Rio Declaration On Environment and Development: An Assessment

the natural environment shall be treated as a war crime. States must
strive to reach prompt agreement on the complete elimination and
destruction of weapons of mass destruction. The use of such weapons
is a crime against humanity and the environment.”
This proposal was largely motivated by the recent Gulf War where
US troops had invaded Iraq and the forthcoming negotiations on the
future of the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons as well
as a treaty on a comprehensive test ban on nuclear weapons.
The Nordic states were willing to accept the formulation, but wanted
to delete the last sentence. Japan asked for the word “shall” to be
replaced by “should”. However, Australia, Canada, the European
Community, New Zealand and the US objected to the entire
formulation. The G77/China insisted on a retention of a principle
that would address the destruction caused by warfare. The final
compromise was thus a much weakened and general statement that
“Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development”, an
assertion that is self-evident.
Principle 25
Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent
and indivisible.
This was the result of a merging of various countries’ proposals. The
G77 and China had included a second part on disparities between
rich and poor nations but this was merged with Principle 5. The
G77 and China wanted to include the word “peace” on the basis
that developed countries should work towards peace and security
for development and environmental protection, reviving the peace
dividend argument. In the final “tidying up”, the Chairman retained
this sentence.
55