ARMED CONFLICT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WITHIN THE THEMATIC LEGAL REGIME OF LONGTERM, WIDESPREAD AND SEVERE HARM PROVISIONS OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL I

Armed conflict increasingly generates profound environmental consequences, yet international humanitarian law (IHL) has historically accorded the natural environment only limited and fragmented protection. This article examines environmental protection during armed conflict through the thematic legal regime established by the long-term, widespread and severe (LWS) harm provisions of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, particularly Articles 35(3) and 55. It interrogates the normative content, scope, and practical effectiveness of these provisions in constraining methods and means of warfare that cause extensive environmental damage. The study undertakes a doctrinal and analytical assessment of the cumulative and conjunctive threshold of long-term, widespread and severe harm, highlighting the interpretive ambiguities that have hindered enforcement and accountability. It critically evaluates how the high evidentiary and temporal thresholds embedded in the LWS standard have limited its operational relevance in contemporary conflicts, especially those involving environmental destruction through resource exploitation, scorched-earth tactics, and the use of environmentally destructive weapons. The article further situates the LWS regime within the broader matrix of IHL principles—distinction, proportionality, and military necessity—while exploring its interaction with emerging norms of international environmental law and international criminal law. The article argues that although the LWS provisions represent a landmark recognition of environmental protection as an autonomous concern in armed conflict, their restrictive formulation has rendered them largely symbolic rather than preventive. It proposes a contextual and evolutive interpretation of Additional Protocol I that lowers reliance on rigid thresholds and integrates environmental harm into proportionality assessments and precautionary obligations. By reframing the LWS provisions as part of a holistic protective regime rather than exceptional prohibitions, the article contributes to contemporary debates on strengthening environmental accountability and enhancing legal protection for the environment during armed conflict.