Nanotechnology and Military Attacks on Photosynthesis



Advancing scientific knowledge regarding the photosynthetic process at a molecular level has raised the possibility of widespread artificial photosynthetic projects in the future, for example, for large-scale or ‘off-grid’ renewable energy and food production. The value that these projects would have to states and the global community, attracts the possibility that artificial photosynthesis, and the photosynthetic process in general, may become ‘direct’ military targets. This chapter explores the extent to which the existing principles of the law of armed conflict, international environmental law and the ENMOD Convention are capable of regulating a direct attack on natural or artificial photosynthesis. In particular, it examines whether the basic principles of international environmental law prohibit direct manipulation of natural or artificial photosynthesis and are applicable during warfare. It then analyses whether natural photosynthesis may be protected from direct military attack under Articles 35(3) and 55 of Additional Protocol I or under the ENMOD Convention.


Photosynthetic Process Defense Advance Research Project Agency Additional Protocol Cloud Seeding Artificial Photosynthesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Antoine P (1992) International humanitarian law and the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict. Int Rev Red Cross 32(291):517–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beer C et al (2010) Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: global distribution and covariation with climate. Science 329:834–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berat L (1993) Defending the right to a healthy environment: toward a crime of genocide in international law. Boston Univ Int Law J 11:327–348Google Scholar
  4. Bodle R (2010) Geoengineering and international law: the search for common legal ground. Tulsa Law Rev 46:305–322Google Scholar
  5. Bothe M et al (1982) New rules for victims of armed conflicts. Martinus Nijhoff, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckingham WA Jr (1982) Operation Ranch Hand: the air force and herbicides in Southeast Asia 1961–1971. US Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Cecil PF (1986) Herbicidal warfare: the Ranch Hand Project in Vietnam. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. de Sadeleer N (2005) Environmental principles: from political slogans to legal rules. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Deville A, Harding R (1997) Applying the precautionary principle. Federation Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  10. Faunce TA (2012a) Global artificial photosynthesis: challenges for bioethics and the human right to enjoy the benefit of scientific progress. South Cross Univ Law Rev 15:21–37Google Scholar
  11. Faunce TA (2012b) Towards a global solar fuels project—artificial photosynthesis and the transition from anthropocene to sustainocene. Proc Eng 49:348–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faunce TA et al (2013a) Artificial photosynthesis as a frontier technology for energy sustainability. Energy Environ Sci 6:1074–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faunce TA et al (2013b) Energy and environment policy case for a global project on artificial photosynthesis. Energy Environ Sci 6:695–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer G, Schrattenholzer L (2001) Global bioenergy potentials through 2050. Biomass Bioenergy 20:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Furukawa H (2004) Ecological destruction, health, and development: advancing Asian paradigms. Trans Pacific Press, RosannaGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardam J (1997) Energy and the law of armed conflict. J Energy Nat Resour Law 15:87–96Google Scholar
  17. Hammarström L, Hammes-Schiffer S (2009) Artificial photosynthesis and solar fuels. Acc Chem Res 42:1859–2029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillier W, Wydrzynski T (2008) 18O-water exchange in photosystem II: substrate binding and intermediates of the water splitting cycle. Coord Chem Rev 252:306–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoogwijk M et al (2003) Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass Bioenergy 25:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hulme K (2004) War torn environment: interpreting the legal threshold. Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurst JK (2010) In pursuit of water oxidation catalysts for solar fuel production. Science 328:315–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar A et al (2009) Thermochemical biomass gasification: a review of the current status of the technology. Energies 2:556–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leslie M (2009) On the origin of photosynthesis. Science 323:1286–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacKay D (2009) Sustainable energy – without the hot air. UIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Nocera D (2006) On the future of global energy. Daedalus 135:112–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Riordan T, Cameron J (1994) The history and contemporary significance of the precautionary principle. In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan Publications, London, pp. 12–30Google Scholar
  27. Pace R (2005) An integrated artificial photosynthesis model. In: Collings AF, Critchley C (eds) Artificial photosynthesis: from basic biology to industrial application. Wiley-VCH Verlag GMBH, Weinheim, pp 13–33Google Scholar
  28. Parikka M (2004) Global biomass fuel resources. Biomass Bioenergy 27:613–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pittock A (2009) Climate change: the science, impacts and solutions. CSIRO Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  30. Ragauskas AJ et al (2006) The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311:484–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts A, Guelff R (2000) Documents on the laws of war, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwabach A (2004) Ecocide and genocide in Iraq: international law, the Marsh Arabs, and environmental damage in non-international conflicts. Colo J Int Environ Law Policy 15:1–28Google Scholar
  33. Segger M-CC, Khalfan A (2004) Sustainable development law: principles, practices and prospects. Oxford University Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shelton D (1991) Human rights, environmental rights and the right to the environment. Stanf J Int Law 28:103–117Google Scholar
  35. Stellman JM et al (2003) The extent and patterns of usage of Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam. Nature 422:681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van der Vyver JD (2009) The environment: state sovereignty, human rights and armed conflict. Emory Int Law Rev 28:85–112Google Scholar
  37. van Laer T (2010) Damage to energy resources during armed conflict: toward a new regime. Int Energy Law Rev 3:64–72Google Scholar
  38. Wiersma GB (1970) Ecological impact of antiplant agents and implications for future use. Report No CAN 16223. US Army Combat Developments Command, Institute of Land Combat, Fort Belvoir, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  39. Zierler D (2011) The invention of ecocide. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ANU College of LawAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations