Jan 04, 2025 Animals in Conflict – Part III: How Animals are Harmed by Armed Conflicts and Military Activities
This article is the third installment of a three-part newsletter series examining the impact of human conflicts on animals. The newsletter series is adapted from the original blog by Cox and Zee, which was published by the Conflict and Environment Observatory and republished with their kind permission. The citation and link to the original blog are as follows: Cox, Janice & Zee, Jackson, 2021, How animals are harmed by armed conflicts and military activities. March 18. https://ceobs.org/how-animals-are-harmed-by-armed-conflicts-and-military-activities/. The authors updated the article from the original blog in October 2024. Additional comments, with the authors’ approval, by Dr. Andrew N. Rowan, have been added in italics.
Wild and domesticated animals have long suffered abuse, injury or death in armed conflicts. In Part III of this series, Janice Cox and Jackson Zee argue that the animal victims of war require greater recognition and protection.
Introduction
When the impact of armed conflicts on animals is considered, this is commonly subsumed by more general consideration of the “environment,” “nature,” or “biodiversity.” In 2022, the International Law Commission adopted principles on protecting the environment in relation to armed conflicts. There are 27 principles outlining how the environment should be protected before, during and after armed conflicts, but not one mentions animals.
Similarly, Resolution 6/12, adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on March 1, 2024, on environmental assistance and recovery in areas affected by armed conflict, does not mention animals. It does not even recognize the qualitative aspects of what animals bring to the environment, let alone their intrinsic value as sentient beings.
Consideration has been given to the best ways of rebuilding wildlife conservation after wars’ devastation. Some attention has been given to animals in the context of UN peacekeeping operations. However, there are numerous other ways in which animals are affected by armed conflicts and military activities. This blog explores this relationship, looking at wild terrestrial and marine animals, domestic livestock, and conscripted and companion animals.
International law and policy towards animal protection in conflict
The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) includes the in situ protection concept. It is not certain whether all multilateral environmental agreements continue to apply during armed conflict. However, “area-based” protection regimes, such as those in the CBD and the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, require continuing “protected areas” during conflict.
In recent years, the protection of the environment during armed conflict has gained growing recognition in international law. Although the primary focus of multilateral agreements has been on the environment as a whole, these frameworks indirectly contribute to the protection of animals, which are integral parts of ecosystems affected by conflict. From wildlife in natural habitats to livestock in rural communities, animals are often overlooked victims of warfare. While no international treaty specifically addresses animal welfare in conflict zones, various United Nations agreements have provisions that indirectly support animal protection by focusing on environmental preservation.
The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), adopted in 1977, aims to prevent using environmental modification techniques as weapons of war. The convention prohibits any military tactics that result in large-scale environmental damage, such as altering the climate or ecosystems to gain a strategic advantage.
Though ENMOD does not explicitly mention animals, its provisions have important implications for their protection. Large-scale environmental changes, such as the deliberate manipulation of weather systems or deforestation, can devastate ecosystems and destroy wildlife habitats. Moreover, the destruction of agricultural systems can severely affect livestock populations. By preventing these types of environmental manipulation, ENMOD helps protect animals by preserving the ecosystems and resources on which they depend.
The Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), includes provisions that make environmental destruction a war crime under certain conditions. Article 8(2)(b)(iv) explicitly criminalizes attacks that cause “widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment” when such damage is clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
Although the Rome Statute does not explicitly address animals, the “natural environment” includes ecosystems that support a variety of animal species. Therefore, any military actions that damage forests, water sources, or other natural habitats also affect the wildlife and livestock that rely on these resources for survival. By protecting the natural environment from disproportionate harm during armed conflict, the Rome Statute indirectly protects the animals that are part of these ecosystems.
UN Security Council Resolution 2341 focuses on protecting critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks, with an emphasis on natural resources essential for security and stability. While the resolution primarily targets the protection of human infrastructure, it also highlights the importance of safeguarding environmental resources, including ecosystems that support animal life.
Environmental assets such as forests, rivers, and wetlands are often targets for exploitation or destruction in armed conflict. These ecosystems serve as habitats for wildlife and as livestock sustenance sources. By encouraging states to protect these critical natural resources, Resolution 2341 promotes the preservation of animal habitats and resources during conflicts. In this way, the resolution offers an indirect mechanism for animal protection in war zones.
The International Law Commission (ILC) Draft Principles on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, adopted in 2022, provide comprehensive guidelines on protecting the environment before, during, and after armed conflicts. While these principles are not legally binding, they emphasise the importance of safeguarding biodiversity and natural ecosystems in conflict zones, which inherently include animal species.
During armed conflict, the ILC’s draft principles advocate for protecting natural habitats, including protected areas and biodiversity hotspots. They call for the prevention of environmental harm and the restoration of ecosystems in post-conflict settings. This focus on biodiversity conservation and environmental restoration is directly linked to protecting wildlife and domesticated animals, as it ensures the preservation of the habitats and resources essential for their survival. These principles also recognise the need for states to minimise environmental damage, which includes safeguarding the well-being of animal populations that might otherwise be left vulnerable to the impacts of war.
Jérôme de Hemptinne’s study of Challenges Regarding the Protection of Animals During Warfare found that international humanitarian law (IHL) is deeply anthropocentric and largely ignores the protection of animals. For example, the Hague Conventions prohibit destroying and seizing an enemy’s property but provide no definition of property. The question of whether animals qualify as “property” has been debated by animal law scholars. On the one hand, this may provide greater protection in war and conflict situations. On the other, we would argue that the status of animals should be raised beyond that of property, given that they are sentient beings. That said, some general IHL principles could potentially provide minimum safeguards to animals during armed conflict.
IHL does not contain explicit rules to mitigate the suffering of animals in armed conflict. However, the overall evolution of law’s approach to animals, notably its recognition of them as sentient beings, appears to allow for a progressive interpretation of IHL to constrain acts of violence against animals in war. The rules on protecting civilian objects and the environment, the proportionality principle, or the options for declaring demilitarised zones could all be activated to this end.
In connection with this, there have been a range of attempts to enhance the legal protection of animals and their habitats in relation to armed conflicts. In 1995, a Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Protected Areas was drafted by the International Council of Environmental Law and the Commission on Environmental Law of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Unfortunately, this failed to materialise into an international treaty, but the principle of area-based designations to afford enhanced protection lives on through the work of the International Law Commission and its ongoing study on protecting the environment in relation to armed conflicts.
Elsewhere, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 was modified to include a mention of animals, following advocacy by World Animal Protection. However, this was only in the context of “productive assets” – including livestock and working animals, as opposed to sentient beings deserving of protection in their own right.
Subsequently, in an update of the Rome Declaration by the European Regional Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction of the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and the EU Disaster Mechanism, the Director General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations and the 28 member states highlighted the importance of addressing animals and animal welfare. This applies to all humanitarian actions within and outside the EU and acknowledged that: “Actions to reduce the vulnerability of the population, economic activities, including critical infrastructure, animal welfare and wildlife, environmental and cultural resources such as biodiversity, forest ecosystem services and water resources, are of the utmost importance.” However, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) has never activated any responses for animals as of this time.
Although no multilateral agreements specifically focus on protecting animals during armed conflict, treaties like ENMOD, the Rome Statute, and UN resolutions offer frameworks that, by protecting the environment, help safeguard animal life in conflict zones.
As the international community continues to refine laws governing the conduct of warfare, the protection of animals could become a more explicit focus. For now, these multilateral agreements provide crucial, albeit indirect, tools for ensuring that animals are not forgotten in the broader effort to minimize the environmental impact of armed conflict.
International policy has a long way to go before animal welfare, needs, and interests are adequately recognised and protected in conflicts. Humanitarian organisations have been given a permanent mandate under international law to organise relief operations and undertake other humanitarian activities during armed conflicts. International animal protection organisations should be given a similar mandate to participate or intervene to organise relief and protection for animal victims of conflict.
Janice Cox is a co-founder of World Animal Net, which has since merged with the World Federation for Animals (WFA). She has over 35 years of experience in international animal welfare, focusing on the connections between animal welfare, environmental issues, and development. Based in South Africa, she serves as the Animal Welfare Expert for Southern Africa at the African Platform for Animal Welfare (APAW) and is a Global Ambassador for WellBeing International.
Jackson Zee has over 25 years of experience in emergency management and humanitarian affairs, working in sustainable development, animal welfare and conservation. He is currently Director of Disaster Relief for FOUR PAWS International and is based in Austria.