Protection of the Environment under International Humanitarian Law Regime: Challenges and Way Forward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental protection in times of armed conflict has raised serious concerns to the global community due to its devastating impact; therefore, the need to protect the environment cannot be over-emphasized. The environment has remained the silent victim of armed conflict and damages caused to it either as a victim as seen in IsraelHamas crises or as a weapon as seen in Vietnam is tremendous. It is in view of this that this paper examines the protection of the environment under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) regime. The paper adopts the doctrinal approach and examines the existing relevant provisions of the laws, rules, guidelines and policies on armed conflict protecting the environment. The paper finds that there are rules protecting the environment directly in times of armed conflict but the challenge is that these rules have imprecise provisions in addition to having very high threshold of applicability. Due to these, they have never been successfully applied in protecting the environment against real war time environmental damages. Some other existing rules protect the environment indirectly. The ICRC Updated Guidelines of 2020 on environmental protection in times of armed conflict offers valuable interpretative resource to the existing grey areas of the law. It also sheds light on the contributions and impacts of weapons and armed conflict to climate change. The paper recommends the adoption and implementation of the 2020 Guidelines by all States Parties to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. It further recommends that States should endeavour to respect and ensure respect of rules on environmental protection in armed conflict situations. This is a due diligence requirement on all parties. The paper concludes that the duty to protect the environment is a responsibility on all.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".