International Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law, and Environmental Security: Can the International Criminal Court Bridge the Gaps?

The gap between international humanitarian law and environmental security should trouble international lawyers. Just as armed conflict often creates a context in which the most serious human rights abuses occur, so too, does it create a similar context for the infliction of wanton and extensive destruction to the environment. This destruction creates profound environmental insecurity. Part (II) of this Article explores the insecurities caused by the environmental consequences of armed conflict. Although the international community has shown considerable concern for the humanitarian consequences of war, it has been significantly more hesitant in accounting for war's environmental consequences. It is for this reason that a very fruitful exploration of the progress that has been made and that still needs to be made in terms of harmonizing international humanitarian law with environmental protection can emerge from a study of how the international community monitors the environmental consequences of war. Part (III) examines the successes and failures of the international legal order in controlling these consequences and directs its focus on the ICC's jurisdiction to prosecute environmental war crimes. Part (IV) argues that the ICC may not be particularly well-suited to sanction environmentally destructive behavior. This raises the more penetrating question whether punitive criminal approaches pursued in isolation of other policy devices can ever promote environmental security. Part (V) is proscriptive, sketching ways in which the promotion of environmental security can be made more effective. Part (V) posits that the effective promotion of environmental security requires a multifaceted approach, which combines criminal prosecution, preventative measures, and specially tailored remedies. An additional element of this multifaceted approach, inspired by environmental justice litigation in the United States, involves more proactive use of international anti-discrimination conventions to guard against the infliction of environmental insecurity on already disempowered groups. In the end, this encourages environmental security to become more closely integrated with both the protection of human rights and international humanitarian law.