This is a story about a state using its military power in a legal grey area with significant consequences for property rights, livelihoods and the environment, and with minimal transparency or accountability. It shows how institutions that are weak or ignored (such as the UN-monitored buffer zone, peace accords and agricultural regulators) fail to protect civilians when security logic is prioritised over everything else. It also illustrates the negative externalities that can cross borders, and what a ‘rules-based order’ actually means when one side can unilaterally destroy thousands of hectares of productive land.
What do you think people should discuss about it?
A key question is which institutions or treaties could realistically constrain this behaviour. Should there be clear global rules regarding the military use of herbicides, mandatory testing and automatic compensation mechanisms? How should we weigh genuine security concerns, such as clearing vegetation that might hide militants, against practices that resemble collective punishment and forced displacement through economic strangulation? It is also worth asking whether current international bodies (the UN, the ICC and environmental conventions) are capable of enforcing norms in this area, or whether new tools are needed to protect property rights and agricultural markets in conflict zones.
Loud-Chemistry-5056 on
A [similar thing](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgez359nd72o) has been happening in southern Lebanon. Apparently it’s glyphosate and is being applied at 20-30 times the usual concentration.
I don’t see anything happening on this front especially with nothing happening after some of these villages were hit with white phosphorus.
2 Comments
Submission statement:
Why is this relevant for r/neoliberal?
This is a story about a state using its military power in a legal grey area with significant consequences for property rights, livelihoods and the environment, and with minimal transparency or accountability. It shows how institutions that are weak or ignored (such as the UN-monitored buffer zone, peace accords and agricultural regulators) fail to protect civilians when security logic is prioritised over everything else. It also illustrates the negative externalities that can cross borders, and what a ‘rules-based order’ actually means when one side can unilaterally destroy thousands of hectares of productive land.
What do you think people should discuss about it?
A key question is which institutions or treaties could realistically constrain this behaviour. Should there be clear global rules regarding the military use of herbicides, mandatory testing and automatic compensation mechanisms? How should we weigh genuine security concerns, such as clearing vegetation that might hide militants, against practices that resemble collective punishment and forced displacement through economic strangulation? It is also worth asking whether current international bodies (the UN, the ICC and environmental conventions) are capable of enforcing norms in this area, or whether new tools are needed to protect property rights and agricultural markets in conflict zones.
A [similar thing](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgez359nd72o) has been happening in southern Lebanon. Apparently it’s glyphosate and is being applied at 20-30 times the usual concentration.
I don’t see anything happening on this front especially with nothing happening after some of these villages were hit with white phosphorus.