1 The term “urban warfare” is understood to refer to “hostilities in an urban setting (which can take many forms, including ground troop/force manoeuvres and fighting, indirect fire, aerial bombardment, and/or asymmetric warfare), and other military operations affecting urban setting (such as a siege or some other form of encirclement, or damage to infrastructure in countryside that affects delivery of services in an urban setting)”: ICRC, Present and Engaged: How the ICRC Responds to Armed Conflict and Violence in Cities, Geneva, 2022, p. 17.

2 ICRC, Waging War in Cities: A Deadly Choice, Geneva, 2020Google Scholar; United Nations (UN), “Urban Warfare Devastates 50 Million People Worldwide, Speakers Tell Security Council, Calling for Effective Tools to End Impunity, Improve Humanitarian Response”, 25 January 2022, available at: https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14775.doc.htm.

3 ICRC, above note 1, p. 17.

4 See, e.g., Marja Lehto, Second Report on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN Doc. A/CN.4/728, 27 March 2019, para. 186; ICRC, Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict, Geneva, 2020Google Scholar (ICRC Guidelines), p. 15; Program on Humanitarian Policy and conflict Research at Harvard University, HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, Rule 87, para. 6. See also Sands, Philippe and Peel, Jacqueline with Fabra, Adriana and MacKenzie, Ruth, Principles of International Environmental Law, 4th ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018, p. 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See e.g. Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Article 35.

6 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, para. 16 and references therein.

7 UN Habitat, World Cities Report 2022: Envisaging the Future of Cities, Nairobi, 2022, p. 4; UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects 2018: Highlights, UN Doc. ST/ESA/SER.A/421, 2019.

8 Geneva Environment Network, “Update: Cities and the Environment”, 13 January 2023, available at: www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/cities-and-the-environment/#scroll-nav__4; Guerry, Anne D. et al., Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities, Global Platform for Sustainable Cities Policy Brief, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2021, p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pörtner, Hans-Otto et al. (eds), “Summary for Policy Makers”, in Pörtner, Hans-Otto et al. (eds), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2022, p. 11Google Scholar, para. B.1.5, available at: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf.

9 Article 36, Health and Harm: Protecting Civilians and Protecting Health, August 2020, p. 9, available at: https://article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/A36-protecting-health.pdf.

10 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, paras 1–2.

11 See, further, A. D. Guerry et al., above note 8.

12 Richards, Daniel. R. and Thompson, Benjamin. S., “Urban Ecosystems: A New Frontier for Payments for Ecosystem Services”, People and Nature, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 For instance, the New York City Watershed provides approximately 1.3 billion gallons of clean drinking water to roughly 9 million people every day, and the Omerli Watershed, outside of Istanbul, provides drinking water to Istanbul: Erik Gomez-Baggethun et al., “Urban Ecosystem Services”, in Thomas Elmqvist et al. (eds), Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities, Springer, Dordrecht, 2013.

14 UN Environment Programme (UNEP), “Cities: Biodiversity and Ecosystems”, available at: www.unep.org/explore-topics/resource-efficiency/what-we-do/cities/biodiversity-and-ecosystems. See also Food and Agriculture Organisation, “Background: Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity”, available at: www.fao.org/ecosystem-services-biodiversity/background/en/. For more on ecosystem services and warfare, see Francis, Robert A. and Krishnamurthy, Krishna, “Human Conflict and Ecosystem Services: Finding the Environmental Price of Warfare”, International Affairs, Vol. 90, No. 4, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 A. D. Guerry et al., above note 8.

16 Tignino, Mara and Westendorff, Oeykue Irmakkesen, The Geneva List of Principles on the Protection of Water Infrastructure, Brill, Leiden, 2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ICRC, Urban Services during Protracted Armed Conflict: A Call for a Better Approach to Assisting Affected People, Geneva, 2015Google Scholar.

17 ICRC, Explosive Weapons with Wide Area Effects: A Deadly Choice in Populated Areas, Geneva, January 2022 (ICRC EWIPA Report), p. 59.

18 Lawrence, Michael J., Stemberger, Holly L. J., Zolderdo, Aaron J., Struthers, Daniel P. and Cooke, Steven J., “The Effects of Modern War and Military Activities on Biodiversity and the Environment”, Environmental Reviews, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Terminology used in International Law Commission (ILC), Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UNGA Res. 77/104, 7 December 2022 (PERAC Principles), Principle 26. These may consist of explosive remnants of war but also of other hazardous material and objects: ibid., commentary on Principle 26, para. 2.

20 ICRC EWIPA Report, above note 17, p. 59; Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, “‘Do No Harm’ and Mine Action: Protecting the Environment while Removing the Remnants of Conflict”, 2014, available at: www.gichd.org/publications-resources/publications/do-no-harm-and-mine-action-protecting-the-environment-while-removing-the-remnants-of-conflict/.

21 Aneaka Kellay, “Pollution Politics: Power, accountability and toxic remnants of war”, Toxic Remnants of War Project, Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), 24 November 2014, available at: https://ceobs.org/pollution-politics-power-accountability-and-toxic-remnants-of-war/#easy-footnote-bottom-12-373; PAX, Amidst the Debris: A Desktop Study on the Environmental and Public Health Impact of Syria's Conflict, 2015, p. 57, available at: https://paxforpeace.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/import/import/pax-report-amidst-the-debris-syria-web.pdf; M. J. Lawrence et al., above note 18.

22 UNEP, “Environmental Legacy of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas”, 5 November 2021, available at: www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/environmental-legacy-explosive-weapons-populated-areas; UNEP, Technical Note: Environmental Issues in Areas Retaken from ISIL, Mosul, Iraq, 2017, p. 2, available at: www.unep.org/resources/publication/environmental-issues-areas-retaken-isil-mosul-iraq-technical-note.

23 See e.g. UN Security Council, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2019/373, 7 May 2019, para. 50; PAX, above note 21, p. 40; UNEP, Environmental Assessment of the Gaza Strip following the escalation of hostilities in December 2008–January 2009, 2009, pp. 27–29; Roos Boer and Wim Zwijnenburg, “Exploring the Links between Environmental Harm and the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas”, INEW, available at: www.inew.org/exploring-the-links-between-environmental-harm-and-the-use-of-explosive-weapons/. See also Okechukwu Ibeanu, Adverse Effects of the Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights: Report of the Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/HRC/5/5, 5 May 2007, para. 21.

24 Olivia Nielsen and Dave Hodgkin, “Rebuilding Ukraine: The Imminent Risks from Asbestos”, PreventionWeb, 7 June 2022, available at: www.preventionweb.net/blog/rebuilding-ukraine-imminent-risks-asbestos.

25 A. Kellay, above note 21; see also e.g. UNEP, Lebanon: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, 2007, p. 89.

26 A. Kellay, above note 21; UNEP, above note 23, pp. 27–29

27 See e.g. UNEP, above note 25, p. 88

28 ICRC EWIPA Report, above note 17, p. 60.

29 Doug Weir, “Collateral Damage Estimates of the Acceptability of Attacks on Industrial Sites”, CEOBS, 2015, available at: https://ceobs.org/collateral-damage-estimates-and-the-acceptability-of-attacks-on-industrial-sites/; UNEP, above note 23, pp. 27–29.

30 UNEP, “Environmental Legacy”, above note 22; UN Security Council, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2019/373, 7 May 2019, para. 50; UN Security Council, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2022/381, 10 May 2022, para. 30.

31 ICRC EWIPA Report, above note 17, p. 60.

32 “Serbian Town Bombed by NATO Fears Effects of Toxic Chemicals”, New York Times, 14 July 1999, available at: www.nytimes.com/1999/07/14/world/serbian-town-bombed-by-nato-fears-effects-of-toxic-chemicals.html; UNEP, The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment and Human Settlements, 31 December 1999, available at: www.unep.org/resources/assessment/kosovo-conflict-consequences-environment-and-human-settlements.

33 Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Chemical Disaster Fear in Eastern Ukraine Prompts UN Expert to Raise Alarm”, 10 March 2017, available at: www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2017/03/chemical-disaster-fear-eastern-ukraine-prompts-un-expert-raise-alarm?LangID=E&NewsID=21344.

34 Ibid.

35 Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Military Activities during the Yugoslavia Conflict, 30 June 1999, p. 13.

36 Ibid.

37 One example of this is in Gaza: see UNEP, above note 23, p. 39; PAX, above note 21, p. 29.

38 UNEP, above note 25, 2007, pp. 91, 117.

39 PAX, above note 21, p. 29; UNEP, above note 23, pp. 44–45.

40 Peter Maurer, “Wars in Cities: Protection of Civilians in Urban Settings”, speech given to the ICRC, UN Security Council Open Debate, 25 January 2022, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/wars-cities-protection-civilians-urban-settings.

41 ICRC, Displaced in Cities: Experiencing and Responding to Urban Internal Displacement Outside Camps, Geneva, 2020, p. 29.

42 UNEP, Côte d'Ivoire: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, 2015, pp. 8, 9.

43 Ibid.

44 ICRC, above note 41, p. 29.

45 Ibid., p. 20.

46 Ibid., p. 29.

47 For instance, UNEP has reported on how the functioning of the key Palestinian institutions dealing with environmental issues in the Gaza Strip was hampered due to the escalation of hostilities in December 2008 and January 2009, notably due to direct physical damages suffered and “the mobility of staff from all institutions [being] restricted through the period, limiting their ability to effectively respond to urgent environmental problems that arose during the hostilities”: UNEP, above note 23, p. 68. See also UNEP, Technical Note, above note 22, pp. 19–20.

48 PERAC Principles, above note 19. The Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts were adopted by the ILC at its 73rd Session in 2022, and submitted to the UN General Assembly as a part of the Commission's report covering the work of that session: UN Doc. A/77/10, 2022, p. 92, para. 58. The Commission's report “takes note” of the principles and “encourages their widest possible dissemination”.

49 See ILC, Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts: Comments and Observations Received from Governments, International Organizations and Others, UN Doc. A/CN.4/749, 17 January 2022.

50 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, paras 9–13 (updated in 2020 from the earlier 1994 articulation).

51 AP I, Arts 35(3), 55. See also PERAC Principles, above note 19, Principles 13, 15; ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rules 2, 4; Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (ICRC Customary Law Study), Rule 45, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1.

52 PERAC Principles, above note 19, Principle 13; ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rules 2–3.

53 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 4; ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 1.

54 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 45; ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 2.

55 While the provisions of AP I are applicable in international armed conflict only, it has been considered that the prohibition against causing widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment arguably also applies in non-international armed conflicts following the customary nature of these provisions. See ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 45 (first sentence), p. 151; ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 2 and para. 47. It should be noted that some States are persistent objectors to the customary nature of this rule.

56 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 2, paras 56–60.

57 Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987 (ICRC Commentary on the APs), pp. 415–416, para. 1452; ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 2, paras 61–66.

58 As with “widespread”, the term “severe” is not discussed in the travaux préparatoires of AP I. The term “severe” is used in the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 UNTS 151, 18 May 1977 (ENMOD Convention). The ENMOD Convention prohibits the “use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party” (Art. I). Environmental modification refers to the deliberate manipulation of natural processes such as causing earthquakes, tsunamis, an upset in the ecological balance of a region, or changes in weather patterns (Art. II and Understanding Relating to Art. II). Although this is not directly transferable, the reference to “upset in the ecological balance” does give some indication as to what would be encapsulated by “severe”. See also ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 2, paras 67–72.

59 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, paras 62–66.

60 Nikoloz Mosidze, “Urban Natural Environment: Yet Another Vulnerable Victim of Wars in Cities”, International Law Blog, 26 June 2023, available at: https://internationallaw.blog/2023/06/26/urban-natural-environment-yet-another-vulnerable-victim-of-wars-in-cities/.

61 It is to be noted that over time, there have been differing views on whether the natural environment should be seen as a civilian object. For discussion, see Cordula Droege and Marie-Louise Tougas, “The Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict – Existing Rules and Need for Further Legal Protection”, in Rosemary Rayfure (ed.), War and the Environment: New Approaches to Protecting the Environment in Armed Conflict, Brill, Leiden, 2014, pp. 15–17.

62 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, para. 18 fn. 32–35; PERAC Principles, above note 19, Principle 13. For discussion on diverging views on the civilian character of the natural environment, see ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, fn. 32.

63 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, para. 21.

64 PERAC Principles, above note 19, Principles 13–14; ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rules 5–9. See also International Court of Justice (ICJ), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996 (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion), p. 226, para. 30; C. Droege and M.-L. Tougas, above note 61, pp. 13–14.

65 On the principle of distinction with regard to international armed conflicts, see AP I, Arts 48, 52. With regard to non-international armed conflicts, the principle is not explicitly included in Additional Protocol II. It can, however, be found in other conventions and is considered by the ICRC to form a rule of customary IHL. See two protocols of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (and Protocols), 1341 UNTS 137, 10 October 1980 (amended 21 December 2001) (CCW): Protocol (II) on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 3 May 1996 (entered into force 3 December 1998), Art. 3(7); and Protocol (III) on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, 10 October 1980 (entered into force 2 December 1983) (CCW Protocol III), Art. 2(1). See also ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 1.

66 PERAC Principles, above note 19, Principle 13(3); ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 5 (see also Rule 6 prohibiting indiscriminate attacks); C. Droege and M.-L. Tougas, above note 61, p. 17.

67 AP I, Art. 51(4); ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rules 11–12.

68 It is to be noted that as the principles of precaution and proportionality are discussed here, what is meant by them are the specific definitions found in IHL. These terms are also found in international environmental law. As Stefanik has noted, while precaution in IHL and international environmental law have shared elements, in particular the aim of protecting entities from excessive damage, they also differ significantly. In international environmental law, the precautionary principle essentially means abstaining from causing “significant harm to the environment” even in cases in which there is no scientific certainty of such harm occurring. Similarly, proportionality in international environmental law means that responses taken to prevent harm to the environment should be proportionate to the perceived risk. Kirsten Stefanik, “The Environment and Armed Conflict: Employing General Principles to Protect the Environment”, in Carsten Stahn, Jens Iverson and Jennifer S. Easterday (eds), Environmental Protection and Transitions from Conflict to Peace, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017, pp. 106, 113.

69 AP I, Art. 51(1)(b). For analysis and practice on the principle of proportionality as customary law, see ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 14 and related practice.

70 AP I, Arts 57, 58. For analysis and practice on the principle of precaution as customary law, see ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rules 15–24 and related practice.

71 See also Karen Hulme, “Taking Care to Protect the Environment against Damage: A Meaningless Obligation?”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No, 879, 2010, p. 678.

72 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 43(C); ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 7; C. Droege and M.-L. Tougas, above note 61, p. 19. See also Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, para. 13(c); ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 7, para. 115. See also Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, above note 64, where the ICJ confirmed that “environmental considerations” are part of the assessment that States must take into account when they consider “what is necessary and proportionate in the pursuit of legitimate military objectives”.

73 AP I, Art. 57; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 15; ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rules 8, 9.

74 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rules 8, 9.

75 See AP I, Art. 58(c) regarding “civilian objects”; and ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 9 for greater detail regarding the natural environment.

76 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, para. 129.

77 Ibid., Rule 8, para. 129. See also ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 9, para. 143 regarding choosing the option of least impact.

78 ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts: Recommitting to Protection in Armed Conflict on the 70th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, Geneva, 2019, p. 16.

79 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 7, para. 115.

80 C. Droege and M.-L. Tougas, above note 61, pp. 19–20.

81 Mark Zeitoun and Michael Talhami, “The Impact of Explosive Weapons on Urban Services: Direct and Reverberating Effects across Space and Time”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 98, No. 1, 2016, p. 56.

82 For a detailed description of the “upstream” and “downstream” impacts of explosive attacks on urban services across space and time and the implications for proportionality, see ibid., pp. 56–57.

83 C. Droege and M.-L. Tougas, above note 61, p. 20.

84 K. Hulme, above note 71, p. 678.

85 ICRC Commentary on the APs, above note 57, p. 679, para. 2190; ICRC EWIPA Report, above note 17, p. 102.

86 AP I, Art. 36.

87 ICRC EWIPA Report, above note 17, pp. 88–89.

88 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, para. 334.

89 C. Droege and M.-L. Tougas, above note 61, p. 31.

90 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 17 June 1925 (entered into force 8 February 1928); Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, 10 April 1972 (entered into force 26 March 1975); CCW Protocol III, above note 65; Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, 13 January 1993 (entered into force 29 April 1997).

91 AP I, Art. 51(4); ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rules 11, 12.

92 AP I, Art. 51(5)(a); ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 13.

93 AP I, Art. 51(5)(b); ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 14.

94 ICRC, “Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas Factsheet”, June 2023, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/explosive-weapons-populated-areas-factsheet. See also ICRC EWIPA Report, above note 17, p. 60.

95 Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, 18 November 2022, available at:

www.dfa.ie/our-role-policies/international-priorities/peace-and-security/ewipa-consultations.

96 ICRC, “The ICRC's Legal and Policy Position on Nuclear Weapons”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 104, No. 919, 2022, p. 1481.

97 Ibid.

98 Ibid., p. 1496.

99 AP I, Art. 56. It should be noted that the prohibition in AP I is subject to restrictions listed in Art. 56(2); Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP II), Art. 15; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 42 and related practice; ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rule 11.

100 Jessica E. Laine, “War in Europe: Health Implications of Environmental Nuclear Disaster amidst War”, European Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2022, p. 222; Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, “Umweltfolgen des Unfalls von Fukushima: Die radiologische Situation in Japan”, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yc62ch84.

101 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, para. 40. On the application of human rights in armed conflict, see also ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136, para. 136; ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 168, para. 178; Cordula Droege, “Elective Affinities? Human Rights and Humanitarian Law”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 90, No. 871, 2008.

102 See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, The Environment and Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 requested by the Republic of Colombia, 15 November 2017, paras 56–59. See also ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, para. 37.

103 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, para. 40. For more discussion on human rights and the environment in armed conflict, see ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, paras 37–40.

104 African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, 23 October 2009 (entered into force 6 December 2012).

105 With regard to environmental damage specifically, see Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998 (entered into force 1 July 2002), Art. 8(2)(b)(iv). In addition, a range of other offences against the environment could fall within various crimes under Article 8(2) of the Rome Statute.

106 ICC Office of the Prosecutor, Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation, 15 September 2016, para. 41.

107 See e.g. Criminal Code of Finland, Chap. 11, Section 5(8); Australian Criminal Code Act, 1995, Division 268; Belgian Criminal Code, 1867, Art. 136quater, §1, para. 22.

108 UNSC Res. 687, 3 April 1991, para. 16.

109 See UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the First Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2001/16, 22 June 2001; UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Second Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2002/26, 3 October 2002; UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Third Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2003/31, 18 December 2003; UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning Part One of the Fourth Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2004/16, 9 December 2004; UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning Part Two of the Fourth Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2004/17, 9 December 2004; UNCC, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the Fifth Instalment of “F4” Claims, UN Doc. S/AC.26/2005/10, 30 June 2005.

110 ICRC, Reducing Civilian Harm in Urban Warfare: A Commander's Handbook, Geneva, 2023, p. 43.

111 Ibid., p, 18.

112 Ibid., p. 20.

113 NATO, NATO Standard AJP-3.0: Allied Joint Doctrine for Joint Targeting, Edition B, Version 1, November 2021, p. 1-1, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1033306/AJP-3.9_EDB_V1_E.pdf.

114 Ibid., pp. 1-8, 1-22.

115 United States, Finland and Sweden, Environmental Guidebook for Military Operations, March 2008, available at: https://ceobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Guidebook_final_printing_version.pdf.

116 See Finland, Sweden and United States, Environment Toolbox for Deploying Forces, extracts available at: https://vdocuments.mx/developed-by-trilateral-cooperation-of-defence-environmental-experts-from-finland.html?page=2.

117 Ibid, checklist phase 1.

118 US Department of the Army, Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain, ATTP 3-06.11 (FM 3-06.11), 2011, p. xii, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3n9ywx69.

119 Ibid., p. 34.

120 MoD Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Future Cites: Trends and Implications, 2020, p. 33, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875528/Dstl_Future_Cities_Trends___Implications_OFFICIAL.pdf.

121 Ibid., p. 35.

122 See, further, C. Droege and M.-L. Tougas, above note 61, pp. 43–45; but also, more simply, CEOBS, An Overview of Area-Based Environmental Protection in Relation to Armed Conflict, 8 October 2020, available at: https://ceobs.org/conflicts-and-conservation-the-promise-and-perils-of-protected-zones/.

123 ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Recommendation 17.

124 See, further, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Urban Protected Areas: Profiles and Best Practice Guidelines, Gland, 2014, available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-022.pdf.

125 Christian Cardon, Thomas de Saint Maurice and Kelisiana Thynne, “Aftermath of Battles and Conflict: From Challenges to Solutions”, Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog, 13 September 2022, available at: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2022/09/13/aftermath-battles-conflict-challenges-solutions/.

126 Ramin Mahnad and Kelisiana Thynne, “Silenced Guns Do not Mend Lives: What Does the Law Say about Human Suffering at the End of Conflict?”, Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog, 21 July 2022, available at: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2022/07/21/silenced-guns-lives-law-end-of-conflict/.

127 C. Cardon, T. de Saint Maurice and K. Thynne, above note 125.

128 CCW, above note 65, Protocol (V) on Explosive Remnants of War, 28 November 2003 (entered into force 12 November 2006); Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, 18 September 1997 (entered in force 1 March 1999), Art. 5; Convention on Cluster Munitions, 30 May 2008 (entered into force 1 August 2010), Art. 4; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 51, Rule 83.

129 C. Cardon, T. de Saint Maurice and K. Thynne, above note 125.

130 See, further, ICRC Guidelines, above note 4, Rules 25, 26.

131 For an example project, see “Back to School: Displaced by Conflict, Children from Ubari, Southern Libya, Return Home and to the Classroom”, ReliefWeb, 6 April 2018, available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/libya/back-school-displaced-conflict-children-ubari-southern-libya-return-home-and-classroom.

132 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights: Adverse Effects of the Illicit Movement and Dumping of Toxic and Dangerous Products and Wastes on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/5/5, 5 May 2007.

133 UNEP, “Mosul's Recovery Moves Towards a Circular Economy”, 28 July 2022, available at: www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/mosuls-recovery-moves-towards-circular-economy.

134 Ibid.

135 Such practical measures were also explored by States in an expert meeting convened by the ICRC and Switzerland in 2023. See Switzerland and ICRC, Chair's Summary Report of State Expert Meeting on IHL: Protecting the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict, 2023, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/chairs-summary-report-state-expert-meeting-ihl-protecting-natural-environment-armed.

136 See further the range of themes addressed in Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, “Resolution 6: War in Cities”, 22–23 June 2022, available at: https://rcrcconference.org/app/uploads/2022/06/CD22-R06-War-in-cities_22-June-2022_FINAL_EN.pdf.

137 Ibid.

138 C. Stahn, J. Iverson and J. S. Easterday (eds), above note 68, p. 10.