Description
Military conflicts increase greenhouse gas emissions and dismantle natural and societal climate adaptation mechanisms, creating feedback loops of conflict-driven climate harm. International humanitarian law offers weak environmental safeguards, but the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, influenced by strategic lobbying, permit the underreporting of military emissions. In a search for existing and efficient legal solutions to close this gap, this research provides an alternative path to the abovementioned: a reshuffling of existing state responsibility principles.
First it asserts that state obligations to prevent climate harm strictly demand peace-oriented, environmentally sustainable policies. Then it argues for the superimposition of these duties and goal limitations on the liability principles for the military harm resulting in environmental damage as established by diverse tribunals and ICJ. That should lead to state responsibility for military climate damage, the proceedings of which should be pursued parallelly to the main liability proceedings.
Critically analyzing the processes of UNCC and E-ECC, the research synthesizes the political and legal requirements for pursuing such litigation. Recognizing that militarized climate impacts disproportionately threaten small island states, it will broaden the understanding of the victim's status. Finally, it will shed light on the impact of IPCC report gaps for the attribution, demanding change.
