HIKMA SUMMIT
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
 

SOME STATS

Lebanon, also known as “land of the Cedars”, sees approximately 136,000-140,000 hectares of forest and 225km of coast on the Mediterranean. It is a varied ecosystem which however sees problems caused by the poor management of resources, pollution, water stress and climate change.
During the month-long conflict between Lebanon and Israel in 2006 both countries saw attacks on their natural environments, however the former faced and still faces heavier consequences.
640km of roads and 73 bridges were destroyed, approximately 130.000 dwelling units were damaged or destroyed as well as wastewater infrastructure.
The kerosene fuel storage at the Rafic Hariri Airport was targeted and the fuel tanks of the Jiyyeh power plant damaged by air strikes. The latter led to the spillage of more than 15.000 tonnes of oil into the Mediterranean, which is one of the biggest environmental catastrophe Lebanon has ever faced. However, the agricultural sector also faced damages and losses, as well as Lebanon’s freshwater and marine fisheries, animal husbandry and so on. In fact, numerous farming warehouses were destroyed, leading to the spillage of pesticides and fertilisers which in turn contaminated the soil.
The burning of fuel and kerosene had a terrible impact on both air quality and freshwater resources, let alone the damages caused to the wildlife and the natural habitat.

All these damages show how environmental destruction in Lebanon was not accidental but systemic and foreseeable, underlining how legal responsibility should be allocated regarding IHL’s principle of proportionality and distinction principles.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

White phosphorus is a highly reactive chemical substance used to create smoke walls, however, given its property to ignite when it meets air, it is also used as an incendiary weapon.
When the human body is exposed to white phosphorus the consequences are dire: damages to the respiratory tract and severe skin burns are the first symptoms, however in the long-term the consequences can entail chronic health issues and organ decay.

The substance is regulated under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (or CCW), which prohibits its usage in or near residential areas. Therefore, even if legal, its use may still be unlawful.
Israel did not ratify the protocol, so it is not bound by its content. However, treaties are not the only source of international law: Israel is still bound by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and customary law, both prohibit indiscriminate attacks and call for the protection of civilians.

Over the years Israel has been using white phosphorus inappropriately during conflicts despite its pledge in 2013 to stop using it. More recently, form October 2023 to November 2024 a total of 247 phosphorus attacks were registered in civilian populated areas in Southern Lebanon.
Among the most hit, the location of Al-Khiam can be found at the top with a total of 30 strikes over the period between October 2023 and November 2024: 11 out of 30 were strikes on agricultural areas. The location of Kfar Kila saw a total of 26 strikes, but holds the first place with around 16 white phosphorus attacks on civilian areas. With 15 attacks, the location of Yaroun holds the first position for the number of attacks on forested and open terrain.
Strikes on agricultural and civilian areas severely undermine food security and the economy, going way beyond the immediate military purposes.

THE LAW AND THE LOOPHOLE

As aforementioned, the Vietnam War opened the door to the implementation of international obligations towards the protection of the environment during conflicts. As an example, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Protocol I), and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) were implemented.

However, for as noble as their purpose might be, these protocols and treaties fall short: they might be referred to hyperspecific circumstances or their impact might be limited by their voluntary implementation and acceptance.

The ENMOD for example is extremely future oriented and highly unrealistic for the moment, in the sense that it prohibits the use of the environment as a weapon of war, meaning the environment can’t be used to provoke earthquakes, tsunamis or permanent changes in the weather conditions.

Protocol I on the other hand prohibits attacks on the environment which are severe, widespread and long-term, making the threshold for the definition of a crime as environmental extremely high, hence the protocol is mostly ineffective. Moreover, the Protocol only refers to crimes committed during international conflicts, which leaves out internal turmoils and civil wars.

The CCW keeps the same high threshold identified in Protocol I, but applies it to both internal and international conflicts. But again, the scope covered by these treaties and protocols is nowhere near being enough.

The crimes committed  in Lebanon make the environment an “incidental victim”.
Although the International Criminal Court recognised the protection of the environment in Article 8 (2)(b)(iv), it again establishes a too high threshold. Furthermore, criminal liability requires proof of mens rea, while environmental harm must also be foreseeable and clearly excessive. So, in order to prosecute the act, it must be intentionally committed and its scope must be forseeable and “clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage”, which is very difficult to prove because the excessiveness can be justified by the “military necessity”. Nevertheless, Custumary International Humanitarian Law requires the environment to be considered before military operations are carried out.

WHY IT WILL NOT WORK FOR LEBANON

With these premises, it seems very difficult to seek justice; but for Lebanon the request for justice is made even harder by some of its own decisions and the very functioning of International Law.
The bombing of the Jiyyeh Power Plant can be considered a war crime, therefore according to the ICC the individualsresponsible for the attack could be persecuted in the Hague. But Lebanon cannot ask for any compesation from the State of Israel. Another issue is that not Lebanon nor Israel have signed the Rome Statute fouding the ICC. Why, you might ask? The former would have troubles dealing with Hezbollah, whereas the latter would see difficulties in justifiying actions in occupied Palestine.
But the ICC is not the only court, Lebanon could appear in front of the International Court of Justice, which deals with State responsability and not only individual. Yet, neither of the two countries allowed for the ICJ’s ante hoc jurisdiction on their cases, and secondly, it is very improbable that both countries would agree on the ICJ’s optional jurisdiction.

ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION SEES NO ACCOUNTABILITY

Lebanon’s environmental destruction shows International Law’s structural problems in addressing harm against the environment during armed conflicts. The existing treaties, protocols and customary law which defend the environment remain piecemeal, too specific or too dependent on State’s willingness to enforce the law.
From the Jiyyeh oil spill to the poisoning of the soil, the damage to Lebanon’s ecosystem exposes the loopholes of international accountability mechanisms. Protected in theory, but neglected in practice.
The environment is still seen through an anthropocentric lens, where if the damage is not immediately and dramatically affecting the human species, then it falls into the background. That is why green criminology calls for the punishing of environmental harm regardless its relation with human targets. If there won’t be a reframing in legal thresholds, jurisdiction and the recognition of enviornmental destruction as a from of violence with permanent consequences, cases like Lebanon’s will fall on deaf ears.
Unless the law moves beyond the perception of environmental destruction as “collateral damage”, future conflicts will destroy entire ecosystems in the name of military necessity.