Environmental Intervention: An Activist Idea or a Legal Tool? An Analysis of the Possibilities of Environmental Protection in Light of the Principle of Non-Intervention

Abstract

Environmental emergencies are increasingly the subject of debate. As defined in this article, these emergencies start on a State’s territory but can have consequences beyond its borders. The interconnectedness of the environment and the growing concern about environmental threats lead to the question of whether third States might have a legal interest in some of these environmental emergencies. It triggers a debate similar to past debates on human rights violations, resulting in the Responsibility to Protect. This article investigates the circumstances under which States can lawfully intervene without using force in another State in response to environmental emergencies. By analysing the principle of non-intervention and the effect of international environmental law on the scope of the domaine réservé, the article discusses whether certain environmental interventions can be justified under the current legal framework of the principle of non-intervention. The emphasis lies on the no-harm principle and the concept of the common concern of humankind as a means to address environmental emergencies with direct transboundary impacts or those threatening the environment at a global level. The article concludes that the no-harm principle and the concept of the common concern of humankind can potentially reduce the scope of the domaine réservé. Consequently, States’ actions in response to an environmental emergency can be lawful under the principle of non-intervention. This lawful environmental intervention has the potential to develop from an activist idea into a legal tool.