THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR Legal, Economic, and Scientific Perspectives EDITED BY JAY E. AUSTIN AND CARL E. BRUCH CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSPUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE ‘The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS ‘The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cnz 2nu, UK _ www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA _www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcén 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain © Environmental Law Institute 2000 This bookis in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2000 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface 10.5/13.5pt Minion [cc] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data ‘The environmental consequences of war: legal, economic, and scientific perspectives! Jay E. Austin & Carl E. Bruch, editors. Pom, ISBN 0 521 78020 9 (hb) 1. War (International law) 2. Environmental law, International. 1. Austin, Jay. I. Bruch, Carl (Carl E.), 1967— KZ6385.E58 2000 341.6—de21_99-087919 ISBN0521 780209 hardback felon Kd 38S ESB 1006 CONTENTS List of illustrations List of tables List of contributors Acknowledgements Foreword by Klaus Toepfer Introduction JAY B. AUSTIN AND CARL E. BRUCH PartI - General principles Introduction CARL E. BRUCH The environment in wartime: an overview CHRISTOPHER D. STONE Part II - The legal framework A + Existing and emerging wartime standards Introduction CARE E. BRUCH The law of war and environmental damage ADAM ROBERTS War and the environment: fault lines in the prescriptive landscape MICHAEL N. SCHMITT page ix xiii xvii xix 13 16 39 47 87MAHMOOD Y. ABDULRAHEEM Paradise for migratory birds of Europe and a major source of fisheries into an arid, barren land. Finally, there is a need to transform our knowledge of the impacts of war on the marine environment of the RSA into actions that would make future generations see us ina better light. These include international sup- port and cooperation in assessment of the long-term impacts and recovery rates, as well as in rehabilitation efforts. Such efforts would provide a better understanding of the fate and effects of petroleum hydrocarbons on the marine ecosystems and populations of arid sub-tropical seas. It is obvious that the cost and expertise of such endeavors are too heavy a burden to be borne by the ROPME tegion alone, The United Nations system needs to develop a mechanism by which countries that are victims of such environmental damage could utilize funds made available by the responsible party, or from a fund to be replenished by the responsible Party in accordance with UN Security Council decisions. Experience gained from the establishment of oil industry funds in covering the costs of combating oil spills and compensating claims for economic and envir- onmental damages should be used as examples by the international court systems to enhance their response to the environmental impacts of war on the marine environment. 352 14 WAR AND BIODIVERSITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS JEFFREY A. MCNEELY Introduction The “peace dividend” expected by many to result from the end of the Cold War has not paid off in terms of reduced violent conflict. Indeed, the recent nuclear weapons tests by India and Pakistan demonstrate the continuing potential for highly destructive war. Some countries are facing generalized lawlessness and banditry, by marauding ex-soldiers in several African nations, drug cartels in some parts of Latin America, and organized crime in vari- ous parts of the former Soviet Union.’ Tensions in the Middle East, parts of Africa, Central America, Ireland, Southeastern Europe, and Indonesia are further indications that war is a continuing fact of modern life. Despite these widespread threats to national sovereignty, governments are obliged under Article 1 of the 1992 Convention on Biological Divers- ity to conserve their own biodiversity, and under Article 3 to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the biodiversity of other states.’ Any negative impacts of war on biodiversity are clearly contrary to this international agreement, though this constraint My thanks go to Jim Thorsell, who has provided much useful information; David Sheppard, for providing a number of articles on international peace parks; Cecile Thiery, IUCN Librarian, for helping to chase down obscure citations; and Martha Chouchena Rojas, Larry Hamilton, Calestous Juma, Richard Matthew, Jeff Sayer, Frank Vorhies, and Arthur Westing for helpful comments. Financial support for the preparation of this chapter was provided by the govern- ments of Switzerland and Denmark. The opinions expressed in this chapter are mine alone, and are not intended to represent formal IUCN views. ' Michael Renner, Fighting for Survival: Environmental Decline, Social Conflict, and she New Age of Insecurity (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1996). 2 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, done at Rio de Janeiro, June 5, 1992, centered into force December 29, 1993, Arts. 1 and 2. 353