Climate crisis: toxic ‘rain’ and surge in carbon emissions show environmental impact of Iran war
Iranian oil refinery. EvgeniyQW/Adobe Stock
War in the Middle East has caused significant environmental damage and led to, in the International Energy Agency’s words, the ‘largest supply disruption’ to oil markets in history. Attacks have also damaged energy and water facilities in numerous countries.
The US-Israeli conflict with Iran has exposed the vulnerability of countries dependent on oil and gas imports passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route through which around 25 per cent of the world’s seaborne oil and 20 per cent of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) transits. The Strait is currently closed and subject to a US blockade.
‘In the short term, other than the economic impact caused by rising [energy] prices, there is also an environmental impact’ as countries turn to coal and other polluting energy sources to cope with the shock, says Ana Karina de Souza, an officer of the IBA Power Law Committee.
However, the crisis could also accelerate the transition to domestic renewable energy as governments seek alternative sources – such as solar and wind – to secure supplies. The conflict will bring discussion of the energy transition back to the table, says de Souza, an infrastructure and energy specialist and partner at Brazilian law firm Machado Meyer. Partly, this will be a result of the war’s environmental impact, but mostly it’ll be due to ‘energy security considerations,’ she believes.
In the meantime, the conflict risks leaving a toxic legacy for people and the environment. ‘Black rain’ fell over Tehran after the US and Israel hit major fuel storage depots around the city, setting millions of litres of fuel ablaze and creating a haze that spread toxic pollutants, which affect respiratory health and contaminate groundwater and agricultural soils. The World Health Organization also raised concerns of ‘wider regional pollution exposure’ following reports of Iranian strikes on oil infrastructure in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
Early estimates from the Climate & Community Institute found that the first two weeks of the war alone led to total greenhouse gas emissions of more than five million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Michael Showalter, an officer of the IBA Environment, Health and Safety Law Committee, meanwhile highlights how the vast amounts of energy, fuel and mineral resources powering the war could have been used to advance wellbeing and economic prosperity.
Attacks on desalination plants have also highlighted the Middle East’s vulnerability as one of the most water-stressed regions in the world. Iran was already on the edge of a water crisis when the conflict began and researchers say the war could worsen the challenges the country faces and amplify the risks to food security.
‘The attacks on water infrastructure are being noticed particularly because of the major role desalination plays in the Middle East,’ says Ana Schwab, an officer of the IBA Water Law Committee. In Kuwait, for example, where a water plant was damaged, desalination facilities treat 90 per cent of the nation’s drinking water. ‘The full impact and the response of those communities will develop in the coming weeks,’ says Schwab.
Access to water is recognised by the UN as a human right. Attacking drinking water installations, supplies and irrigation works for the ‘specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value’ is prohibited under the Geneva Convention ‘whatever the motive.’ However, access to water often doesn’t get the attention that other utilities such as energy receive, says Schwab, a partner at US-based Best Best & Krieger.
Strikes on fossil fuel infrastructure – notably the attack on the Ras Laffan industrial complex in Qatar, which is home to the world’s largest LNG export plant – have upended energy production and will take years to repair.
Asia, which receives more than 80 per cent of the oil and gas exported through the Strait of Hormuz, has been affected most heavily. Many countries across the region are now leaning more heavily on coal – the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel burnt by humans – as they struggle to secure energy supplies. Coal producers such as China and India are tapping into stockpiles while governments from Bangladesh to Thailand are ramping up coal-fired power generation.
In March, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright issued an order allowing a company to restart an oil pipeline off the California coast, which state officials have kept offline since 2015. Wright argues that the project will strengthen America’s oil supplies and enhance the country’s defensive readiness.
Supporting America’s domestic energy infrastructure ‘to keep our market from being exposed to risks we can’t control’ is a national security consideration, says Showalter, a partner at ArentFox Schiff, based in Chicago. At the same time, energy price fluctuations make it harder to plan for oil and gas infrastructure in the long term as sustained high prices could lead to ‘people reconsidering their consumption patterns,’ he says.
President Donald Trump’s administration has urged the expansion of American fossil fuel production in the name of national security, given its use by US armed forces and the country’s industrial base, for example. The President has also sought to reassure American consumers that increased fuel prices are a temporary blip.
For Showalter, higher oil and gas prices and the falling costs of clean energy technologies will accelerate the transition to renewable energy systems. Electric vehicle (EV) demand has already spiked in Europe and Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, Chinese exports of lithium batteries, EVs and solar cells increased in March, driven by rising demand for alternative energy sources. ‘As you start to see cheaper EVs come onto the market, it’s going to cause people [buying] new cars to think a little bit harder [about their choices],’ says Showalter.
Report published on judicial selection and democracy in Guatemala
The IBA’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) has published the final report of its monitoring mission assessing the integrity, transparency and independence of the country’s ongoing judicial selection processes.
The report, Guatemala’s Democracy at a Crossroads: Challenges and Opportunities in the 2026 Judicial Selection Processes, builds on the IBAHRI’s long-standing work regarding the human rights situation in Guatemala, which is focused particularly on the criminalisation of those involved in the administration of justice and the progressive erosion of judicial independence. The monitoring mission combined desk-based legal analysis, remote interviews and in-country fieldwork conducted in Guatemala City and in the territories of Quetzaltenango, Totonicapán, Panajachel and Santa Lucía Utatlán.
The findings come at a decisive juncture. In 2026, three of Guatemala’s core government institutions – the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Constitutional Court and the Office of the Attorney General – are simultaneously undergoing renewal. This rare convergence, unseen since the restoration of civilian rule, is expected to shape the country’s democratic trajectory for the years to come.
Often described domestically as ‘second-grade’ elections, these appointments carry profound consequences. The officials appointed will oversee and safeguard the integrity of the 2027 presidential elections, making the current processes pivotal to whether Guatemala upholds democratic standards or faces undue influence and abuse of power.
The report presents an ex-ante assessment of the three judicial selection processes, analysing the good practices observed alongside structural and operational challenges affecting the integrity of the appointments.
Institutional challenges are compounded by issues of intimidation, harassment and the criminalisation of judges, prosecutors and Indigenous leaders – conditions that risk deterring qualified candidates and undermining oversight.
The report also sets out a series of recommendations to the State of Guatemala and to the international community aimed at strengthening the integrity of the judicial selection processes.
Learn more about the report here.
Statement on importance of independent journalism marks UN World Press Freedom Day
On 3 May, the IBAHRI issued a statement expressing concerns about the ‘global erosion’ of press freedom. Released to coincide with UN World Press Freedom Day, the statement further highlighted the important role that a free and independent media plays in safeguarding democracy, accountability and the rule of law. Independent journalism enables scrutiny of power, exposes corruption and ensures the public’s right to access accurate information.
The IBAHRI noted that in both 2024 and 2025, the Committee to Protect Journalists recorded the ‘deadliest year for journalists’ since the organisation began keeping records in 1992, with 124 and 129 killings respectively.
The IBAHRI calls for urgent action to protect media workers and to combat the growing impunity of those who kill journalists. It stresses that without accountability, attacks on journalists will continue to be used as a tool to suppress truth and silence dissent.
The statement further highlights that media workers are increasingly constrained by legal and administrative measures that restrict access and reporting. In the US, recent restrictions affecting access to government institutions, alongside actions by the Federal Communications Commission, raise concerns about undue limitations on press freedom and media plurality.
Meanwhile, the growing use of internet shutdowns – for example, in the context of anti-government protests in Iran and during elections in Uganda – have impeded the ability of journalists to report on politically sensitive events.
Read the full statement here.
IBAHRI calls for urgent action as UK government closes its international humanitarian law unit
In April, the IBAHRI called upon the UK government to reconsider its decision to close the unit within the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) that seeks to identify the risk of atrocity crimes.
The closure of the unit, which monitored the early warning signs of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes around the world, reduces the FCDO’s capacity for international atrocity prevention and response, says the IBAHRI.
Reports of the unit’s closure came to light a few hours after the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Law, Justice and Accountability, supported by the IBAHRI, concluded the first parliamentary oral session of the Standing Group on Atrocity Crimes. During the session, participating experts outlined the shortfalls of the UK government’s law and policy in this area and called for the expansion of the Foreign Office’s atrocity prevention team as part of the government’s stated commitment to international law.
Read the full news release here.
IBAHRI condemns Israel’s large-scale strikes on Lebanon and calls for accountability and lasting peace
In late April, the IBAHRI expressed grave concern over alleged violations of international law arising from the escalation of hostilities in Lebanon. Meanwhile, it cautiously noted that high-level diplomatic discussions held at the White House between Israel’s and Lebanon’s ambassadors may influence the trajectory of the conflict.
The IBAHRI has emphasised that any political progress must be accompanied by full compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law, as well as accountability for any alleged violations.
The meeting, hosted by US President Donald Trump, was at the time presented as a step towards de-escalation, reinforcing the existing temporary ceasefire framework between Israel and Lebanon. Meanwhile the humanitarian crisis has worsened in Lebanon, with Israel continuing to demolish homes and journalists being killed after alleged targeting.
While the IBAHRI acknowledges that renewed diplomatic engagement may contribute to reducing hostilities, it underscores that such developments do not alter the legal obligations of parties to the conflict nor diminish the seriousness of reported violations.
On 8 April, a wave of strikes launched by Israel on Lebanese territory reportedly targeted more than 100 sites in ten minutes, including in the densely populated areas of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley. The escalation occurred in the broader context of the US-Israel-Iran conflict initiated in February without authorisation from the UN Security Council. Despite a ceasefire agreement between the US, Israel and Iran – brokered by Pakistan and agreed on 8 April – Israeli officials publicly rejected the inclusion of Lebanon from the scope of that ceasefire and continued their military operations.
Reports indicate that strikes have targeted hundreds of Hezbollah infrastructure sites, including those located within civilian areas in central Beirut, constituting prima facie violations of the principles of distinction and proportionality under international humanitarian law, as codified in Articles 48, 51(4) and 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, as well as the obligation to take all feasible precautions in attack under Article 57.
Read the full news release here.
Global rollback of the rights of women and girls demands urgent attention
In April, the IBAHRI issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to advancing and defending the fundamental rights of women and girls globally. The IBAHRI further pointed to evidence of a reversal of progress in this area in multiple regions.
In Afghanistan the Taliban have introduced a new criminal procedure, the provisions of which further institutionalise the subjugation of women, normalise violence committed against them and effectively legalise forms of modern slavery. Meanwhile, women in Iran continue to protest widespread human rights violations and repression committed by the state.
There are concerns about a rise in child marriage in Iraq following the introduction of a new personal status law. And in The Gambia, a group of religious leaders along with a member of the country’s parliament have launched efforts to overturn a ban on female genital mutilation at the country’s Supreme Court.
The IBAHRI has intensified its global programme of work to address these challenges. Its initiatives include a partnership with the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union, with a specific focus on sexual and reproductive violence. The IBAHRI also co-organised a side event at the UN Commission on the Status of Women examining the implications of the closure of the UN Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh/ISIL for Yazidi women in Syria and Iraq.
Read the full statement here.
Legal and human rights organisations form independent mission on peace process in Türkiye
The IBAHRI, together with other legal and human rights organisations, has recently formed the Independent Legal Mission on the Peace Process in Türkiye (the ‘Mission’). The objective of the Mission is to better understand recent developments related to this process and contribute to the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the country.
The Mission’s first visit took place one year after the public call made by Kurdistan Workers’ Party leader Abdullah Öcalan on 27 February 2025, which asked for the cessation of armed conflict and the transition toward democratic political engagement.
The Mission’s preliminary observations and findings were presented by IBAHRI Programme Lawyer Eleonora Scala at a side event to the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council on 2 March. The event also featured Nicolas Levrat, the UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues.
Read the full news release here.
Israel death penalty law inconsistent with democratic values and human rights
The Knesset Plenum Hall in Jerusalem, Israel. Ilgov/Adobe Stock
In recent months, Israel’s parliament has passed death penalty laws aimed at Palestinians convicted of terrorism offences in territories under Israeli control, including the occupied West Bank, and for those involved in Hamas-led 7 October attacks. The legislation has been strongly condemned by Israeli and Palestinian human rights organisations, as well as the governments of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Australia and New Zealand, which collectively expressed ‘deep concern’ that it risked ‘undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.’
Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has strongly criticised the laws and urged Israel to repeal them, stating that the application of the death penalty to residents of the occupied territory ‘would constitute a war crime’. ‘Trials for crimes related to October 7 are supremely important, but they must not be anchored in discrimination,’ he said. ‘All victims are entitled to equal protection of the law, and all perpetrators must be held accountable without discrimination.’
The Death Penalty for Terrorists Law, which was adopted by the Knesset in March, enables military courts in the occupied West Bank to impose the death penalty for certain terrorism offences, as well as the civilian courts, to those in Israel who intentionally cause the death of someone ‘with the aim of negating the existence of Israel’. The laws de facto only apply to Palestinian people, with Israeli citizens and residents expressly excluded. The authorities have only 90 days to carry out the sentence, with a possible postponement of 180 days. According to Amnesty International, Israel’s military courts have a conviction rate of over 99 per cent for Palestinian defendants.
In May, the Knesset passed separate legislation to impose the death penalty and establish a special military court for Palestinian armed groups involved in the deadly attacks against Israel on 7 October 2023. Israeli legislators who voted in favour of the laws say they are necessary to protect the state of Israel and hold to account those responsible for the 7 October attacks.
Michelle Lesh, an officer of the IBA War Crimes Committee and an international lawyer, says the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law ‘tests the limits’ of international law and puts Israel at odds with a global trend away from capital punishment. ‘It really risks entrenching discrimination into one of the most extreme forms of punishment,’ she says.
Lesh says the broad wording of the legislation to include deliberate killing with the aim of denying the existence of Israel is problematic because it is not clear what acts would meet the definition under the law. ‘The question is, if there’s a Palestinian with a record of resisting the occupation, and they shot at a settler in self-defence, would they fall within this law?’
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the country’s oldest human rights organisation, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the repeal of the Death Penalty for Terrorists Law. The organisation argues that the legislation violates Israel’s international human rights obligations by creating a ‘dual and discriminatory’ legal system based on ethnicity; and constitutes de facto annexation by legislating directly for the West Bank, where Israel is not the legal sovereign in the occupied territory. ‘There is no proof that the death penalty deters terrorism or ideological attackers,’ the organisation said. ‘In addition, the law is incompatible with Israel’s values as a democracy.’
Saul Lehrfreund, Co-Executive Director of the NGO The Death Penalty Project, says that the death penalty is incompatible with rule of law and human rights principles because it is inevitably arbitrary and the risk of executing an innocent person will always remain. ‘The abolition of the death penalty is the real litmus test of a country’s respect for human rights and the rule of law,’ he says.
Lehrfreund adds that the discriminatory nature of the laws and the restricted opportunities for judges to not impose the death penalty and to grant clemency violate Israel’s obligations under international human rights law. ‘When you break down the legislation, the implications are profound,’ he says.
The IBA’s Human Rights Institute has urged the Israeli government to withdraw the legislation and said that the laws ‘raise significant concerns from an international human rights law perspective including, among others, fair trial rights and due process’.
Israel is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which does not prohibit the death penalty but restricts its application to the ‘most serious crimes’ and without discrimination. Those who are sentenced to death must also have the right to appeal the decision. Markus Beham, Co-Chair of the IBA’s Human Rights Law Committee, says that while Israel hasn’t ratified the Second Optional Protocol, which commits signatory states to abolishing the death penalty, ‘there is an argument to be made that Israel’s ratification of the Covenant should bring it on a trajectory towards abolition rather than further introduction of the death penalty’.
The death penalty has existed in Israel since 1948 but has only been used twice, with the most recent execution being that of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1962. Only two years ago Israel co-sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. According to The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, 145 countries have abolished the death penalty in law and in practice. ‘Even though there is this history of the death penalty, Israel has been considered a de facto abolitionist country, so the introduction of the law is significant legally and symbolically,’ says Lesh.