Climate Conflicts and International Humanitarian Law

Christiansen, Silke Marie

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27945-9_7

Silke Marie Christiansen²

872 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

It is increasingly recognized that environmental degradation has the potential to produce internal and interstate conflict by undermining stability and producing mass migration. Given the integrated nature of the environment, it is impossible for a state to protect itself entirely against intentional or accidental environmental harm originated in another state. The consequences of that harm may be severe and long lasting to the receiving state. This chapter covers ius in bello, which refers to the body of international law which governs conduct in case hostilities arise, i.e. international humanitarian law (IHL). Here, the analysis assesses the question how far IHL regulates environmental damages deriving from conflicts. The ENMOD Convention and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions are analyzed due to their regulations covering environmental damage during war. The analysis questions whether the findings regarding environmental damage during times of war are transferable to the case of climate change.

In the context of IHL, the book also examines whether climate change may generate situations that trigger the so-called responsibility to protect, which refers to the responsibility of the international community to possibly interfere with state sovereignty in cases of great humanitarian need for the civilian population.

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)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Kolb and Hyde (2008), p. 16.
2.
Sassòli (2002), p. 401.
3.
Bunker (2004), p. 202.
4.
Crawford (2002), p. 112.
5.
Sassòli (2002), p. 404.
6.
Zwanenburg (2005), p. 84.
7.
Ibid., p. 222.
8.
O’Donoghue (2012), p. 114.
9.
Ibid., p. 115.
10.
Regarding the relation of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law in general, see: Dinstein (2004), pp. 20 ff.
11.
Schmahl (2001), p. 43.
12.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948-12-10 [GA res. 217A (III); UN Doc A/810 at 71 (1948)].
13.
GAOR, 23rd Session, Suppl. No. 18, p. 50; GAOR, 25th Session, Suppl. No. 28, p. 77; GAOR 29th Session, Suppl. No. 31, Vol. I, p. 146.
14.
Kolb and Hyde (2008), p. 270.
15.
Emanuelli (2009), p. 6.
16.
Ibid., p. 7.
17.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry), ICJ Reports 1996, p. 429.
18.
Al Duaij (2004), p. 59.
19.
Bunker (2004), p. 205.
20.
Fleck (2007), p. 171.
21.
Emanuelli (2009), p. 12.
22.
Ibid.
23.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994.
24.
Emanuelli (2009), p. 13.
25.
Ibid., p. 15.
26.
Fleck (2007), p. 177.
27.
Shaw (2008), p. 1169.
28.
Pictet (1952).
29.
On this notion, see: Al Duaij (2004), pp. 59 ff.
30.
Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions, Convention III prescribes: Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. See: Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva Convention III), Geneva 12 August 1949, in force 21 October 1950 [75 UNTS 135].
31.
See: Emanuelli (2009), pp. 16, 17.
32.
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3.
33.
Emanuelli (2009), p. 7.
34.
Al Duaij (2004), pp. 55, 56.
35.
Ibid., p. 56.
36.
Hulme (2004), p. 71.
37.
In force 5 October 1978.
38.
http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/.
39.
Ibid.
40.
Sands and Galizzi (2004), p. 983.
41.
Dinstein (2001), p. 526.
42.
Rogers (1996), p. 111.
43.
Sands and Galizzi (2004), p. 983.
44.
Pumphrey (2008), p. 320.
45.
Rogers (1996), p. 110.
46.
The full text of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques of 10 December 1976 is available under: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/460.
47.
Goldblat (1993), p. 81.
48.
On this notion, see: Lamp (2011), p. 231.
49.
Rogers (1996), p. 110.
50.
Ibid., p. 111.
51.
Ibid., p. 109.
52.
Goldblat (1993), p. 82.
53.
Rogers (1996), p. 110.
54.
Goldblat (1993), p. 81.
55.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 418.
56.
Rauch (1984), p. 142.
57.
Ibid.
58.
Rogers (1996), p. 111.
59.
Vöneky and Wolfrum (2012), p. 518.
60.
Hulme (2004), pp. 72, 73.
61.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2012).
62.
Beyerlin and Marauhn (2011), p. 414.
63.
Hulme (2010), p. 587.
64.
Sandoz et al. (1987), pp. 393, 394.
65.
Ibid., p. 391.
66.
Ibid., p. 410.
67.
See: Ibid.
68.
Hulme (2004), p. 78.
69.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 410.
70.
Rauch (1984), p. 141.
71.
Hulme (2004), p. 71.
72.
For further reading on the issue of environmental destruction during noninternational armed conflicts, see: Al Duaij (2004), pp. 66, 67.
73.
Rauch (1984), p. 140.
74.
For detailed analysis of the different views on interpreting article 55 (1) Additional Protocol I, see: Hulme (2004), pp. 74f.
75.
Rauch (1984), p. 141.
76.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 662.
77.
Article 54 (2) Additional Protocol I lists the following objects as indispensable to the survival of the civilian population: foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works.
78.
These elements are listed in the Convention of 10 October 1980 on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons. See: Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 662.
79.
Hulme (2004), p. 74.
80.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 414.
81.
Ibid.
82.
Hulme (2004), p. 79.
83.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 663.
84.
Rauch (1984), p. 141, Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 663, O.R. XV, p. 360 CDDH/III/275.
85.
Rogers (1996), p. 112.
86.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 420.
87.
The Committee concluded its report June 14, 2000, Final Report of the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/otp_report_nato_bombing_en.pdf.
88.
Final Report of the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, A. i. No. 17. http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/otp_report_nato_bombing_en.pdf.
89.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 418.
90.
Ibid., pp. 414, 415. See also: Beyerlin and Marauhn (2011), p. 415.
91.
Pumphrey (2008), p. 321.
92.
In the case of ENMOD, the term ‘long-lasting’ is defined as lasting for a period of months or approximately a season. Report cited, A/31/27, p. 91, letter b).
93.
With regard to the Additional Protocol I, ‘long-lasting’ is interpreted as a matter of decades. International Committee of the Red Cross 1978, p. 268.
94.
Sandoz et al. (1987), pp. 416.
95.
Bill and Marsh (2010), http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2010.pdf, p. 351.
96.
The term refers the German sayings ‘Kriegsräson vor Kriegsmanier’ or ‘Not kennt kein Gebot.’ Both phrasings mean that the necessities of war take precedence over the rules of war, or in short that necessity knows no law.
97.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 391.
98.
Ibid.
99.
One origin of the maxim derives from the German ‘Staatsnotstand,’ which was represented by Carl Schmitt in ‘Die Diktatur,’ 1921, und ‘Politische Theologie,’ 1922. Carl Schmitt is overall considered to have been the ‘Kronjurist des Dritten Reiches’ (which may be translated as the ‘Queens Counsel of the Nazi Regime’). For further reading on Carl Schmitt, see: Waldemar Gurian, Entscheidung und Ordnung. Zu den Schriften von Carl Schmitt, in: Schweizerische Rundschau (1934/35).
100.
See: Sandoz et al. (1987), pp. 391, 392.
101.
Ibid., p. 393.
102.
See: Chesney (2011), pp. 46 ff.
103.
McLaughlin (2011), p. 231.
104.
Henderson (2009), p. 35.
105.
This formula is called ‘Lieber Code.’ The code represents the first attempt to codify the laws of war. They were prepared during the American Civil War by Francis Lieber then a professor of Columbia College in New York, revised by a board of officers, and promulgated by President Lincoln. The ‘Lieber Instructions’ strongly influenced the further codification of the laws of war and the adoption of similar regulations by other states. They formed the origin of the project of an international convention on the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption of the Hague Conventions on land warfare of 1899 and 1907. See: Schindler and Toman (1988), pp. 3–23.
106.
Bill and Marsh (2010), http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2010.pdf, p. 10.
107.
Ibid., p. 11.
108.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 399.
109.
Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing, IV A. i. No. 21, http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/otp_report_nato_bombing_en.pdf.
110.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 394.
111.
Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague 18 October 1907, in force 26 January 1910 [187 CTS 227; 1 Bevans 631] Preamble.
112.
Sandoz et al. (1987), pp. 38, 39.
113.
Kolb and Hyde (2008), p. 63.
114.
Aust (2005), p. 253.
115.
Shelton and Kiss (2000), p. 286.
116.
Ibid.
117.
On this notion, see: Al Duaij (2004), p. 93.
118.
Al Duaij (2004), p. 93.
119.
Vöneky and Wolfrum (2012), p. 517.
120.
Al Duaij (2004), p. 93; Shelton and Kiss (2000), p. 286.
121.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 395.
122.
Al Duaij (2004), p. 109.
123.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2003); Shelton and Kiss (2000), p. 2865.
124.
Art. 25 DASR (‘Necessity’) states:

1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act: (a) is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and (b) does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a whole.

2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if: (a) the international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or (b) the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.
125.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 396.
126.
Desierto (2012), xiii.
127.
Beyerlin and Marauhn (2011), p. 414.
128.
Rogers (1996), p. 106.
129.
Al Duaij (2004), p. 84.
130.
Hulme (2010), p. 587.
131.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission Vol. II, part two 1980, pp. 34, 46, 47, 50. Article 53 of the VCLT confirms this notion.
132.
Most Bangladeshi scholars agree that the capacity of Dhaka city is already exceeded today. See Chap. 2.
133.
The concept ‘Sustainable Security’ is developed by the Oxford Research Group, an independent think tank based in London, UK. See: http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/about.
134.
http://sustainablesecurity.org/what-is-sustainable-security/the-concept/.
135.
See also the interview with Ben Zala, Director Sustainable Security Program, Oxford Research Group on http://sustainablesecurity.org/category/climate-change/.
136.
Ibid.
137.
In Sect. 5.5.
138.
Anton and Mathew (2005), p. 484.
139.
Bill and Marsh (2010), http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2010.pdf, p. 5.
140.
Byron (2011), p. 176; Bill and Marsh (2010), http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2010.pdf, p. 5. It should be noted that necessity and proportionality mean different things in ius ad bellum and ius in bello. Ius ad bellum defines these terms for purposes of using force, whereas ius in bello (law of war) defines these terms for purposes of targeting analysis.
141.
Tayler and Klein (1956), p. 5.
142.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 684.
143.
Bill and Marsh (2010), http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2010.pdf, p. 12.
144.
Henderson (2009), p. 157.
145.
Article 57.2 (a) (i) Additional Protocol I; see also: Byron (2011), p. 196.
146.
ICRC, Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts Vol. XV (CDDH/XV) (1974–1977) p. 285.
147.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 1871.
148.
Henderson (2009), p. 162.
149.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 2195.
150.
Article 57 (2) (a) (i)–(iii) Additional Protocol I.
151.
Article 57 (2) (b) Additional Protocol I.
152.
Article 57 (3) Additional Protocol I.
153.
Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University (2010), p. 126.
154.
Bill and Marsh (2010), p. 12; Henderson (2009), p. 157.
155.
Principle 2 (a) of the ILC Draft principles on the allocation of loss in the case of transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities refers to ‘significant damage,’ and the commentary to the draft articles defines ‘significant’ as referring ‘to something more that ‘detectable’ but need not be at the level of ‘serious’ or ‘substantial’. The harm must lead to a real detrimental effect on matters such as, for example, human health, industry, property, environment or agriculture on other state. Such detrimental effects must be susceptible of being measured by factual and objective standards.’
156.
Art. 8 (d) of the Lugano Convention provides: The operator shall not be liable under this Convention for damage which he proves: […] was caused by pollution at tolerable levels under local relevant circumstances; Sands et al. (2012), p. 707.
157.
Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague 18 October 1907, in force 26 January 1910 [187 CTS 227; 1 Bevans 631].
158.
Vöneky and Wolfrum (2012), p. 512.
159.
The resolution accordingly states in its third paragraph: ‘Expressing its deep concern about environmental damage and depletion of natural resources, including the destruction of hundreds of oil well heads and the release and waste of crude oil into the sea, during recent conflicts.’
160.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView; Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck (2005).
161.
Beyerlin and Marauhn (2011), p. 416.
162.
Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck (2005).
163.
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1.
164.
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule45.
165.
Ibid.
166.
Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO World Heritage Convention), Paris 16 November 1972, in force 17 December 1975 [1037 UNTS 151; 27 UST 37; 11 ILM 1358; [1975] ATS 47].
167.
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Ramsar 1971-02-02, in force 1975-12-21 [996 UNTS 245; TIAS 11084; 11 ILM 963 (1972)].
168.
Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro 5 June 1992, in force 5 June 1992 [1760 UNTS 79; 31 ILM 818 (1992)].
169.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Montego Bay 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994, [1833 UNTS 3/[1994] ATS 31/21 ILM 1261 (1982)].
170.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, AR4 2008, p. 5.
171.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 411.
172.
Tayler and Klein (1956), p. 4.
173.
Byron (2011), p. 177.
174.
Article 51 (3) Additional Protocol I, see also: Byron (2011), p. 178.
175.
Bunker (2004), p. 201.
176.
See for instance: Hulme (2010), p. 586, Beyerlin and Marauhn (2011), pp. 418, 419.
177.
This notion primarily argues that the standards deriving from the Stockholm Conference of 1972 are to be applied to armed conflicts. The principles are listed here: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503. See also: Bunker (2004), pp. 201, 202.
178.
Green Climate Fund, Mandate and governance, http://gcfund.net/about-the-fund/mandate-and-governance.html.
179.
Conference of the Parties Decision 3/CP.18 (2013), http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/eng/08a01.pdf#page=21.
180.
Green Climate Fund, Mandate and governance, http://gcfund.net/about-the-fund/mandate-and-governance.html.
181.
See Chap. 2.
182.
Shaw (2008), p. 1169.
183.
Brownlie (2008), p. 510.
184.
Bunker (2004), p. 204.
185.
Article 236 of UNCLOS states that the Convention’s provisions regarding protection of the marine environment do not apply to ‘any warship, naval auxiliary, other vessels or aircraft owned by the State and used for the time being only on government non-commercial service.’
186.
See, e.g., Al Duaij (2004); Bunker (2004), pp. 201–213.
187.
Stockholm Declaration, 1972, Principle 26.
188.
World Charter for Nature, New York 28 October 1982 [G.A. Res. 37/7, U.N. GAOR, 37th Sess., Supp. No. 51, at 17; U.N. Doc. A/37/51 (1982); 22 ILM 455 (1983)].
189.
Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro 5 June 1992, in force 5 June 1992 [1760 UNTS 79; 31 ILM 818 (1992)].
190.
Paenson (1989), p. 86.
191.
ILC-DAEAC, available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_10_2011.pdf.
192.
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our Common Future.
193.
International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml. It needs to be noted that the testing of atomic bombs during the 1960s and 1970s contributed more radioactive material to the atmosphere than the Chernobyl accident.
194.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/10/hiroshima-fukushima-japan-atomic-tragedies.
195.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml.
196.
Sandoz et al. (1987), pp. 401 ff.
197.
Sandoz et al. (1987), p. 412.
198.
Bothe (2000a), p. 1343.
199.
Bothe (2000b), p. 1343.
200.
International Committee of the Red Cross (1996), paras. 4–7.
201.
Brownlie (2008), p. 19.
202.
Frowein, Krisch (2002), p. 512.
203.
In the Barcelona Traction Case the ICJ stated: ‘Such obligations derive, for example, in contemporary international law, from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial discrimination.’ See also: Frowein (2012), p. 445.
204.
Brownlie (2008), pp. 510, 511.
205.
Vöneky and Wolfrum (2012), p. 510.
206.
For further information on the issue of salinization in Bangladesh, see Chap. 2.
207.
Lamp (2011), p. 223.
208.
Ibid.
209.
Paenson (1989), p. 428.
210.
Wolfrum (1994), p. 434.
211.
Ibid.
212.
Ibid., p. 435.
213.
Rosenstock (1993), p. 144; Sands et al. (2012), p. 720.
214.
http://www.uncc.ch/introduc.htm.
215.
Rosenstock (1993), p. 147.
216.
Ibid., p. 145; Sands et al. (2012), p. 722.
217.
http://www.uncc.ch/.
218.
This may be interesting in the context of climate migrants.
219.
Caron, Morris (2002), p. 184.
220.
Ibid.
221.
Rosenstock (1993), p. 148.
222.
Ibid.
223.
Ibid., p. 149.
224.
http://www.uncc.ch/status.htm.
225.
Gilpin (2000), p. 329.
226.
On the legal character of the Precautionary Principle, see Chap. 4.
227.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001).
228.
Cooper and Kohler (2009), p. 4.
229.
Evans and Sahnoun (2001), p. VII.
230.
Feinstein and De Bruin (2009), pp. 180–181.
231.
Evans and Sahnoun (2001), foreword.
232.
Amnéus (2004), p. 355.
233.
Provided for as one of the purposes of the UN Charter in art. 1.1: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.
234.
Article 24.1 UN Charter states: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
235.
Nasu (2009), p. 215. The first Core Principle of the Responsibility to Protect states accordingly: State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.
236.
Nasu (2009), p. 214.
237.
Kuwali (2011), pp. 1, 2.
238.
On the tension between humanitarian intervention and state sovereignty, see: Kuwali (2011), pp. 60, 61.
239.
On the problem of state sovereignty and the responsibility to protect. see: Cooper and Kohler (2009), pp. 2, 3.
240.
Cooper and Kohler (2009), p. 4.
241.
International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/pages/1182. It states: ‘[…] the current situation does not warrant the application of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine […].’
242.
Ibid.
243.
All actions taken need to be legitimized by the UN Security Council on a case-by-case basis. ‘Although reports indicate that the regime has failed to protect its populations and is actually obstructing aid, the Responsibility to Protect as adopted in 2005 does not provide for the Security Council to act on the basis of neglect and obstruction. There could be a case that the government’s failure to accept assistance will result in massive loss of life and crimes against humanity, but it will be difficult to meaningfully demonstrate ‘intent’ of the government to commit these crimes, especially given reports that the government is now accepting limited and conditional support from the UN and several donor governments.’ See: International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/pages/1182.
244.
2005 World Summit Outcome, 24 October 2005 [UN Doc. A/RES/60/1].

References

Al Duaij NY (2004) Environmental law of armed conflict. Transnational Publishers Inc., New York
Google Scholar
Amnéus D (2004) Rethinking security, humanitarian intervention in the age of human security – a responsibility to protect? In: Amnéus D, Svanberg‐Torpmann K (eds) Peace and security – current challenges in international law. Studentlitteratur, Lund
Google Scholar
Anton DK, Mathew P (2005) International law – cases and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York
Google Scholar
Aust A (2005) Handbook of international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne
Book Google Scholar
Beyerlin U, Marauhn T (2011) International environmental law, 1st edn. Hart, Oxford
Google Scholar
Bill B, Marsh J (eds) (2010) Operational law handbook. International and Operational Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, Virginia, http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2010.pdf
Google Scholar
Bothe M (2000a) War and environment. In: Encyclopedia of Public International law, Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for comparative public law and international law under the direction of Rudolf Bernhardt, vol 4. North‐Holland Elsevier, Amsterdam, London, New York
Google Scholar
Bothe M (2000b) War. In: Encyclopedia of Public International law, Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for comparative public law and international law under the direction of Rudolf Bernhardt, vol 4. North‐Holland Elsevier, Amsterdam, London, New York
Google Scholar
Brownlie I (2008) Principles of public international law, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York
Google Scholar
Bunker AL (2004) Protection of the environment during armed conflict: one gulf, two wars. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 13(2) (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford)
Google Scholar
Byron C (2011) International humanitarian law and bombing campaigns: legitimate military objectives and excessive collateral damage. In: Schmitt MN, Arimatsu L, McCormack T (eds) Yearbook of international humanitarian law, 2010, vol 13. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Caron DD, Morris B (2002) The UN compensation commission: practical justice, not retribution. Eur J Int Law 13(1):183–199. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York
Google Scholar
Chesney R (2011) Who may be killed? Anwar al‐Awlaki as a case study in the International Legal Regulation of Lethal Force. In: Schmitt MN, Arimatsu L, McCormack T (eds) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2010, vol 13. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Conference of the Parties (2013) Decision 3/CP.18. In: Report of the conference of the parties on its eighteenth session, addendum, part two. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/eng/08a01.pdf#page=21
Cooper RH, Kohler JV (2009) The responsibility to protect: the opportunity to relegate atrocity crimes to the past. In: Cooper RH, Kohler JV (eds) Responsibility to protect – the global moral compact for the 21st century. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Google Scholar
Crawford J (2002) The International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility: introduction, text and commentaries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne
Google Scholar
Desierto DA (2012) Necessity and national emergency clauses – sovereignty in modern treaty interpretation. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston
Book Google Scholar
Dinstein Y (2001) Protection of the environment in international armed conflict. In: von Bogdandy A, Wolfrum R (eds) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 2001, vol 5. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Google Scholar
Dinstein Y (2004) The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York
Book Google Scholar
Emanuelli C (2009) International humanitarian law. Édition Yvon Blais, Québec
Google Scholar
Evans GJ, Sahnoun M (2001) The responsibility to protect: report of the international commission on intervention and state sovereignty. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa
Google Scholar
Feinstein L, De Bruin E (2009) Beyond words: U.S. policy and the responsibility to protect. In: Cooper RH, Kohler JV (eds) Responsibility to protect – the global moral compact for the 21st century. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Google Scholar
Fleck D (2007) Individual and state responsibility for violations of the Ius in Bello: an imperfect balance. In: Heintschel von Heinegg W, Epping V (eds) International humanitarian law facing new challenges. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York
Google Scholar
Frowein J, Krisch N (2002) Article 41. In: Simma B (ed) The charter of the United Nations – a commentary, vol I, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York
Google Scholar
Frowein JA (2012) Ius Cogens. In: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, edited under the direction of Rüdiger Wolfrum, vol VI. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York
Google Scholar
Gilpin A (2000) Dictionary of environmental law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton
Google Scholar
Goldblat J (1993) The environmental modification convention: a critical review. Humanitäres Völkerrecht – Informationsschriften, Jahrgang 6 Heft 2
Google Scholar
Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary international humanitarian law, vol 1, Rules. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Henderson I (2009) The contemporary law of targeting. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston
Book Google Scholar
Hulme K (2004) War torn environment: interpreting the legal threshold. In: Greenwood C, McCormack TLH (eds) International humanitarian law series, vol 7. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston
Google Scholar
Hulme K (2010) Environmental protection in armed conflict. In: Fitzmaurice M, Ong DM, Merkouris P (eds) Research handbook on international environmental law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton
Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York
Google Scholar
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) The responsibility to protect – report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa
Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross (1996) Guidelines for military manuals and instructions on the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict. In: International Review of the Red Cross, No. 311, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York
Google Scholar
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2003) Evaluation of the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2000. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland
Google Scholar
Kolb R, Hyde R (2008) An introduction to the international law of armed conflicts. Hart, Oxford, Portland, Oregon
Google Scholar
Kuwali D (2011) The responsibility to protect: implementation of Article 4(h) intervention. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston
Google Scholar
Lamp N (2011) Conceptions of war and paradigms of compliance: the ‘New War’ challenge to international humanitarian law. J Confl Secur Law 16(2) (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Google Scholar
McLaughlin R (2011) The law of armed conflict and international human rights law: some paradigmatic differences and operational implications. In: Schmitt MN, Arimatsu L, McCormack T (eds) Yearbook of international humanitarian law, 2010, vol 13. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Nasu H (2009) Operationalizing the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and conflict prevention: dilemmas of civilian protection in armed conflict. J Confl Secur Law 14(2) (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
Google Scholar
O’Donoghue A (2012) Splendid isolation: international humanitarian law, legal theory and the international legal order. In: Michael N, Arimatsu L (eds) Yearbook of international humanitarian law, 2011, vol 14. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Google Scholar
Paenson I (1989) Manual of the terminology of the law of armed conflicts and of international humanitarian organizations. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Boston
Google Scholar
Pictet J (1952) Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, vol I. International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva
Google Scholar
Pumphrey C (ed) (2008) Global climate change: national security implications. U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle
Google Scholar
Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University (2010) Commentary on the HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. http://ihlresearch.org/amw/Commentary%20on%20the%20HPCR%20Manual.pdf
Rauch E (1984) The protocol additional to the Geneva conventions for the protection of victims of international armed conflicts and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Repercussions on the Law of Naval Warfare, Report to the Committee for the Protection of Human Life in Armed Conflict of the International Society for Military Law and Law of War. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Google Scholar
Rogers APV (1996) Law on the battlefield. Manchester University Press, Manchester, New York
Google Scholar
Rosenstock R (1993) The United Nations Compensation Commission – a new structure to enforce state responsibility. Am J Int Law 87
Google Scholar
Sandoz Y, Swinarski C, Zimmermann B (1987) Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. International Committee of the Red Cross. Martinus Nijhoff, Geneva
Google Scholar
Sands P, Galizzi P (2004) Documents in international environmental law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne
Book Google Scholar
Sands P, Peel J, Fabra A, MacKenzie R (2012) Principles of international environmental law, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne
Book Google Scholar
Sassòli M (2002) State responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 84(846)
Google Scholar
Schindler D, Toman J (1988) The laws of armed conflicts. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht
Google Scholar
Schmahl S (2001) Der Menschenrechtsschutz in Friedenszeiten im Vergleich zum Menschenrechtsschutz im Krieg. In: Hasse J, Müller E, Schneider P (eds) Humanitäres Völkerrecht: − Politische, rechtliche und strafrechtliche Dimensionen. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft Baden-Baden
Google Scholar
Shaw MN (2008) International law, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Madrid
Book Google Scholar
Shelton D, Kiss A (2000) Martens Clause for environmental protection. Environ Policy Law 30(6) (IOS Press)
Google Scholar
Tayler MD, Klein JA (1956) The law of land warfare. U.S. Army Field Manual FM 27-10, U.S. Government Printing, Washington DC
Google Scholar
Vöneky S, Wolfrum R (2012) Environment, protection in armed conflict. In: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, edited under the direction of Rüdiger Wolfrum, vol III, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York
Google Scholar
Wolfrum R (1994) Durchsetzung des humanitären Völkerrechts. In: Fleck D (ed) Handbuch des humanitären Völkerrechts in bewaffneten Koflikten. C.H.: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, München
Google Scholar
Zwanenburg MC (2005) Accountability of peace support operations, International Humanitarian Law Series. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, Leiden
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Business and Economics, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
Silke Marie Christiansen

Authors

Silke Marie Christiansen
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Christiansen, S.M. (2016). Climate Conflicts and International Humanitarian Law. In: Climate Conflicts - A Case of International Environmental and Humanitarian Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27945-9_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27945-9_7
Published: 11 May 2016
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27943-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27945-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics