One of the most alarming incidents to occur in the United States-Israel war against Iran was the recent bombing of a fuel depot in Tehran. Harrowing images showed toxic black smoke blanketing the skies above the city. Residents reported difficulty breathing and burning eyes and turned to wearing face masks.Soot and toxic chemicals released from the bombing then came down on civilian populations as polluted “black rain,” further exacerbating the health and environmental impacts. In response to the attack, Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said: “Israel’s bombings of fuel depots in Tehran violate international law and constitute ecocide.”The attack on the fuel depot is more than a stark reminder of the costs of war. It also tells the story of a large gap in international legal protections for civilians and the environment from the targeting of facilities containing harmful chemicals that are not classified as chemical weapons.The impacts of pollution and war are often indiscriminate and lasting. Beyond these images is the legacy of long-term damage to human health and the environment stemming from the targeting of such facilities, such as the refining plants targeted during the first Gulf War. International law contains provisions against the use of chemical weapons in war. However, there is a gap in protections when dangerous toxins are released due to attacks on sites like fuel depots.These gaps need to be addressed to protect civilians in war, and to uphold environment and human rights standards during wartime and once a conflict ends. Gaps in the Geneva Conventions Dark smoke fills Tehran’s sky after Israeli attacks on oil depots (The Independent). My areas of research focus on international law, specifically environmental and human rights law and intersections with international organizations.The Geneva Conventions and their protocols serve as the basis for international humanitarian law — the laws applicable to civilians, armed forces and combatants in times of conflict.The Geneva Conventions are mostly geared toward human protection during combat, especially for civilians living in combat zones or occupied territories as well as for health-care providers and for injured combatants and prisoners of war. In particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention on Civilians provides basic living, health and access to justice protections for populations during wartime.However, there is nothing in the conventions specifically about sites known to contain chemicals that would cause health or environmental impacts in the short and long-term. While the Geneva Conventions forbid attacking hospitals, schools and infrastructure necessary for civilian life, they do not address fuel depots, waste management facilities or other sites where chemicals are routinely stored. And there are no requirements for warring entities to provide assistance to enemy territories damaged by attacks on such sites once hostilities cease.Gaps in the Chemical Weapons ConventionSince 1997, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has governed the destruction and non-proliferation of chemical weapons. This convention includes prohibitions on developing and manufacturing chemical weapons and outlines acceptable methods of reducing and eliminating chemical weapons stockpiles in signatory countries. The CWC addresses facilities containing chemical weapons only in the context of safety until the chemicals can be destroyed. It is an essential tool in protecting humanity from the development, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. But the convention doesn’t cover all chemicals, nor does it address attacks on facilities containing chemicals that turn them into dangerous weapons against civilian populations.Other agreements and treatiesThere are also several multilateral environmental agreements that address chemicals in some form: the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Minamata Convention on Mercury, as well as the Global Framework on Chemicals, a recently adopted soft law instrument.These are critical agreements and instruments in many ways, but they focus on the production, use and transportation of chemicals. They do not address intentional acts of destruction during peacetime or conflict. Additionally, there are many core human rights treaties that provide protections to all, especially women, children, those with disabilities and persons in situations of vulnerability. But these are not fully applicable in times of conflict. Even at the end of a conflict, there are no provisions in these agreements that would impose liability or otherwise seek to address environmental damage from acts taken in wartime with lasting and generational impacts on the environment and human health.Moving forwardConflict is inherently intertwined with environmental damage and human suffering. This is particularly true today, when larger and more destructive weapons can cause lasting and even irreversible damage.The international community has responded in the past to these harsh realities by enacting prohibitions aimed at protecting people. These provisions must be updated and expanded to ensure they remain applicable to current methods and ideologies used in warfare. The targeting of the Tehran fuel depot demonstrates the need for changes to the Geneva Conventions at the very least, and also an appraisal of how to connect international environmental law and human rights law with the legacy of environmental damage in wartime. Adding the crime of ecocide to the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction could help. But a larger conversation is needed to ensure that targeting facilities containing chemicals is not an accepted practice in future conflicts. The conversation is about the need for warfare to reflect what we have learned about the toxic legacies of indiscriminate use and targeting of chemicals as weapons of war, which scar the environment and humanity for generations.Alexandra R. Harrington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.