacks in Combat Situations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parks WH (1990) Air War and the Law of War. Air Force Law Review 32:1–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauker S (2003) Spraying First and Asking Questions Later: Congressional Efforts to Mitigate the Harmful Environmental, Health and Economic Impacts of U.S.-Sponsored Coca Fumigation in Colombia. Ecology Law Quarterly 30:661–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University (2009) Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. Harvard University. http://ihlresearch.org/amw/HPCR%20Manual.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2018

  • Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University (2010) Commentary on Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. Harvard University. http://ihlresearch.org/amw/Commentary%20on%20the%20HPCR%20Manual.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2018

  • Rogers APV (2004) Law on the Battlefield, 2nd edn. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutledge JL (2011) Wait a Second—Is that Rain or Herbicide? The ICJ’s Potential Analysis in Aerial Herbicide Spraying and an Epic Choice between the Environment and Human Rights. Wake Forest Law Review 46:1079–1112

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoz Y, Swinarski C, Zimmerman B, Pictet J (eds) (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt M (2004) Direct Participation in Hostilities and the 21st Century Armed Conflict. In: Fisher H, Froissart U, Heintschel von Heinegg W, Raap C (eds) Crisis Management and Humanitarian Protections. Berliner Wissenschafs Verlag, Berlin, pp 505–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt M (2010) The Interpretative Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Analysis. Harvard National Security Journal 1:5–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt M (2012) “Attack” as a Term of Art in International Law: The Cyber Operations Context. In: Czosseck C, Ottis R, Ziolkowski K (eds) 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict. NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn, pp 283–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt M (ed) (2013) Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt M (2015) Targeting in Operational Law. In: Gill TD, Fleck D (eds) The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 245–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Solf W (2013) Protocol I, Article 52. In: Bothe M, Partsch KJ, Solf WA (eds) New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, pp 360–369

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Office on Drugs and Crime (2017) Colombia: Monitoreo de territories afectdos por cultivos ilícitos en 2015. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/Monitoreo_Cultivos_ilicitos_2015.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2018

  • UN Security Council (1993) Resolution 827 (1993): Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. S/RES/827

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Security Council (1994) Resolution 955 (1994): Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, UN Doc. S/Res/955

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Congress (2002) Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2002. Pub. L. No. 107-115, 115 Stat. 2118

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of the Navy (2017) The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations. U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Coast Guard. http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/NWP_1-14M_Commanders_Handbook.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2018

  • United States Executive Office of National Drug Control Policy (2017) ONDCP Releases Data on Cocaine Cultivation and Production in Colombia. https://es.scribd.com/document/341880734/ONDCP-Data-on-Cocaine-Cultivation-and-Production-in-Colombia. Accessed 25 February 2018

  • United States Government Accountability Office (2008) Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, US Senate: Plan Colombia. https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0971.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2018

  • United States Secretary of State (2017) Remarks at the United States House Foreign Affairs Committee. https://www.c-span.org/video/?429946-1/secretary-tillerson-testifies-fy-2018-state-department-budget. Accessed 25 February 2018

  • United States Senate Committee on Appropriations (2003) Consolidated Appropriations Resolution. Pub. L. No. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11, 173–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinuesa RE (1998) Interface, Correspondence and Convergence of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 1:69–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington Office on Latin America (2008) Chemical Reactions, Fumigation: Spreading Coca and Threatening Colombia’s Ecological and Cultural Diversity. http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/WOLA%20Chemical%20Reactions%20February%202008.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2018

  • Wilhite DA (2006) Chemical Taking: Glyphosate and the Eradication of Due Process in Colombia. Sustainable Development Law and Policy 6:42–45, 75–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson J (2010) Challenges of Twenty-First Century Conflicts: A Look at Direct Participation in Hostilities. Duke Journal of Comparative and International law 20:457–471

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (1994) Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria monograph 159. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc159.htm. Accessed 11 June 2018

  • Youngers CA, Rosin E (2004) Drugs and Democracy in Latin America: The Impact of U.S. Policy. Washington Office on Latin America, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarate-Laun C (2001) Introduction to Putumayo—The US-assisted war in Colombia. Z Magazine. https://zcomm.org/zmagazine/introduction-to-putumayo-by-cecilia-zarate-laun/. Accessed 6 May 2018

Cases

  • Colombian Constitutional Court, Auto 073, 27 March 2014, A-073-18

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T-080/17, 7 February 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T-736/17, 21 April 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombian State Council, Judgment, 13 December 2013, Process No. 11001 0324 000 2004 00227 01

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory opinion, 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep 131

    Google Scholar 

  • ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep 131

    Google Scholar 

  • ICTY, Prosecutor v Pavle Strugar, Appeals Judgment, 17 July 2008, Case No. IT-01-42-A

    Google Scholar 

Treaties

  • Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950)

    Google Scholar 

  • Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 12 December 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (entered into force 7 December 1978)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facultad de Jurisprudencia, Universidad del Rosario, Sede Jockey Club, Carrera 6, Num. 15-18, Bogotá, Colombia

    Héctor Olasolo

  2. Iberoamerican Institute of the Hague for Peace, Human Rights and International Justice, Badhuiskade 5A, 2586 EM, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Felipe Tenorio-Obando

Authors
  1. Héctor Olasolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felipe Tenorio-Obando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felipe Tenorio-Obando .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Criminal Law Section, Section Military Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Terry D. Gill

  2. Melbourne Law School, Carlton, VIC, Australia

    Tim McCormack

  3. School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Robin Geiß

  4. Department of Law/Public Law, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Heike Krieger

  5. Research Department, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Christophe Paulussen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Olasolo, H., Tenorio-Obando, F. (2019). Are the Targets of Aerial Spraying Operations in Colombia Lawful Under International Humanitarian Law?. In: Gill, T., McCormack, T., Geiß, R., Krieger, H., Paulussen, C. (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Volume 20, 2017. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol 20. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-264-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-264-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-263-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-264-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation