Perpetual and simultaneous wars across the world have one other silenced victim: the environment. The connotation of environment here is as expansively imaginable as possible, from the atmospheric commons, to marine health, to terrestrial decimated landscapes, to the tiniest of non-human species. In other words, impacts of these wars have a direct and indirect consequence to the ecological polycrisis that we find ourselves in. However, what has irked the most with the Iran war is the centricity of fossil fuels, not only in fuelling the war itself (the connection between oil and war is evidenced by its historicity), but as a “victim”, with repercussions well beyond the realm of environmental damage, to impending economic devastation. However, I will focus only on the environmental consequence, which always tends to get overshadowed by economic concerns, well expressed through mainstream commentaries. This centricity has been made more poignant through pictures that communicate dystopia and apocalypse in no uncertain manner.
Terming fossil fuel as the “victim” here is not without its discomfort;
after all, its production, combustion and consumption has been the primary
cause of climate change. However, simplistically put, the war has involved
putting gasfields and tankers on fire (in South Pars and Shahran), and decimating
buildings (that has happened more severely in Gaza), among others, all of which
have led to carbon emissions crossing the annual carbon
emissions of the 84 lowest emitting countries taken cumulatively (this
figure is for the first 14 days of the war, therefore, the estimates may have
increased due to no ceasefire). The targeting of fossil fuels and urban landscapes
has victimised the climate system and larger atmospheric commons; thus, I view
fossil fuels as a symbolic victim. Targeting fossil fuel infrastructure in a
war is not a clean transition; in fact, it is not an intended transition at
all. The US, under the ruling dispensation, is a climate denier after all. On
the contrary, such targeting is a deliberate attempt to accelerate the already aggravating
status quo on the climate crisis, through direct emissions by bombing upstream
facilities, as well as providing a reason to drill more fossil fuels when the
world hits an imminent oil and gas deficit crisis. Unless this has a “shock and
awe” (ironically, borrowing from Milton Friedman’s shock treatment as described
by Naomi Klein) effect on the countries to invest more in renewable energy, which
will be unlikely to achieve in a short timeframe as represented by the exigent
times, this is yet another licence to the Seven Sisters led by Exxonmobil,
Shell, BP and Chevron, all Western fossil fuel capitalists, to discover and intensify
their operations, and maintain the Gas
Industrial Complex (or the wider fossil fuel industry complex). An opportunity
to strengthen the threatened corporatist dominance over an economic setup that
is fuelled and sustained by fossil fuels.
When it comes to how international law would judge this assault
on the atmospheric and ecological commons, there is no dearth of arguments to
hold the US and Israel accountable for the consequences of targeting Iranian oil
facilities in South Pars and Shahran. Firstly, it will be a war crime under Article
8 of the Rome Statute; the black clouds and GHG emissions from these instances
have a clear “widespread, long-term and severe damage” to the natural
environment. The spatial and temporal expansiveness of these assaults is undoubtedly
clear (for the uninitiated, GHG emissions, particularly CO2, remain in the atmosphere
for decades to centuries, with the longevity determined by the availability of
carbon sinks on the planet). The intention to target with foreseeability of
such consequences can be very well imputed (in the right circumstances, the
defence of climate denialism should not work). However, the US, Israel and Iran
are not parties to the Rome Statute.
Secondly, it is a violation of the 1976 Convention on the
Prohibition of Military or any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification
Techniques, to which the US is a party (with ratification) while Israel has not
ratified it. As per the Convention, “environmental modification techniques” include
techniques that change natural processes of the biosphere in its composition,
structure or dynamics (Article 2). This definition would cover the destruction carried
out in the gas fields, gas depots and urban settlements constituted of
buildings, given the attributable short and long-term atmospheric changes, especially
when linked to climate change. But, again, the only remedy under this
Convention is complaining to the UNSC under Article 5 (with US obviously vetoing
any such accusation).
Thirdly, the 2022 ‘Draft principles on protection of the
environment in relation to armed conflicts’ impute State Responsibility to a
State involved in an armed conflict if its actions lead to ‘widespread,
long-term and severe damage’ to the environment. However, Principle 13(3) has an
exception for a situation where any such attack has a military objective, which
is clearly evident in the Iran war. In essence, this exception replicates the
dominant proclivity that displays disposability of environmental concerns when
confronted with traditionally venerated economic and, here, military
imperatives.
Lastly, one could also read the ICJ advisory opinion on obligations
of States in respect of Climate Change in an innovative manner, that could
attribute State responsibility to the US and Israel for breaching the
obligation of preventing damage to the climate system, now recognised under customary
international law, by targeting fossil fuel upstream facilities that are
leading to GHG emissions. In this case, there is a clear causation and
attribution. This would require them to cease these “wrongful actions” and provide
full reparation. However, do we imagine this roadmap playing out in this war? In all likelihood, no.
Because international law has failed
to work as an effective regime to regulate international politics. This becomes
glaringly evident in issues of transboundary importance, namely, climate change
and transboundary environmental harms. Rhetoric and practices reflective of
belligerence, impunity and recklessness in international relations have become increasingly
prominent. The United Nations and ICJ have been portrayed as obsolete
institutions through exhibition of, and complacency to, unilateralism, on which
States, like the US and Israel (at least their ruling regimes) in the Iran war,
pride themselves. And there seems to be little collective rebuke to such
actions by other States (or if there is one, the involved States turn a blind
eye). This is becoming clearer by the day; sensibilities and serious deliberations,
crucial to tackle the climate and environmental crises, have disappeared (or
are slowly disappearing).
References:
- - Jay E. Austin and Carl E. Bruch, ‘The Environmental
Consequences of War: Legal, Economic and Scientific Perspectives’ (CUP, 2000)
- - Adam Hanieh, ‘Crude Capitalism: Oil, Corporate
Power, and the Making of the World Market’ (Verso, 2024)
- - Naomi Klein, ‘The Shock Doctrine’ (Penguin Books,
2007)
