Barry S. Levy and Victor W. Sidel
Human rights, refugees, nuclear weapons, internally displaced persons, armed conflict, landmines, mental health, biological weapons, chemical weapons, conventional weapons
This book has two main purposes. The first is to provide a systemic survey of information on the direct and indirect consequences of war on public health and the roles that health professionals and their organizations can play in preventing war and its consequences. A wide spectrum of other individuals and their organizations, including diplomats, economists, sociologists, and policy makers, also play roles in the prevention of war and its consequences, and can benefit from this information. The second purpose of this book is to help make war and its prevention an integral part of public health education, research, and practice. The book is divided into six parts. Part I places war in the context of public health. Part II addresses the epidemiology of war and the impact of war on health, human rights, and the environment. Part III focuses on major categories of weapons and their adverse health effects. Part IV addresses the adverse effects of war on children, women, refugees and internally displaced persons, and prisoners of war. Part V addresses the health impact of five specific wars of varied type and magnitude. Part VI discusses the roles of health professionals and organizations during war and the roles they can play in preventing war and reducing its health consequences.
Barry S. Levy and Victor W. Sidel, War and Public Health ( Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs, 2008)
War and Public Health
Eric Talbot Jensen
James J. Teixeira, Jr.
International law, law of armed conflict, law of war, military, environment
War is inherently damaging to the environment. Though these deleterious actions are often attributed to “states” during times of armed conflict, they are normally the result of military operations conducted by members of the military who are carrying out orders from military superiors. While many have proposed systemic changes that affect how states can or should be held responsible, few have commented on the process of holding individual military personnel or commanders responsible for battlefield acts of environmental damage. This paper argues that there are sufficient laws and regulations in place to hold individuals and commanders in the United States military responsible for illegal environmental damage during wartime. Further, these laws and regulations provide sufficient penalties and other enforcement mechanisms to deter potential violators, punish convicted criminals, and protect the environment.
(2005) 17 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 651
Prosecuting Members of the U.S. Military for Wartime Environmental Crimes
Helga Malmin Binningsbø, Indra de Soysa, and Nils Petter Gleditsch
Ecological footprint, Armed conflict, Neomalthusianism, Resource scarcity
The proposition that environmental scarcity causes violent conflict attracts both popular and academic interest. Neomalthusian writers have developed theoretical arguments explaining this connection, and have conducted numerous case studies that seem to support the view that scarcity of biological assets such as land and other renewable resources causes conflict. So far there have been few systematic quantitative or comparative studies, and the few that exist have focused on particular forms of environmental degradation or on a small subset of resources, particularly mineral wealth. We test a more general argument about the effects of resource scarcity by examining the most widely-used measure of environmental sustainability: the ecological footprint. Contrary to neomalthusian thinking, we find that countries with a heavier footprint have a substantially greater chance of peace. Biocapacity and the ecological reserve also predict to peace, but these results are more fragile. Separate tests for smaller conflicts, for the post-Cold War period, and with additional control variables do not yield stronger support for the scarcity thesis. On the whole, the neomalthusian model of conflict receives little support from this analysis. We cannot exclude that erosion of the earth’s carrying capacity can increase conflict in the long run, but an empirical analysis with the ecological footprint measure does not provide any support for such a position.
(2007) 28 Population and Environment 337-353
Green giant or straw man? Environmental pressure and civil conflict, 1961–99