The Environment-Conflict Nexus: The Weaknesses of the Transitional Justice Regime and its Consequences for Conflict-Induced Environmental Harm

War is the ultimate human-induced crisis that has devastating widespread and long-term consequences for the environment (Arias, et al., 2020). From the thousands of unexploded munitions that litter the fields and forests of Ukraine, to the slaughter of rare mountain gorillas in Eastern Congo and the toxic legacy of oil fires in Syria, armed conflict leaves a permanent scar on the landscape and biodiversity of affected states. Climate change is also a growing factor in exacerbating conflict, with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) identifying that of the 25 countries deemed most vulnerable to climate change, 14 are mired in conflict (ICRC, 2020).
The relationship between periods of conflict and environmental harm is multidimensional and complex, and can be broken down into four relational statements:

First, the environment may be a cause of conflict. While often interacting with other social, economic and political dynamics (Schwartz and Sigh, 1999), competition over high-value extractive resources can initiate new conflicts or revitalise pre-existing conflicts (Verdeja, 2012). Second, the environment is a means to perpetuate and sustain conflict, with natural resources playing a role in financing armed conflict (Gómez-Betancur, 2020). Third, the environment may fall victim to collateral damage during the course of a conflict, or warring parties may intentionally destroy it to further their objectives. Finally, environmental harm is a barrier to lasting peace, hindering post-conflict recovery by removing potential platforms for cooperation and depleting the resources available for social reconstruction (UNEP, 2007).

Despite these links, the environment-conflict nexus has been under-explored and under-theorised within transitional justice (Clark, 2016; Klinsky and Brankovich, 2019). Indeed, the prevalent anthropocentrism of transitional justice scholarship has meant that environmental harms are left unaddressed (Evans, 2022). This is particularly problematic given that transitional justice is a field defined by questions of how to respond to mass violence in divided societies. Yet, without properly acknowledging and responding to environmental harm, victims of such harm are left in the dark.