1 ICRC, Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict: Rules and Recommendations Relating to the Protection of the Natural Environment under International Humanitarian Law, with Commentary, Geneva, September 2020 (ICRC Guidelines). The Guidelines are available in Arabic, English, Chinese, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Ukrainian. All paragraph citations in the main text of this article refer to the ICRC Guidelines.

2 Ibid., p. 4. See paras 1–3 regarding environmental impacts of armed conflict.

3 The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services prepared by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) paints a grim picture of accelerated deterioration worldwide: natural ecosystems have declined by almost 50% on average relative to their earliest estimates, and around 25% of species are close to extinction. IPBES, The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policymakers, IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, 2019, p. 25.

4 Ibid., p. 25. It is also frequently cited that between 1950 and 2000, 80% of all major armed conflicts took place directly in biodiversity hotspots: Hanson, Thor et al., “Warfare in Biodiversity Hotspots”, Conservation Biology, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. See also the article by Elaine Hsiao et al. in this issue of the Review: Hsiao, Elaine (Lan Yin), Garside, Adrian, Weir, Doug and Plumptre, Andrew J., “Protected Zones in Context: Exploring the Complexity of Armed Conflicts and Their Impacts on the Protection of Biodiversity”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 105, No. 924, 2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022, pp. 12, 32.

6 See, further, ICRC, When Rain Turns to Dust: Understanding and Responding to the Combined Impact of Armed Conflicts and the Environment and Climate Crisis on People's Lives, Geneva, 2020, p. 17.

7 See the ICRC's related call to parties to armed conflict in Peter Maurer, “Protecting the Environment in Armed Conflict: An ICRC View,” Environmental Policy and Law, 23 February 2021, available at: https://environmentalpolicyandlaw.com/news-blog/protecting-natural-environment-armed-conflicts-icrc-view (all internet references were accessed in September 2023).

8 See, for example, the commentary on taking contemporary and empirical knowledge into account in the planning and conduct of military operations in paras 54, 58, 65, 118 and 334.

9 UNEP has carried out such assessments in contexts including Iraq, Albania, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo: see ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, Bibliography, p. 126. See also Amnesty International et al., Witnessing the Environmental Impacts of War: Environmental Case Studies from Conflict Zones around the World, November 2020. Non-governmental organizations such as the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) and PAX also document the environmental footprint of military operations, conflict-related deforestation, and other environmental impacts linked to conflict in contexts including Syria, Ukraine and Yemen: see CEOBS, “Military and the Environment”, available at: https://ceobs.org/topics/military-and-the-environment/; PAX, “Publications”, available at: https://paxforpeace.nl/publications/.

10 See the article by Wim Zwijnenburg and Ollie Ballinger in this issue of the Review: Zwijnenburg, Wim and Ballinger, Ollie, “Leveraging Emerging Technologies to Enable Environmental Monitoring and Accountability in Conflict Zones”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 105, No. 924, 2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 ICRC and Switzerland, State Expert meeting on International Humanitarian Law: Protecting the Environment in Armed Conflicts: Chair's Summary, 2023 (Chair's Summary), p. 10, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/chairs-summary-report-state-expert-meeting-ihl-protecting-natural-environment-armed. The Chair's Summary is also available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian.

12 UNGA Res. 47/37, 9 February 1993, para. 4.

13 Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, 1986 (amended 1995 and 2006), Art. 5(2), available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/statutes-en-a5.pdf.

14 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, and Vol. 2: Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, reprinted 2009 (ICRC Customary Law Study). References in the present article to page numbers in the ICRC Customary Law Study are to the 2009 reprint. PDFs of this publication are available at: www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf (Vol. 1) and www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-ii-icrc-eng.pdf (Vol. 2, Parts 1 and 2). For ease of reference, links in individual footnotes to specific rules are also provided to the corresponding rule in the ICRC's online Customary IHL Database, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl.

15 An overview is given in the ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, paras 7–8; see also UNGA Res. ES-11/2, “Humanitarian Consequences of the Aggression against Ukraine”, 28 March 2022, preambular paras 16, 18; Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, “Catalogue of Practice of the U.N. Security Council Concerning the Environment, 1945–2021”, available at: https://pilac.law.harvard.edu/unsc-practice-concerning-the-environment.

16 UNGA Res. 77/104, “Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts”, 7 December 2022, Annex (PERAC Principles).

17 UNEP, Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: An Inventory and Analysis of International Law, Nairobi, 2009, pp. 52–53, Recommendations 2, 3.

18 See the interview with Marja Lehto in this issue of the Review: “Interview with Marja Lehto, Former International Law Commission Special Rapporteur on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 105, No. 924, 2023.

19 Statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross at the UN General Assembly, 77th Session, Sixth Committee, in ILC, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Seventy-Third Session, UN Doc. A/77/10, 26 October 2022, available at: www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/77/pdfs/statements/ilc/25mtg_icrc_1.pdf.

20 PERAC Principles, above note 16, Principles 4, 13(3), 14; ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, Rules 5–9, Recommendation 17.

21 For fuller detail, see ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, paras 15–17.

22 Ibid., para. 18.

23 See ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 14, Vol. 1, Rule 43 and commentary, p. 143 (see https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule43, and the state practice thereto).

24 In 2010, Bothe, Bruch, Diamond and Jensen identified the “lack of clarity about the practical issues of proportionality where environmental damage is collateral damage” as one of three challenges to protecting the environment in war: Michael Bothe, Carl Bruch, Jordan Diamond and David Jensen, “International Law Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: Gaps and Opportunities”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 879, 2010, p. 578.

25 Burning an entire forest may also raise issues under the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks (see notably Article 51(4)(c) of Additional Protocol I (AP I) and ICRC Guidelines Rule 6). Indeed, depending on how it is used, the effects of fire cannot be controlled in time and space: see ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, para. 112 and footnotes therein.

26 Chair's Summary, above note 11, pp. 9–12.

27 NATO, Joint NATO Doctrine for Environmental Protection during NATO-Led Military Activities, NATO Allied Joint Environmental Protection Publication, NATO STANAG 7141, AJEPP-4, Edition B, Version 1, March 2018 (Joint NATO Doctrine).

28 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction, No-Strike and the Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology, CJCSI 3160.01, 13 February 2009, Enclosure D, Joint Methodology for CDE, 1(c).

29 Gupta, Joyeeta et al., “Communicating the Health of the Planet and Its Links to Human Health”, The Lancet: Planetary Health, Vol. 3, No. 5, 2019, pp. 1–2Google ScholarPubMed; Joe McCarthy, “‘Planetary Health’: How the Environment and Global Health Are Interconnected”, Global Citizen, 7 April 2022, available at: www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/planetary-health-explainer/. The UN Secretary-General has observed that the human right to life is meaningless if the ecosystems that sustain humankind do not exist: Report of the Secretary-General: Harmony with Nature, UN Doc. A/75/266, 28 July 2020, para. 41.

30 Vanessa Murphy, Laurent Gisel, Helen Obregón Gieseken, Abby Zeith and Lindsey Cameron, “The Civilian Character of the Natural Environment: A Response to Keinan and Rosenthal”, International Review of the Red Cross, forthcoming.

31 For further detail, see ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, pp. 29–47.

32 ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 14, Vol. 1, first sentence of Rule 45, p. 151 (see https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule45 and related practice). For more on the customary status of this rule, persistent objectors and diverging views see ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, paras 47–48.

33 Marja Lehto, Third Report on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, UN Doc. A/CN.4/750, 16 March 2022 (reissued for technical reasons on 26 April 2022), p. 58, in a discussion on the customary nature of Articles 35(3) and 55 of AP I.

34 ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, para. 49, citing US Army, Operational Law Handbook, 2015, p. 333; see also para. 116. See also M. Lehto, above note 33, p. 54.

35 See, for example, UNEP, above note 17, p. 52; ICRC, Strengthening Legal Protection for Victims of Armed Conflicts, Report Submitted to the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, October 2011, p. 15; Karen Hulme, War Torn Environment: Interpreting the Legal Threshold, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2004; M. Bothe et al., above note 24, p. 576.

36 The drafters of the 1976 ENMOD Convention adopted “Understandings” of the terms used in the Convention, noting that the interpretation given is for the purposes of that treaty and without prejudice to other international agreements: UN General Assembly, Report of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, Vol. 1, General Assembly Official Records, 31st Session, Supp. 27, UN Doc. A/31/27, 1976, p. 91.

37 Scholars are beginning to examine the links between climate change and IHL: see Karen Hulme, “Climate Change and International Humanitarian Law”, in Rosemary Rayfuse and Shirley V. Scott (eds), International Law in the Era of Climate Change, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, 2012. See also the article by Catherine-Lune Grayson et al. in this issue of the Review: Grayson, Catherine-Lune, Khouzam, Amir, Jayamaha, Nishanie and Julmy, Stephanie, “The Climate and Environment Charter for Humanitarian Organizations: Strengthening the Humanitarian Response to the Climate and Environment Crises”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 105, No. 924, 2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See, further, the article by Stavros-Evdokimos Pantazopoulous in a forthcoming edition of the Review: Stavros-Evdokimos Pantazopoulous, “Protecting the Environment in Armed Conflict: The Legal and Policy Framework of the Future”, International Review of the Red Cross, forthcoming.

38 Similarly, see ILC, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Seventy-Third Session, UN. Doc. A/77/10, 2022, Chap. V, “Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts” (ILC Commentaries on the Draft PERAC Principles), commentary on Draft Principle 13(2), para. 9.

39 UNEP, above note 17, p. 52. See also ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, paras 56, 60–61, 64, 67, 72.

40 UN General Assembly, above note 36, p. 91.

41 Report of the Chairman of the Group “Biotope”, CDDH/III/GT/35, 11 March 1975, para. 5, reprinted in Howard S. Levie, Protection of War Victims: Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Vol. 3, Oceana, New York, 1980, para. 6.

42 Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1974–1977, Vol. 15, CDDH/215/Rev. I, Federal Political Department, Bern, 1978, para. 27.

43 Ibid. Although impact on the health or survival of the population is the focus of Article 55(1), this is not to say that environmental damage must have this foreseeable effect in order to qualify as severe (though such effects on the population may of course be involved at this threshold). Article 35(3) differs from Article 55 in this respect. For more detail, see ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, paras 69, 73–75.

44 See ibid., para. 318, which also cites examples of successful prosecutions.

45 For other rules related to respect, implementation and dissemination of IHL rules protecting the natural environment, see ibid., Part IV.

46 For details, see ibid., paras 312–318.

47 ILC Commentaries on the Draft PERAC Principles, above note 38, commentary on Draft Principle 3(1), para. 10.

48 Note, however, that there are views that this Rome Statute provision should be amended, including because environmental issues remain secondary to interests of military importance. See, for example, Lawrence, Jessica C. and Heller, Kevin Jon, “The Limits of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute, the First Ecocentric Environmental War Crime”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2007Google Scholar; Freeland, Steven, Addressing the Intentional Destruction of the Environment during Warfare under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Intersentia, Cambridge, 2015, p. 206CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an overview of some of these views, see Gillett, Matthew, Prosecuting Environmental Harm before the International Criminal Court, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Chap. 6, section 6.3.2.

49 See also ILC Commentaries on the Draft PERAC Principles, above note 38, commentary on Draft Principle 13(2), para. 10. For views on how other Rome Statute war crimes (as well as crimes against humanity and genocide) can be used to address environmental wartime damage, see S. Freeland, above note 48, pp. 213–214; Mark A. Drumbl, Accountability for Property Crimes and Environmental War Crimes: Prosecution, Litigation, and Development, International Center for Transitional Justice, New York, November 2009, p. 8; M. Gillett, above note 48, Chap. 2, section 2.3.3.3.

50 ICC Office of the Prosecutor, Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation, 15 September 2016, pp. 13–14, paras 40–41.

51 See, for instance, Richard A. Falk, “Environmental Warfare and Ecocide: Facts, Appraisal and Proposals”, Revue Belge de Droit International, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1973. For a brief overview of some historical landmarks, see M. Gillett, above note 48, Chap. 6, section 6.3.2.3.

52 See M. Gillett, above note 48, Chap. 6, section 6.3.3 on the establishment of an International Court for the Environment; S. Freeland, above note 48, pp. 222, 226, 245 on amending the Rome Statute with Article 8ter, recognizing a standalone crime against the environment.

53 Written Statement of the Republic of Maldives, 18th Session of the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 3 December 2019, p. 2, available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP18/GD.MDV.3.12.pdf; Statement of the Republic of Vanuatu, 18th Session of the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 3 December 2019, pp. 3–4, available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP18/GD.VAN.2.12.pdf. Belgium voiced the same call in 2020: see Statement of the Kingdom of Belgium, 19th Session of the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 14–16 December 2020, p. 4, available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP19/GD.BEL.14.12.pdf. During the 20th and 21st sessions of the ICC Assembly of State Parties, New Zealand and Samoa encouraged future discussions on ecocide, Belgium supported the criminalization of ecocide, and Finland suggested “making better use of the Rome Statute as it stands”: see Statement of the Kingdom of Belgium, 20th Session of the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 6 December 2021, p. 2, available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP20/ASP20.GD.BEL.07.12.pdf; Statement of the Independent State of Samoa, 20th Session of the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 6–11 December 2021, p. 2, available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP20/ASP20.GD.SAM.06.12.pdf; Statement of New Zealand, 21st Session of the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, December 2022, p. 2, available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/2022-12/ASP21.GD_.NZL_.05.12.pdf; Statement of the Republic of Finland, 20th Session of the Assembly of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 6 December 2021, p. 3, available at: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ASP20/ASP20.GD.FIN.06.12.pdf.

54 Stop Ecocide International, Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide: Commentary and Core Text, June 2021, available at: https://tinyurl.com/4yrt7jkt. The draft definition has been the object of considerable discussion: see, for example, Kevin J. Heller, “Skeptical Thoughts on the Proposed Crime of “Ecocide” (That Isn't)”, Opinio Juris, 23 June 2021, available at: https://opiniojuris.org/2021/06/23/skeptical-thoughts-on-the-proposed-crime-of-ecocide-that-isnt/; Kai Ambos, “Protecting the Environment through International Criminal Law?”, EJIL: Talk!, 29 June 2021, available at: www.ejiltalk.org/protecting-the-environment-through-international-criminal-law/.

55 For examples of national laws criminalizing ecocide, see references in ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, fn. 208.

56 See discussion on the “widespread, long-term and severe” threshold under Issue 6 above.

57 IUCN, Conflict and Conservation, Nature in a Globalised World Report No. 1, Gland, 2021, pp. 11–17; International Law and Policy Institute, Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict: An Empirical Study, Report No. 12/2014, 2014, p. 6; UNEP, The Mesopotamian Marshlands: Demise of an Ecosystem: Early Warning and Assessment Technical Report, Nairobi, 2001, p. 34; UNEP, UNEP in Iraq: Post-Conflict Assessment, Clean-Up and Reconstruction, Nairobi, 2007, pp. 17–18.

58 For examples of these impacts, see Schlossberg, Scott, Chase, Michael J. and Griffin, Curtice R., “Poaching and Human Encroachment Reverse Recovery of African Savannah Elephants in South-East Angola Despite 14 Years of Peace”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2017, p. 10Google Scholar, reporting that mines laid in Angolan national parks killed African elephants long after the Angolan conflict had ended; Sudan Government, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, The Sudan's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, May 2020, p. 40, available at: www.cbd.int/doc/world/sd/sd-nbsap-01-p1-en.pdf, reporting that a large proportion of diversity losses in plants and animals are caused directly or indirectly by war, and that heavy military machinery has significant physical effects on vegetation cover; Beyers, Rene L. et al., “Resource Wars and Conflict Ivory: The Impact of Civil Conflict on Elephants in the Democratic Republic of Congo – the Case of the Okapi Reserve”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 6, No. 11, 2011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; UNEP, The Democratic Republic of the Congo: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment: Synthesis for Policy Makers, Nairobi, 2011, p. 28.

59 ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, Recommendation 17, p. 82.

60 Ibid., Recommendation 17, para. 208. Notably this does not exclude other conservation-related protections afforded to protected environmental areas under other bodies of law, which may apply concurrently.

61 The benefits of this clarity for the military planning process are also observed in the ILC Commentaries on the Draft PERAC Principles, above note 38, commentary on Draft Principle 18, para. 5. See also ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, commentary on Rule 8, pp. 59, para. 129, and p. 60, para. 134; ILC Commentaries on the Draft PERAC Principles, above note 38, commentary on Draft Principle 13, para. 7.

62 ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, paras 144–145; ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 14, Vol. 1, Rule 22 and commentary, p. 68 (see https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule22 and related practice); AP I, Art. 58(c).

63 PERAC Principles, above note 16, Principle 18.

64 In 2022, the UN Secretary-General called for “designating areas of particular environmental importance or fragility as demilitarized zones” in his annual report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2022/381, 10 May 2022, p. 19.

65 See the articles by Britta Sjöstedt and Karen Hulme and by Elaine Hsiao et al. in this issue of the Review: Sjöstedt, Britta and Hulme, Karen, “Re-evaluating International Humanitarian Law in a Triple Planetary Crisis: New Challenges, New Tools”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 105, No. 924, 2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar; E. Hsiao et al., above note 4. See also e.g. M. Bothe et al., above note 24, p. 577; Michael Bothe, “Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts”, in Dieter Fleck (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021, p. 344; Alice Louise Bunker, “Protection of the Environment during Armed Conflict: One Gulf, Two Wars”, Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental. Law, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2004, p. 205; Karen Hulme, “Armed Conflict and Biodiversity”, in Michael Bowman, Peter Davies and Edward Goodwin (eds), Research Handbook on Biodiversity and the Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, 2016, p. 259; Britta Sjöstedt, The Role of Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Reconciliatory Approach to Environmental Protection in Armed Conflict, Hart, Oxford and New York, 2020, p. 178.

66 Draft Article 48ter provided that “[p]ublicly recognized nature reserves with adequate markings and boundaries declared as such to the adversary shall be protected and respected except when such reserves are used specifically for military purposes”: Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann (eds), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, paras 2138–2139 (emphasis added).

67 See ICRC, Meeting of Experts on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict, Geneva, 27–29 April 1992: Report on the Work of the Meeting, Geneva, 1992, pp. 57–61 and Annex 3; ICRC, Meeting of Experts on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict, Geneva, 25–27 January 1993: Report on the Work of the Meeting, Geneva, 1993, pp. 50–54 and Annex 5.

68 Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, Art. 11, and commentary thereto, p. 82.

69 IUCN and ICEL, Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Internationally Protected Areas, 1996, annexed to Wolfgang E. Burhenne, “The Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Protected Areas”, Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1997, pp. 375–376.

70 UNEP, above note 17, p. 54.

71 Observations on barriers are also made in K. Hulme, above note 65, p. 259; see also Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva (1974–1977), Vol. 14, CDDH/III/SR.38, Federal Political Department, Bern, 1978, pp. 406–407, statements by the representatives of the Netherlands, Switzerland, the USSR and France.

72 ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, Recommendation 17, para. 208.

73 ILC Commentaries on the Draft PERAC Principles, above note 38, commentary on Draft Principle 4, para. 5, making reference to the creation of protected areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Montreux Records established by the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), and the List of World Heritage in Danger under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

74 ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, Recommendation 17, paras 209–210.

75 See also Issue 10 below.

76 Democratic Republic of the Congo, Law No. 14/003, 11 February 2015, Arts 42, 43.

77 For further details, see James Shambaugh et al., The Trampled Grass: Mitigating the Impacts of Armed Conflict on the Environment, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC, 2001, p. 48.

78 New Zealand, Manual of Armed Forces Law, Vol. 4: Law of Armed Conflict, 2nd ed., DM 69, August 2017, para. 14.11.3.

79 Denmark, Military Manual on International Law Relevant to Danish Armed Forces in International Operations, 1st ed., September 2016, pp. 219–220.

80 Timothy Bosetti et al., Environmental Guidebook for Military Operations, FOI-S–2922–SE, Swedish Defence Research Agency, Umeå, 2008, p. 33 and Appendix 10, p. A10-5. The Guidebook was developed by representatives of defence organizations of Finland, Sweden and the United States. Although the Guidebook is designed for use by any sending nation, it consists of recommendations only and does not necessarily reflect official policy or doctrine.

81 Joint NATO Doctrine, above note 27, para. 2.2.2,

82 Ibid., para. 2.2.2.b.

83 Ibid., para. 2.2.2.c.

84 The following apply in whole or in part to non-State armed groups, with certain examples only applying to non-State armed groups party to an armed conflict to which Additional Protocol II applies, as indicated in the Guidelines commentary: Rules 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, Recommendations 17 and 18, Rules 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29. Rules 1, 2, and 3(A) arguably also bind non-State armed groups.

85 See ICRC, The Roots of Restraint in War, Geneva, 2018.

86 See examples in Thibaud de La Bourdonnaye, “Greener Insurgencies? Engaging Non-State Armed Groups for the Protection of the Natural Environment during Non-International Armed Conflicts”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 102, No. 914, 2021; Jonathan Somer, “Environmental Protection and Non-State Armed Groups: Setting a Place at the Table for the Elephant in the Room”, CEOBS, 4 December 2015, available at: https://ceobs.org/environmental-protection-and-non-state-armed-groups-setting-a-place-at-the-table-for-the-elephant-in-the-room/; Laura Baron-Mendoza, “FARC-EP's Rebel Environmental Governance: Creating Legal Legacies of War”, Armed Groups and International Law, 2 June 2023, available at: www.armedgroups-internationallaw.org/2023/06/02/farc-eps-rebel-environmental-governance-creating-legal-legacies-of-war/; Jairo Munive and Finn Stepputat, “How Non-State Armed Groups Engage in Environmental Protection”, DIIS Policy Brief, Danish Institute for International Studies, 24 January 2023, pp. 2–3, available at: www.diis.dk/en/research/how-non-state-armed-groups-engage-in-environmental-protection.

87 Geneva Call, “Geneva Call's New Deed of Commitment on the Prevention of Starvation and Addressing Conflict-Related Food Insecurity”, 25 September 2021, available at: www.genevacall.org/news/geneva-calls-new-deed-of-commitment-on-the-prevention-of-starvation-and-addressing-conflict-related-food-insecurity/.

88 ICRC, Reducing Civilian Harm in Urban Warfare: A Handbook for Armed Groups, Geneva, 2023, pp. 13, 15, 16, 23.

89 Ibid., p. 50.

90 See the article by Ahmed Al-Dawoody and Kelisiana Thynne in a forthcoming issue of the Review: Ahmed Al-Dawoody and Kelisiana Thynne, “Dialogue and Diligence: The Protection of the Natural Environment under Islamic Law as a Vector for International Humanitarian Law Implementation”, International Review of the Red Cross, forthcoming.

91 PERAC Principles, above note 16; ILC Commentaries on the Draft PERAC Principles, above note 38, commentary on Draft Principle 1, para. 3.

92 ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, paras 214–216.

93 See, for example, T. de La Bourdonnaye, above note 86, pp. 592–604.

94 For IHL rules relating to respect for, implementation and dissemination of IHL rules protecting the natural environment, see ICRC Guidelines, above note 1, Part IV; see also ICRC, Bringing IHL Home: Guidelines on the National Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, Geneva, 19 July 2021, p. 12 and the example of the pledge of Finland and the Finnish Red Cross at pp. 16 and 37. Further, see the pledges submitted at the 33rd International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 2019, jointly by the governments and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (National Societies) of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, and by the government of Burkina Faso, available at: https://rcrcconference.org/about/pledges/search; as well as the earlier pledge made by the governments of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden and the respective National Societies of those countries, Pledge P1290, presented at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 28 November–1 December 2011. And see Jani Leino, “Bringing IHL Home: The Protection of the Environment in War”, Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog, 12 October 2021, available at: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2021/10/12/ihl-protection-environment-war/.

95 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, pp. 72–77; ICRC, Twelve Issues for 2022: What States Can Do to Improve Respect for International Humanitarian Law, Geneva, 2022, pp. 16–20.

96 For instance, Slovenia organized consultations between the Austrian, French, German and Slovenian IHL committees, the Dutch IHL platform and the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on IHL issues, focusing on strengthening coordination and promoting respect for IHL, and discussing issues related to the protection of the environment in armed conflicts and climate change: ICRC, Bringing IHL Home through Domestic Law and Policy: Report, Fifth Universal Meeting of National Committees and Similar Entities on International Humanitarian Law, Geneva, 28 June 2022, p. 15, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/bringing-ihl-home-through-domestic-law-and-policy-report.

97 Chair's Summary, above note 11.

98 Ibid., section 1.2, pp. 5–7.

99 Ibid., section 2.2, pp. 9–12. See also Issue 5 above.

100 Ibid., section 3.2, pp. 14–16. See also Issue 8 above.