“IN AN ONGOING EFFORT TO

UNDERSTAND THE
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN
WATER RESOURCES, WATER
SYSTEMS, AND
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
AND CONFLICT, THE PEACE
FOR ALL ORGANIZATION
INITIATED A PROJECT IN THE
LATE 1987s TO TRACK AND
CATEGORIZE EVENTS RELATED
TO WATER AND CONFLICT,
WHICH HAS BEEN
CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED
SINCE.”

OUR PEOPLE ARE

ALWAYS AVAILABLE,
WILLING TO LISTEN,
AND UNDERSTAND THE
NOMEMBER 12/2017
CHANGING NEEDS OF

LEGAL PAPER HUMANITARIAN LAW,

SO THEY CAN OFFER
ADEQUATE SOLUTIONS
The protection of water during armed conflicts. AND EFFICIENT
SERVICES THAT YOU
In modern armed conflicts, even were the general prohibition under international law
on the use of poison to be complied with, water could still be contaminated as a direct CAN RELY ON.
result of military operations against water installations and works. Indeed, destroying
or rendering useless part of a water production system is sometimes enough to
paralyze the system as a whole. If repair work is held up because of continuing
hostilities or for other reasons, such as a shortage of spare parts or inadequate or poor
maintenance and cleaning procedures, there is an obvious and considerable risk of
PEACE FOR ALL
contamination, shortages or epidemics.
www.peaceforall.org

Spoorlaan 318
5078 CC Tilburg
The Netherlands
Peace For All T: +31 13 786 2016
Open Monday-Friday, 09:00-
17:00 local time
 The Sartican war: (facts and questions)

“Peace for All”

World Forum Organization

Executive Director: Mijhaíl Pável Pardo Lafuente

Water, thou hast no taste, no colour, no odour; canst not be defined, art
relished while ever mysterious. Not necessary to life, but rather life itself
(...) Of the riches that exist in the world, thou art the rarest and also the
most delicate thou so pure within the bowels of the earth!"1

Presentation of a legal document related to the protection of water during armed

conflicts

A. The facts
During the war of 2016 in the State of Sartica, there have been massive, systematic and gross violations of
human rights against the civilian population. The violation of international law includes the deprivation of
water and food during this armed conflict. Monunza, the main city of Sartica, has had intermittent access to
water from the beginning of May to the end of June, with a total cut in supply between 20 and 30 May,
resulting in one million people left without access to safe water and sanitation.

Some sources point out that the Sartica Liberation Army has been responsible of the denial to water supplies.
This armed group is financially and military supported by the Kingdom of Panarea government. The
International Alicudi Journal reported that the Monunza River was polluted with chemical substances by the
Sartica Liberation Army. This grave contamination risks threating the health of Alicudi population and
destroying the aquatic ecosystem of the Monunza River.

According to the UN Secretary General: “Preventing people’s access to safe water is a denial of a
fundamental human right,” he warned, pointing out that “deliberate targeting of civilians and depriving them
of essential supplies is a clear breach of international humanitarian and human rights law.” Moreover, he
added that international environmental law protects water resources in time of armed conflict.

B. Object of the present work

As Executive Director of the NGO “Peace for All” that deals with the use of water as a weapon during armed
conflicts, the organization I lead was invited to develop some legal arguments dealing with the protection of
water during armed conflicts.

Consequently, given the importance and complexity of the present issue, our organization “Peace for all”
(hereinafter PALL) presents a concise study regarding the legal nature and normative scope of water

1
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Wind, Sand and Stars, Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, England, 1969, p.140 (Terre des Hommes,
Gallimard, Paris, 1939). Quoted by Zemmali, Ameur; The protection of water in times of armed conflict, 1995. Available at:
https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/other/57jmra.htm
protection during armed conflicts in international law. Subsequently, in the second section of the document,
a series of legal recommendations are proposed through a Draft Resolution (principles and guiding
mechanisms) to be evaluated by the representative delegations of all States party of the ongoing conflict
( Sartica, Monunza and Alicudi) with the aim of undertaking a legal-diplomatic assessment of this document,
hoping that, after a few rounds of negotiations, it could be approved and thus stop the current armed conflict
that takes place in the region, taking into account the vital importance that entails for the concerned States
the protection of all shared water resources, the preservation of the related ecosystems and the unrestricted
access to drinking water.

C. Introduction: International legal approach of water and armed conflict

The relation between water and war can be seen from many perspectives and it should be analysed under
different angles: water can be the subject of international negotiations or it may be a cause of war. In time of
armed conflict water becomes either a means of survival for populations to be protected or a weapon. Given
that war is a destructive and negative phenomenon regardless of its causes such as ethnic tensions, control
over a territory or over resources, relations between water and war, though extremely complex, are mostly
seen through the same prism. Water is at the same time a cause of conflicts and one of its victims. 2

In civil wars, which today account for most of the armed conflicts in the world, the use of water by the
belligerent parties constitutes a serious threat to the population concerned. The expression “environmental
or eco-refuge”, which has become fashionable recently to describe people displaced as a result of the effects
of armed conflicts or other disasters on their natural environment, is symptomatic of the serious damage
these can do. Just taking as an example the hostilities carried out in a period of internal conflict, destroying or
rendering useless a source of drinking water or a safe water supply can in very short order deprive the local
population of an essential commodity; in the case of a “hostile” population or a population in an arid region, it
is easy to imagine just what the outcome would be.3

While thirst may sap the morale of troops on the battlefield, the lack of a safe water supply may force a
population into exile and condemn crops and livestock to wither and die. To attack water is to attack an entire
way of life.4

a) The Protection for Water in the Different Roles that it May Play in Armed Conflict: An
International Humanitarian Law perspective

In recent decades, the demand for water has significantly increased. Moreover, the vital importance of
water and water installations for the health and survival of people all over the world has been
recognized more and more. At the same time, the destructive power of weapons has greatly increased,

2
Tignino, Mara; Reflections on the Legal Regime of Water during Armed Conflicts, Paper to be presented at the Fifth Pan-European
International Relations Conference (Section 31, Panel 8), The Hague, 9-11 September, 2004, p. 1. Paragraph extracted entirely.
3
Zemmali Ameur, Dying for Water, in Forum. War and Water, ICRC, Geneva, 1998, pp. 31-35. Available at:
https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/water-and-armed-conflicts.
4
Ibidem.
 so that water installations remain especially vulnerable and highly susceptible to damage and
destruction by such weapons.5

There are a number of principles and norms that relate directly or indirectly to the protection of
freshwater resources and water infrastructures. However, there is also a general lack of respect
among warring parties for the protected status of water installations. For instance, the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has observed a troubling trend in which water and sanitation
infrastructure is being destroyed, either through deliberate targeting, or as a result of collateral
damage, as well as in some instances water infrastructure being used as a political or military
bargaining chip. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) clearly prohibits whatever the motive, the
attacking, destroying, removing, or rendering useless of “objects indispensable to the survival” of
civilian populations, such as “foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops,
livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works.”6

It is clear then that an act which is not prohibited under the IHL rules can not constitute a war crime.
However, should it be noted that “not every act prohibited under the primary rules meaning, IHL
dispositions also constitutes a war crime as the definitions contained in the various items in the
catalogue are sometimes narrower than the primary norms,”7 although they might give rise to state
responsibility.

Therefore, a systematic interpretation of the relevant rules on International Humanitarian Law could
be useful to identify their presence as an influence on every likely disposition, provided that they
personify the essence of modern IHL on one hand, as well as codifications are just the development
and expression of such principles, on the other; that is in general terms, the balance between
humanity and military necessity, values which normally can’t be weighted up as they represent
different scales of measurement.8

To this effect, the introductory presentation to the present Legal Paper proposed two possible ways
to approach the subject of water in conflicts and international law: either by talking about compliance
with existing principles of IHL (assuming that the body of law is sufficient to protect water resources)
or, arguing that the international regime protecting water resources and installations should develop a
more coherent regime and create additional complementary norms.9

Based on the observation that water is an issue of international peace and security, and that current
armed conflicts are increasingly happening at the intra-state level, the legal team of PALL advisers

5
See Permanent Court of Arbitration. International Bureau, Resolution of International Water Disputes: Papers Emanating from the
Sixth PCA International Law Seminar, November 8, 2002, Kluwer Law International, 2003, p. 322.
6
See International Committee of The Red Cross, Bled dry - How war in the Middle East is bringing the region to the brink of a water
catastrophe, Report, 2015, p. 9.
7
See Bothe, Michael; War Crimes, in I The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Antonio Cassese, Paola
Gaeta, John R. W. D. Jones, eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 387. Quoted by Velásquez-Ruiz, Marco Alberto; The
Principles of Distinction and Proportionality under the Framework of International Criminal Responsibility –Content and Issues-,
International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 2009, pp. 15-42, footnote 19.
8
Velásquez-Ruiz, Marco Alberto; The Principles of Distinction and Proportionality under the Framework of International Criminal
Responsibility –Content and Issues-, International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 2009, pp. 15-42.
9
See The Geneva Water Hub, The Protection of Water During and After Armed Conflicts, Global High-Level Panel on Water and
Peace, Platform for International Water Law of the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, 2016, p. 5.
 focused, after a series of roundtable discussions, on these new conflict trends. In doing so, it dedicated
particular attention to the ongoing armed conflicts in the State of Sartica where, according to local
information, there have been massive, systematic and gross violations of human rights against the
civilian population.

In that context, the following lines reflect not only the legal evaluation made by the Pall advisers
regarding this item, it also contains an interesting approach on the main principles of international law
applicable to the protection of water facilities which are based on IHL, Human Rights Law (HRL) and,
to a lesser degree, on International Environmental Law (IEL). Thus, the important exchanges of views
presented in this document concentrate their efforts on the IHL principles and rules related to the
conduct of hostilities rules such as the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautionary
measures as well as specific norms pertaining to the protection of water in its different roles.10

First, the principle of distinction stipulates that in times of war one has to distinguish between military
objectives and combatants on the one hand and civilians and civilian objects, on the other hand 11, and,
that only the former are legitimate military targets. Precisely, Article 52 of the First Protocol
Additional to the Geneva Conventions 12 defines a legitimate military target as one “which by [its]
nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or
partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite
military advantage.”13 In that manner, an attack by any armed group or force requires that it meet the
above conditions. This said, in the case of water installations such as dams, Article 56 of the First
Protocol Additional and Article 15 of the Second Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
states that these installations “shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objectives are

10
See The Geneva Water Hub, The Protection of Water During and After Armed Conflicts, Global High-Level Panel on Water and
Peace, Platform for International Water Law of the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, 2016, p. 5. The idea of a team of
advisers comes from the multidisciplinary work rounds developed during the aforementioned Panel on water and peace.
11
“The distinction between combatants and civilians is the cornerstone of all humanitarian law, and therefore, has a tremendous
influence on the regime of international individual penal responsibility, as in practice by far the most numerous crimes are
committed against civilians”. See Chetail Vincent, The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to International Humanitarian
Law, International Review of the Red Cross, 2003, p. 253; and Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, 2nd ed., Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2008, p. 88. Quoted by Velásquez-Ruiz, Marco Alberto; The Principles of Distinction and Proportionality
under the Framework of International Criminal Responsibility –Content and Issues-, International Law, Revista Colombiana de
Derecho Internacional, 2009, pp. 15-42, footnotes 2 and 3.
12
This article is of considerable importance. In fact, in order to apply the basic rule contained in Article 48 (Basic rule), “it is
necessary to know what constitutes civilian objects, on the one hand, and military objectives, on the other. For a long time
attempts have been made to define military objectives”. For example, Hague Convention IX of 1907 Concerning Bombardment by
Naval Forces in Time of War contains the following provisions: “Article 1 - The bombardment by naval forces of undefended ports,
towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings is forbidden [...] Article 2 - Military works, military or naval establishments, depots of arms or
war ‘materiel’ workshops or plants which could be utilized for the needs of the hostile fleet or army, and the ships of war in the
harbour, are not, however, included in this prohibition [...]”. For more information see Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Commentary of 1987 on General Protection of Civilian Objects. Available at: https://ihl-
databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=5F27276CE1BBB79DC12563CD00434969.
13
See Article 52 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims
of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Available at: https://ihl-
databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=D9E6B6264D7723C3C12563CD002D6CE4.
 military objectives, if such attacks may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe
losses among the civilian population.”14

In any case, the lawful targeting of military objectives is further restricted by the principle of
proportionality, which prohibits an attack against such objectives if this is expected “to cause
incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof,
which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”15. In
fact, defining a legitimate military target or assessing proportionality can be difficult in specific
contexts, including when it comes to water resources. For example, if groundwater resources are in
the surrounding area of a military facility, would the attack of the latter be proportionate? The answer
to such a question is likely to depend on a number of issues, such as the information available to a
military commander at the time of an attack. It is however understood that any military commander
has a legal obligation to weigh the relative military advantages of an attack against the potential
damage to civilian objects, and also to gather adequate information on potential indirect effects, as
required under the additional rules on precautions.16

Regarding the debate on the principles of distinction and proportionality, in 2016, an expert
roundtable on “The Protection of Water During and After Armed Conflicts” and a conference on
“Water in Conflicts”, discussed the suggestion to draw-up a list of water infrastructure that must not
be considered military targets17. Such a list –they asserted:

“…could contain electrical facilities, sewage and treatment installations, and consumables which are
necessary for the delivery of water services to the population. Although a number of problems would
come with such a list – such as the inherent risks that the objects listed could become specific targets,
as well as the very large number of objects that have both a civilian as well as a military use – there was
agreement that the exercise of drafting such a list could be useful as a practice to consider the different
purposes of water infrastructure in urban conflicts and to reflect on existing norms. In addition to the
existing norms of IHL referring to the protection of dams, dikes and objects indispensable to the
survival of the civilian population, the list could contain additional objects related to water and
electricity that must not be targeted during armed conflicts for their direct and indirect impacts on the
civilian population. This list would reflect an agreement between the parties of a conflict to spare these
facilities. Nevertheless, it was recognized that it would ultimately be very difficult to define a list that
the international community could agree upon.”18

14
See The Geneva Water Hub, The Protection of Water During and After Armed Conflicts, Global High-Level Panel on Water and
Peace, Platform for International Water Law of the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, 2016, pp. 5-6.
15
See Art. 51 (5) (b) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of
Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Available at: https://ihl-
databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=4BEBD9920AE0AEAEC12563CD0051DC9E.
16
See Art. 57 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Available at: https://ihl-
databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=50FB5579FB098FAAC12563CD0051DD7C.
17
The debate over proceeding through lists dates back to the discussions within the delegations who drafted the First Additional
Protocol (for example whether Article 52 should contain a list of military objectives, an option which was not retained). See The
Geneva Water Hub, The Protection of Water During and After Armed Conflicts, Global High-Level Panel on Water and Peace,
Platform for International Water Law of the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, 2016, p. 6.
18
See The Geneva Water Hub, The Protection of Water During and After Armed Conflicts, Global High-Level Panel on Water and
Peace, Platform for International Water Law of the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, 2016, p. 6.
 Additionally, they pointed out that:

“…the main purpose of international humanitarian law so far has not been to protect water or
water facilities during war per se, but rather in relation to the civilian population dependent upon
them for its survival or for the harm it may cause. Natural resources and the environment are only
protected by few and rather weak legal provisions during international armed conflicts (arts. 35.3 and 55
of the First Additional Protocol). The prohibition of causing widespread, long-term and serious damage
enshrined in Articles 35.3 and 55 of the First Additional Protocol of 1977 is part of the body of rules
applicable only to international armed conflicts. Non-international armed conflicts are not, however,
free from any legal constraints. To this regard, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recalled that
“States must take environmental considerations into account when assessing what is necessary and
proportionate in the pursuit of legitimate military objectives.” The principles of necessity and
proportionality must incorporate environmental considerations. This being said, the lack of specific
provisions on the environment is a major weakness of the legal regime applicable to non-international
armed conflicts.”19

On the other hand, as it was pointed on what the International Court of Justice has said about the
relation between distinction and proportionality, the former cannot be easily disassociated from the
rules inherent to its implementation, which includes specifically the prohibition of indiscriminate
attacks and the use of weapons with the same potentiality to cause incidental injuries to civilians and
civilian population.20

Moreover, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has confirmed that “the rule
that civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be object of attack, is a
fundamental rule of international humanitarian law applicable to all armed conflicts.”21

Hence, even if the principles of distinction and proportionality have a global influence on the whole
branch of IHL, and therefore, on every war crime, their direct manifestation can be found in one
general prohibition applicable either to situations of international and internal armed conflicts, and
two complementary criminal conducts in relation to the methods and means of warfare which are
disproportionate, following the way they were developed from the normes de comportement of the
1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, without prejudice of complementary rules
coming from another legal instruments, for instance, in the case of means of warfare. 22

19
See The Geneva Water Hub, The Protection of Water During and After Armed Conflicts, Global High-Level Panel on Water and
Peace, Platform for International Water Law of the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva, 2016, p. 7. Emphasis added.
20
See Chetail, Vincent; The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to International Humanitarian Law. International Review
of the Red Cross, 2003, p. 253. Quoted by Velásquez-Ruiz, Marco Alberto; The Principles of Distinction and Proportionality under the
Framework of International Criminal Responsibility –Content and Issues-, International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho
Internacional, 2009, pp. 15-42, footnote 46.
21
ICTY Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Martic, Judgment March 8th, 1996, para. 10. This approach is different as the ad hoc tribunal
required serious consequences to verify the commission of the crime, and the ICC Statute doesn’t address so. See Velásquez-Ruiz,
Marco Alberto; The Principles of Distinction and Proportionality under the Framework of International Criminal Responsibility –Content
and Issues-, International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 2009, pp. 15-42, footnote 44.
22
Such as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their
Destruction, Ottawa, Canada, 1997. See Velásquez-Ruiz, Marco Alberto; The Principles of Distinction and Proportionality under the
Framework of International Criminal Responsibility –Content and Issues-, International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho
Internacional, 2009, pp. 15-42, footnote 37.
 Nonetheless, it is suggested that the general prohibition of attacks to civilians and civilian population
included in article 8.2 (e) International Criminal Court Statute would be sufficient to include such
behaviors23 in the case of an internal armed conflict, as they form a unity under the customary primary
rules of IHL; however, and taking into account the principle of legality, this issue is open to further
discussion as the International ICC develops relevant jurisprudence.

b) The Definition and utilization of poison or poisoned weapons during armed conflicts

Notably, the poisoning of water as a means of combat is prohibited, as is the destruction of dams and
reservoirs that provide access to water for civilian populations. Further still, through the prohibition on
the destruction of indispensable goods for their survival, civilians are protected against actions
conducive to famine.24

Moreover, prisoners of war are also afforded protection. In this respect, the Geneva Conventions
provide that prisoners of war and civilian internees should be provided with enough potable water to
maintain good health as well as enough water for daily personal hygiene.25

However, most States indicate that poison or poisoned weapons are prohibited without further detail.
In its advisory opinion related to the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons, the ICJ stated
that the terms “poison” and “poisoned weapons” “have been understood, in the practice of States, in
their ordinary sense as covering weapons whose prime, or even exclusive, effect is to poison or
asphyxiate”.26 In the same context, the United Kingdom and the United States asserted (Legality of
the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, written submissions, Advisory opinion) that
the prohibition did not apply to weapons which could incidentally poison, but only to weapons that
were designed to kill or injure by the effect of such poison. This interpretation does not indicate that
poison must be the primary or exclusive injury mechanism but that it must be an “intended” injury
mechanism and is in keeping with the origin of the rule, namely, to prohibit the smearing of arrows
with poison which would prevent recovery from the injury caused by the arrow.

On the other hand, in a situation of occupation under international humanitarian law, economic, social,
and cultural rights may also find application. In fact, in its General Comment No 15, the Committee on
economic, Social and Cultural Rights indicated that:

“22. The Committee notes that during armed conflicts, emergency situations and natural disasters, the
right to water embraces those obligations by which States parties are bound under international
humanitarian law. This includes protection of objects indispensable for survival of the civilian

23
It has been suggested that article 13.2 of Protocol II would implicitly carry on the principle of proportionality, thus opening a door
to interpret in a broad way the provision of the Statute (art. 8.2 (e) (i)), in order to punish conducts contravening the Principle of
Proportionality under a non-international armed conflict. This vision is supported by the jurisprudence of the ICJ as mentioned
above. See Bothe, Michael; War Crimes, in I The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Antonio Cassese,
Paola Gaeta, John R. W. D. Jones, eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 421.
24
See, respectively, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Art 54, and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to
the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Art 14 (8 June 1977). See L. Boisson de Chazournes and
M. Tignino, ‘Droit international et eau douce’, Juriscasseur-Environment, 2013, paras 165-99.
25
Ibídem.
26
ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, p. 248, para. 55. Available at: http://www.icj-
cij.org/en/case/95/advisory-opinions.
 population, including drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, protection of the
natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage and ensuring that civilians,
internees and prisoners have access to adequate water.” 27

Moreover, because of the inter-relation of all water, the prohibition on poisoning water or making
drinking water useless for human consumption would apply not only to wells and springs but also to
rivers, lakes and canals, especially irrigation canals. In this respect, during its conference at New Delhi
in 1975, the International Law Association (ILA) suggested that the prohibition on poisoning is too
narrow and that the prohibition should be extended to all measures which render water unusable for
human consumption, by whatever means: because they would hurt the civilian populations as well as
combatants, such measures should be considered illegal.28

In the present case, according to the International Alicudi Journal, the Monunza River was polluted
with chemical substances by the so called Sartica Liberation Army. This grave contamination risks
threating the health of Alicudi population and destroying the aquatic ecosystem of the Monunza River.
To this respect, Rule 72 of the Geneva Conventions establishes the prohibition of the use of poison or
poisoned weapons. In fact, State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international
law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts which constitutes also a war
crime in international armed conflicts under the Statute of the International Criminal Court. This
prohibition exists independently of the prohibition of chemical weapons (Rule 74 of the Geneva
Conventions)29.

Nonetheless, the Statute of the International Criminal Court does not include the use of poison or
poisoned weapons as a war crime in the sections dealing with non-international armed conflicts, and
this issue was not openly debated during the Rome diplomatic conference. As a result, some
implementing legislation of the Statute of the ICC limits to international armed conflicts the rule that
the use of poison or poisoned weapons is a war crime.30 However, the legislation of some States
criminalizing the use of poison or poisoned weapons does apply to non-international armed
conflicts. 31 For example, Germany’s legislation states explicitly that the rule applies to both

27
General Comment No 15, para 22. See Boisson Laurence, Fresh Water in International Law, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 170.
28
According to the ILA, all measures which render water unusable for human consumption by whatever means are illegal at least,
de lege ferenda, “in conformity with rule no. 7 of the 1969 Edinburgh resolution of the Institut de Droit International.” This rule
prohibits “the use of all weapons which, by their nature, affect indiscriminately both military and non-military objects, or both
armed forces and civilian population.” However, this principle has been violated by many countries. See Slavko Bogdanovic,
International Law of Water Resources: Contribution of the ILA (1954-2000), Kluwer Law International, London, 2000, p. 234.
29
The use of chemical weapons is prohibited in international armed conflicts in a series of treaties, including the Hague Declaration
concerning Asphyxiating Gases, the Geneva Gas Protocol, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Statute of the International
Criminal Court. At present, only 13 States are not party to either the Geneva Gas Protocol or the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Of these, at least three have made statements to the effect that the use of chemical weapons is unlawful, or have indicated that
they do not possess or use them or that they are committed to their elimination. The prohibition is also contained in a number of
other instruments. See Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise; Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I:
Rules, International Committee of the Red Cross, Cambridge University Press, p. 259.
30
See, e.g., the legislation of Australia, Canada, Congo, Mali, Netherlands, New Zealand and United Kingdom. Available at:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter21_rule72#Fn_F4806E8_00001.
31
See, e.g., the legislation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Germany, Switzerland and Yugoslavia; see also the
legislation of Italy, the application of which is not excluded in time of non-international armed conflict. Available at: https://ihl-
databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter21_rule72#Fn_F4806E8_00001.
 international and non-international armed conflicts.32 The rule is also included in some military
manuals which are applicable in or have been applied in non-international armed conflicts.33 Several
military manuals explain the prohibition of poison or poisoned weapons in armed conflicts on the
grounds that they are “inhuman” and/or “indiscriminate”, an argument that is equally valid in non-
international armed conflicts. 34 There is also reported practice from a number of States that supports
the application of this rule in non-international armed conflicts.35

This said, it seems that practice is in conformity with the rule’s applicability in both international and
non-international armed conflicts, as States generally do not have a different set of military weapons
for international and non-international armed conflicts. Despite the Monunza River Case, there have
been no confirmed reports of the use of poison or poisoned weapons in either international or non-
international armed conflicts. Allegations of such use have been rare.

D. Recommendations: Draft Resolution regarding protection of water during armed

conflict

Based on the outlined study placed in the previous paragraphs, a number of recommendations were made by
the PALL organization in order to provide a sufficient number of guiding lines for the main actors involved in
the current conflict.

For this, a joint negotiating commission should be set up to house the delegations of all the States Parties. In
this sense, the following draft resolution may serve as a model (guiding support) for the preparation of an
Official Document where the States of Sartica, Alicudi and the Kingdom of Panarea ascribe common
positions in the following terms:

32
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-
ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter21_rule72#Fn_F4806E8_00001.
33
See, e.g., the military manuals of Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Italy, Kenya, Nigeria,
South Africa and Yugoslavia. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-
ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter21_rule72#Fn_F4806E8_00001.
34
See, e.g., the military manuals of Australia, Canada, France, Israel and United States and the military manuals of Ecuador,
Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom and United States. Available at: https://ihl-
databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter21_rule72#Fn_F4806E8_00001.
35
See, e.g., the reported practice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, India, Philippines and Rwanda. Available at: https://ihl-
databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter21_rule72#Fn_F4806E8_00001.
 DRAFT RESOLUTION ON WATER PEACE AND SECURITY OVER THE SARTICAN
REGION

The Joint Commission between the States of Sartica, Alicudi and the Kingdom of Panarea,

 Recalling further all relevant General Assembly Resolutions on water, including A/Res/64/292 of 28
July 2010, in which the General Assembly recognized the right to safe and clean drinking water and
sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights, and
A/Res/68/157 of 18 December 2013, and A/Res/70/169 of 22 february 2016 entitled “the human right
to safe drinking water and sanitation”, as well as General Assembly Resolutions 55/196 of 20
December 2000, 58/217 of 23 December 2003 and resolution 65/154 of 20 December 2010 declaring
2013 as the international year for water cooperation and A/Res/71/222 entitled “International Decade
for Action ‘Water for Sustainable Development´ 2018-2018” (based on A/RES/70/169 The human
rights to safe drinking water sanitation);

 Recallling the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, which provide
general protection against attacks and the effects of attacks against all civilians and civilian objects;
including water resources from deliberate contamination; and special protection for objects
indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and the obligation of parties to armed conflict
to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law in all circumstances;

 Recalling the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and
International Lakes, and its resolution 2118 (2013) of 27 September 2013 expressing grave concern
over the deliberate interrumptions of water supply during armed conflict;

 Recalling the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International
Watercourses and the statement of its President of 2 October 2013 (S/PRST/2013/15) urging all parties
to armed conflcit to protect and demilitarize water infrastructure;

 Expressing its determination to enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations in preventing and
ending armed conflicts, their escalation, spread when they occur, and their resurgence once they end,
(S/RES/2171 (2014)).

 Noting that 158 out of the 286 international watercourses have no cooperation framework, and that
the lack of cooperation framework can lead to a competition on access to Water resources;

 Alarmed by the human costs and devastating humanitarian, economic, environmental, political and
social consequences of armed conflict, and recognizing the imperatives, including moral, of the
 prevention of armed conflict and its benefits for peace and development, in particular by addressing
the root causes of armed conflict;

 Recognizing that conflicts may emerge due to water scarcity and lack of integrated water
management at the basin level of transboundary waters and acknowledging the need for the
international community to undertake measures to address this challenge;

 Stressing that with the water scarcity and the unequal geographical distribution of water resources
around the world, 1.7 billion people are below the real rarity threshold established by the United
Nations, and further stressing that this number is expected to rise to 2.4 billion in 2025 and that by
2050 at least one in four human beings will live in a country where the lack of fresh water is chronic 0r
recurrent.

 Recognizing the adverse effects of climate change, pollution and global warming and ecological
changes among other factors on the stability of any region, including through water scarcity, drought,
desertification, land degradation, and food insecurity, and emphasizes the need for adequate risk
assessments and risk management strategies by governments and the United Nations relating to
these factors; (based on OP6 of S/RES/2349 (2017));

 Recognizing also the potential role of transboundary water cooperation in preserving regional and
global stability, and therefore maintaining international peace and security;

 Acknowledging that all –inclusive consensual mechanisms on basin level that foster cooperation and
dialogue and promote confidence building measures, political will and availability of financial
resources to manage transboundary waters are crucial to achieve win-win situation, share potential
benefits and preserve the sustainability of transboundary water resource;

 Emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive approach to sustaining peace, particularly through

the prevention of conflict and recognizing the role that preventive diplomacy have on preventing
future potential conflicts related to water scarcity and transboundary waters;

 Recognizing that the root causes of armed conflict are multidimensional in nature, thus requiring a
comprehensive and integrated approach to the prevention of armed conflict;

 Expressing its deep concern over attacks against and limitations of access to the use of water
resources used as a weap0n method of war to displace populations and the indiscriminate attacks
against fresh water resources and over attacks on water installations perpetrated by terrorist groups
as well as by non-state actors;
 Recognizing the interdependence of essential services, such as a water, health and electricity,
including the importance of maintaining critical infrastructure during armed conflict as well as
ensuring alternative capabilities.

 Expressing also concern over the direct, indirect and cumulative impact of armed conflict on water and
other essential services, noting in particular the challenges of protracted armed conflict in which the
cumulative impact on services is hard to reserve.

 Welcoming and reaffirming the important role that international, regional and subregional
organizations play in water related issues and their importance in resolving potential conflicts;

 Acting under the legal dispositions of the Joint Agreement of the Joint Mechanism of Political
Consultations;

1. Strongly condemns the attacks against water resources and water infrastructure that took place in
the State of Sartica and urges all parties to armed conflict (States and non-States actors) to refrain
from attacking or targeting water resources and water infrastructure in the region and to fully
comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, in
particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 an the 1977 Additional Protocols thereto;

2. Emphatically condemns the violation of International Humanitarian Law that includes the
deprivation and contamination of water and food during an armed conflict;

3. Urges the Secretary General of the United Nations Organization to extend its good offices to
Parties to water-related disputes to resolve the current conflict in the Sartican State and, in this
regard, further urges him to strengthen the United Nations early warning mechanisms to identify
specific water issues that could impact peace and stability in the region;

4. Reiterates that the States of Sartica, Alicudi and the Kingdom of Panarea have the obligation to
seek solutions to their disputes through negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, recourse to regional agreements and organizations and other peaceful means, such as
good offices in accordance to the UN charter;

5. Declares that transboundary waters must be a vehicle for peace and understanding between the
States of Sartica, Alicudi and the Kingdom of Panarea; and in this regard, decides to promote
“Cooperation and Mediation” as tools for the prevention of water-related conflicts as well as the
peaceful resolution of armed conflicts currently developed by the Sartica Liberation Army;

6. Calls upon all member States involved in the current conflict that share the transboundary waters
of the Monunza River, to engage in cooperation with the other riparian countries for the
maintenance of international peace and security; (based on OP1 of S/RES/2171 (2014));
 7. Expresses its appreciation for the regional cooperation organizations that have adopted
transboundary water cooperation within its framework and calls upon all other such bodies to
follow the example;

8. Urges the States of Sartica, Alicudi and the Kingdom of Panarea to refrain from taking any
unilateral measures with potential to harm the environment, and endanger or affect the rights and
the interests of other riparian States or the livelihoods of populations such the city of Monunza
that dependant on the shared transboundary water resource between the three States involved;

9. Calls upon the States of Sartica, Alicudi and the Kingdom of Panarea to honor their obligations
under international law, international humanitarian law and international humand rights law;

10. Encourages the use of all inclusive cooperation in transboundary waters as an effective confidence
building measure at all levels, from small-scale community and local Government projects to
complex regional and international collaborations carried out by Governments, the private sector
and civil society;

11. Strongly recommends to all States party of the present resolution to conclude consensual and all
inclusive transboundary water governance agreements that emphazise the sustainability of
transboundary water resources and provide for the establishment of institutional mechanisms that
ensure the reasonable use of such resources in order to avoid potential conflict over those
resources (based on recommendation 1 page 41 of the Report of the Global High Level Panel
on Water and Peace);

12. Urges the States of Sartica, Alicudi and the Kingdom of Panarea to establish consensual and
inclusive regional or joint water management bodies in all transboundary waters and work,
towards their institutional strengthening. Such arrangements foster cooperation and dialogue and
promote confidence building measures with a view to achieving integrated water resources
management, to the benefit of all concerned States and avoid any potential conflict over water;

13. Acknowledges the significant role that donor community and regional and internati0nal financial
institutions play in promoting consensual projects for the optimal utilization and development of
water resources in order to avoid potential conflicts over transboundary water resources, and in
this regard, calls upon them to priorizite all inclusive joint investement plans, bearing in mind the
international criteria on financing water projects on transboundary water resources 36 and increase
funding on initiatives related to water, peace and security;

36
That criteria includes Operational Directives 7.50 on “projects on international water ways” and 4.01 on “Environmental
Assessment” on the World Bank.
14. Encourages the States of Sartica, Alicudi and the Kingdom of Panarea to take measures including
increased coordination with each other and relevant global agencies, to reduce and eliminate
threat to water resources by acts of terrorism;,

15. Reminds the States of Sartica, Alicudi and the Kingdom of Panarea to fully support and encourage
the work of relevant bodies working on the protection of water resources and related
infrastructure such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC);

16. Calls on parties to armed conflicts to use the protection of water as a confidence-building measure
(CBM) to support negotiations between all States involved in the current controversy when
considering agreements of cessation of hostilities or the signature of peace agreements;

17. Requests the Secretary General of the United Nations Organisation to submit a written annual
report on progress in the implementation of this resolution including on best practices and lessons
learned on transboundary waters cooperation and on the role of relevant United Nations entities
in promoting water cooperation and prevening water disputes as well as on the best ways for the
protection of water in armed conflicts to serve as a confidence-building measure between parties;

28 November 2017