Social Science and Human Research Bulletin

Environmental damage caused by international armed conflicts results in widespread and long-term ecological harm, yet mechanisms for state accountability still face serious obstacles to their implementation. This study aims to analyze the framework of state accountability for environmental damage resulting from military operations in international armed conflicts, focusing on the elements of state responsibility, relevant legal instruments, and the challenges to their implementation. This study employs an integrated literature review method in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 protocol to ensure transparency and reproducibility at every stage of the selection and synthesis of normative legal literature. The results show that the cumulative thresholds in Article 35(3) and Article 55 of Additional Protocol I to the 1977 Geneva Conventions are too high, meaning they have never been effectively applied in international judicial practice, while the difficulty of proving causality and the lack of pre-conflict environmental data are major obstacles to establishing state responsibility. Reparation mechanisms such as restitution and compensation face challenges because environmental damage is often irreversible and difficult to assess in monetary terms. This study concludes that strengthening the framework for state liability requires a reinterpretation of the damage thresholds, the development of better assessment methodologies, and the synchronization of state and individual liability mechanisms to create a holistic and effective system.

state responsibility, environmental damage, international armed conflict, reparations, international humanitarian law

1. Afriansyah, A. (2012). Gulf War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commision: Environmental Liability. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 9(4), 659–662. https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL9.4.418
2. Alexianu, M. (2026). Decarbonizing Conflict. 100 Tulane Law Review 639 (2026). https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.7073218
3. Anggusti, M., & Saragih, Y. M. (2026). Relasi Tanggung Jawab Negara dan Korporasi dalam Penanggulangan Bencana Alam. JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW, 9(1), 526–543. https://doi.org/10.26623/JULR.V9I1.13748
4. Arifuddin, Q., Riswan, HR, M. A., Bulkis, Latif, A., Salma, Hasnawati, Hidayat, A. A., & Indah, N. (2025). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum .
5. Baskoro, A. (2025). Environmental Destruction As A Weapon of War:  A Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Perspective. Alauddin Law Development Journal, 7(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.24252/ALDEV.V7I1.54352
6. Bills, A. (2025). The Standard of Proof at the ICJ: On Evidentiary Standards and Judicial Decision-Making at the International Court of Justice. https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/the-standard-of-proof-at-the-icj-on-evidentiary-standards-and-jud/
7. Borba Casella, P. (2026). War Crimes and Environmental Crimes in Ukraine and Gaza. Mexican Law Review, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.22201/IIJ.24485306E.2026.2.20813
8. Bradley, M. M., Vertue, Q. M., & Crafford, D. (2023). Protecting the Environment during Non-International Armed Conflicts: The International Law Commission’s PERAC Principles as a Blueprint for Deeds of Commitment. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 27(1), 130–172. https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02701006
9. CEOBS. (2026). The due regard principle in IHL: Protecting the environment amid armed conflict - CEOBS. Conflict and Environment Observatory. https://ceobs.org/the-due-regard-principle-in-ihl-protecting-the-environment-amid-armed-conflict/
10. Chammas, A. T. (2026). State Accountability for Environmental Damage in International Armed Conflict.
11. Crook, J. R. (2017). The United Nations Compensation Commission—A New Structure to Enforce State Responsibility. American Journal of International Law, 87(1), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/2203859
12. Cusato, E. (2019). Overcoming the “Logic of Exception”: A Critique of the UN Security Council’s Response to Environmental Damage from the 1990–91 Gulf War. Asian Journal of International Law, 9(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251318000061
13. Dam-de Jong, D., & Sjöstedt, B. (2023). Research handbook on international law and environmental peacebuilding. Research Handbook on International Law and Environmental Peacebuilding, 1–452. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789906929
14. Dehm, J. (2025). Who Receives Reparations in the Context of Climate Change: Conflicting International Legal Claims. AJIL Unbound, 119, 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/AJU.2025.10012
15. Fairman, D., Chigas, D., McClintock, E., & Drager, N. (2011). Managing the Negotiation Process. Negotiating Public Health in a Globalized World, (9789400727793), 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2780-9_3
16. Tawurutubun, M. F., Charlota, L., Tahamata, O., Waas, R. M., & Artikel, I. (2021). Bentuk Tanggung Jawab Negara dalam Memberikan Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Warga Negara yang Terlibat Terorisme Di Negara Lain. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 1(2), 78–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/340.072.
17. Foster, C. E. (2025). The 2025 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 74(4), 775–809. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589325101292
18. Hartman, Y. (2025). International Experience of Damages Compensation in Armed Conflicts: Lessons for Ukraine. F1000 Research, 14, 1247. https://doi.org/10.12688/F1000RESEARCH.171894.1
19. Hsiao, I.-M. (2026). Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts | Overview & VST Edition. Victim Support Taiwan. https://victim-support.tw/en/responsibility-of-states-for-internationally-wrongful-acts-en/
20. ICC. (2025). ICC Office of the Prosecutor launches Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage Through the Rome Statute. International Criminal Court. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-office-prosecutor-launches-policy-addressing-environmental-damage-through-rome-statute
21. ICRC. (2025). Addressing landmine pollution: how the “polluter pays” principle can help. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2025/04/17/addressing-landmine-pollution-how-the-polluter-pays-principle-can-help/
22. ILC. (2022). Seventy-third Session (2022) — Protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts. https://legal.un.org/ilc/sessions/73/
23. IRCC. (2025). International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts | International Review of the Red Cross. International Review of The Red Cross. https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/reports-and-documents-ihl-and-the-challenges-of-contemporary-armed-conflicts-927
24. Jensen, D. (2013). Evaluating    the    impact    of    UNEP’s    post-­‐conflict    environmental    assessments    .     Environmental    Law    Institute    and    United    Nations    Environment    Programme. www.environmentalpeacebuilding.org
25. Klaus, V. H., & Kiehl, K. (2021). A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation. Basic and Applied Ecology, 52, 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAAE.2021.02.010
26. Klein, A. L. (2024). Responsibility for climate change under the ILC Articles on the State Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). Groningen Journal of International Law, 11(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.21827/GROJIL.11.1.23-38
27. Kong, L., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Remedying the environmental impacts of war: Challenges and perspectives for full reparation. International Review of the Red Cross. https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/remedying-the-environmental-impacts-of-war-924
28. Laisani, J., & Choma, H. (2025). The ILC’s Draft Principles on Environmental Protection in Armed Conflict: Legal and Humanitarian Perspectives. African Journal of Law and Justice System, 4(2), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.31920/2753-3123/2025/V4N2A2
29. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 339. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.B2700
30. Lindén, M., Moberg, A., & Åhman, J. (2017). Environmental Damage in Armed Conflict. To What Extent Do the Remedies Available for Environmental Damage in Armed Conflict Reflect the Polluter Pays Principle? The Cases of the Jiyeh Power Station and the Niger Delta Conflict. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/53076
31. Marzuki, P. M. (2022). The Essence of Legal Research is to Resolve Legal Problems. Yuridika, 37(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v37i1.34597
32. Mingashang, I., & Banungana, C. T. (2024). The international responsibility of a belligerent State in the event of transboundary environmental damage. International Review of the Red Cross, 106(925), 469–496. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383124000432
33. Mohan, R. M. P., & Kini, E. R. (2021). Compensation for Environmental Damage: Progressively Casting Compensation for Environmental Damage: Progressively Casting a Wider Net, but What’s the Catch? Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 54. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol54/iss3/3
34. Okorie, H. (2025). ARMED CONFLICT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WITHIN THE THEMATIC LEGAL REGIME OF LONGTERM, WIDESPREAD AND SEVERE HARM PROVISIONS OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL I. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 25(6), 31. https://doi.org/10.70382/BJHSS.V10I6.58
35. Pablo, J., & Acevedo, P. L. (2024). Reparations in environmental cases: should the International Criminal Court consider the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence? Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 15(3), 377–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAE002
36. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLOS Medicine, 18(3), e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1003583
37. Pambudi, G. B. A., Zunnuraeni, & Lalu, G. N. (2023). PERLINDUNGAN TERHADAP INSTALASI NUKLIR DALAM WILAYAH KONFLIK BERSENJATA INTERNASIONAL BERDASARKAN HUKUM INTERNASIONAL PROTECTION ON NUCLEAR INSTALATION WITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT TERRITORY BASED ON INTERNATIONAL LAW. Mataram Journal of International Law, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.29303/majil
38. Parrish, A. L. (2009). Sovereignty’s Continuing Importance: Traces of Trail Smelter in the International Law Governing Hazardous Waste Transport. Transboundary Harm in International Law: Lessons from the Trail Smelter Arbitration, 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511511394.018
39. Prunella, C. (2014). An International Environmental Law case study: The Trail Smelter Arbitration |. https://intlpollution.commons.gc.cuny.edu/an-international-environmental-law-case-study-the-trail-smelter-arbitration/
40. Rikiansyah, Kurnia, M. P., & Grizelda. (2026). The Ineffectiveness of PERAC 2022: Why Environmental Damage in Armed Conflict Demands a Binding International Convention? Padjadjaran Journal of International Law, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.23920/PJIL.V10I2.2649
41. Santos, E. A. (2026). ICJ Compulsory Jurisdiction Explained. https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/icj-compulsory-jurisdiction-explained
42. Shayanmehr, M., Norouzi, M., & Habibi Sawadkohi, S. (2026). Protection of Environmental Rights in Armed Conflicts with an Emphasis on Human Rights Norms: (A Case Study of the Israel–Palestine Conflict). Public Law Researsh, e20983. https://doi.org/10.22054/QJPL.2026.90200.3176
43. Singh, A. (2025). EXAMINING THE USE OF CONCILIATION IN CRIMINAL CASES THROUGH LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND JUDICIAL RESPONSE. International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis, (7). https://www.ijlra.com/details/examining-the-use-of-conciliation-in-criminal-cases-through-legislative-framework-and-judicial-response-by-ayushi-singh
44. Southey, S. K. (2025). Building Reparations: Key Factors for Success in Transitional Justice Efforts. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 19(2), 214–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/IJTJ/IJAF004
45. Tethool, A. C. M., & Kainama, M. (2023). Pencemaran Udara Lintas Batas Negara: Memahami Tanggungjawab Negara Menurut Deklarasi Rio. Uti Possidetis: Journal of International Law , 4(2), 258–284. https://www.mongabay.co.id/2019/12/16/bank-dunia-
46. Torres, F. E. (2026). Revisiting the Chorzów Factory standard of reparation-its relevance in contemporary international law and practice. Nordic Journal of International Law, 90(2), 190–227. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-bja10023
47. UNIDIR. (2026). Due diligence in early practice, the International Law Commission agenda and cyberspace. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research . https://unidir.org/due-diligence-in-early-practice-the-international-law-commission-agenda-and-cyberspace/
48. United Nations. (2022). Report of the International Law Commission Seventy-third session (18 April–3 June and 4 July–5 August 2022).
49. Whittemore, R. A., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology.