International Scientific Conference: “International Criminal Law with a Focus on Environmental Protection” Mount Tara , Serbia , May 14-16, 2026
(Yiannis Rachiotis, Lawyer, Athens, Greece)
This paper examines the intentional destruction of the natural or man‑made environment as a means of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity to achieve political or military objectives. It argues that such environmental offences – whether inside or outside armed conflict – constitute independent methods of warfare when designed to affect the life, health, or living conditions of a large population to undermine the adversary’s capacity. The paper does not address collateral environmental damage (governed by proportionality) nor purely domestic environmental crimes. Through case studies (Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Gaza, Iran, Ukraine), it demonstrates that existing international legal frameworks suffer from interpretive ambiguities and enforcement gaps, rendering accountability virtually impossible when powerful states are the perpetrators.
Key Words
war crimes, crimes against humanity, environmental offences, depleted uranium, international criminal law
—————
According to the definition provided by the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary[1], “environment” is “the natural world in which people, animals and plants live.” However, the concept of the environment does not encompass solely the natural world surrounding human beings (atmosphere, soil, water), but rather constitutes a far more complex notion. Following this notion, the United Nations’ (UN) “Stockholm Declaration”, 1972, proclaims that:
“…1. Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet, a stage has been reached when, through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man’s environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights, the right to life itself. 2…” [2]
The Legal Framework.
War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
According to the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal (London Charter), war crimes are violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations include, inter alia, murder, ill-treatment, deportation to forced labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
War crimes are also defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as acts committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, including, inter alia, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 [3], namely the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: (i) willful killing, (ii) torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, (iii) willfully causing of great suffering or serious injury to body or health, (iv) extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Crimes against humanity were defined in Article 6(c) of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.”
Crimes against humanity are described in Article 7 of the Rome Statute as any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, irrespective of any nexus to armed conflict. Among these are murder, extermination, forced displacement of population, and other inhumane acts of a similar character, intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
International Conventions Prohibiting the Military Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1976, opened for signature in Geneva on 18 May 1977, and entered into force on 5 October 1978. It is complemented by Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
The ENMOD Convention was adopted under the auspices of the United Nations, largely in response to the concerns of the international community that arose following the use by the United States military of methods and means of warfare that caused extensive environmental damage during the Vietnam War. According to the provisions of the Convention, the military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects is prohibited. The term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing—through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes—the dynamics, composition, or structure of the Earth.
The provisions of these two international instruments focus on different types of environmental damage; they are considered complementary and do not overlap. While Additional Protocol I prohibits recourse to “environmental warfare”, for example, the use of methods of warfare that are likely to disrupt vital natural balances, the ENMOD Convention prohibits what is known as “geophysical warfare,” which implies the deliberate manipulation of natural processes and may cause, for example, hurricanes, tidal waves, earthquakes, rain, or snow. Nevertheless, interpretative difficulties arise, particularly from the fact that different meanings are attributed to identical terms, as is the case with the terms “widespread, long-lasting or severe.”
War in the 21st Century: “Multi-Domain Operations.”
The United States, the undisputed leader of the so-called “West”, after 1990 found itself exercising absolute dominance on a global scale. The foundation of this global supremacy was its unquestioned military superiority. However, potential “threats” (in Western terminology) to this unipolar dominance soon emerged, originating either from the rapid economic development of certain countries of the Global South, or from efforts by others toward national consolidation, or from movements of decolonization and emancipation from the Western system.
In response to these perceived threats, the doctrine of “multi-domain operations” was developed by military planners of the United States and NATO.[4] “Multi-domain operations” signify that military activities are conducted simultaneously and in a coordinated manner across land, sea, air, space (satellites, communications), and cyberspace (cyberattacks, information warfare). The objective is to create an advantage over the adversary, to simultaneously “paralyze” its systems across multiple levels, and to exploit the interconnectivity among these domains.
Within the framework of “multi-domain operations,” acts causing harm to the environment -unlawful under international law as outlined above- acquire operational relevance and political expediency as a means of achieving major military, political and geopolitical advantages.
Case Studies
A. Earlier Cases
1. The destruction of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The total destruction of the three cities was not aimed at the destruction of military installations or specific targets, but rather at the total annihilation of the man-made environment including all their infrastructure and population. The objective was to induce panic among the broader civilian population of the adversary and to undermine the will of its leadership to continue the military effort. These acts clearly constitute war crimes committed through the extensive destruction of the man-made environment.
2. Vietnam
During the 1960s, US forces operating in Vietnam sprayed vast areas of arable land and forests with the toxic chemical known as Agent Orange[5]. Vietnam thus became a theatre of war in which the largest chemical spraying operations in human history were conducted. During the period of peak operational escalation, 77 million liters of herbicides and defoliants were deployed, many of which were mixed in high concentrations with chemical compounds containing chlorinated dioxin. These substances were dispersed aerially over an area equivalent to 25% of the total territory of South Vietnam.[6] The objective was to destroy the combat capability of the People’s Army of Vietnam and, consequently, to consolidate the occupation of the country.
B. Recent cases.
1. The use of Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions.
The use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions has been confirmed in the two US-led wars against Iraq: Approximately 350 tons of DU munitions were deployed in 1991 , and between 1,000 – 2,000 tons in 2003. During the 1999 war against Yugoslavia 12,000–15,000 tons of DU ammunition were deployed.
When a DU projectile strikes a target, it ignites and disintegrates into an extremely fine radioactive and toxic dust. This DU dust contaminates soil and air for an exceedingly long period of time. By way of illustration, the half-life of Uranium-238 is approximately 4.5 billion years. In Iraq, a dramatic increase in cases of leukemia and cancer was observed, particularly among children, in areas where DU was extensively used. Researchers have also reported cases of teratogenesis, with children being born with severe deformities. Due to the post-war occupation of the country by the United States and the United Kingdom, comprehensive statistical data and studies were not feasible.
Serbian scientists have linked the use of DU in the southern regions of the former Yugoslavia with a significant increase in cancer rates and other diseases. According to statements by Serbian experts, more than 30,000 individuals were diagnosed with cancer within the first decade following the bombings, with deaths estimated between 10,000 and 18,000. It is further noted that, after 1999, Yugoslavia recorded the highest rates of malignant tumors in Europe. Independent scientists, organizations (e.g., the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1996), and former military personnel (such as Major Doug Rokke, who was responsible for the U.S. Army’s DU Program) have described DU munitions as “weapons of mass destruction” and their use as constituting a war crime. Critics emphasize that such munitions violate fundamental principles of the law of armed conflict, as they uncontrollably contaminate the environment and produce long-term effects. The justification for the extensive use of DU munitions is their enhanced penetrative capability. However, the US, UK, and the other NATO leaders who ordered the use of DU munitions had full knowledge of the broader and long-term destruction they inflict upon both the natural and man-made environment, which constitutes harm infinitely by far greater than the intended military-tactical advantage. Consequently, their use constitutes a war crime through environmental destruction in a manner that affects large populations and future generations.
2. Yugoslavia (1999)
In the context of the war against Yugoslavia, NATO bombed strategic industrial infrastructure unrelated to military operations, such as oil refineries and petrochemical plants, with the objective of causing widespread environmental contamination and the deindustrialization of the country. As a result of the bombings, thousands of tons of toxic chemical substances were released into the Danube River, the atmosphere, and the soil. According to a United Nations report, 81 civilian industrial facilities were attacked or destroyed. The most significant of these included: In the Pancevo area, oil refinery, petrochemical plant, fertilizer plant etc Mercury, dioxins, vinylchloride, chlorine, ammonia, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were released. In Novi Sad, an oil refinery: 50,000 tons of crude oil were burned. In Kragujevac the Zastava automobile industry: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and toxic waste were released. In Bor a copper plant: Sulfur dioxide (SO₂) was released, causing acid rain. The bombardment of these facilities frequently triggered fires that burned uncontrollably for days, resulting in the release of massive quantities of toxic gases and soot.
The effects of the release of toxic substances were immediate and severe, creating what the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) termed “hot spots” of contamination. Residents of the affected areas experienced immediate health problems. In Pancevo, symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, and skin rashes were reported. Medical practitioners in the region recorded a doubling in the number of miscarriages compared to the same period in the previous year.
3.Ukraine (2022–2026)
(a). Immediately after the beginning of the Russian Federation’s Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, more than 30 laboratories conducting biological experiments involving microorganisms hazardous to human health were identified. All of these facilities were located in proximity to the Russian border and were funded and supervised by the United States Department of Defense. Their operation was suspended at the outbreak of hostilities and resumed in 2024. Similar biological laboratories have also been established by the United States in Georgia. Even if, at present, these laboratories operate solely at a research level and do not directly interfere with the natural environment of the region, it is evident that they constitute an unlawful threat of biological warfare.
(b). The bombing and destruction of the Kakhovka dam on the Dnieper River. This constitutes a major environmental catastrophe that led to the destruction of a large number of settlements and arable lands, as well as the forced displacement of their inhabitants.
(c). The bombing of the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia. The nuclear facility has been subjected to shelling almost since the beginning of the war, causing the release of radioactive materials.
- Iran (2025 & 2026)
The bombings by the US & Israel of chemical and petroleum industries in Iran have released a toxic mixture of chemical substances, heavy metals, and other pollutants affecting all sectors -from agriculture to drinking water and public health- and are expected to result in environmental damage and long-term health burdens for the Iranian population that may persist for decades, according to experts.
Satellite observations and open-source intelligence have identified damage and environmental risks to human populations, ecosystems, and agricultural land. Attacks on oil and gas facilities generate some of the most severe environmental risks due to their impact on air quality, soil and water contamination, and associated threats to human health. Iranian officials have characterized attacks on fuel storage facilities as “deliberate chemical warfare,” given that their destruction releases hazardous and toxic substances into the atmosphere, poisoning civilians and degrading the environment.
In early March 2026, black toxic rainfall occurred in Iran, a grim phenomenon previously observed in other war zones. Attacks on petroleum facilities ignited thousands of tons of stored fuel, producing a cloud of toxic smoke over the affected areas. The burning of huge amounts of fuel causes a hot updraft that carries the infectious residues of the fires into the atmosphere, and the resulting dirty precipitation ends up either in drinking water, irrigation, or the soil.
Efforts to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities are highly likely to result in the release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and to cause long-term environmental contamination.
- The Gaza Strip (2023–2025)
Gaza represents the most extreme example of the intentional destruction of the man-made environment as a means of committing genocide: We refer to the destruction of all cities in the Strip, of all infrastructure networks, all hospitals, schools, universities, etc.; We refer also to the blockade and deliberate creation of famine through deprivation of water and food combined with the extermination of over 70,000 people and many more of the injuries who cannot receive adequate medical care due to the destruction of the healthcare system and to the forced exile of an unknown number of individuals.
The Possibility of Punishing War Crimes in Today’s International Legal Order.
The cases described above constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed through attacks on either the natural environment, the man‑made environment, or both. In the case of the Gaza Strip, it further appears that genocide – the gravest of the core international crimes – has been committed, either directly through the physical extermination of a large population or through the destruction of the man‑made environment. In the case of Iran, aside from the crimes discussed here, the United States and Israel have evidently also committed the crime of aggression.
The question arises whether there can exist international bodies with the practical capacity to deliver justice for these crimes. The President and other officials of the United States, seeking to maintain absolute global control , have repeatedly declared that they do not recognize the existence of international law. They no longer even acknowledge the “rules‑based international order” proposed by a previous U.S. administration as a substitute for international law.
The international courts that could theoretically intervene are the ICJ (International Court of Justice) and the ICC (International Criminal Court). In both cases, the presence and influence of Western powers are decisive and will obviously prevent them from issuing convictions, let alone enforcing them. Experience to date with both courts has been discouraging, as it is practically impossible to take any measures when they are directed against Western powers. The ICC, in particular, is limited to delivering victor’s justice, and it could hardly be otherwise in a world where states do not possess equal capacities.
Discussion – Conclusion
From the above overview of contemporary armed conflicts and historical precedents, three central conclusions emerge with tragic clarity:
First, the deliberate and systematic targeting of the natural and man‑made environment is no longer collateral damage or an inevitable consequence of war, but has become an independent means of strategic coercion. Whether through toxic substances (Agent Orange), radioactive munitions (depleted uranium), the destruction of dams, or the targeted demolition of industrial and energy infrastructure, the common denominator is the intentional infliction of long‑term ecological collapse, aimed at breaking the opponent’s resistance and forcing population displacement.
Second, the existing regulatory framework – from the ENMOD Convention and Additional Protocol I to the Rome Statute – is insufficient, exhibits significant interpretive ambiguities (e.g., terms such as “widespread, long‑term, and severe”), and, above all, suffers from enforcement gaps. The cases of Gaza, Iran, Ukraine, and the former Yugoslavia demonstrate that the existence of rules without independent and robust enforcement mechanisms renders international criminal law, in practice, selective and a form of “victor’s justice.”
Third, the refusal of powerful states to recognize the binding nature of international law, combined with the ineffectiveness of the ICJ and the biased functioning of the ICC, maintains an absolute accountability deficit when it comes to former colonial powers. War crimes and crimes against humanity committed through environmental destruction remain, like all core international crimes – in practice effectively unpunished if the perpetrator possesses veto power, military strength, or geopolitical protection.
Consequently, the central question posed to the community of international criminal law is not merely legal or interpretive, but profoundly political and institutional: How can we construct an international criminal justice regime that does not depend on the identity of the perpetrator or on the prevailing balance of power? Until this question is answered, the protection of the environment in times of war will remain an empty promise – and humanity will continue to count its victims not only in human lives but also in poisoned soils, contaminated waters, and devastated ecosystems for generations to come.
Yet the Charter of the United Nations and its foundational principles – sovereign equality, self‑determination, prohibition of the use of force – remain among the most significant achievements of human civilization. They cannot be dismissed as a dead letter so long as states and societies persist in upholding them. For the Global South, these principles should not constitute a naïve reliance on the goodwill of former colonial powers, but rather a shared ideological and legal framework: a line of defense capable of being activated through collective action and the unwavering demand for respect of international law.
History does not end here. So long as there are people who refuse to acquiesce in the deliberate provocation of chaos and in the instrumentalization of the environment and science as weapons against the most vulnerable, international law will endure as both an ideological and a political instrument – not a utopian aspiration, but a realistic framework for confronting neocolonial violence. Within this framework, the demand for environmental protection and for the prohibition of its use as a weapon acquires renewed normative and practical significance.
Bibliography
- Oxford Learner’s Dictionary of Academic English. “Environment.” Oxford University Press. Accessed [date]. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com.
- United Nations. Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972. UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14 and Corr.1 (1972). Also printed in International Legal Materials 11 (1972): 1416.
- Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis (London Charter). 8 August 1945. 82 UNTS 279.
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002. 2187 UNTS 3.
- Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention). Opened for signature 10 December 1976, entered into force 5 October 1978. 1108 UNTS 151.
- Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). 8 June 1977. 1125 UNTS 3.
- Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. 75 UNTS 287; 6 UST 3516.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNCHS (Habitat) Balkans Task Force. The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment & Human Settlements. Geneva: UNEP/UNCHS, 1999.
- Rokke, Doug. “Depleted Uranium: A Weapon of Mass Destruction.” Journal of Environmental Health 62, no. 5 (2000): 12–18. Also, various public statements, 1999–2006.
- United Nations Sub‑Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Resolution 1996/16, 29 August 1996 (condemning weapons of mass destruction, including depleted uranium).
- Stellman, Jeanne M., et al. “The Extent and Patterns of Usage of Agent Orange and Other Herbicides in Vietnam.” Nature 422, no. 6933 (2003): 681–87.
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Various reports on shelling at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, 2022–2025. Available at https://www.iaea.org.
- Statute of the International Court of Justice. Adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945. 33 UNTS 993.
- International Criminal Court (ICC). Rome Statute Article 7 – Crimes against humanity. In Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 UNTS 3, art. 7.
Summary
This paper examines deliberate destruction of the natural or man‑made environment as a means of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity to achieve political or military objectives. It argues that such environmental offences constitute an independent method of warfare when designed to affect the life, health, or living conditions of a large population to undermine the adversary’s capacity. Collateral damage and purely domestic environmental crimes are excluded.
The legal framework is outlined: war crimes under the Nuremberg Charter and Rome Statute include wanton destruction not justified by military necessity; crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute require a widespread or systematic attack against civilians. The ENMOD Convention (1978) prohibits military use of environmental modification techniques with widespread, long‑lasting, or severe effects, while Additional Protocol I (1977) prohibits methods likely to cause widespread, long‑term, and severe environmental damage. Interpretive difficulties arise from differing meanings of identical terms.
The doctrine of “multi‑domain operations” (US/NATO) is introduced, within which environmentally harmful acts acquire strategic value.
Case studies include: destruction of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki; Agent Orange in Vietnam (77 million litres of herbicides). Recent cases: depleted uranium munitions in Iraq (350–2,000 tons) and Yugoslavia (12,000–15,000 tons), linked to cancer and birth defects; NATO’s 1999 bombing of Yugoslav industrial infrastructure, releasing toxins into the Danube; Ukraine (2022–2026): biological laboratories, Kakhovka dam destruction, Zaporizhia nuclear plant shelling; Iran (2025–2026): US‑Israeli bombings causing black toxic rainfall; Gaza (2023–2025): destruction of man‑made environment, blockade, famine, and genocide.
The paper concludes that existing frameworks suffer from three deficiencies: (i) environmental targeting is now a strategic tool; (ii) the regulatory regime is ambiguous and lacks enforcement; (iii) powerful states reject international law, and the ICJ/ICC are ineffective against Western powers, rendering accountability impossible. The central question is how to build a justice regime independent of perpetrator identity or power. Nonetheless, the UN Charter’s principles remain a vital framework for the Global South, and international law endures as a realistic instrument to confront neocolonial violence.
[1] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/environment
[2] http://www.un-documents.net/unchedec.htm#:~:text=Principle%204,in%20planning %20for%20economic%20development.
[3] These are defined in Article 50 of the Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the Geneva Convention II, Article 129 of the Geneva Convention III, and Article 146 of the Geneva Convention IV.
[4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D-PURL-LPS108515/pdf/GOVPUB-D-PURL-LPS108515.pdf
[5] It constitutes a mixture of chemical herbicides and defoliant toxic substances, which were used by the United States military to spray vast areas of forests and other arable land in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, to strip forests and agricultural areas of vegetation, where insurgents would hide and obtain food.
[6] Institute of Medicine. 2014. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2012. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.