What international laws or treaties exist (or are proposed) to govern cross‑border impacts of weather modification?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The principal binding international instrument that directly addresses weather modification is the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), which bans weather warfare and has been ratified by a majority of states but leaves wide conceptual and enforcement gaps [1] [2]. Beyond ENMOD, a patchwork of treaties, bilateral agreements, liability scholarship and multilateral forums (UNFCCC/Paris, Convention on Biological Diversity, bilateral pacts) shape how cross‑border impacts of deliberate weather or geoengineering activities are discussed, but no modern, comprehensive treaty regime specifically regulating peacetime transboundary weather modification exists [3] [1] [4].
1. ENMOD: the narrow, old legal backbone and its limits
ENMOD is the only treaty that expressly prohibits the hostile military use of environmental modification techniques—commonly summarized as a ban on “weather warfare”—and was the product of 1970s superpower negotiations that led to a legal prohibition on using environmental manipulation as a weapon [1] [5]. Yet ENMOD’s operative language and definition of “environmental modification techniques” remain opaque and contested in scholarship, which finds ambiguity about what counts as a covered technique and whether peacetime or civilian geoengineering falls within its scope, creating interpretive space that weakens its practical reach over cross‑border civilian weather modification [6] [5].
2. Multilateral climate and biodiversity law: indirect but relevant constraints
Major climate instruments—UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement and related decisions—do not specifically regulate weather‑modification operations but create normative and institutional pressure around emissions and large‑scale interventions that affect climate systems; commentators and legal guides therefore treat them as part of the regulatory ecosystem for geoengineering or climate interventions [3]. Likewise, the Convention on Biological Diversity has been invoked as a potential constraint on some forms of geoengineering on biodiversity grounds, offering a non‑ENMOD pathway for limiting transboundary effects [1].
3. Bilateral and regional practice: notification, consultation and practical cooperation
States have sometimes used bilateral accords to manage weather modification across borders; for example, a Canada agreement requires prior notification, information exchange and prompt consultation about weather‑modifying activities of mutual interest, demonstrating a pragmatic mechanism for reducing cross‑border disputes even where no global rule exists [4]. Such instruments show that practical transparency and early consultation are feasible and politically acceptable even when multilateral law is thin.
4. Liability, dispute risk and the governance gap
Academic literature and policy analysis have long asked whether a state can be held internationally liable for damage from its weather modification activities and mapped conceptual pathways for claims, but the legal answers are unsettled and fact‑specific; liability scholarship highlights gaps in attribution, causation and applicable norms that leave affected states with uncertain remedies [7]. Intelligence and policy reports warn that operational cloud‑seeding and other projects have already raised cross‑border tensions and could fuel disputes absent global standards or monitoring [8].
5. Proposals, fora and the politics of a new treaty
Scholars and institutions have repeatedly proposed updating ENMOD or negotiating new instruments to cover peacetime geoengineering and cross‑border environmental manipulation, and forums from UN assemblies to think tanks like Chatham House have pressed for rules because interventions can produce transboundary harms and different national winners and losers—illustrated by states’ growing operational programs such as China’s large weather‑modification ambitions [9] [2]. Yet political obstacles—technical uncertainty, differing security and development interests, and the definitional disputes highlighted by ENMOD scholarship—have so far prevented a consensus push for a single, modern treaty [6] [5].
6. Bottom line: a fragmented regime and an active policy agenda
The legal landscape is anchored by ENMOD’s prohibition of hostile uses [1] and supplemented irregularly by climate and biodiversity treaties, bilateral notification agreements, liability theory and multilateral debate [3] [4] [7]. Those interested in governing cross‑border weather modification therefore face a fragmented regime: binding prohibition in wartime contexts, patchwork peacetime instruments and ongoing scholarly and policy proposals to clarify definitions, transparency, liability and dispute resolution before operational programs—and their potential cross‑border harms—become yet harder to manage [1] [2] [8].