ABSTRACT
Armed Conflicts and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have led to destruction of ecosystems, civilizations, and human life to a limitless extent. Disputing parties in an armed conflict use such weapons without accounting for the intergenerational loss that it will cause. Historical armed conflicts are evident to how the use of WMD has massively destroyed very essential resources. The use of such weapons is clearly contrary to the Stockholm Declaration principles and various treaties and conventions at the international level. The Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDG’s) of the United Nations have also batted for sustainability in resource management to protect intergenerational justice. The actions of the present generation shouldn’t be a cause of suffering for the future generations. It is high-time states recognize the significance of natural resources for future generations. It is the duty of the present generation to preserve the quality of resources for the future generations.
Key Words: Intergenerational Equity, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Sustainable Development, Armed Conflicts and Radioactive Waste.
INTRODUCTION
Any weapon of destruction causes immense loss to man, wildlife, and natural resources. Armed conflicts have been the root cause of destruction of high magnitude over centuries in countries all over the world. World War II, Vietnam-US war and Gulf War are examples of how mass-destruction weapons have obliterated human life and ecosystems, whose ripple-effect can be seen even today. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons that cause great harm and damage to human life and property. The impact of WMD is not only restricted to one generation. The principle 2 of Stockholm Conference embodies intergenerational equity, which states that countries must conserve the environment and use natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. The principle in focus is ‘Intergenerational Equity’, which says that the environment and natural resources must be preserved for the benefit of future generations. This principle is also envisaged in Article 3 of UNFCCC, which bats for a sustainable framework for the benefit of resources to accrue to both present and future generations. SDG 15 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals also protects natural resources and biodiversity; thus, a clear compromise of the equity principle and the UN goal is identified using WMD. To protect our future generations, the world requires measures of arms control and rejuvenation technologies to secure intergenerational equity.
ANALYSIS
1. Impact of Weapons of Mass Destruction on Intergenerational Equity through Historical Armed Conflicts
International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated that the environment represents the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn. This focused upon the importance of intergenerational equity. Brown Weiss's three principles of intergenerational equity are conservation of quality, options, and access. This shows how the present generation has an obligation to conserve quality, options, and access to the environment for the future generations to come. Resolution 31/72: Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) signed in May 1977, in Geneva, bans weather and environment modification techniques that have destructive, chronic, or severe effects. Environment Modification Techniques is defined under the treaty as “any technique for changing- through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes- the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere, or of outer space.” Principle 25 of the Stockholm declaration focuses on the role of states in safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring it to every human being.
However, these principles are often overlooked at the times of armed conflicts between states. The same is illustrated using the example of the Second Indochina War (1961-1975) given below.
2. Chemical Anti-Plant Agents (Herbicides)
Anti-plant agents were employed in the Indochina War for the denial of forest cover, for the destruction of food plants, and for the decimation of industrial crops. The major anti-plant agents for these purposes were mixtures of the hormone-mimicking compounds which kill by interfering with the normal metabolism of treated plants. The most widely used formulation against forests was a mixture of 2,4,5-T plus 2,4-D [Agent Orange]. Another major anti-forest formulation was a mixture of 2,4-D plus picloram [Agent White]. About 1.7 million hectares of South Vietnam were herbicidal treated one or more times.
The Vietnam government says that 4 million of its citizens were exposed to Agent Orange, and as many as 3 million have suffered illnesses because of it; these figures include their children who were exposed. The Red Cross of Vietnam states that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to contaminated Agent Orange. Children in the areas where Agent Orange was used have been affected and have multiple health problems, including cleft palate, mental disabilities, hernias, and extra fingers and toes.
USA violated the ENMOD Convention by using weapons such as High-Explosive Munitions to clear the forest land and using Anti-Plant Agents to destroy the vegetation to deprive humans of food and decreasing the quality of plants for future generations. When the state used these weapons they caused long term damage to the environment, which can also be considered a violation of Principle 25 of the Stockholm Declaration as the state was liable to safeguard the environment and work for its upliftment.
3. Effect of Armed Conflicts on Sustainability rising from Intergenerational Equity
Armed Conflicts unarguably impact the environment, health, livelihood, and property in places wherever it occurs. Humans are extensively dependent on natural resources and environment; thus, sustainability comes into great question when armed conflicts cause irreversible damage to natural resources and the ecosystem. When parties engage in armed conflicts, they make use of weapons which cause damage to natural resources. So, armed conflicts are contrary to the basic principle of intergenerational equity, which says, actions of the current generation are exercised in a way that the natural environment is left in the same or better condition for future generations. Even the Brundtland Commission Report (Our Common Future) defines sustainable development as, “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Sustainability and intergenerational equity can be achieved through SDG’s 15 and 16. These are really resource intensive of which production as well as aftermath depletes resources. The Atomic Energy Commission of USA, found that radioactives like Strontium-90 leaches into the food chain, further concentrates in the plants, herbivorous animals and then enters the human bodies. WMD damages the biosphere by radio-toxicity and the geosphere through pollution. Additionally, the infrastructure and civilians face direct losses. Thus, contrary to SDG 15 and 16, WMD hampers sustainable development, damages natural and human resources.
Justice Weeramantry, ex-Judge and Vice-President of the ICJ, linked the aftermath of conflicts with the rights of the future generations. Firstly, in New Zealand v. France (Nuclear Tests Case), he said, “Future generations cannot speak for their interests. WMD affects rights of unborn posterity as well, which the state of New Zealand is obliged to protect.” In Nuclear Tests Advisory Opinion of 1996, the destructive power of WMD to destroy civilizations and ecosystems. The majority of ICJ concurred in, Hungary v. Slovakia, where they said, “The environment also includes generations unborn. The present generation is the trustee of the earth’s resources to ensure intergenerational fairness, as WMD weapons cannot be contained in space or time.”
RECOMMENDATIONS/PREVENTIVE MEASURES
Dual-use Items & Arms Control
These are goods, software and technologies that prove to be of use for civilians and the army. These are machine tools, valves, protective equipments, laser, fluids, etc. We need such tools to counter the influence of arms and weapons. We have treaties and conventions; however, the need of the hour is to pin responsibility and duty upon member states of information transfer. The threat of mass destruction weapons will be mitigated when we consolidate the transparency between member states. Countries must dabble in facilitating voluntary information exchanges to ensure accountability. All these are outcomes of Wassenaar Agreement, 1996. This is a voluntary arms control treaty, to destabilize the situation, and ensure that the military enhancements are not done in a way that it compromises the peace of the region.
In all reality, it is impossible to prohibit the development of mass destruction weapons. The need is to change the intention from abusing it for forcing territorial interests to developing it for national security. This can be done with arms control measures. All UN member states must initiate research or development on mass destruction weapons, only if there is a collective consensus. This consensus will be obtained when the concerned state furnishes the reasons and prospective outcomes of the successful fruition of their arms programme.
CONCLUSION
The Weapons of Mass destruction have destroyed ecosystems, civilizations, and generations. The historical armed conflicts have testified to the intensity and longevity of the consequences of WMD. Such armed conflicts are in clear violation of Stockholm Conference Principles and Brundtland Commission Report. Our future generations must suffer the ramifications of the present armed conflicts, clearly violating intergenerational equity and justice. The planet belongs to all generations, and they have equal rights over the resources and environment, which gets destroyed by WMD. The international law has treaties and conventions to regulate WMD, but we also need rejuvenating technologies to protect the future generations from the harm on the environment already caused.
This blog post is authored by Aryan Birewar and Saiyam Anand, Second Year B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) students at Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Comments