International conflict related environmental claims - A critical analysis of the UN Compensation Commission

Abstract

The Gulf War of 1990–91, precipitated by Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, resulted in massive environmental damage to neighbouring countries. After the Gulf War, the UN Security Council established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) to process claims for war reparations, including claims for environmental damage. The environmental claims were unprecedented. This thesis explores (a) whether key actors influenced the rules and environmental claims, and if so, what means they used to achieve their goals, (b) how key actors used these means to influence the rules and environmental claims and (c) the extent to which the environmental rule and claims might have been different if the UNCC had adopted more transparent, inclusive and accountable processes. The thesis argues that environmental claims and rules are as much the product of human interactions as they are of legal principles. Key actors influenced the UNCC rules and environmental claims by advocating for or against four principles. The principles they advocated or opposed were effective and expeditious justice for the victims of war, due process for Iraq, secrecy and transparency. They did so through the predominant mechanism or tool of modelling which they deployed through webs of dialogue and coercion. Key actors sometimes displaced political conflict on to procedural terrain. The thesis asserts that the UNCC was a transitional institution somewhere between a tribunal administering victor’s justice and an independent and impartial international judicial body. In my conclusions, I draw lessons about the importance of environmental monitoring and assessment studies, due process, the need for adequate claim processing time, the role of experts and precedent in the claims process and the need for transparency and accountability.