One of the problems associated with the presence of several actors of misconduct related to compensation for environmental damage is related to the threshold of harm. It will be essential to remember the broken commitment in deciding on compensation. Yes, for example. B, two parties to the conflict contribute to environmental damage, but that one of them is related only to an AED that remains applicable and which sets as a threshold a “significant” harm to the environment, the problem that arises is: if the other party is not bound by the environmental obligations that bind the first part and that the damage (p. 264) is not “widespread, long-term and serious” (which would violate its bell-juice commitments), while both parties will have contributed to the adverse result, it would appear that it is the second part that has breached its obligations and is therefore subject to a corresponding duty of reparation. A similar problem would arise if two or more parties to the conflict contributed to a single case of environmental damage and violated the same obligation, but one of them could successfully rely on a circumstance that excludes injustice. If the damage had not reached the required threshold, if the conduct of one party is not present, but if the conduct of one party is unlawful and that of the other, only one party would be found liable and would be required to make amends, probably for the entire injury. The problem of a single threshold of harm set aside, the primary rules are at the root of the obligation of responsibility of the state. The two elements necessary to determine liability, namely violation and attribution, can be very problematic in a situation of shared responsibility. Finding a breach of an obligation that may be responsible for an environmental breach can be problematic because of the diversity of primary obligations. Not all applicable primary commitments bind all participants in armed conflict. Not all states have ratified the same MEAS and not all states are parties to the Geneva Protocols.
Of course, all states are bound by the same usual rules, but they can violate the various obligations that harm the environment. State A can cause damage to the environment when there is no military necessity and State B can cause damage to the environment by its violation of ad bellum juice. In addition, State A may violate its obligations jus ad bellum, while it is supported and/or supported by State B, which violates the prohibition of aid and assistance to the commission of an unlawful act, as stipulated in ILC50. UNCC acknowledged that the applicants were required to mitigate the damage to the environment to the extent that was possible and reasonable.91 Therefore, “the applicant acted reasonably, in light of all the circumstances, 92 The Panel proposed, for example, amendments to the relief and relief plans proposed by the complainant to make it reasonable, thereby reducing the cost of compensation to Iraq.93 Belinda Royall received a pension of 15 pounds and 12 shillings to be paid by the estate of Isaac Royall, one of the first reparation efforts.