The role of multilateral environmental agreements in armed conflict: 'Green-keeping' in virunga park. Applying the UNESCO world heritage convention in the armed conflict of the democratic Republic of the Congo

Nordic Journal of International Law

Volumn 82, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 129-153

  Sjöstedt, Britta ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

'green keeping'; armed conflict; environmental damage; fragmentation; international law; multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs); world heritage

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893417445     PISSN: 09027351     EISSN: 15718107     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/15718107-08201007     Document Type: Article

References (207)

1. The DRC ratified the WHC on 23 September 1974; see 〈www.whc.unesco. org/en/statesparties〉, visited 30 September 2012.
2. The DRC has five natural world heritage sites protected under the WHC including the Salonga National Park, Okapi Wildlife Reserve, Kahuzi-Biega National Park and Garamba National Park.
3. For the full text of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, see the UNESCO World Heritage Centre website 〈www.whc.unesco.org/en/ conventiontext〉.
4. Already in 1994 the Park was adversely affected by persons displaced because of the Rwandan genocide. Approximately 720,000 displaced persons settled inside and around the Park.
5. Although many of them have left the Park, it has been adversely affected due to the exploitation of the Park's resources.
6. See A. Crawford and J. Bernstein, MEAs, Conservation and Conflict-A Case Study of Virunga National Park, DRC (International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, 2008) pp. 15-16.
7. For further reading, see M. Bothe et al., 'International Law Protecting the Environment During Armed Conflict: Gaps and Opportunities', 92:879 International Review of the Red Cross (2010) pp. 569-592;
8. Y. Dinstein, 'Protection of the Environment in International Armed Conflict', 5 Max Plank Yearbook of United Nations Law (2001) pp. 523-546;
9. R. Falk, 'Evaluating the Adequacy of Existing International Law Standards', in J. Austin and C. Bruch (eds.), The Environmental Consequences of War (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000) pp. 137-155;
10. W. Verwey, 'Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict: In Search of a New Legal Perspective', 8 Leiden Journal of International Law (1995) pp. 7-40;
11. S. Simonds, 'Conventional Warfare and Environmental Protection', 29 Stanford Journal of International Law (1992-1993) pp. 165-221;
12. S. Vöneky, 'Peacetime Environmental Law as a Basis of State Responsibility for Environmental Damage Caused by War', in J. Austin and C. Bruch (eds.), The Environmental Consequences of War (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000) pp. 190-193.
13. For further reading on specialised regimes regulating the same subject matter, see N. Matz-Lück, 'Norm Interpretation across International Regimes: Competences and Legitimacy', in M. Young (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) pp. 201-234.
14. UNESCO World Heritage Centre Publication, World Heritage in the Congo Basin (2010) p. 20.
15. UNESCO World Heritage Centre website 〈www.whc.unesco.org/en/list/ 63〉, visited on 30 September 2012.
16. The mountain gorilla has been included since 1975 on Appendix I of the 1973 Convention on the Illegal Trade on Endangered Species (CITES). Appendix I lists species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants (see Article 2(1) of the Convention). See CITES website 〈www.cites.org/ eng/app/appendices.php〉, visited 30 September 2012.
17. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Doc. WHC-01/CONF.208/24, 8 February 2002, p. 17.
18. See Crawford and Bernstein, supra note 2, pp. 15-16. See also UNESCO World Heritage, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-08/32.COM/7A, 22 May 2008, p. 10.
19. Crawford and Bernstein, supra note 2, p. 15.
20. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Doc. WHC-01/CONF.208/24, 8 February 2002, p. 17. For example, between 2008 and 2009, armed rebel groups occupied the gorilla sector. See also UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-09/33.COM/7A, 11 May 2009, p. 12.
21. The term 'illegal' in this article is used in the same sense as in the 'Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo' meaning all activities including extraction, production
22. commercialization and exports occurring in the DRC without being approved by the DRC government; not in accordance with existing national regulations; not according to accepted practices in trade and business as conducted in the DRC; and/or in violation with international law.
23. For further explanations, see UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2001/357, 21 April 2001, para. 15.
24. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-06/30.COM/7A, 26 May 2007, p. 27;
25. State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-07/31.
26. COM/7A, 10 May 2007, p. 9; State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-08/32.COM/7A, 22 May 2008, p. 8. See also Crawford and Bernstein, supra note 2, pp. 17-18.
27. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-07/31.COM/7A, 10 May 2007, p. 9;
28. State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-08/32. COM/7A, 22 May 2008, p. 8.
29. Hippopotamus have been listed in Appendix II of the CITES since 1995. See CITES website 〈www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php〉, visited 30 September 2012.
30. Crawford and Bernstein, supra note 2, p. 20.
31. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-07/31.COM/7A, 10 May 2007, p. 9.
32. In 2006 it was reported that four brigades totalling 12,000 soldiers were deployed inside or close to the Park, some of them with their families.
33. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-06/30.COM/7A, 26 May 2006, p. 27;
34. State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-08/32.COM/7A, 22 May 2008, p. 10.
35. See also J. Kalpers, 'Overview of the Armed Conflict and Biodiversity in Sub-Saharan Africa: Impact, Mechanisms and Responses', 2001 Biodiversity Support Program, Washington DC, 2001, p. 13.
36. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-04/28.COM/15A Rev, 21 June 2004, p. 8;
37. State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-10/34. COM/7A, 1 June 2010, p. 11.
38. Final Report of Groups of Experts on the DRC, UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2008/773, 12 December 2008, para. 113.
39. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-04/28.COM/15A Rev, 21 June 2004, p. 8;
40. State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-06/30. COM/7A, 26 May 2006, p. 27;
41. State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-10/34.COM/7A, 1 June 2010, p. 11;
42. State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-10/34.COM/7A.Add, 22 June 2010, pp. 82-83.
43. Following an international protest, the Minister of Defence in the DRC ordered an investigation of this event.
44. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-07/31.COM/7A, 10 May 2007, p. 9.
45. Crawford and Bernstein, supra note 2, pp. 17-18.
46. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-98/CONF.203/7, 30 September 1998, p. 4.
47. UNEP, The Last Stand of the Gorilla, Environmental Crime and Conflict in the Congo Basin (2010), p. 21. 〈www.unep.org/pdf/GorillaStand-screen. pdf〉, visited 30 September 2012.
48. Crawford and Bernstein, supra note 2, p. 22.
49. For further reading on the definitions of the requirements set out in Articles 35(3) and 55 in Protocol I
50. see K. Hulme, War Torn Environment: Interpreting the Legal Threshold (Hotei Publishing, Leiden, 2004) pp. 88-100;
51. Y. Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004) pp. 181-186;
52. M. Schmitt, 'Green War: An Assessment of Environmental Law of International Armed Conflict', 22 Yale Journal of International Law (1997) pp. 68-81.
53. The First Congo War lasted between 1996-1998 and involved Rwanda, Uganda and Angola.
54. The second Congo War lasted between 1998-2000 and involved DRC, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Angola, Namibia, Chad, Eritrea and Sudan to varying degrees.
55. A peace agreement was signed between warring parties in April 2002.
56. The fighting has however continued with such intensity and organisation among the concerned armed groups, including the DRC army, that it should be classified as a conflict of non-international character (although it still may have some international elements).
57. The lines are however blurring. Cf. with OCHA, Democratic Republic of the Congo Mapping Exercise (2010) pp. 8-10, documenting the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law 1993-2003, 〈www.ohchr .org/Documents/Countries/ZR/DRC-MAPPING-REPORT-FINAL-EN.pdf〉, visited 30 September 2012.
58. See also Crawford and Bernstein, supra note 2, pp. 6-8, and Prosecutor v. Tadi?, Opinion and Judgment, Case IT-94-1-T (May 7, 1997) for classification of armed conflict.
59. See Rules 43-45 in J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck (eds.), Customary International Humanitarian Law Study (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005) vol. I, pp. 143-158.
60. Rules 7-10 in the Customary Law Study by ICRC expand the application to also include non-international armed conflict.
61. Article 52(2) of the Additional Protocol I (1977). Incorporated as Rule 8 in the Customary Law Study and applies to non-international armed conflicts. See Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 29, pp. 29-32.
62. Bothe et al, supra note 3, p. 576.
63. M. Schmitt, 'War and the Environment: Fault Lines in the Prescriptive Landscape', in J. Austin and C. Bruch (eds.), The Environmental Consequences of War (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000) p. 113.
64. The principle of proportionality in attack is codified in Article 51(5)(b) in Protocol I.
65. It is also included in the ICRC Customary Law Study in Rule 14 and applies in both international and non-international armed conflict.
66. See Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, supra note 29, pp. 46-50.
67. For further reading on the proportionality principle and environmental damage in armed conflict, see Bothe et al., supra note 3, pp 577-578.
68. See various sources, supra note 3.
69. UN General Assembly, Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, UN Doc. A/47/37, 25 November 1993.
70. Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties, with Commentaries, adopted at the 63rd session of the ILC (2011), Draft Article 3, 〈untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1-10-2011. pdf〉.
71. Draft Article 7 and annexed indicative list of treaties.
72. Commentaries attached to the indicative list of treaties.
73. For more information regarding the project, see section 5 below.
74. In accordance with Articles 1 and 2, these sites must all have elements that are of outstanding universal value.
75. Other serious and specific dangers listed in Article 11(4) of the WHC include: 'threat of disappearance caused by accelerated deterioration, large-scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourist development projects;
76. destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land; major alterations due to unknown causes; abandonment for any reason whatsoever; calamities and cataclysms; serious fires, earthquakes, landslides; volcanic eruptions; changes in water level, floods and tidal waves'.
77. See Bothe et al, supra note 3, p. 582; Vöneky, supra note 3, pp. 224-225.
78. J. Austin and C. Bruch, 'Legal Mechanisms for Addressing Wartime Damage to Tropical Forests', 16 Journal of Sustainable Forestry (2003) pp. 171-172.
79. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Decision 18COM IX adopted at 18th session on 12-17 December 1994, Doc. WHC-94/CONF.003/16, 31 January 1995.
80. The massive movement of displaced persons from the Rwandan civil war who sheltered in Virunga Park created adverse impacts on the Park resulting in stipulations for inscription on the List of Danger.
81. See also UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-09/33.COM/7A,11 May 2009, p. 11.
82. D. Bodansky, The Art and Craft of International Environmental Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2011) p. 226.
83. P. Birnie et al, International law & the environment (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) p. 17.
84. See G. Carducci, 'Articles 4-7, National and International Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage', in F. Francioni (ed.), The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) p. 145.
85. See W. Burhenne, 'The Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Protected Areas', 27:4 Environmental Policy and Law (1997) p. 373;
86. Verwey, supra note 3, p. 15; R. Tarasofsky, 'Protecting Specially Important Areas during International Armed Conflict: A Critique of the IUCN Draft
87. Convention on the Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Protected Areas', in J. Austin and C. Bruch (eds.), The Environmental Consequences of War (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000) p. 568.
88. Bodansky, supra note 45, p. 155.
89. The Committee is composed of 21 member States and meets at least once a year. See The Operational Guidelines for Implementation of the WHC (hereinafter the Operational Guidelines) (November 2011) available at 〈whc.unesco.org/ archive/opguide11-en.pdf〉, visited 30 September 2012.
90. The General Assembly corresponds to a conference of the parties, which is usually the supreme decision-making organ in MEAs.
91. See D. Zacharias, 'The UNESCO Regime for the Protection of World Heritage as Prototype of an Autonomy-Gaining International Institution', 9 German Law Journal (2008) p. 1842.
92. See Bodansky, supra note 45, pp. 226-227.
93. For further reading on compliance under the WHC, see E. Goodwin, 'The World Heritage Convention, the Environment, and Compliance', 20:2 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law & Policy (2009) p.157.
94. The Committee suggested starting a process to delist the cultural site-the Cologne Cathedral-in Germany, unless Germany reconsidered its building projects.
95. Germany halted the building plans and the Cologne Cathedral was kept on the World Heritage List.
96. In 2007, the Committee decided to remove the 'Arabian Oryx Sanctuary', as hydrocarbon exploration activities inside the World Heritage Site reduced its outstanding value.
97. See T. Scovazzi, 'Articles 8-11, World Heritage Committee and World Heritage List', in F. Francioni (ed.), The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) pp. 170-171.
98. See Bodansky, supra note 45, pp. 226-227, in regard to MEAs in general, and in particular on the WHC compliance mechanism, see Goodwin, supra note 55, p. 157.
99. The World Heritage Fund is a trust fund for the protection of the World Heritage Sites consisting of compulsory and voluntary contributions by State parties.
100. The Fund is established in accordance with Article 15 of the WHC.
101. The Committee grants the requests in accordance with Article 13(1) of the WHC.
102. WHC, Article 22.
103. WHC, Articles 13(3) and (4).
104. Only State parties can make a request for a world heritage site within their territory according to Articles 13, 19 and 21of the WHC.
105. The role of the Secretariat to the World Heritage Committee is to assist the Committee as provided by Article 14(2) of the WHC.
106. G. P. Buzzini and L. Condorelli, 'Article 11, List of World Heritage in Danger and Deletion of a Property from the World Heritage List', in F. Francioni (ed.), The 1972 World Heritage Convention, A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) p. 185.
107. Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain), 5 February 1970, ICJ, Judgment, para. 33. 〈www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/50/5387.pdf〉, visited on 30 September, 2012.
108. Carducci, supra note 47, pp. 119-120 and pp. 131-132.
109. See also UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Legal considerations concerning the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List, Doc. WHC-02/CONF.202/8, 21 May 2002, para. 34-35.
110. For further reading in particular on the WHC and obligations erga omnes/erga omnes parks, see Carducci, ibid., pp. 132-145.
111. Erga omnes partes obligations must be distinguished from erga omnes obligations.
112. Erga omnes partes obligations are established to protect a common interest of a group of State parties to a specific regime.
113. These 'collective obligations' are binding for the group of States and are often concerned with extra-State interests of a non-reciprocal character.
114. Erga omnes obligations are owed to the international community as a whole.
115. The distinction between the two categories is blurred in practice, because erga omnes partes obligations may also have erga omnes effect in some cases if they have been recognised as customary law.
116. Therefore obligations with the same content may concurrently belong to both categories.
117. See ILC Commentary on Draft Article 48 in Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, p. 126, paras. 6-9, available at 〈untreaty .un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/ english/commentaries/9-6-2001.pdf〉
118. see also L. A. Sicilianos, 'The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility', 13 The European Journal of International Law (2002) p. 1136;
119. E. de Wet, 'The International Constitutional Order', 55:1 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2006) p. 55.
120. Buzzini and Condorelli, supra note 64, p. 178.
121. See also UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Legal considerations concerning the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List, Doc. WHC-02/CONF.202/8, 24 May 2002, para. 33.
122. A. F. Vrdoljak, 'Article 14, the Secretariat and Support of the World Heritage Committee', in F. Francioni (ed.), The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008), pp. 226-227.
123. A. Lemaistre and F. Lenzerini, 'Articles 19-26, International Assistance', in F. Francioni (ed.), The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) p. 323.
124. Operational Guidelines, para. 233, supra note 51.
125. For further reading, see F. Francioni and F. Lenzerini, 'The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law', 14:4 European Journal of International Law (2003) pp. 619-651.
126. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Decision 23.COM.X.A4 adopted at 23rd session on 29 November-4 December 1999, Doc. WHC-99/CONF.209/22, 2 March 2000, p. 22.
127. The partnership consists of the UNESCO's World Heritage Centre and Division of Ecological Sciences in cooperation with Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
128. German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), and a task force of conservation NGOs including International Rhino Foundation, International Gorilla Conservation Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, the World Wide Fund for Nature, and the Gilman International Conservation.
129. In addition, the European Union and States (i.e. Belgium, Italy and Germany) as well as UN agencies or programmes (i.e. UN Development Programme, UN Environmental Programme) and the UN Mission to DRC (MONUC) collaborate with the Committee and the World Heritage Centre to address issues relating to the safeguarding of World Heritage properties in the DRC.
130. See L. Patchett, 'Articles 17-18, Activities to support the World Heritage Fund', in F. Francioni (ed.), The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) p. 298; and World Heritage website 〈whc.unesco.org/en/congobiodiversity〉, visited on 30 September 2012.
131. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Report of the Rapporteur on the 23rd session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, Doc. WHC-99/CONF.209/4, 11 October 1999, p. 5.
132. For the latest report on the project see UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-12/36.COM/7A.Add, 1 June 2012 p. 6.
133. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Decision 27 COM 7A.2 adopted at 27th session on 30 June-5 July 2003
134. Doc. WHC-03/27.COM/24, 10 December 2003, p. 10; Decision 28 COM 15A.3 adopted at 28th session on 28 June-7 July 2004
135. Doc. WHC-04/28/COM/26, 29 October 2004, p. 52.
136. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Decision 28 COM 15A.3 adopted at 28th session on 28 June-7 July 2004
137. Doc. WHC-04/28/COM/26, 29 October 2004, p. 52; Decision 31 COM 7A.7 adopted at 31st session on 23 June-2 July 2007
138. Doc. WHC-07/31.COM/24, 31 July 2007, p. 11.
139. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-10/34.COM/7A, 1 June 2010, p. 10.
140. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-06/30.COM/7A, 26 May 2006, p. 27.
141. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
142. Doc. WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add, 27 May 2011, p. 13.
143. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Decision 34 COM 7A.4 adopted at 34th session on 25 July-3 August 2010
144. Doc. WHC-10/34.COM/20, 3 September 2010, p. 20;
145. see also State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-10/34. COM/7A, 1 June 2010, pp. 11-12.
146. The prohibition of pillage is laid down in Articles 28 and 47 of the 1907 Hague Regulations.
147. Article 33(2) of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and also in Article 4(2)(g) of 1977 Additional Protocol II of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
148. Hence, such crime is forbidden both in international and non-international armed conflicts.
149. Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), 19 December 2005, ICJ, Judgment, paras. 242-246. 〈www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/116/10455.pdf〉, visited 30 September 2012.
150. The ICJ based its decision on customary international law corresponding to Article 47 in the Hague Regulations and 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.
151. The Hague Regulations have become part of customary law and are binding on both parties of the conflict, in this case Uganda and the DRC.
152. During the first phase of the pilot project (2001 to 2005) approximately USD 900,000 was spent on salaries, equipment, etc.
153. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-06/30.COM/7A, 26 May 2006, p. 26.
154. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add, 27 May 2011, p. 4.
155. This equipment was financed under a separate project launched by the European Union, one of the partners within the WHC project.
156. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-11/35. COM/7A.Add, 27 May 2011, p. 4.
157. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-10/34.COM/7A, 1 June 2010, p. 12.
158. According to Article 22(4) of the WHC, assistance in the form of equipment supply should be of such nature that the State party does not possess or is not in a position to acquire it-which seems to be the case here.
159. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Decisions 30 COM 7A.7 adopted at 30th session on 8-16 July 2006, Doc. WHC-06/30.COM/19, 23 August 2006, p. 17.
160. See also State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-10/34.COM/7A, 1 June 2010, p. 12.
161. No further report has been made on whether the military training actually took place or whether the military training was requested by the Committee.
162. It appears that the training has been provided either as a part of the activities undertaken within the umbrella of the WHC project, or as part of a separate project closely related to the WHC project.
163. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add, 27 May 2011, p. 4.
164. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-07/31.COM/7A, 10 May 2007, p. 10.
165. The rule of restrictive interpretation has been used sparsely in international law. See U. Linderfalk, On the Interpretation of Treaties (Springer, Dordrecht, 2010) pp. 280-281.
166. Since the end of June 2010, it operates under the name MONUSCO with a decreased number of personnel. See UN Security Council Resolution, UN Doc. S/Res/1925, 28 May 2010, para. 1.
167. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Decision 27 COM 7.A.2 adopted at 27th session on 30 June-5 July 2003, Doc. WHC-03/27.COM/24, 10 December 2003, p. 10;
168. see also Decision 30 COM 7A.7 adopted at 30th session on 8-16 July 2006, Doc. WHC-06/30.COM/19, 23 August 2006, p. 18.
169. UN Security Council Resolution, UN Doc. S/RES/1493, 28 July 2003, in preamble para. 12.
170. See UN Security Council Resolutions UN Doc. S/RES/1493 (2003), paras. 17-20 and 25-26;
171. UN Doc. S/RES/1565 (2004), paras. 4-6;
172. UN Doc. S/RES/1592 (2005), para. 7;
173. UN Doc. S/RES/1756 (2007), paras. 2-4;
174. UN Doc. S/RES/1856 (2008), paras. 3-5;
175. UN Doc. S/RES/1906 (2009), paras. 5-6;
176. UN Doc. S/RES/1925 (2010), paras. 11-12;
177. UN Doc. S/RES/1991 (2011), para. 1.
178. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Decision 28 COM 15A.3 adopted at 28th session on 28 June-7 July 2004, Doc. WHC-04/28/COM/26, 20 October 2004, p. 53.
179. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-10/34.COM/7A, 1 June 2010, p. 13.
180. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-04/28.COM/15A Rev, 21 June 2004, p. 7.
181. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-09/33.COM/7A, 11 May 2009, p. 14. In 2011
182. it was reported that the Committee remained in contact with the UN peacekeeping troops, but that little direct support was provided to the Park.
183. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee, State of conservation of the properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, Doc. WHC-11/35. COM/7A.Add, 27 May 2011, p. 5.
184. UN Security Council Resolution, UN Doc. S/RES/1493 (2003), paras. 20-21.
185. The weapons embargo has been reaffirmed in UN Security Council Resolutions UN Doc. S/RES/1533 (2004), para. 1;
186. UN Doc. S/RES/1807 (2008), para. 5;
187. UN Doc. S/RES/1896 (2009), para.1;
188. UN Doc. S/RES/1952 (2010), para. 1;
189. UN Doc. S/RES/2021 (2011), para. 1.
190. UN Security Council Resolution, UN Doc. S/RES/1493, 28 July 2003, paras. 20-21.
191. Membership in a national guard, customs or police force can qualify as armed forces if they assume the function of armed forces in a non-international armed conflict.
192. Also, just as in an international armed conflict, membership in irregular State armed forces includes members of militia, volunteer or paramilitary groups if having a continuous combat function.
193. See N. Melzer, 'Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, Adopted by the Assembly of the International Committee of the Red Cross on 26 February 2009', 90:872 International Review of the Red Cross (2008) p. 1005.
194. UN Security Council Resolution, UN Doc. S/RES/1625, 14 September 2005, para. 6.
195. UN Security Council Resolution, UN Doc. S/RES/1457, 24 January 2003, paras. 3 and 8, which has been reaffirmed in several of the following resolutions adopted by the Security Council.
196. UNEP recommended that the UN peacekeeping force should be more involved in the monitoring of exploitation of natural resources to support peace and stabilisation. See UNEP, 'Greening the Blue Helmets, Environment, Natural Resources and UN Peacekeeping Operations' (2012) pp. 81-82, 〈postconflict. unep.ch/publications/UNEP-greening-blue-helmets.pdf〉, visited 30 September 2012.
197. See Report of the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN Doc. S/2001/357, 12 April 2001.
198. Final Report of the Groups of Experts on the DRC, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1698 (2006), UN Doc. S/2007/423, 18 July 2007, p. 11, para. 40.
199. See also UNEP, 'Greening the Blue Helmets, Environment, Natural Resources and UN Peacekeeping Operations' (2012) p. 53.
200. See UN Security Council Resolution, UN Doc. S/RES/1856, 22 December 2008, paras. 3(j) and 5; UN Doc. S/RES/1906, 23 December 2009, para. 21(d);
201. UN Doc. S/RES/1925, 28 May 2010, para. 12(r); UN Doc. S/RES/1991, 28 June 2011, para. 1.
202. UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Reflection on the trends of the state of conservation, Doc. WHC-12/36.COM/7C, 15 June 2012, para. 26.
203. R. J. Parsons uses 'green-keeping' to describe the role of the US army to enforce the law pertaining to environmental protection during armed conflict. See R. J. Parsons, 'The Fight to Save the Planet: US Armed Forces, "Greenkeeping," and Enforcement of the Law Pertaining to Environmental Protection During Armed Conflict', 10 The Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (1997-1998) pp. 441-500. (Pubitemid 128061951)
204. For further reading on institutional arrangements, see M. Young, 'Regime Interaction in Creating, Implementing and Enforcing International Law', in M. Young (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) pp. 97-99.
205. Matz-Lück, supra note 4, p. 209.
206. See J. L. Dunhoff, 'A New Approach to Regime Interaction', in M. Young (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) pp. 166-167.
207. See Young, supra note 114, pp. 97-99.