The Environment-Conflict Nexus: The Weaknesses of the Transitional Justice Regime and its Consequences for Conflict-Induced Environmental Harm

战争是人类引发的最终危机，对环境具有毁灭性的广泛和长期后果（Arias等人，2020）。从乌克兰的田野和森林里散落着数千枚未爆炸的弹药，到刚果东部对珍稀山地大猩猩的屠杀，再到叙利亚石油大火留下的有毒遗产，武装冲突在受影响国家的景观和生物多样性上留下了永久的伤疤。气候变化也是加剧冲突的一个日益重要的因素，红十字国际委员会（ICRC）确定，在25个被认为最容易受到气候变化影响的国家中，有14个陷入冲突（ICRC, 2020）。冲突时期与环境损害之间的关系是多维的和复杂的，可以分解为四个关系陈述：第一，环境可能是冲突的原因。虽然经常与其他社会、经济和政治动态相互作用（Schwartz和Sigh， 1999），但对高价值采掘资源的竞争可能引发新的冲突或使已有的冲突重新焕发活力（Verdeja, 2012）。其次，环境是延续和维持冲突的手段，自然资源在为武装冲突提供资金方面发挥着作用（Gómez-Betancur, 2020）。第三，在冲突过程中，环境可能成为附带损害的受害者，或者交战各方可能故意破坏环境以实现其目标。最后，环境损害是持久和平的障碍，通过消除潜在的合作平台和耗尽可用于社会重建的资源，阻碍了冲突后的恢复（UNEP, 2007）。尽管存在这些联系，但在过渡司法中，环境冲突关系尚未得到充分的探索和理论化（Clark, 2016； Klinsky和Brankovich， 2019）。事实上，普遍存在的过渡时期司法学术的人类中心主义意味着环境危害没有得到解决（Evans, 2022）。鉴于过渡时期司法是一个由如何应对分裂社会中的大规模暴力问题所界定的领域，这一点尤其成问题。然而，如果不能正确认识和应对环境危害，这些危害的受害者就会被蒙在鼓里。

War is the ultimate human-induced crisis that has devastating widespread and long-term consequences for the environment (Arias, et al., 2020). From the thousands of unexploded munitions that litter the fields and forests of Ukraine, to the slaughter of rare mountain gorillas in Eastern Congo and the toxic legacy of oil fires in Syria, armed conflict leaves a permanent scar on the landscape and biodiversity of affected states. Climate change is also a growing factor in exacerbating conflict, with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) identifying that of the 25 countries deemed most vulnerable to climate change, 14 are mired in conflict (ICRC, 2020).The relationship between periods of conflict and environmental harm is multidimensional and complex, and can be broken down into four relational statements:First, the environment may be a cause of conflict. While often interacting with other social, economic and political dynamics (Schwartz and Sigh, 1999), competition over high-value extractive resources can initiate new conflicts or revitalise pre-existing conflicts (Verdeja, 2012). Second, the environment is a means to perpetuate and sustain conflict, with natural resources playing a role in financing armed conflict (Gómez-Betancur, 2020). Third, the environment may fall victim to collateral damage during the course of a conflict, or warring parties may intentionally destroy it to further their objectives. Finally, environmental harm is a barrier to lasting peace, hindering post-conflict recovery by removing potential platforms for cooperation and depleting the resources available for social reconstruction (UNEP, 2007).Despite these links, the environment-conflict nexus has been under-explored and under-theorised within transitional justice (Clark, 2016; Klinsky and Brankovich, 2019). Indeed, the prevalent anthropocentrism of transitional justice scholarship has meant that environmental harms are left unaddressed (Evans, 2022). This is particularly problematic given that transitional justice is a field defined by questions of how to respond to mass violence in divided societies. Yet, without properly acknowledging and responding to environmental harm, victims of such harm are left in the dark.