Research Repository

Taking care to protect the environment against damage: A meaningless obligation?

UNSPECIFIED (2010) 'Taking care to protect the environment against damage: A meaningless obligation?' International Review of the Red Cross, 92 (879). 675 - 691. ISSN 1816-3831

[img]
Preview
Text
irrc-879-hulme.pdf - Published Version

Download (275kB) | Preview

Abstract

Little attention is paid to the obligation of 'care' in Article 55(1) of Additional Protocol I. Beyond a general principle of upholding environmental value in times of armed conflict, what is the scope and content of the obligation? If it is worthless, what makes it so? Since the care provision includes the same high threshold of harm found elsewhere in the environmental provisions, has this stumbling block now been removed by state practice? Rule 44 of the Customary Law Study might appear to suggest that this is so, or does it? Ultimately then, is the care obligation worth caring about? © Copyright International Committee of the Red Cross 2010.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences
K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions: Faculty of Humanities > Law, School of
Depositing User: Jim Jamieson
Date Deposited: 28 Nov 2012 11:14
Last Modified: 16 Jan 2019 16:15
URI: http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/4400

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item