Should environmental harm in war be treated as an independent ground of state responsibility? Critically analyse.

International law usually counts wartime damage to nature only as harm to people or property. The International Law Commission's 2022 draft principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts (PERAC) move towards protecting the environment for its own sake, before, during and after conflict, including occupation [1]. The Gaza conflict shows why the idea is needed, and also what limits it.

Case for an independent ground

• Gaps in treaty law: Additional Protocol I (Arts 35(3), 55) bans only damage that is "widespread, long-term and severe". All three tests must be met, and none is defined. Environmental damage is also not a grave breach, so no state is obliged to prosecute [3].
• Harm outlasts the war: Since 2023 Gaza has lost about 97% of its tree crops and 95% of its shrubland. UNEP warns that food and water security is at risk for the long term [4].
• A precedent works: The UN Compensation Commission awarded about US$4.3 billion in environmental awards for Iraq's 1990–91 damage and monitored how the money was spent [5].
• Intergenerational equity: Ruined soil and aquifers harm people not yet born. This matches the duty in India's own Articles 48A and 51A(g).

Case against / limitations

• Soft law: PERAC is only a set of draft principles that the UNGA "took note" of [1][2]. It creates no court, fine or fund.
• Attribution: Blame is shared when armed groups fight from civilian areas. Some environmental stress also predates the war, and separating old damage from new is hard.
• Evidence: UNEP staff could not enter Gaza and had to rely on satellite imagery [4]. Claims without samples are hard to prove.
• Enforcement politics: The UNCC worked only because the Security Council agreed after Iraq's defeat [5]. A divided P5 makes that unlikely today.

Way forward

• Define the three Protocol I terms at a review meeting of the states party to it [3].
• Move PERAC towards a binding convention.
• Make monitoring access part of every ceasefire.
• Copy the UNCC's design: a claims body plus independent checks on spending.

Overall, environmental harm should be an independent ground of state responsibility, though it should be built up gradually. The damage is distinct and lasting, and without such a ground it often goes unpaid for. Clear thresholds and rules for shared responsibility would turn PERAC's intent into real accountability. That would advance SDG 16 and justice between generations.