Briefer published by the Council on Strategic Risks, June 2025.
Military occupations, distinct from active conflict, pose sustained, often underrecognized threats to ecological security. As modern occupations grow increasingly protracted, the imperative to balance military necessity with environmental stewardship and the rights of occupied peoples becomes more urgent.
Legal framework and environmental vulnerability:
Occupations establish hostile authority over a territory without transferring sovereignty. Under international law, notably the 1907 Hague Regulations (Article 55), occupying powers are classified as usufructuaries, which means they are permitted to use, but not deplete, natural resources. The legal framework requires occupiers to manage resources sustainably and for the benefit of the occupied population. However, these laws were conceived before today’s triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem degradation, making them outdated and insufficient in addressing current ecological challenges.
The principle of self-determination further reinforces the right of occupied peoples to retain permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. However, state practice often disregards these principles, leading not only to ecological damage but also to increased resistance and conflict, as resource exploitation becomes a flashpoint for unrest.
Case studies of ecological harm:
Historical and ongoing occupations demonstrate deliberate environmental destruction. In Russia’s 2008 occupation of Georgia, forest fires devastated ecosystems and local economies. Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990 saw massive oil well fires, harming both terrestrial and marine environments. Armenian-occupied Azerbaijan, Israeli-occupied West Bank, and Indonesian-occupied Timor-Leste all experienced forest loss, resource exploitation, and ecological degradation. The uprooting of Palestinian olive groves illustrates not just economic harm but cultural and ecological erasure. Sometimes they are also replaced with non-native pine trees, a practice critiqued as green colonialism.
Such practices not only damage ecosystems but also deepen inequalities. The occupier often lacks the traditional ecological knowledge of indigenous communities, further endangering local sustainability.
Security and resource exploitation:
Although occupiers may use natural resources to fund the costs of occupation, this must be done sustainably. However, in practice, resource extraction is often excessive and poorly regulated, with little regard for replacement or long-term ecological health. This heightens environmental insecurity and contributes to cycles of violence and resistance, as seen in the seasonal tensions around olive harvests in the West Bank.
Legal and policy responses:
Legal remedies include international compensation and criminal accountability, though restitution is often inadequate. Notable judgments such as Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and DRC v. Uganda demonstrate growing recognition of ecological harm under international law. Regional courts have also affirmed the principle of consent, as in the CJEU ruling on Western Sahara, which voided resource agreements made without the consent of the occupied people.
Policy measures must complement legal approaches. These include mandatory environmental risk assessments, sustainable resource plans, support for local conservation efforts, and the use of citizen science and open-source data for monitoring and evidence gathering. Importantly, institutions like the International Criminal Court are beginning to consider environmental destruction in their prosecutorial priorities.
Conclusion:
As occupations persist and intensify, there is a critical need for a robust, multidimensional framework combining legal accountability, policy innovation, and ecological resilience. Protecting the environment in occupied territories is not only a legal and moral obligation but a prerequisite for long-term peace and stability.
This text is based on extracts from a briefer written by Ayesha Malik, June 2025. To read the complete paper, follow the link here.
See below for our coverage on similar topics:
- Destabilization From ‘Within’: A “Termite Theory” of Climate’s Pathway to Violence
- Armed Conflict Causes Long-Lasting Environmental Harms
- Conflict in a Warming World: How Climate Shocks Impact Rebel Demands and Peace Agreement Outcomes