Mr. Chairman,

In this intervention, Micronesia wishes to focus on the Commission’s consideration of the topic of the protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts. Micronesia welcomes Ms. Jacobsson’s third report on the topic and commends her on the comprehensiveness and care with which she produced the report.

Micronesia has a keen interest in this topic. The hundreds of islands that comprise Micronesia have a long history of being theaters of war and staging grounds for military activities conducted by foreign powers, especially in the prelude to and during World War II. Today, wrecks of military ships and aircraft as well as hulking weaponry and unexploded ordnances litter the land and sea of Micronesia, remnants of intense fighting during World War II and the massive buildup that preceded the hostilities. In Chuuk Lagoon, the former headquarters of the Japanese naval fleet in the Pacific prior to and during World War II, there are over 60 military wrecks in an area of only 40 miles wide, with large caches of oil that have reportedly begun leaking into the waters of the Chuuk Lagoon and posing major health hazards not only to the marine ecosystem but also to the population of Chuuk in the area. Clearly, the dangers posed by those wrecks and other remnants of armed conflicts to the natural environment of Micronesia—not to mention its local population—are persistent and significant. It is unconscionable that these wrecks and remnants of armed conflict have remained underwater for many decades without clear prospects of being removed or addressed anytime soon by the responsible parties.

In light of those considerations, Micronesia submitted Comments to the International Law Commission in January of this year on this topic. Micronesia is pleased that Ms. Jacobsson’s third report cites the Comments extensively and incorporates some of the interests and concerns raised by Micronesia’s Comments into her proposed draft principles, particularly those regarding the post-conflict phase. Micronesia’s interest in this topic stems from Micronesia’s history as a victim of war and an innocent bystander during major armed conflicts waged by foreign powers, as well as longstanding stewards of rich natural ecosystems crucial to the livelihoods and cultural identity of the people of Micronesia. The draft principles being developed and adopted by the Commission will go a long way toward ensuring that the environments of States like Micronesia are not marred for all eternity by the unchecked belligerence of foreign powers. 

Micronesia notes that a suggestion was made in the Commission that the pre-conflict and post-conflict phases covered by the draft principles should be limited to the periods immediately before and immediately after an armed conflict, respectively. However, Micronesia strongly maintains the view that this limitation is irrelevant and should not be adopted. An armed conflict does not always occur spontaneously or in a vacuum, but instead tends to develop over time and creates devastating effects that last far beyond the actual cessation of hostilities. A belligerent is perfectly capable of systematically altering the natural environment of a potential theater of war over months—if not years—in preparation for a looming armed conflict. Similarly, as the example of Chuuk Lagoon attests, the physical remnants of war can pose persistent threats to the natural environment of a battleground for years—if not decades—after cessation of hostilities. Accordingly, any legal obligations of belligerents under international law to protect the environment in which they wage armed conflicts must recognize the extent and degree of damage inflicted, whether actual and potential, and should not be subject to an arbitrary time schedule that does not correspond to the objective reality on the ground.

Micronesia also notes the concerns raised by some members of the Commission that the draft principles go too far beyond the protection of the natural environment and deal with the environment from a resource or human rights perspective. Micronesia wishes to stress, however, that a natural environment cannot be viewed as distinct from the people who inhabit it and rely on it for sustenance, shelter, cultural practices, sustainable development, and other major interests. Micronesia agrees that the natural environment deserves protection in and of itself, as a source of biodiversity and a key component of various natural processes critical to the proper functioning of our planet. Nevertheless, there is no reason why addressing the protection of the natural environment in relation to armed conflicts should not also involve addressing the effects on human populations caused by the destruction of the natural environment by armed conflicts. As Ms. Jacobsson has noted, the topic before the Commission is not limited to the law of armed conflict but is instead expansive enough to sweep in other disciplines in international law dealing with obligations to protect the natural environment, including for the sake of its human inhabitants and dependents.