There is an obvious relationship between human rights, the environment and mass exodus of populations. Violations of human rights as well as deterioration of the environment are the main causes of displacement of the populations either internally or beyond the frontiers. Refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons have minimum rights and are generally the least protected and the most vulnerable. Furthermore, they are often the target of attacks by armed groups and victimised by racism and xenophobia. Asylum-seekers are faced with restrictive practices which deny them access to safe territories. In some cases, they are either arbitrarily detained or are forcibly returned to countries or areas where their lives, security, dignity and liberty are threatened.
Environmental refugees and internally displaced persons currently number about 25 million although there is no specific reference to them in the 1951 International Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This Convention only refers to persons who flee their country of origin due to a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. This restrictive definition excludes de jure internal displacements even if resulting from the reasons enumerated by the 1951 Convention, as well as exodus across the frontiers as a result of the adverse consequences of environmental degradation including those directly threatening life, health and other fundamental human rights. These could be natural events such as drought, famine, earthquakes, desertification or human-generated disasters like ill-planned large scale projects such as dams, industrial disasters, nuclear accidents, pollution, improper handling of hazardous wastes, and armed conflicts.
Assistance has been dispensed to such groups on a specific basis and on the demand of the General Assembly, its subsidiary organs and specialised agencies, but they are still excluded from the benefits of international protection assumed in particular by the UNHCR (United Nations Commission on Human Rights).
In addition to its study on mass exodus, the Commission on Human Rights considered the issue of the internally displaced. In 1992, a Representative of the Secretary-General was appointed to gather information and study the issues related to this phenomenon.
Armed conflicts are the cause of a great deal of harm to the environment and of massive and gross violations of human rights despite the universally recognized principles of humanitarian and international law such as the UN Charter’s prohibition of the use of force and the customary international law principles of humanity and proportion which impose limits in the conduct of war.
These fundamental principles also find their legal expression in various international instruments, in particular, the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August, 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Article 35 §3 of this Protocol stipulates as follows:
“It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long term and severe damage of the natural environment.”
This general provision which reaffirms the fundamental humanitarian principle, whereby it is forbidden to inflict unnecessary harm, is devoted to the protection of the environment. Article 55 reiterates the obligation to protect the natural environment and extends that protection to the elements that may cause a “prejudice...to the health or survival of the population. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited.”
Principle 26 of the Stockholm Declaration, § 5 and 20 of the World Charter on Nature; Principle 24 of the Rio Declaration, and the Conclusions and the Final Declarations of the International Conference on the Protection of the War Victims all contain similar provisions. The General Assembly is still considering the question of the protection of the environment and its exploitation as a weapon in periods of armed conflicts. The WHO, however, has decided to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the question: “In view of health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law, including the WHO Constitution?”
Environmental refugees and internally displaced persons currently number about 25 million although there is no specific reference to them in the 1951 International Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This Convention only refers to persons who flee their country of origin due to a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. This restrictive definition excludes de jure internal displacements even if resulting from the reasons enumerated by the 1951 Convention, as well as exodus across the frontiers as a result of the adverse consequences of environmental degradation including those directly threatening life, health and other fundamental human rights. These could be natural events such as drought, famine, earthquakes, desertification or human-generated disasters like ill-planned large scale projects such as dams, industrial disasters, nuclear accidents, pollution, improper handling of hazardous wastes, and armed conflicts.
Assistance has been dispensed to such groups on a specific basis and on the demand of the General Assembly, its subsidiary organs and specialised agencies, but they are still excluded from the benefits of international protection assumed in particular by the UNHCR (United Nations Commission on Human Rights).
In addition to its study on mass exodus, the Commission on Human Rights considered the issue of the internally displaced. In 1992, a Representative of the Secretary-General was appointed to gather information and study the issues related to this phenomenon.
Armed conflicts are the cause of a great deal of harm to the environment and of massive and gross violations of human rights despite the universally recognized principles of humanitarian and international law such as the UN Charter’s prohibition of the use of force and the customary international law principles of humanity and proportion which impose limits in the conduct of war.
These fundamental principles also find their legal expression in various international instruments, in particular, the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August, 1949, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Article 35 §3 of this Protocol stipulates as follows:
“It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long term and severe damage of the natural environment.”
This general provision which reaffirms the fundamental humanitarian principle, whereby it is forbidden to inflict unnecessary harm, is devoted to the protection of the environment. Article 55 reiterates the obligation to protect the natural environment and extends that protection to the elements that may cause a “prejudice...to the health or survival of the population. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited.”
Principle 26 of the Stockholm Declaration, § 5 and 20 of the World Charter on Nature; Principle 24 of the Rio Declaration, and the Conclusions and the Final Declarations of the International Conference on the Protection of the War Victims all contain similar provisions. The General Assembly is still considering the question of the protection of the environment and its exploitation as a weapon in periods of armed conflicts. The WHO, however, has decided to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the question: “In view of health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law, including the WHO Constitution?”