The Axis of Loss in Gaza: The Environmental Losses During Humanitarian Warfare

[Laura van der Hoeven holds academic degrees in Public International Law and Business Administration. Her work focuses on the intersection of foreign relations and international law, with particular interest in security alliances, soft power diplomacy, and the application of international law to territorial disputes.]

The ongoing conflict in the Gaza region has resulted in severe humanitarian and environmental losses. While international law has mechanisms to protect civilians, the environmental impact of war remains overlooked. Military operations contribute significantly to climate change, while chemical warfare and resource destruction threaten long-term survival in Gaza. 

Existing legal frameworks, including the International Law Commission’s PERAC (Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts) and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) play a crucial role in implementing environmental protections under humanitarian law.  This article argues that International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Environmental Law (IEL) should be more effectively integrated to address the axis of loss in conflict zones, i.e., the destruction of human and environmental lives in warfare. 

The Scope of Damage

In addition to the immense human suffering, the war has severe consequences for the environment. A 2022 report by the Conflict and Environment Observatory estimated that around 5.5 per cent of global emissions come from military operations.  The Guardian reported on a study investigating the CO2 emissions resulting from Israel’s war in Gaza. The study found that the first sixty days of the war produced CO2 emissions equivalent to the annual fossil fuel emissions of countries like Belize and Dominica. Notably, the majority of emissions were attributed to US cargo aircraft flying in military supplies to aid Israel. In response to the study, the former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Environment, David Boyd, told The Guardian: “Armed conflict pushes humanity even closer to the precipice of climate catastrophe, and is an idiotic way to spend our shrinking carbon budget.”

While carbon emissions from military operations exacerbate climate change, the immediate environmental impact of chemical warfare is equally devastating. In October 2023, Human Rights Watch reported that the IDF used white phosphorus. This violates customary IHL, as per Rules 70 and 71 of the ICRC Commentary and, and Protocol III of the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons, (although Israel has not ratified this). When exposed to oxygen, white phosphorus burns at over 800 degrees Celsius and can easily ignite everything from human skin to grass fields. The use of such chemicals during warfare also has long-term ecological consequences, contaminating soil, water, and biodiversity in Gaza. In the central region of Deir al-Balah, the majority of agricultural land, including farmland and livestock, has been severely damaged. Altogether, the depletion and destruction of natural resources threaten future livelihoods in Gaza region. 

The preliminary assessment of the environmental impacts of the Gaza warfare by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) of June 2024 found that when compared to the 2017 conflict in Mosul (Iraq), the Gaza strip has seen more than five times the quantity of debris. Research found that debris can cause severe damage to humans, animals and the bio-environment. For example, shell casings can pose risk to birds when ingested and contaminate soil and sediment. In addition, Gaza’s wastewater treatment plants are entirely defunct, which causes the sewage water to contaminate coastal life, soil and freshwater, which poses risk to marine life, soil and human beings. The conclusion of the report reads, “This Preliminary Assessment has described an unprecedented intensity of conflict-related damage in comparison to previous conflicts in the Gaza Strip… Restoring safe living conditions for a densely-populated, water-scarce and contaminated strip of land will also require exceptionally careful planning”. The report notes that a ceasefire is needed to start the process of indicating and restoring the damage done, although some damages are irreversible. 

As such, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is intricately tied to International Environmental Law (IEL). To mitigate the environmental harm in the Gaza Strip, the two legal fields must work together to shield the region from further irreversible devastation. 

How to Achieve Legal Coordination in Conflict Zones?

The complexities of warfare pose significant challenges to the effective application of International Environmental Law by both state and non-state actors. To address this, the International Law Commission (ILC) developed the PERAC principles, which provide a legal framework for protecting the environment before, during, and after armed conflict. Still, challenges remain. One of the most significant challenges is the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms and competing military interests, both of which undermine the protection of the environment during warfare. While IHL includes provisions such as Article 35(3) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which is meant to protect the environment from severe, long-term destruction caused by warfare, enforcement remains weak. 

Recognizing this, it becomes crucial for international organizations such as the United Nations to play a pivotal role in the establishment of protected areas to facilitate enforcement. This could be achieved through mechanisms of the General Assembly and the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, both of which can offer advisory support on the delineation of protected areas, even during warfare. So far, the current UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment Astrid Puentes has focused on issues of business responsibility and gender in relation to environment. Going forward, Puentes could expand her focus to environment in conflict zones and include specific recommendations on Gaza to the extent they protect environmental rights. 

An important recommendation that could be made by Puentes in her annual report to the Human Rights Council and General Assembly is to advocate for the designation of certain areas to be protected. In recent decades, marine and land areas have increasingly been protected within the European Union by connecting international law, European law and domestic laws. The binding 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines a protected area under Article 2 as “a geographically defined area, which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives”. For example, in the Netherlands nearly one third (31 per cent) of Dutch coastal and marine waters are protected under this Convention. Under Article 8 of the CBD these areas can be established and protected. To provide such a recommendation for the designation of protected areas in Gaza would be unprecedented yet pursuant to Puentes’ mandate. Her mandate under Article 4 (b) of the Human Rights Council Resolution 55/2 allows for the UN Special Rapporteur to identify and promote best practices in environmental protection and human rights. Her colleague, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri has published a report in July 2024 and more recently on March 12, 2025 has spoken out on the occurrences in the Gaza strip in relation to his function, calling it “the fastest starvation [by Israel] in modern history.” 

Another avenue Puentes could pursue is to call for a ceasefire on environmental grounds, although previous calls for ceasefires on humanitarian grounds have found limited success. As pointed out by the preliminary assessment on the environmental impacts of Gaza warfare by the UNEP, a ceasefire would facilitate the work of NGOs (e.g., the ICRC) immensely. A ceasefire allows NGOs to collect boots-on-the-ground, reliable data and facilitate dialogue among parties by sharing their findings. At the moment, the UN Satellite Centre already publishes satellite data on the Gaza strip, which is currently used to provide comprehensive damage assessments. This data could also be utilized to identify areas especially damaged during warfare to improve restoration efforts. It should be noted that while calls for ceasefires on environmental grounds have often been met with limited success, there are precedents where efforts by the UN Secretary General, under COVID-19 Pandemic circumstances, have made some progress e.g., in Cameroon and in the Philippines. However, even in the case U.N. Special Rapporteur Astrid Puentes includes recommendations for a Gaza ceasefire or the construction of protected zones, these recommendations are non-binding in international law and lack enforcement power. Hence, the next paragraph suggests recommendations withing binding, international legal frameworks. 

As environmental degradation often exacerbates post-conflict humanitarian crises, another key step toward integrating IEL and IHL is to ensure that environmental restoration is included in peace agreements and post-war reconstruction efforts. However, this is complicated by resource constraints, which could possibly be overcome by the mechanisms inside the 2016 Paris Agreement. The 2016 Paris Agreement represents a significant milestone within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the effort to reduce CO2 emissions. As part of the CO2 reduction objectives, there arises an opportunity to garner funds through the Paris Agreement credit mechanism, provided for by Article 6(4) of the Agreement. These funds can be attained by all States party to the Agreement as well as other interested parties such as NGOs and the UN. Conflict-affected areas such as Gaza can benefit from international mitigation activities funded by the 2016 Paris Agreement, particularly in the post-conflict phase where environmental restoration and sustainable rebuilding are critical. 

Concluding Remarks

The conflict in the Gaza Strip has led to countless losses, both in human life and environmental devastation. The increasing destruction of the environment as a by-product of airstrikes and attacks underscores the urgent need to unify international humanitarian law with environmental law. Protected areas under International Environmental Law can serve as a crucial framework to safeguard not just individuals but also the environment during warfare. International organizations and NGOs can promote the designation of protected areas and foster enhanced cooperation between these two legal fields. The UN and state actors must take immediate steps to incorporate environmental protections into conflict resolution frameworks, ensuring that future wars do not perpetuate this dual devastation of human and environmental loss.