The complex relationship between environment and warfare
It is well-recognised that the environment needs to be protected in peacetime, and so it naturally needs safeguarding during armed conflict as well.
Indeed, whilst peacetime activities cause the largest proportion of environmental degradation and damage in the world, the historical record of armed conflicts shows that warfare has also had a dramatic impact on various aspects related to the environment. With Earth systems already exposed in peacetime, and with the introduction of new military technologies, the severity of environmental impacts associated with armed conflict has considerably worsened in recent years. Greater environmental damage is now possible in a single day than in months of warfare 2,000 years ago, even without taking into consideration weapons of mass destruction. This is further exacerbated by the exploitation of natural resources to finance armed forces, leading to significant environmental degradation.
Environmental security is, in the 21st century, part of national, European, regional and international security. The environment is becoming increasingly important in the legal and political culture of 21st-century societies because of the challenges related to climate change, intensification of industrialisation, air and water pollution, increasing deterioration of soil and subsoil quality, continuing modification of natural ecosystems and the global link between all terrestrial ecosystems, which are in a fragile balance;
Therefore, and despite not being a military objective per se, the environment can play a massive role both as a cause as well as collateral damage of armed conflict;
Furthermore, history shows us that, when confronted with immediate, destructive impacts which arise from armed conflict, the environmental damage of said conflict and its consequences are often overlooked, if looked at at all.
Due to logical reasons, oftentimes pressing threats to one’s prosperity, stability or even existence take precedence over environmental responsibility. However, in similar ways to how we developed rules of engagement and military law, the construction of a holistic and vast encompassing agreement to protect the environment must be created;
In other words, the increasing development of technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the nature of military armaments and in the way of conceiving and waging wars in the 21st century must start from the mandatory premise of environmental protection, defining it as not being a military objective, from the obligation of present generations, whatever the differences between them, to preserve a healthy planet, rich in functioning and healthy natural ecosystems, an increased quality of life, for future generations;
From the European biased outlook on the evolution of climate change and environmental damage, it is natural to perceive environmental damage as a threat several degrees of magnitude lower compared to the threat of actual warfare. However, in vast swathes of the globe, such as island nations in Oceania, South America and the Indian subcontinent, the opposite is true. These nations are fighting very present impacts of climate change, and in a myriad of ways, this represents the most looming threat to their prosperity, stability and existence.
Protection of humankind rather than (solely) the protection of the human must become a foundational starting point for any armed conflict that takes place in the future. The human race has now developed means to perpetrate unheard levels of destruction through advancements of military technology and scaling of weapons production. The same way it has developed rules and conventions to protect itself, it must now develop rules and conventions to protect the environment it lives in.
To this point, there must not be actors “allowed” to undertake the destruction of environmental stability and prosperity as a means to achieve military goals. Environmental stability must exist outside of military engagements and geopolitics. No actor in the global stage, be it a state, the military or a terrorist organisation should ever be granted legitimacy to prioritise their own short-term goals for the long-term survival of the planet's ecosystems and, above all else, humankind.
Future framework for environmental protection
This being said, what can be done in the short term to ensure environmental protection takes precedence over geopolitical objectives? One of the widely purported solutions has been the creation of environmental corridors: similar to the aptly named humanitarian corridors, environmental corridors would aim at allowing unimpeded movement of environmental protection workers and resources through the contested territory and into emergency areas to protect the environment. They would also serve to increase awareness about obligations to protect the environment and would help to ensure the safety of environmental protection actors during armed conflict. Also, environmental corridors could help prevent military activities from encroaching on or damaging important ecosystems like wetlands or protected wildlife zones. The creation of these sociopolitical instruments would, arguably most importantly, clearly set a framework of guidelines solely focused on ensuring environmental protection is given its duly importance and relevance.
Another incredibly important step towards a more holistic and sustainable approach to protecting the environment is the mindset shift from a solely anthropocentric view of environmental protection (the environment must be protected to safeguard crucial resources to human existence such as food, shelter, fuel, clothing and human quality of life overall) to a more ecocentric approach to the phenomenon: the value of protecting the environment is not exclusively connected to protecting the parts of it that serve a direct and practical purpose to humankind survival and prosperity as a species. This would however require significant changes in the way the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and its policy and legislation, are designed, as until very recent years the sole focus of IHL has been to protect lives and settlements.
If environmental protection and security receives its well deserved attention, the world will be much closer to achieving a more sustainable way of practising warfare.
Comments