The natural environment has long been the silent casualty of war according to the Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). As presented by the ICRC, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) does not reflect the reality of warfare today. Hence, this article builds on the ICRC recommendations with the aim of underlining changes that are essential for protecting the environment during war. Drawing on the experiences from the past and applying them to the current conflict in Ukraine, I propose four broader categories of change. First and foremost, the consensus within the international community is viewed as the basis for any further developments. Thus far politicization has prevented agreement, yet the events since February 24th, 2022, show that there are lessons to be learned. Compromise on the standards and implementation is thus called for, particularly when it comes to the conditions severe, long-term, and widespread damage. From this point of view, international condemnation of environmentally harmful practices in warfare is limited by the conditions’ disproportionately broad scope which arguably needs to be narrowed. Secondly, I suggest that mainstreaming environmental protection during armed conflict is of great importance. Such mainstreaming might be most relevant among military personnel during non-international armed conflicts because of the individualistic approach of national military manuals. Nonetheless, mainstreaming could prove appropriate in international armed conflicts as well, given the limited number of rules relating to the environment in international customary and treaty law. Thirdly, the interconnectedness between energy and environment, and the dangers associated with the destruction of energy infrastructure must be made very clear. Bombings or destabilization of nuclear power plants might be even more catastrophic than the burning and spills of oil wells. The last point of this brief is the need for greater accountability for environmental destruction incurred during armed conflict, especially from a systematic point of view. From this standpoint, the past events such as the establishment of the United Nations Compensation Committee for Kuwait, which inter alia addressed the environmental impacts of the conflict, or the ICC decision to focus more on environmental issues could provide inspiration in relation to Ukraine. Besides, the situation in Ukraine could become a potential landmark case. Consequently, the aim of the four propositions presented here is to define the most pressing limitations of IHL related to the natural environment, and to outline potential recommendations for policy makers who address the crisis in Ukraine as well as any further conflicts to come.
