Beyond theory and into reality? The concept of environmental terrorism across state discourses on environmental destruction in armed conflicts

Abstract

As of late, environmental considerations have been on the rise in all types of discourses, including academic ones, plenty of which address the connection between environmental and security issues, and aim to influence decision-making. Whether it is climate change, extinction of species, pollution, migratory pressures, or scarcity of resources, the grounds for analysis are numerous. In line with this thinking, the following article provides an insight into the applicability of one of such terms, the contested “environmental terrorism” concept, beyond the realm of mere theory and into the concept’s application in reality. Albeit contested, the concept is based on a relevant idea, whereby it spotlights how actors, state or non-state, may commit “acts of terror” against civilians through the damage of the environment. In turn, the environment itself becomes the misused victim and/or weapon, which thus may prove to be futile for the civilian population that depends on environmental resources for survival. For that reason, acts of “environmental terror” are particularly worrisome, especially when used in situations of armed conflicts to which they tend to be connected. Arguably, it is thus meaningful to assess what is the pertinence of this contested concept in practice. Does it have the necessary baseline to be utilized by the key actors in armed conflicts, namely states, who have the supremacy in deciding what the laws of armed conflict, including the concepts and their definitions, may be? In answering this question, the article contributes to the theoretical literature related to terrorism as well as the protection of the environment in armed conflicts. Results of a longitudinal qualitative content study in Atlas.ti focused on state positions in the UN system (UNSC, UNGA, UNEP, etc.) related to environmental destruction in armed conflicts over the course of more than 50 years (1970s–2020s) imply this has not been the case for decades, nor is it likely to change. The reasons are manifold, as this article shows; nevertheless, in general, they relate to the prevailing politicization of the overarching term “terrorism” by states. In turn, this sensitivity seemingly makes the concept obsolete beyond scholarship. The article, therefore, highlights the meaning of a practical approach for the sake of positive results and outlines how the international community could proceed with this matter. It is thus argued here that the tools used for theoretical analyses must at least to some extent reflect reality, which in this case speaks against the viability of the concept.