International Human Rights flooding may result from ice which may form on the Danube and then become lodged behind three bridges in Novi Sad which were bombed during Operation Allied Force21 The areas most at risk include low-lying portions of Serbia, as well as Croatia and parts of Hungary. 22 In short, " If]rom antiquity to the present, examples of environmental destruction in war abound. 23 But it is not only actual war which creates environmental insecurity. The environment also faces severe threats as nations prepare to go to war(mobilization) and as nations turn back from the threat of war(decommissioning and disarmament ). 24 On this latter point, Russian attempts to decommission its nuclear submarines in the Arctic Ocean are being carried out with insufficient financial and human resources and seriously threaten that particularly fragile marine environment. 25 Testing of weapon specifically nuclear and chemical weapons -also has particularly noxious effects on the environment. These activities collateral to actual armed conflict therefore require regulation. Nonetheless, for the most part, the environmental consequences of such activities remain unsupervised and unmonitored ll. The Icc and Environmental Protection The Language of the rome statute It is only very recently that the international community has made inroads into contemplating the prosecution of those who engage in unacceptable use of the environment during wartime. In this regard the language of the rome Statute is important. For the first time, environmental war crimes are independently sanctioned and an apparatus is provided for the punishment of those who commit such crimes. Although there was some scattered mention of environmental war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials, 26 over the past five decades humanitarian abuses have been treated separately from environmental desecration. This disconnect is revealed in the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia27 and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 28 Neither Tribunal is directly empowered to prosecute those who propagate environmental insecurity through the commission of environmental war crimes. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has some jurisdiction over war crimes which bear an incidental relationship to the security of the natural environment. 29 The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda essentially lacks jurisdiction over even incidental violations of environmental security. 30 Under the language of the Rome Statute, however, intentional infliction of harm to the environment may constitute a war crime. 31 More specifically, Article 8(2)(b)(iv) prohibits [emphasis added Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. 32 The negotiation history of Article &(2)(b)(iv)merits a brief review. The draft of the rome Statute which served as the basis for the final negotiations listed three other options along with the language which was eventually adopted in Article 8(2)(b)(iv). 33 The three rejected options are 1. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which not justified by military necessit 2. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment //ww.nsulaw nova edu/student/organizations/IL SAjournal/6-2/Drumbl %206-2 htm( 3 of 27)[4/16/2001 10: 12: 22 PMflooding may result from ice which may form on the Danube and then become lodged behind three bridges in Novi Sad which were bombed during Operation Allied Force.21 The areas most at risk include low-lying portions of Serbia, as well as Croatia and parts of Hungary.22 In short, “[f]rom antiquity to the present, examples of environmental destruction in war abound.”23 But it is not only actual war which creates environmental insecurity. The environment also faces severe threats as nations prepare to go to war (mobilization) and as nations turn back from the threat of war (decommissioning and disarmament).24 On this latter point, Russian attempts to decommission its nuclear submarines in the Arctic Ocean are being carried out with insufficient financial and human resources and seriously threaten that particularly fragile marine environment.25 Testing of weapons - specifically nuclear and chemical weapons - also has particularly noxious effects on the environment. These activities collateral to actual armed conflict therefore require regulation. Nonetheless, for the most part, the environmental consequences of such activities remain unsupervised and unmonitored. III. The ICC and Environmental Protection: The Language of the Rome Statute It is only very recently that the international community has made inroads into contemplating the prosecution of those who engage in unacceptable use of the environment during wartime. In this regard, the language of the Rome Statute is important. For the first time, environmental war crimes are independently sanctioned and an apparatus is provided for the punishment of those who commit such crimes. Although there was some scattered mention of environmental war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials,26 over the past five decades humanitarian abuses have been treated separately from environmental desecration. This disconnect is revealed in the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia27 and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.28 Neither Tribunal is directly empowered to prosecute those who propagate environmental insecurity through the commission of environmental war crimes. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has some jurisdiction over war crimes which bear an incidental relationship to the security of the natural environment.29 The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda essentially lacks jurisdiction over even incidental violations of environmental security.30 Under the language of the Rome Statute, however, intentional infliction of harm to the environment may constitute a war crime.31 More specifically, Article 8(2)(b)(iv) prohibits [emphasis added]: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.32 The negotiation history of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) merits a brief review. The draft of the Rome Statute which served as the basis for the final negotiations listed three other options along with the language which was eventually adopted in Article 8(2)(b)(iv).33 The three rejected options are: 1. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which is not justified by military necessity. (Or) 2. Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment. International Human Rights http://www.nsulaw.nova.edu/student/organizations/ILSAjournal/6-2/Drumbl%206-2.htm (3 of 27) [4/16/2001 10:12:22 PM]