Nowadays, most of the armed conflicts fall into the category of non-international, in which non-state actors play a key role. International law is created by the states and therefore it is debatable whether non-state armed groups are in fact obliged to comply with the rules of the law of armed conflict. Different theories assume such responsibility, but the rules that need and should be implemented are limited. This is particularly evident in the protection of the environment, where the common Article 3 of Geneva Conventions and its Second additional protocol do not cover this topic directly. The indirect protection may be established through the protection of civilian objects and the civilian population and the prohibition of certain types of weapons that may have adverse effects on the environment. Non-state actors in non-international conflicts are also binded through international customary law. Many rules are binding for armed groups as well, including all the general principles of humanitarian law and general prohibition of attacks on the environment. It would be more difficult to establish such responsibility through formation of a human right to the environment. The rules that are binding for non-state actors to protect the environment in an armed conflict do exist. However, they are not direct and clear enough. It would be useful to eliminate the distinction between international and non-international conflicts and combine these two sets of rules, to establish a lower threshold for damage, clarify the standards and finally successfully implement these rules in practice, which should be done through already existing and new mechanisms with higher power to inform, alert and sanction infringements
|
