Environmental destruction during armed conflict is a 'silent casualty' of war. Examine the adequacy of international legal frameworks, including the ILC's PERAC principles, in ensuring accountability.

UNEP's 2025 Gaza assessment found about 61 million tonnes of debris, no working sewage treatment [1] and the loss of about 97% of tree crops [2]. This is a "silent casualty" because the harm outlasts the ceasefire. International law has rules against such harm, but it has few ways to make anyone answer for it.

Existing frameworks: what they offer

• Additional Protocol I, Arts. 35(3) and 55 ban methods of war that cause "widespread, long-term and severe" damage to the environment [3].
• Rome Statute, Art. 8(2)(b)(iv) makes such attacks a war crime, so individuals can be held liable [4].
• Precedent for making a state pay: the Security Council's UN Compensation Commission (UNCC) awarded about US$4.3 billion in environmental claims against Iraq. Under decision 258 (2005) it also monitored how the money was spent [5].

Accountability gaps

• Undefined, cumulative threshold: all three conditions must be met together, and none of the terms has a clear definition [3].
• Not a "grave breach": states have no duty to search for and prosecute offenders [3].
• Narrow criminal reach: the Rome Statute provision applies only to international armed conflicts. The damage must be "clearly excessive" compared with the military advantage, and this must be proved against a named person [4].
• No evidence without access: UNEP could not enter Gaza. It relied on satellite imagery and could not test coastal waters [1].
• Political dependence: a UNCC-type body needs a united Security Council, and permanent members are divided over Gaza.

PERAC principles: value and limits

• Value: the ILC adopted 27 draft principles in 2022 [6]. Principle 1 covers the environment before, during and after conflict, including occupation. Other principles apply distinction, proportionality and precaution to the environment and call for repair after conflict [6].
• Limits: the UNGA only took note of them in Res. 77/104 (7 December 2022) [7]. They are soft law, with no court, compensation fund or enforcement body.

In short, the rules exist, but enforcement is weak. Four steps would help:

• make access for environmental monitors part of every ceasefire deal;
• have Protocol I states agree definitions for its three key terms;
• move PERAC towards a binding convention;
• set up UNCC-style claims handling and spending checks for reconstruction, guided by UNEP's 30 recommendations [2].

This would make protecting the environment an enforceable duty to future generations, in line with SDG 16.