Why COP29 must address the issue of Armenia-planted mines in Azerbaijan
The conference in Baku will give policy-makers the opportunity to acknowledge the intertwined nature of environmental and human rights concerns in regions affected by armed conflict and occupation.
The landmines left behind by Armenia pose immediate threats to civilian lives and create a significant impediment to Azerbaijan's rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. Photo: AA Archive
After the end of the Second Karabakh War in 2020, Azerbaijan faced significant challenges stemming from the extensive landmine contamination left behind by almost three decades of Armenian occupation.
These weapons of mass death were intentionally planted during the period of occupation in blatant violation of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. These international crimes of Armenia have caused the deaths of, or injuries to, far more than the officially announced 350 people following the liberation of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan has consistently requested that Armenia provide maps delineating the minefields, yet Yerevan has persistently denied the existence of any such documents.
Subsequently, owing to international pressure, Armenia submitted to Azerbaijan the maps of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines planted in the Aghdam, Fuzuli, and Zangilan districts of Azerbaijan during the occupation.
However, Yerevan has not released the remaining maps of mined areas within Azerbaijan’s liberated territories.
Moreover, the submitted maps were only 25 percent accurate. Over 55 percent of recent mine incidents have occurred beyond Armenia's delineated coverage areas.
Armenia’s constant refusal to submit the remaining maps of mined areas in Azerbaijan’s liberated territories, as well as the deliberate planting of landmines in these territories even after the end of the war, violates its international anti-mine obligations.
This has resulted ipso facto (by the fact itself) in war crimes and crimes against humanity that raise the issue of Armenia’s responsibility under international law.
Addressing anthropogenic interference
The upcoming COP29 in Baku presents a crucial opportunity to tackle the pressing issue of anthropogenic interference, among other things, within the unique context of Azerbaijan's landmine problem.
As delegates gather to strategise and negotiate climate solutions, it’s imperative to recognise the intertwined nature of environmental and human rights concerns in regions affected by armed conflict and occupation.
It is important to understand and acknowledge that these left-behind landmines pose immediate threats to civilian lives and create a significant impediment to Azerbaijan's rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. They also hinder land use and development, exacerbating environmental degradation and impeding efforts to combat climate change.
COP29 presents an opportunity to advocate for integrating landmine clearance efforts into broader sustainable development frameworks. By aligning climate mitigation strategies with landmine clearance initiatives, policymakers can promote environmentally sound practices while simultaneously addressing humanitarian concerns and fostering socio-economic recovery in war-affected regions. This would also contribute to lasting peace and stability in the post-conflict period.
From this perspective, addressing the substantive human right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment at COP29 is important for effectively combating anthropogenic interference, safeguarding the dignity and well-being of all affected individuals and vulnerable communities, ensuring accountability and participation, and providing access to justice and effective remedies.
Right to safe and clean environment
Historically, international climate change treaties such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol have predominantly focused on combating climate crisis and its adverse effects without explicitly addressing human rights issues.
While these framework documents contain references to sustainable development and procedural rights like public access to information and participation, they did not substantively recognise environmental protection as a fundamental human right.
Even the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement – a landmark multilateral and legally binding climate change treaty – addresses the human rights dimension only in its preamble, calling states to respect, promote, and consider human rights into account when implementing response measures.
This resolution underscores the interconnectedness between environmental well-being and human rights, particularly in the face of climate crisis-induced challenges. It emphasises that climate impacts threaten the enjoyment of various human rights by disrupting the conditions necessary for a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
In 2022, the UN General Assembly, in its Resolution 76/300, recognised this right as a human right.
These milestone resolutions can be regarded as forming a new substantive human right – the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. This right is incorporated into the constitutions of 110 states.
Additionally, at the regional level, it is safeguarded by numerous human rights agreements. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, 156 out of 193 UN member states acknowledge this right, either within their constitutions or by virtue of being part of regional treaties that acknowledge it.
It might be argued that future developments in this process are linked with human rights-based climate crisis litigation. This rapidly expanding trend is occurring as pressure mounts on governments and corporations to contribute equitably to climate change mitigation.
Human rights law will be increasingly used in legal proceedings to hold them accountable for the effects of climate crisis on fundamental rights.
Why Europe is the game-changer
Europe is a pioneer in this area. Thus, 2024 was marked by the adoption of historical judgments of the ECHR in three climate change cases: Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, Carême v. France, and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others that raised questions of the relevance of human rights in the context of climate change.
In its landmark decision in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the ECHR ruled that “government inaction on climate change violates fundamental human rights”.
The case was initiated by a group of older Swiss women concerned about the effects of global warming on their health. They argued that the Swiss government is not doing enough to address the issue under its obligations under the Paris Agreement to keep global warming below 1.5°C.
The Court found that the case violated Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Noteworthy, the Court declared that Article 8 of the Convention covers a right to effective protection by the state “from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life” and consequently ruled that Switzerland failed to comply with its obligations under the Convention in respect to climate crisis.
As Pedersen mentioned, “For those of us who in the past have been critical of the Court’s often sparse reasoning concerning its environmental cases, KlimaSeniorinnen is a significant step in the right direction”. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that this historical decision will have a huge impact both domestically and internationally.
However, in the KlimaSeniorinnen case, the Strasbourg Court ruled on the violation of Articles 8 and 6 of the European Convention, which do not directly relate to the right healthy environment. At the same time, it can be argued that the Court established a newly emerged right to a healthy environment, subtly integrated within the framework of the ECHR rights.
What about the explicit address of this right? As it is known, there is no substantive human right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
This is not surprising, given that the Convention was signed in 1950, an era when climate change was far from the international agenda.
Thus, in September 2021, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe proposed the endorsement of an extra protocol to the ECHR, explicitly acknowledging the right to “a healthy and sustainable environment”.
This step was advocated on the grounds that it would provide the Strasbourg Court with an indisputable foundation for making rulings on human rights infringements stemming from environment-related negative impacts on human health, dignity, and life.
Further development came recently with the ITLOS`s (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) first international judicial opinion on state obligations regarding climate change.
This long-awaited advisory opinion elucidates the responsibilities of states under international law to safeguard the marine environment from the detrimental effects of climate change.
It unanimously concluded that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions constitute pollution of the marine environment within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and that states are obligated to take all necessary measures to control this pollution.
Additionally, the Tribunal determined that states have special obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment concerning climate change impacts.
Today, all eyes are on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to see how it will address the obligations of states concerning the adverse effects of climate change.
In 2021, Vanuatu requested an Advisory Opinion on state responsibility for climate damage. On March 29, 2023, during its 64th plenary meeting, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution introduced by a coalition of over 100 states. This resolution outlined the questions to be submitted to the ICJ.
Referring to the UN Charter, key human rights treaties, the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and the UNCLOS, the Assembly posed two questions to the Court requesting clarifications explanation on “the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations” and the “legal consequences[of]…acts and omissions” by States that have “caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.”
In the current debate, many states raised their voice on the pressing issue that “the most vulnerable populations who have historically contributed the least to the unfolding climate calamity are being disproportionately affected by the consequences”.
At the same time, of particular interest in the context of this paper is how the ICJ will decide regarding vulnerable groups of people, including, among other things, those affected by war. Since, under international law, there is an established regime of special attention to vulnerable communities, it can be suggested that the Court also needs to focus on them separately in the context of environmental issues.
In case of such an approach of the Court that will also address anthropogenic interference in the climate system by adopting a human rights-based approach to ensure equitable solutions for all, it could also provide a blueprint for further developments for addressing pressing issues of the post-conflict era, such as the problem of landmines and their lingering impacts on communities and the environment.
In its turn, COP29 will play a crucial role in bringing greater attention to the issue of mining and incorporating it into the global dialogue on combating climate crisis.
By highlighting the environmental impacts of mining at this global gathering, COP29 has the full potential to ensure that this pressing issue receives the recognition it deserves and prompts meaningful action from world leaders and stakeholders.
Copyright © 2024 TRT World.