The Islamic Revolution Approach

The Islamic Revolution Approach

Iran and the Environmental Challenges of the GAP Project: Examining Turkey’s Civil Liability under International Environmental Law

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Alaleh Dehmanesh 1
Asker Jalalian 2
Mohammad Reza Tabesh 3
Ali Akbar Roudbari 4
Mansour Pornoori 5
1 PhD student, Department of Environmental Management, Law Orientation, Faculty of Agriculture, Water, Food and Biomass, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Law, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Environmental and Occupational Health Research Center/Faculty of Health, Shahrood University of Medical Sciences, Shahrood, Iran
5 Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
This study, entitled Iran and the Environmental Challenges of the GAP Project: Examining Turkey’s Civil Liability under International Environmental Law, analyzes the non-criminal liability of the Republic of Turkey for the transboundary environmental impacts of the GAP project on the Islamic Republic of Iran. The central research question is to what extent Turkey can be held legally responsible, within the framework of international environmental law and based on the theory of civil liability, for the environmental harms inflicted upon Iran. The hypothesis posits that even in the absence of binding bilateral agreements between the two countries, core principles such as strict liability, the precautionary principle, and the no-harm rule provide a legal basis for holding Turkey accountable. The research follows a descriptive-analytical methodology, drawing on international legal instruments, judgments of the International Court of Justice, and empirical data concerning the environmental consequences of the GAP project for Iran. The findings reveal that Turkey has neglected its obligations arising from civil liability, failing to implement compensatory measures, conduct joint environmental assessments, or engage in preventive cooperation. Consequently, the Islamic Republic of Iran is legally entitled to pursue international legal remedies and seek compensation for the environmental damages incurred.
Introduction
The interaction between national development projects and transboundary environmental protection remains one of the most contentious issues in international law. The Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP), launched by Turkey in the 1970s, exemplifies this challenge. Designed as a massive multi-dam and irrigation initiative on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, GAP has altered hydrological flows and ecosystem stability across the Middle East. For Iran—though not a direct riparian state—its ecological consequences have been severe. The desiccation of border wetlands such as Hoor al-Azim, the intensification of dust storms in Khuzestan and Ilam provinces, and the loss of agricultural productivity have undermined environmental security and public health.
This study investigates Turkey’s civil (non-criminal) liability for these transboundary damages under international environmental law. It argues that Turkey’s unilateral conduct violates the principles of equitable and reasonable utilization, due diligence, and non-harm that govern shared natural resources. The paper situates its argument within the broader evolution of international law from fault-based state responsibility to strict liability mechanisms, emphasizing the preventive and compensatory dimensions of environmental governance.
Materials and Methods
The research adopts a descriptive–analytical and comparative legal methodology. It relies on doctrinal analysis of international legal instruments, including the 1997 UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, the ILC Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm (2001), and case law from the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—notably Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros (1997), Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (2010), and Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (2018).Domestic and regional studies were reviewed to assess ecological, social, and economic impacts of GAP on downstream environments. Iranian academic and governmental reports—particularly those from the Department of Environment—provided empirical evidence of the project’s transboundary effects. The analysis triangulates these findings with secondary literature from international scholars (Birnie, Boyle, Sands, Redgwell, Crawford, Simma) to evaluate the normative evolution of civil liability in environmental law.Through this approach, the research distinguishes civil liability from state responsibility: the former centers on compensation for damages irrespective of fault, while the latter depends on proving breach of an international obligation. The GAP case thus becomes a legal laboratory for testing the boundaries between these two regimes.
Discussion
The study finds that Turkey’s conduct satisfies the elements necessary to invoke strict civil liability under international environmental law. The first element—occurrence of environmental harm—is established through measurable loss of water flow, wetland shrinkage, and increased air pollution in western Iran. The second element—causal connection—is supported by hydrological data showing a 40–80% reduction in the downstream flow of the Tigris and Euphrates following dam construction. The third element—failure to take preventive measures—is demonstrated by Turkey’s refusal to conduct joint Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) or to engage in cooperative consultation with affected states.Unlike classical responsibility, civil liability does not require proof of wrongful intent or negligence. It suffices that the activity—here, large-scale dam construction and diversion of international rivers—was inherently hazardous and that its consequences transcended national borders. This aligns with the principle of objective responsibility reflected in the CLC 1992 (Civil Liability for Oil Pollution), the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, and the EU Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/EC). Moreover, Turkey’s actions contravene the precautionary principle, which obliges states to take preventive action even in the absence of full scientific certainty. The failure to assess potential harms before constructing massive hydraulic infrastructures exemplifies disregard for Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration (1992). The no-harm rule, recognized as customary international law, reinforces this obligation; as the ICJ held in Pulp Mills and Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros, states must ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause significant environmental harm to other states. By continuing the GAP project without prior notification or cooperative management, Turkey has breached both procedural and substantive environmental duties. This neglect not only undermines regional ecological stability but also threatens human security—manifested in public health crises, displacement, and agricultural decline across Iran’s western provinces.
In light of the civil liability doctrine, Turkey bears an obligation to compensate for the transboundary damages resulting from GAP. Compensation mechanisms may include direct financial payments, ecological restoration projects, or the establishment of a bilateral environmental compensation fund. Such measures correspond with Article 36 of the ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility (2001), which mandates full reparation—material or in-kind—for injury caused by internationally wrongful acts or harmful consequences of hazardous activities.
Conclusion
This study concludes that Turkey’s implementation of the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) has generated transboundary environmental harm to Iran that meets the criteria for civil liability under international environmental law. The principle of strict (objective) responsibility, reinforced by the precautionary principle and the no-harm rule, establishes a compelling legal basis for holding Turkey accountable even in the absence of explicit bilateral treaties.
Iran, therefore, possesses both legal and diplomatic instruments to pursue redress. Possible strategies include:
1.       Invoking the customary principles codified in the 1997 Watercourses Convention and the ILC Draft Articles;
2.       Presenting scientific documentation of harm to international organizations such as UNEP, ESCWA, and the International Court of Justice;
3.       Initiating regional cooperation with Iraq and Syria to establish a joint transboundary water management regime;
4.       Proposing a bilateral compensation and restoration fund modeled on international precedents like the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPCF).
Ultimately, the case underscores a critical evolution in international environmental governance: from reactive state responsibility to proactive civil liability emphasizing prevention, restoration, and cooperation. For Iran, pursuing Turkey’s liability under this framework not only advances environmental justice but also strengthens its normative position within the international legal system dedicated to protecting shared ecological resources.
 
 
Keywords
Civil liability, GAP project, Iran, Turkey, international environmental law, strict liability, precautionary principle
 
Atalan, N. (2001). The Implications of Environmental Degradation on Security: The Case of Aral Lake Basin and Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) (Master's thesis, Bilkent Universitesi (Turkey)).
Basse, E. M. (2001). Environmental liability–modern developments. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 41, 34.
Birnie, P., Boyle, A., & Redgwell, C. (2009). International Law and the Environment (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Boyle, A., & Peel, J. (2021). Principles of International Environmental Law (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Boyle, A., Redgwell, C., & Brunnée, J. (2009). Environmental Liability and International Law. Oxford University Press.
Bruno Simma, ‘Foreign Investment Arbitration: A Place for Human Rights?’ (2011) 60(3) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 573.
Cassese, A. (2007). International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Crawford, J. (2010). Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Dupuy, P. M. (2002). Reviewing the Difficulties of Codification: On Ago’s Classification of Obligations of Means and Obligations of Result in Relation to State Responsibility. European Journal of International Law, 13(5), 1053–1080.
Faure, M., & Skogh, G. (2003). The Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy and Liability. Edward Elgar Publishing.
H. Olcay Unver (1997) South-eastern Anatolia Integrated Development Project (GAP), Turkey: An Overview of Issues of Sustainability, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 13:2, 187-208, DOI: 10.1080/07900629749827
Hunter, D., Salzman, J., & Zaelke, D. (1994). International Environmental Law and Policy. Foundation Press.
International Court of Justice (ICJ). (1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ Reports.
International Court of Justice (ICJ). (1997). Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), ICJ Reports.
International Court of Justice (ICJ). (2010). Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), ICJ Reports.
International Court of Justice (ICJ). (2018). Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), ICJ Reports.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). (1999). Prosecutor v. Tadić, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), Case No. IT-94-1-A.
International Law Commission (ILC). (2001). Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. United Nations.
Jenks, W. (1966). Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activities in International Law. Recueil des Cours, 117, 99–215.
Kirgis, F. L., et al. (1985). The Nicaragua Case and Effective Control: A Reassessment. American Journal of International Law, 79(4), 876–888.
LFE Goldie, ‘Liability for Damage and the Progressive Development of International Law’ (1965) 14(4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1189;
Michael Faure and Göran Skogh, The Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy and Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2003)
Orlando, A. (2009). State Responsibility and Environmental Damages. In J. Ebbesson & P. Okowa (Eds.), Environmental Law and Justice in Context (pp. 245–260). Cambridge University Press.
Rudall, J. (2024). Compensation for Environmental Damage under International Law: The Role of the International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press.
Sands, P. (2016). Principles of International Environmental Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Scovazzi, T. (2001). The Development of International Law of the Sea and the Role of the IAEA. Nuclear Law Bulletin, (67), 57–72.
United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC). (2005). Governing Council Decision 258: Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the First Instalment of Claims for Environmental Damage.
Voigt, C. (2008). State responsibility for climate change damages. Nordic Journal of International Law, 77(1-2), 1-22.
Akbari, Mehdi, & Mashhadi, Nasrin. (2021). “From Territorial Anatolia to Hydro-Anatolia: Environmental Impacts of the GAP and DAP Projects on the Regional Ecosystem.” Islamic World Regional Studies, 7(1), 145–165. {In Persian}
Heydarzadeh, Mohammad, & Haji-Mineh, Ebrahim. (2024). “Assessment of Turkey’s Transboundary Water Policies and Their Environmental Implications for Iran.” Islamic International Relations Quarterly, 6(1), 97–105. {In Persian}
Zaki, Mahdi, & Asadollahi, Fatemeh. (2022). “Environmental Consequences of the GAP Project for the Islamic Republic of Iran: An International Law Perspective.” Environmental Policy Journal, 5(2), 105–115. {In Persian}
Zamani, Fatemeh, & Barlian, Mostafa. (2020). “A Comparative Study of the Environmental Impacts of the GAP Project on Iraq and Iran.” West Asia Environmental Studies Quarterly, 2(2), 85–95. {In Persian}
Seyed Hosseini, Reza. (2023). “Legal Foundations for Turkey’s Obligation to Compensate Iran for Environmental Damages Caused by the GAP Project.” International Environmental Law Review, 3(2), 89–98. {In Persian}
Sadeghian, Mohammad Sadegh, Baripour, Milad, Ansarian, Mojtaba, & Hajikandi, Hooman. (2021). “Iran’s Water Diplomacy in the Tigris–Euphrates Basin: Thematic Focus on Water Resources.” Water Engineering Quarterly, 13(4), 65–104. {In Persian}
Farhadi, Ali. (2022). “Strategic Implications of Turkey’s GAP Project for Iran’s Water Security.” Regional Security Studies, 4(3), 99–110. {In Persian}
Kazemi, Ahmad. (2022). “Turkey’s GAP and DAP Projects from the Perspective of International Law and the Role of Media.” International Media Research Journal, 9, 45–85. {In Persian}
Atalan, N. (2001). The Implications of Environmental Degradation on Security: The Case of Aral Lake Basin and Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) (Master's thesis, Bilkent Universitesi, Turkey).
Basse, E. M. (2001). “Environmental Liability – Modern Developments.” Scandinavian Studies in Law, 41, 34.
Birnie, P., Boyle, A., & Redgwell, C. (2009). International Law and the Environment (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Boyle, A., & Peel, J. (2021). Principles of International Environmental Law (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Boyle, A., Redgwell, C., & Brunnée, J. (2009). Environmental Liability and International Law. Oxford University Press.
Simma, B. (2011). “Foreign Investment Arbitration: A Place for Human Rights?” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 60(3), 573.
Cassese, A. (2007). International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.