#Armenia and #Azerbaijan are both accusing each other of using #WhitePhosphorous incendiary munitions in protected woodlands in the #Karabach conflict. While we look into it, here's what #IHL says about the legality of incendiary attacks on the #environment. #PERAC 1/6

The @ICRC's revised environmental guidelines for militaries addresses the environmental harm caused by incendiary weapons. Rule 23a is a customary rule applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts. 23b restates CCW Protocol III https://www.icrc.org/en/download/file/141079/guidelines_on_the_protection_of_the_natural_environment_in_armed_conflict_advance-copy.pdf 2/6

In essence, Rule 23a recognises the intrinsically indiscriminate and potentially disproportionate effects of fire as a weapon, and calls for particular care to be taken to address this. These concerns have been present since the widespread use of napalm in the Vietnam War. 3/6

23b restates CCW Protocol III's prohibition on targeting forests that aren't military objectives with fire. Neither #Armenia or #Azerbaijan are parties. Irrespective, customary #IHL says that the environment cannot be targeted unless it has become a military objective. 4/6

We can conclude that a) the regulations against incendiary weapons in general are woefully inadequate (cc @marywareham) and that b) the military objective argument is a massive loophole. Further, how seriously will parties take environmental harm into account during planning? 5/6

White Phosphorous smoke is toxic and the burns it produces are horrific. Fragments of munitions can persist and reignite, and pollute environmental media. Its use is rightly stigmatised and the counter claims in this case underscore that both parties recognise this. 6/6