In the last decade, the human right to a healthy environment has gained central importance in the landscape of International Law, emerging as an increasingly solid and shared pillar to address the challenges related to climate change and ecosystem protection. The issue took conventional form through the 2021 United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 48/13, which explicitly enshrined the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for the first time. This right, which is gradually consolidating within national and international regulatory contexts thanks to the decisive role of Climate Litigation, is, however, threatened by systemic phenomena that compromise its full realization. Among these, armed conflicts and the role of the military industry, which could tend to increase exponentially in the coming years due to the complexity of the current geopolitical landscape, emerge as disruptive forces that exacerbate the climate crisis and raise questions about the ability of international institutions to respond effectively in generating appropriate protection mechanisms.

The idea of conventionally protecting the right to a healthy environment has been consolidated through crucial regulatory instruments, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreements. These documents have established the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities , recognizing that all states must contribute to the fight against climate change, taking into account their respective and diverse economic capacities and historical impact.

Regarding the war context, the Geneva Conventions with their Additional Protocols have determined the fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law and, albeit indirectly, have recognized the right to the environment. Especially with the 1977 Additional Protocols , the link becomes closer. Article 35 of Protocol I identifies the limits to the means and methods of warfare, stating that "It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare that are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment." Article 55 of Protocol I directly highlights the protection of the natural environment, stating "Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term, and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare that are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population... Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited". Similarly, the Rome Statute in Article 8, paragraph 2(b)(iv) , recognizes as a war crime the "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated." Recently, however, the fragility, or rather, the embryonic nature of these legislative structures has explicitly manifested within the dimensions of armed conflict that rage on the global landscape and show no signs of abating, neither in terms of belligerence on the ground nor in terms of arms production.

An emblematic case is represented by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which has so far generated a devastating environmental impact. Attilio Pisanò in "War and Climate Change, there is no fight to Climate Change without Peace" says a phrase that encapsulates the essence of the issue of this article: "The war in Ukraine could be the beginning of a domino effect that could end with downgrading the fight against climate change from an ecological, environmental, political, and legal urgency to one of many objectives, in the face of an international political agenda dictated by other priorities, engaged in building peace without climate justice."

According to data provided by the Ecozagroza (platform of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine), in consequences of military actions and impact on the environment, more than 7,900 environmental crimes have been documented, with a direct estimated cost of $3.814 billion. On the platform it is also possible to consult impressive real-time data on the damage caused to the atmospheric air, land, and water resources, as well as the pollution produced by the destruction of military equipment. These data highlight how armed conflicts not only represent a direct threat to the lives and safety of people but also inflict lasting damage on ecosystems, exacerbating the global climate crisis.

The role of international institutions in managing the climate crisis has often proven ineffective in simultaneously addressing the war consequences that could impact it. The Conferences of the Parties (COP), which constitute the main global forum for climate governance, have shown increasing difficulty in defining common and ambitious strategies. In addition to a growing attempt to disengage from climate obligations and sabotage proactive ones and the establishment of support funds by some states, there has been an evident inability to collaborate, which is also reflected in the management of war crises under the lens of climate change and environmental protection. Indeed, neither at COP27 held in November 2022 in Sharm El Sheikh nor at COP28 held in Dubai in November 2023 was there any official mention of how to address the climate damage of the war in Ukraine or how to address the climate damage caused by military operations (now officially recognized as crimes against humanity and war crimes by the ICC) by Israel in Gaza. Despite both COPs being held respectively in the years of the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine (2022) and the military operations in Gaza (2023). There was no mention of ecocide crimes as it was not the appropriate venue, but firmly addressing the climate issue and taking a stance on it could have contributed to creating a decisive precedent, facilitating the work of the ICJ, which since 2024 has been actively moving to create an effective accountability dimension concerning the crime of ecocide.

The role of the military sector in the climate crisis, therefore, although often overlooked, remains and is destined to become increasingly decisive. In addition to the specific example of the war in Ukraine, it is estimated that armies are among the main consumers of fossil fuels, and their operations produce significant CO₂ emissions, exacerbating global warming. According to militaryemissions.org, the military sector is responsible for 5.5% of global emissions. Despite this, these emissions continue to remain excluded from major international treaties, creating a regulatory gap known as the "Military Emissions Gap" This legal loophole allows armed forces to operate without constraints in terms of emission reductions, perpetuating a sense of impunity that contrasts with global climate commitments.

The environmental consequences of military operations are too often underestimated or ignored. The production of weapons and military vehicles requires intensive extraction of natural resources, while military exercises and tests destroy terrestrial and marine ecosystems. As technology advances, the effects of military apparatuses become potentially more devastating in terms of environmental impact.

Another important example of devastating environmental consequences generated by military operations is the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, which had lasting effects on local ecosystems and human communities. The United States has been called to account for the use of Agent Orange by various international organizations and veteran groups. One of the first to raise the issue was American botanist Arthur Galston, who in the 1970s accused the United States of committing ecocide for the use of this substance during the Vietnam War, lobbying with other scientists the U.S. Department of Defense to conduct toxicological studies on the matter. In terms of legal actions, U.S. veterans filed lawsuits against the companies that produced Agent Orange, such as Dow Chemical and Monsanto. These lawsuits were pursued in various U.S. federal courts, culminating in a 1984 settlement in which the companies agreed to pay $180 million to veterans exposed to Agent Orange. Additionally, the Vietnamese government raised the issue in various international forums, but there has been no specific international court that has judged the United States on the matter.

In this complex landscape, Climate Litigation emerges as a fundamental tool to assert climate justice and hold public and private actors accountable. These legal proceedings, often based on the recognition of human rights through international treaties rather than domestic sources, offer a means to address regulatory gaps and promote a more inclusive model of climate governance.

The case of Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands represents a significant precedent in the realm of Climate Litigation; the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that the state had a legal obligation to reduce emissions to protect the rights enshrined in Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR . The interest protected by Article 2 of the ECHR includes situations related to the environment that affect, or threaten to affect, the right to life, while Article 8 can also apply to environmental situations if an act or omission has a negative effect on a citizen's domestic and/or private life. Both articles, therefore, could be directly linked to war related Climate Litigation. The emissions and environmental damage caused by armed conflicts, as well as the omissions of adequate environmental protections, directly and indirectly threaten the present and future lives of people, as well as future generations.

Another significant example in this regard is National Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a legal dispute in which the National Wildlife Federation and other environmental groups challenged the activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in maintaining a navigation channel in the Middle Mississippi River. The lawsuit was filed in 2020 in the federal district court for the Southern District of Illinois. The dispute focused on the adequacy of the environmental review conducted by USACE for the 2017 regulation works project. NWF argued that USACE had not adequately considered the environmental impacts of the project, including the effects of climate change on the river's vital side channels. In 2023, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the summary judgment in favor of the government, rejecting NWF's arguments. This nonetheless creates a precedent and highlights an element: there are not enough legislative hooks, both domestic and international, to effectively pursue legal actions against military sectors.

To address the described challenges, it is necessary to develop more ambitious and targeted regulatory instruments. The proposal for a "Fifth Geneva Convention" advanced by experts and NGOs in 2019 aims to provide specific legal protection for the environment in armed conflicts.

Similarly, the recognition of ecocide as an international crime could represent a fundamental step in prosecuting environmental devastation on a global scale, strengthening ecosystem protection and promoting shared responsibility.

An emerging concept that deserves attention is "environmental peacebuilding", an approach that views environmental conflicts as opportunities to build peace rather than exclusive paths to violence. Environmental peacebuilding promotes cooperation between conflicting parties through the shared management of natural resources, creating the foundations for lasting and sustainable peace. This idea is based on the premise that the mutual benefits derived from cooperation on natural resources outweigh the selfish motivations to intensify conflict. For example, the shared management of river basins or forests can foster dialogue between communities and countries, overcoming political boundaries and promoting sustainable development. This approach recognizes that many ecosystems are shared by multiple communities and/or countries and that their joint management can help prevent conflicts and promote peace.

In conclusion, the human right to a healthy environment can no longer be relegated to a theoretical principle but must become a practical and transversal priority. In the article, legal hooks were listed through which, via Climate Litigation, precedents could be effectively created to determine the protection of the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment even in a war context.

In an era where climate crises and armed conflicts intertwine in increasingly complex ways, the international community has a duty to adopt a more inclusive and ambitious approach, capable of ensuring climate justice and environmental protection even in the most critical contexts. Only in this way will it be possible to build a sustainable and just future for present generations and, above all, for those to come.