Hulme, Karen (2010) Taking care to protect the environment against damage: a meaningless obligation? International Review of the Red Cross, 92 (879). pp. 675-691. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383110000512
Hulme, Karen (2010) Taking care to protect the environment against damage: a meaningless obligation? International Review of the Red Cross, 92 (879). pp. 675-691. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383110000512
Hulme, Karen (2010) Taking care to protect the environment against damage: a meaningless obligation? International Review of the Red Cross, 92 (879). pp. 675-691. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383110000512
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>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<jats:italic>Customary Law Study</jats:italic>might appear to suggest that this is so, or does it? Ultimately then, is the care obligation worth caring about?</jats:p>
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Subjects: | G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences K Law > K Law (General) |
Divisions: | Faculty of Arts and Humanities Faculty of Arts and Humanities > Essex Law School |
SWORD Depositor: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
Depositing User: | Unnamed user with email elements@essex.ac.uk |
Date Deposited: | 28 Nov 2012 11:14 |
Last Modified: | 30 Oct 2024 17:40 |
URI: | http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/4400 |
Available files
Filename: irrc-879-hulme.pdf