When the environment becomes a victim of armed conflict – the rhetoric, the blame game, and the pursuit of justice.

Abstract: The difficulty garnering compensation for environmental destruction from climate change and armed conflicts has made states and organizations question whether international legal systems can protect the environment during peace or war. The case study compares how Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and the United Nations Environment Programme frame the environmental implications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijan. The aim is to explore how states invoke environmental war crimes or environmental concerns to gain advantages in conflict resolution and whether international organizations change or adapt to help states obtain environmental justice. The results are obtained by combining the theory of environmental conflicts described by Fisher (2022a) and the national/international climate and security discourse described by McDonald (2018). The case study uses framing analysis to identify environmental problems in speeches, statements to the media, letters, reports, and press releases. The main findings indicate that Ukraine has gained more support in its fight for environmental justice than Azerbaijan. Although both states used similar frames and tactics in their environmental drivers, Ukraine's ability to continuously prove its seriousness about environmental destruction sets it apart from Azerbaijan. As terms like ecocide and eco-terror become more internationally recognized, states can use them to push international organizations to make legal changes about environmental justice. However, there is also a risk that states use the need for environmental justice to improve their international reputation in the aftermath of an armed conflict.