Environmental Damage in Armed Conflict: A TWAIL Perspective

Introduction

This article examines environmental destruction during armed conflict through the lens of Third World Approaches to International Law. TWAIL scholarship critiques how international law has historically privileged powerful states while marginalising countries in the Global South.

The author notes that many modern conflicts occur in environmentally sensitive regions and disproportionately affect developing countries. Between 1950 and 2000, many major wars occurred in biodiversity hotspots, while numerous countries most vulnerable to climate change have also experienced armed conflict.

Examples such as Yemen and Afghanistan illustrate how warfare, foreign intervention, and environmental vulnerability often overlap.

The article asks whether existing international law adequately protects the environment in war, especially where powerful external states intervene in conflicts within weaker states.

Existing International Humanitarian Law

The main treaty rules discussed are Articles 35(3) and 55(1) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.

These provisions prohibit warfare methods expected to cause:

• widespread

• long-term

• severe

damage to the natural environment.

The author argues these thresholds are extremely high. According to interpretations by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the damage may need to extend over very large areas and persist for many years.

As a result, many environmentally harmful military actions may fall below the legal threshold and remain lawful.

A second problem identified is that AP I mainly applies to international armed conflicts between states. Many contemporary wars, especially in developing countries, are non-international armed conflicts involving governments and armed groups. Those conflicts receive weaker environmental protection under current treaty law.

From a TWAIL perspective, this is significant because many wars in the Global South are internal or proxy conflicts rather than classic interstate wars.

The ILC Draft Principles

The article then turns to the International Law Commission Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts (DPPERAC).

These principles are presented as more progressive because they cover environmental protection:

• before conflict

• during conflict

• after conflict

They also recognise environmentally important areas as zones deserving special protection.

The author views this broader framework positively because it reflects the real life cycle of conflict damage rather than only battlefield conduct.

However, uncertainty remains because the Draft Principles contain multiple standards and are not yet fully binding law.

Afghanistan and Post-Conflict Responsibility

The article uses Afghanistan as an example of post-conflict environmental harm after foreign military withdrawal.

The author highlights allegations concerning contamination from:

• burn pits

• hazardous waste

• toxic chemicals

• firefighting foams linked to harmful substances

Under the Draft Principles, parties to conflict may have obligations to remove dangerous remnants of war and repair environmental damage.

This is significant because it shifts focus from battlefield conduct alone to long-term responsibility after military operations end.

From a TWAIL perspective, this matters because foreign intervening powers often leave lasting environmental costs borne by local populations.

State Responsibility and Proxy Wars

The article next considers whether third states can be held legally responsible when they support another state involved in environmentally destructive conflict.

Using the law of state responsibility, two routes are discussed:

1. Aid or assistance to another state committing wrongful acts

2. Direction or control over another state’s conduct

The author argues the first route may be easier to establish than proving full control.

Syria and Russian Support

Syria is used as a case study.

The article links wartime deforestation, fires, and attacks on oil infrastructure to the conflict. It then asks whether Russia, as a major supporter of the Syrian government, could bear legal responsibility if its assistance significantly contributed to environmentally harmful conduct.

The broader point is that external powers involved in proxy wars should not escape accountability simply because they act indirectly.

TWAIL Analysis

The central TWAIL argument is that traditional international law often sets standards so high that powerful states avoid responsibility.

Examples identified include:

• narrow treaty coverage

• difficult evidentiary tests

• high thresholds for environmental harm

• weak enforcement mechanisms

By contrast, the Draft Principles are seen as more promising because they:

• lower barriers to recognising harm

• apply to non-international conflicts

• include post-conflict duties

• better reflect realities of wars in developing countries

However, the author also notes weaknesses:

• limited direct reach over non-state armed groups

• uncertain legal force because principles are still developing

• implementation challenges

Conclusion

The article concludes that the DPPERAC framework is preferable from a TWAIL perspective because it addresses major gaps in older humanitarian law.

Where traditional law may protect state power and make accountability difficult, the Draft Principles offer a more realistic and equitable framework for dealing with environmental harm in modern conflict.

The broader message is that environmental destruction in war is not only an ecological issue, but also one of global justice, power imbalance, and legal inequality.

Manasa Sainidhi Venkatachalam was a final-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Gujarat National Law University.