Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T08:24:55.715Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restrictions on the use of force at sea: An environmental protection perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2017

Jinxing Ma  and
Shiyan Sun
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The restrictions on the use of force at sea exist in different branches of international law: the law of the sea and environmental law, mainly applicable during peacetime, and international humanitarian law (IHL), as the law applicable in times of armed conflict. Different rules from these areas must be compared and analyzed to determine the common principles applicable to restricting the use of force at sea for the purposes of environmental protection. Taking into account the particular problems of protecting the marine environment in the context of the use of force, the law of the sea and international environmental law should be applied to restrict means and methods of using force at sea during armed conflict. The detailed concepts and approaches in the law of the sea and environmental law may complement IHL, and the precautionary principle of international environmental law should be triggered to address the lacunae in IHL protecting the marine environmental during armed conflict.

Keywords

use of force at seaenvironmental protectionrestrictionsIHLUNCLOS
Type
Maritime operations
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 98 , Issue 902: War and security at sea , August 2016 , pp. 515 - 541
Copyright
Copyright © icrc 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1833 UNTS 3, 10 December 1982 (entered into force 16 November 1994).

2 Cohan, John Alan, “Modes of Warfare and Evolving Standards of Environmental Protection under the International Law of War”, Florida Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2003, p. 485Google Scholar.

3 Regulations on Prospecting and Exploration for Polymetallic Nodules in the Area, ISBA/6/A/18, 13 July 2000 (amended 22 July 2013), Regulation 1.3(c).

4 Generally accepted international rules and standards cannot be equated with customary international law. For a discussion on the identification of which provisions concerning marine pollution in UNCLOS reflect customary international law, see Roach, Joseph Ashley, “Today's Customary International Law of the Sea”, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2014, pp. 250–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sharp, Walter G., “The Effective Deterrence of Environmental Damage during Armed Conflict: A Case Analysis of the Persian Gulf War”, Military Law Review, Vol. 137, No. 1, 1992, p. 32Google Scholar.

5 For further discussion on the international law of active and passive environmental warfare, see Jensen, Eric Talbot, “The International Law of Environmental Warfare: Active and Passive Damage during Armed Conflict”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2005Google Scholar.

6 Some scholars believe that focusing only on instrumental or intrinsic values may fail to resonate with views on personal and collective well-being with regard to nature and the environment. Relational values pertain to all manner of relationships between people and nature. See Chan, Kai M. A. et al. , “Why Protect Nature? Rethinking Values and the Environment”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 113, No. 6, 2016, p. 1462CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7 Beckerman, Wilfred and Pasek, Joanna, Justice, Posterity and the Environment, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001, p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar8.

8 Convention on Biological Diversity, 1760 UNTS 79, 6 June 1992 (entered into force 29 December 1993), Preamble.

9 On valuing biodiversity, some scholars agree that monetary value can serve as a useful link between environmental problems and political decision-making processes, although the future challenge is to identify common ground for comparing monetary and intrinsic values. See Laurila-Pant, Mirka et al. , “How to Value Biodiversity in Environmental Management?”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 55, 2015, pp. 6–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 See Umesh Chandra Jha, Armed Conflict and Environmental Damage, Vij Books India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi, 2014, pp. 41–42.

11 Grosberg, Richard K., Vermeij, Geerat J. and Wainwright, Peter C., “Biodiversity in Water and on Land”, Current Biology, Vol. 22, No. 21, 2012, p. R900CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

12 See Antoine, Philippe, “International Humanitarian Law and the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 32, No. 291, 1992, p. 530CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Partow, Hassan, “Environmental Impact of Wars and Conflicts”, in Tolba, Mostafa K. and Saab, Najib W. (eds), Arab Environment: Future Challenges, Arab Forum for Environment and Development, Beirut, 2008, p. 164Google Scholar.

13 See Al-Duaij, Nada, Environmental Law of Armed Conflict, Transnational Publishers, New York, 2003, p. 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See International Court of Justice (ICJ), Oil Platforms Case (Iran v. United States of America), Memorial submitted by Iran, ICJ Reports 1993, p. 127.

15 See Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), Maritime Boundary Delimitation Case (Guyana v. Suriname), Award, PCA Reports 2007, paras 442–443.

16 See Donahue, Donald A. et al. , “The All Needs Approach to Emergency Response”, Homeland Security Affairs Journal, Vol. 8, 2012, p. 2Google Scholar.

17 See International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “How Is the Term ‘Armed Conflict’ Defined in International Humanitarian Law?”, March 2008, available at: www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/opinion-paper-armed-conflict.pdf (all internet references were accessed in August 2017).

18 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts, UN Doc. A/CN.4/70, 3 June 2016, para. 15.

19 Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS XVI, 26 June 1945 (entered into force 24 October 1945), Art. 2(4).

20 See Arend, Anthony Clark and Beck, Robert J., International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the U.N. Charter Paradigm, Routledge, London and New York, 2013, pp. 59–60Google Scholar, 72–78.

21 A very rare example in this respect is that the United Kingdom blockaded the Port of Beira of Mozambique, pursuant to Resolution 221 of the UN Security Council, as the port was used to transport oil to support the Smith regime in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). Two Greek ships, Joanna V and Manuela, were visited and examined when they sought to break the blockade, and a French tanker, Artois, was shot on the bow for violating the prohibition against importing oil. See UNSC Res. 221, 9 April 1966. Also see Roberts, Adam and Zaum, Dominik, “UN Security Council-Authorised Military Operations, 1950–2007”, The Adelphi Papers, Vol. 47, No. 395, 2007, p. 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 See Sankey, John, “Decolonisation: Cooperation and Confrontation at the United Nations”, in Jensen, Erik and Fisher, Thomas (eds), The United Kingdom — The United Nations, Macmillan, London, 1990, p. 114Google Scholar; A. Roberts and D. Zaum, above note 21, pp. 79–84.

23 See Kwast, Patricia Jimenez, “Maritime Law Enforcement and the Use of Force: Reflections on the Categorisation of Forcible Action at Sea in the Light of the Guyana/Suriname Award”, Journal of Conflict Security Law, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2008, p. 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 UNCLOS, Art. 2.

25 UNCLOS, Arts 33, 56, 94, 99, 105 ff.

26 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1678 UNTS 221, 10 March 1988 (entered into force 1 March 1992); Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, IMO Doc. LEG/CONF.15/21, 14 October 2005 (entered into force 28 July 2010), Art. 8bis, para. 9.

27 Ibid., Art. 3bis.

28 UNCLOS, Art. 301.

29 PCA, Maritime Boundary Delimitation, above note 15, para. 446.

30 See, e.g., UNCLOS, Art. 192.

31 See Freestone, David, “The Conservation of Marine Ecosystems Under International Law”, in Bowman, Michael and Redgwell, Catherine (eds), International Law and the Conservation of Biological Diversity, Kluwer Law International, London, 1996, pp. 91–92Google Scholar; Boyle, Alan, “Further Development of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Mechanisms for Change”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 4, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oral, Nilufer, Regional Co-operation and Protection of the Marine Environment Under International Law: The Black Sea, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2013, pp. 136–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/14/Rev1, 16 June 1972.

33 See San Remo International Institute of Humanitarian Law, “The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 816, 1995, pp. 583–637Google Scholar.

34 Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/49/323 and UNGA Res. 49/50, 9 December 1994 (Guidelines for Military Manuals).

35 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, British State Papers 1856, Vol. 61 (entered into force 16 April 1856), pp. 155–158.

36 For example, Hague Convention (II) with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague Convention II), and its Annex, Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 29 July 1899, Art. 23(1), available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/195?OpenDocument; Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, and its Annex, Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907, Art. 23(a); Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 17 June 1925.

37 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention), 1108 UNTS 151, 10 December 1976 (entered into force 5 October 1978).

38 Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Art. 35(3).

39 For example, Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, 1974 UNTS 45, 13 January 1993 (entered into force 29 April 1997) (Chemical Weapons Convention), Arts 4(10), 5(11).

40 See Lowe, Alan Vaughn, “Commentary on the 1972 Bacteriological Convention”, in Ronzitti, Natalino (ed.), The Law of Naval Warfare: A Collection of Agreements and Documents with Commentaries, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Boston, MA, and London, 1999, p. 647Google Scholar; Hulme, Karen, War Torn Environment: Interpreting the Legal Threshold, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2004, p. 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Guidelines for Military Manuals, above note 34.

42 See AP I, Art. 8(2)(b)(iv); K. Hulme, above note 40, p. 300; Tignino, Mara, “Water, International Peace, and Security”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 879, 2010, p. 661CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 See Bothe, Michael, Bruch, Carl, Diamond, Jordan and Jensen, David, “International Law Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: Gaps and Opportunities”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 879, 2010, p. 576CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Articles 35(3) and 55(1) of AP I prohibit not all conditions, but those conditions attached to “long-term, widespread and severe” damage to the environment. See AP I, Arts 35(3), 55(1).

45 Besides the condition of military objectives, in the view of the committee established to review the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, Articles 35(3) and 55 of AP I only cover very significant damage. The adjectives “widespread, long-term, and severe” used in AP I are joined by the word “and”, meaning that this is a triple, cumulative standard. See Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, June 2000, para. 15, available at: www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/otp_report_nato_bombing_en.pdf. Meanwhile, there is a critical appraisal of the above assessment which holds that the Committee's report shows a poor grasp of legal concepts, and deviates from well-established case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. See Benvenuti, Paolo, “The ICTY Prosecutor and the Review of the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2001, pp. 509–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 M. Bothe et al., above note 43, p. 576.

47 Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978).

48 Wyatt, Julian, “Law-Making at the Intersection of International Environmental, Humanitarian and Criminal Law: The Issue of Damage to the Environment in International Armed Conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 879, 2010, p. 612CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 AP I, Arts 35(3) and 55(1).

50 One line of thought focused on the obligation of “care” in Article 55(1) of AP I holds that the real gem hidden among those provisions is not the prohibition of means and methods causing widespread, long-term and severe damage in Article 35(3), but the obligation on States Parties to take care to protect the environment against such harm. See Hulme, Karen, “Taking Care to Protect the Environment against Damage: A Meaningless Obligation?”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 92, No. 879, 2010, pp. 675–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 ICRC, “Additional Protocol I of 1997: Ban on the Use of Methods and Means of Warfare that Damage the Environment”, 31 January 2003, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/1976-convention-prohibition-military-or-any-hostile-use-environmental-modification; also in Reference Materials to Accompany IUCN Statement on Armed Conflict and the Environment, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26, Vol. 1, 12 August 1992.

52 See AP I, Art. 55(1).

53 “With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: those who plan or decide upon an attack shall: take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.” See AP I, Art. 57(2)(a)(ii).

54 Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict, report submitted by the ICRC to the 48th Session of the UN General Assembly, 1993, available at: www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/report/5deesv.htm.

55 Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 150CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Cf. Article 1(1) of the ENMOD Convention, which only prohibits the use of environmental modification techniques having “widespread, longlasting or severe effects”.

57 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, 17 July 1998 (entered into force 1 July 2002), Art. 8(2)(b)(iv).

58 Ibid.

59 See Hague Convention II, Art. 23(e).

60 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (and Protocols) (as amended on 21 December 2001), 1342 UNTS 137, 10 October 1980 (entered into force 2 December 1983).

61 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, 1015 UNTS 163, 10 April 1972 (entered into force 26 March 1975), Arts 1(1) and (2).

62 Chemical Weapons Convention, Arts 1 and 9(3).

63 Hague Convention (XIII) concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, USTS 545, 18 October 1907 (entered into force 26 January 1910).

64 ICJ, Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), Judgment (Merit), ICJ Reports 1949, p. 22.

65 Frank, Veronica, The European Community and Marine Environmental Protection in the International Law of the Sea: Implementing Global Obligations at the Regional Level, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2007, p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 See Van Dyke, Jon M. and Broder, Sherry P., “International Agreements and Customary International Principles Providing Guidance for National and Regional Ocean Policies”, in Cicin-Sain, Biliana, Zwaag, David L. Vander and Balgos, Miriam C. (eds), Routledge Handbook of National and Regional Ocean Policies, Routledge, London and New York, 2015, p. 49Google Scholar.

67 See UNCLOS, Art. 236.

68 Study on the Naval Arms Race: Report of the Secretary General, UN Doc. A/40/535, 17 September 1985, para. 188, pp. 54–55.

69 See United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Protecting the Environment during Armed Conflict: An Inventory and Analysis of International Law, UNEP and Earthprint, Nairobi, 2009, p. 36Google Scholar; Schmitt, Michael N., “Green War: An Assessment of the Environmental Law of International Armed Conflict”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1997, p. 48Google Scholar.

70 Brunnée, Jutta, “The Stockholm Declaration and the Structure and Processes of International Environmental Law”, in Chircop, Aldo E., McDorman, Ted L. and Rolston, Susan J. (eds), The Future of Ocean Regime Building: Essays in Tribute to Douglas M. Johnston, Kluwer Law International, London, 2008, p. 41Google Scholar; Sands, Philippe, Peel, Jacqueline and MacKenzie, Ruth, Principles of International Environmental Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012, p. 888CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 See Roch, Philippe and Perrez, Franz Xaver, “International Environmental Governance: The Strive Towards a Comprehensive, Coherent, Effective and Efficient International Environmental Regime”, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005, pp. 5–6Google Scholar, claiming that “the number of environmental treaties worldwide has grown to over 500”; and Mitchell, Ronald B., “International Environmental Agreements: A Survey of Their Features, Formation, and Effects”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 28, 2003, pp. 429–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which surveyed over 700 multilateral agreements and more than 1,000 bilateral treaties, conventions, protocols and amendments designed to protect the environment.

72 See, e.g., International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, 1340 UNTS 61, 2 November 1973 (entered into force 12 October 1983), Art. 3(3).

73 Kravchenko, Svitlana, Chowdhury, Tareq M. R. and Bhuiyan, Jahid Hossain, “Principles of International Environmental Law”, in Alam, Shawkat et al. (eds), Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law, Routledge, London and New York, 2012, p. 43Google Scholar.

74 See Birnie, Patricia W. and Boyle, Alan E., International Law and the Environment, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 116Google Scholar; Marr, Simon, The Precautionary Principle in the Law of the Sea: Modern Decision Making in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, London and New York, 2003, pp. 89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, A/CONF. 151/26, 14 June 1992 (Rio Declaration).

76 P. Sands, J. Peel and R. MacKenzie, above note 70, p. 221.

77 See, e.g., the Preamble to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 2354 UNTS 67, 22 September 1992 (entered into force 25 March 1998) (OSPAR Convention); and the Preamble to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2226 UNTS 208, 29 January 2000 (entered into force 11 September 2003).

78 See, e.g., Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 1673 UNTS 57, 22 March 1989 (entered into force 5 May 1992), Art. 4(2)(a); Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, Art. 2(2)(a); UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1771 UNTS 107, 9 May 1992 (entered into force 21 March 1994), Art. 3(3).

79 See O'Riordan, Timothy and Cameron, James, Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, Routledge, London and New York, 2013, pp. 255–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peel, Jacqueline, The Precautionary Principle in Practice: Environmental Decision-Making and Scientific Uncertainty, Federation Press, New South Wales, 2005, pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

80 Sirinskiene, Agne, “The Status of Precautionary Principle: Moving towards a Rule of Customary Law”, Jurisprudence, Vol. 4, No. 118, 2009, p. 351Google Scholar.

81 See Rio Declaration, Principle 15.

82 There have been some controversies amongst scholars in relation to the legal status of the precautionary principle in international law. See, e.g., A. Sirinskiene, above note 80, pp. 351–352.

83 Mclntyre, Owen and Mosedale, Thomas, “The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International Law”, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1997, p. 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Trouwborst, Arie, “Prevention, Precaution, Logic and Law: The Relationship between the Precautionary Principle and the Preventative Principle in International Law and Associated Questions”, Erasmus Law Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2009, p. 123Google Scholar.

84 Report of International Arbitral Awards, Trail Smelter Case (United States v. Canada), UN, International Law Report, Vol. 3, 1941, p. 1965.

85 UNGA Res. 3281 (XXIX), 12 December 1974.

86 Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 3; Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and other Matter, 26 UNTS 2403, 29 December 1972 (entered into force 30 August 1975), Preamble; Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 1513 UNTS 323, 22 March 1985 (entered into force 22 September 1988), Preamble; UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Preamble; Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, 2256 UNTS 119, 22 May 2001 (entered into force 17 May 2004), Preamble.

87 Antarctic Treaty, 402 UNTS 71, 1 December 1959 (entered into force 23 June 1961), Art. 1.

88 Annex IV to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, 30 ILM 1455, 4 October 1991 (entered into force 14 January 1998), Arts 3(1) and 4.

89 See Antarctic Treaty, Art. 6(1).

90 See Roberts, Adam, “Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws of War and Human Rights”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 3, 2006, p. 589CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 M. Bothe et al., above note 43, p. 580.

92 Ibid.

93 J. Wyatt, above note 48, p. 612.

94 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, A/CN.4/674, 30 May 2014, paras 5–6.

95 Guidelines for Military Manuals, above note 34, Rule 4.

96 See Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2(1).

97 See Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1313 UNTS 4, 2 November 1973 (entered into force 30 March 1983), Art. 1(2).

98 See International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 46 ILM 694, 23 May 2007 (entered into force 14 April 2015), Art. 1(4).

99 See MacCormick, Neil, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Clarendon Press, Gloucestershire, 1978, p. 180Google Scholar; cited in Scotford, Eloise, Environmental Principles and the Evolution of Environmental Law, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, OR, 2007, p. 44Google Scholar (emphasis added).

100 See A. Sirinskiene, above note 80, pp. 351–352; Koppe, Erik V., “The Principle of Ambituity and the Prohibition against Excessive Collateral Damage to the Environment during Armed Conflict”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 82, No. 1, 2013, p. 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newton, Michael A. and May, Larry, Proportionality in International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, pp. 33 ffGoogle Scholar.

101 Droege, Cordula and Tougas, Marie-Louise, “The Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict: Existing Rules and Need for Further Legal Protection”, in Rayfuse, Rosemay (ed.), War and the Environment: New Approaches to Protecting the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflict, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2014, p.94Google Scholar.

102 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinions, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 33.

103 Central to the international law of law enforcement are the general principles of necessity and proportionality. When it is necessary to use force, the force actually used must be no more than the minimum necessary in the circumstances. See Casey-Maslen, Stuart and Connolly, Sean, Police Use of Force under International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2017, p. 354CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Casey-Maslen, Stuart, Use of Force in Law Enforcement and the Right to Life: The Role of the Human Rights Council, Academy In-Brief No. 6, ICRC, Geneva, 2016, p. 9Google Scholar.

105 See Vöneky, Silja, “Environment Protection in Armed Conflict”, in Lachenmann, Frauke and Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds), The Law of Armed Conflict and the Use of Force: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016, p. 380Google Scholar; Thomas, Carson, “Advancing the Legal Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflict: Protocol I's Threshold of Impermissible Environmental Damage and Alternatives”, in Rayfuse, Rosemay (ed.), War and the Environment: New Approaches to Protecting the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflict, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2014, p. 110Google Scholar.

106 See UNCLOS, Art. 225.

107 P. Benvenuti, above note 45, p. 510.

108 PCA, Maritime Boundary Delimitation, above note 15, para. 518.

109 ICJ, Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1998, para. 84

110 See ICRC, Exploring Humanitarian Law IHL Guide: A Legal Manual for EHL Teachers, 5 June 2009, available at: www.icrc.org/en/publication/0960-exploring-humanitarian-law-ehl-guide-legal-manual-ehl-teachers.

111 “Enclosed or semi-enclosed sea” means a gulf, basin or sea surrounded by two or more States and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrow outlet or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States. See UNCLOS, Art. 122.

112 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, A/HRC/26/36, 1 April 2014, para. 63, p. 11.

113 “Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.” See Hague Convention II, Preamble.

114 Pustogarov, Vladimir V., “The Martens Clause in International Law”, Journal of the History of International Law, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1999, pp. 126–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sassòli, Marco, Bouvier, Antoine A. and Quintin, Anne, How Does Law Protect in War?, 3rd ed., Vol. 1, ICRC, Geneva, 2011, pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

115 The restrictive interpretations on the Martens Clause, see Henderson, Ian, The Contemporary Law of Targeting, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2009, pp. 29–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

116 See Yihdego, Zeray, “Darfur and Humanitarian Law: The Protection of Civilians and Civilian Objects”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2009, p. 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Salter, Michael, “Reinterpreting Competing Interpretations of the Scope and Potential of the Martens Clause”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2012, p. 405CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117 ICRC, “Toxic Chemicals as Weapons for Law Enforcement”, 6 February 2013, available at: www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2013/02-06-toxic-chemical-weapons-law.htm.

118 Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, Art. 11(3).

119 See P. W. Birnie and A. E. Boyle, above note 74, p. 181; Churchill, Robin Rolf, Lowe, Alan Vaughan, The Law of the Sea, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1999, p. 329Google Scholar.