Ecocide

What is Ecocide?

The term ‘Ecocide’ refers to the ‘devastation and destruction of the environment to the detriment of life’. The journey of ecocide through the past, its present status, and its potential future highlights the interplay between human activities, environmental degradation, and legal frameworks aimed at protecting the planet.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a ‘ecocide’ is defined as: “the destruction of large areas of the natural environment as a consequence of human activity”.

The expert panel of the organisation “Stop ecocide International” and as also proposed by Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa, defines ecocide as: “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”.

Types of Ecocide

1. Industrial Ecocide

It includes massive environmental damage caused by industrial activities such as mining, oil extraction, deforestation, or large-scale chemical spills. It often results from negligence or profit-driven decisions by corporations, affecting ecosystems and communities over vast areas. The much backlash about the Bhopal gas leak Tragedy, about which even Upendra Baxi writes that how the Indian State assumed the role of parens patriae to voice out against the havoc the transnational company created with lives and nature.

• Examples:
  • The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • Deforestation in the Amazon rainforest for agriculture or logging.

2. Military Ecocide

It includes environmental destruction resulting from military actions, either intentional or as a collateral consequence of warfare. It typically involves intentional environmental harm as a strategy of war or the unintended consequences of armed conflict.

• Examples:
  • The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, leading to deforestation and soil contamination.
  • Destruction of oil wells during the Gulf War, causing air and soil pollution.

3. Agricultural Ecocide

It includes environmental harm caused by unsustainable agricultural practices, including excessive pesticide use, monoculture farming, and habitat destruction for agricultural expansion. It is driven by food production needs and commercial interests, often impacting local and global ecosystems. The leading case of Vedanta v. Loungwe, is of much importance to understand how the transnational companies and their subsidiaries can be pulled up for the cause of 1800 Zambian farmers who livelihood and agriculture were devastated by these companies, and how the UK Supreme court cautioned against such foul play with nature and lives by the transnational companies cannot be tolerated.

• Examples:
  • Soil degradation and water contamination from overuse of fertilizers and pesticides.
  • Loss of biodiversity due to land conversion for industrial-scale farming.

4. Climate Ecocide

• Definition: Environmental destruction caused by actions or inactions contributing to global climate change, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or deforestation. This kind remained much of the buzzword at COP29, where calls for enhanced Climate finances for the Global South were made out with a focus on the Green Climate Fund to fight against Climate change led ecocide.
• Examples:
  • Industrial practices leading to global warming and rising sea levels.
  • Failure to address emissions resulting in irreversible changes like coral bleaching.
• Key Features: Long-term and global in nature, often the result of cumulative actions rather than a single event.

5. Pollution-Based Ecocide

It includes widespread environmental harm caused by pollution, including air, water, and soil contamination. The ‘Silent Spring’, a work  by Rachel Carson (1962) exposed the devastating environmental impacts of pesticides, particularly DDT, highlighting the interconnectedness of human and natural health. Carson's seminal work can be seen as a warning against Chemical- pollution based ecocide, emphasizing the need for responsible stewardship to prevent widespread ecological destruction and harm to human life.

• Examples:
  • Large-scale plastic pollution in oceans harming marine life.
  • Industrial chemical spills contaminating water supplies.

International Legislations and Appearances

Various countries at different points of time, have proposed and made efforts to counter the bigger evil of Ecocide, especially in their own home legislation. Lets look at few of them.

Belgium

1. Definition

Article 96 of the new Criminal Code, highlights the crime of ecocide "consists of deliberately committing an unlawful act causing serious, widespread and long-term damage to the environment, in the knowledge that such acts cause such kind of damage". The various components of this definition are also specified:

• "serious damage": damage that results in highly detrimental adverse changes, disruptions or impairments to any component of the environment, including serious repercussions on human life or health, biodiversity or natural, cultural or economic resources for society;
• "extensive damage": damage that extends beyond a limited geographical area, that crosses the borders of a region or state, or that is suffered by an entire ecosystem, an entire species or a significant number of human beings;
• "long-term damage": damage that is irreversible or that cannot be repaired by natural regeneration within a reasonable time;
• "environment": the earth, its ecosystems, biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and outer space.

2. Historical and political context

The notion of "ecocide" has been used since the 1970s, under the impetus of Arthur Galston, an American botanist, both in international political spheres (such as the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm) and in doctrine (as illustrated by the proposal for an International Convention on the Crime of Ecocide, drafted by Richard Falk, an American professor of international law).

The current movement to criminalize ecocide takes place in a different context from that in which it was born in the 1970s.

The Belgian legislator indeed noted that, since then, scientists have demonstrated with great precision the profound and irreversible transformation of the earth by human activity. In 2009, an international team of 26 researchers identified nine "planetary boundaries" that must not be exceeded if mankind is to develop in a safe ecosystem, i.e. one free from abrupt, non-linear, potentially catastrophic and difficult-to-predict environmental change. In 2022, the thresholds of at least five of these nine boundaries were likely to have been exceeded.

The criminalization of ecocide represents a real challenge, given its transnational nature, its connections with organized crime and the financial sums it represents, i.e. between 91 and 259 billion dollars per year. It thus complements "ordinary" environmental crimes, which fall within a strictly national framework, and "transnational" crimes.

The term "ecocide" is used to describe exceptional environmental degradation that has a negative impact on a large number of people, whether past, present or future generations. Thus, in addition to its reparative dimension, the term ecocide also incorporates a preventive approach. The severity of the sanctions incurred, the possible corollary civil penalty of having to restore the damaged environment (the cost of which may prove substantial) and the effect of social stigmatization, is expected to have an important dissuasive and therefore preventive effect, over and above the punitive aspect.

The symbolic weight of this criminalization is also important. On the one hand, it could lead to a movement of imitation by other States and contribute to strengthening recognition of the crime of ecocide in conventional or customary international law. Secondly, recognition of the crime of ecocide can be seen as a symbol of collective awareness of the unfolding ecological crisis. For one of the values of the crime of ecocide may be its "expressive function".

At national level, eleven countries have already incorporated the ecocide into domestic law: Georgia (1999), Armenia (2003), Ukraine (2001), Belarus (1999), Kazakhstan (1997), Kyrgyzstan (1997), Moldova (2002), Russia (1996), Tajikistan (1998), Vietnam (1990) and France (2021). Several Mexican states (Guerrero, Jalisco, Mexico City, Oaxaca and Chiapas), as well as Brazil, Ecuador and Guatemala, have launched parliamentary initiatives or developed jurisprudence aimed at recognizing it.

In the same vein, the new Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law also refers to the notion of “ecocide” (see here recital 21). Although the legal provisions of the Directive do not themselves mention ecocide, those provisions will introduce a number of environmental offences into national criminal law that cause significant damage to nature and the environment comparable to ecocide.

3. Constitutional limits

In its opinion of June 9, 2023, the Council of State repeated the rules governing the division of powers in the environmental field: " (…) the regions are competent to maintain environmental protection on their territory, whether or not by criminal means. (...) This raises the question of the competence of the federal authority to provide for the crime of ecocide”. In the same opinion, the Council of State provided an answer to this question, indicating that it would be appropriate to limit the scope of application of the crime of ecocide so that it could fall within the federal jurisdiction.

Consequently, when illegal activities qualifying as ecocide take place on Belgian territory, they fall in principle within the competence of the regions as regards environmental protection, even when the consequences go beyond their territory and extend, for example, to outer space.

In concrete terms, there are three cases in which the federal authority is competent to criminalize ecocide:

• for damage resulting from ionizing radiation or radioactive waste;
• for damage caused in or on the North Sea;
• for acts that cannot be located in Belgium.

The latter possibility depends on concrete federal regulations concerning environmental damage abroad. In the meantime, it is necessary to rely on already existing federal legislation, notably as described in the first two scenarios or such as the law of July 21, 2017 on environmental protection and the regulation of activities carried out under Belgian jurisdiction in Antarctica.

France

1. The Climate and Resilience Act of August 22, 2021, is a landmark in French environmental policy as it introduces ecocide into the legal framework. By formally recognizing ecocide, France acknowledges the pressing need to address severe and intentional harm to ecosystems. This step highlights the government’s dedication to protecting the environment through robust legal instruments.
2. Definition of Ecocide: Ecocide, as outlined in the act, refers to acts that cause intentional and egregious violations of environmental laws with consequences that are both long-lasting and damaging to ecosystems. This definition emphasizes the seriousness of such crimes, categorizing them alongside offenses that have profound societal and ecological impacts.
3. Penalties: The act enforces strict punishments for ecocide, reflecting the gravity of the crime. These include imprisonment for individuals and substantial fines for entities involved in such acts. The severity of the penalties depends on the extent of environmental damage and the level of intent, aiming to establish accountability and deter future offenses.
4. Purpose: The inclusion of ecocide in the legislation is a preventive and corrective measure. By addressing environmental destruction at its root, the act seeks to deter irresponsible actions by individuals or corporations. It reinforces the principle of holding offenders accountable and ensures that the law supports long-term ecological health and sustainability.
5. Alignment with Global Trends: The recognition of ecocide aligns France with growing international efforts to address severe environmental crimes. Ecocide has been a topic of global advocacy, with discussions in organizations like the International Criminal Court to classify it as a crime against humanity. France’s legal innovation sets an example for other nations to follow.
6. Complementary Measures: Ecocide is one aspect of the comprehensive Climate and Resilience Act, which also includes measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy, and advance sustainable economic practices. This integrated approach highlights the act’s focus on addressing climate change and safeguarding ecosystems comprehensively.
7. France’s Leadership: By legally recognizing ecocide, France demonstrates its global leadership in environmental governance. This progressive step showcases France’s commitment to prioritizing ecological issues, enhancing accountability, and fostering a legal framework that others can model to combat environmental degradation.

Pacific Island States along with the new member DRC

• Milestone for environmental justice as amendment proposed to the Rome Statute of the ICC to include a crime of ecocide.
• Vanuatu key sponsor of historic proposal to hold senior officials and decision-makers accountable and punishable for the most severe crimes against the environment
• The ICC has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.  Ecocide, if adopted, would become the fifth international crime.

• Azerbaijan

• Azerbaijan’s President, Ilham Aliyev, has proposed adding 'ecocide' to the country’s Criminal Code in a new bill entitled 'On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.’
• Article 104-1 of the new bill defines ecocide as ‘causing mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning natural resources, or other intentional ecological harm’.
• The bill, which passed its first reading in the Milli Majlis (Parliament of Azerbaijan), proposes custodial sentences of 10 to 15 years for those found guilty of the newly proposed crime.

Appearance on Database

• Stop ecocide International 
  

  Stop ecocide International Efforts against ecocide
  • World economic Forum
• 

  World Economic Forum Efforts
  • European Law institute
• 

  European Law Institute Efforts
  • Sabin Centre, a research centre at Columbia Law School for climate change law
• 

  Sabin Centre Efforts

Efforts Towards International Recognition and Potential Legislation

The past few years have seen unprecedented momentum in the ecocide movement, with several countries and international bodies exploring legal mechanisms for prosecuting ecocide.

• International Criminal Court (ICC) Developments: The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been under increasing pressure to recognize ecocide as a fifth international crime alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. In 2021, a panel of international lawyers proposed a legal definition of ecocide for potential adoption by the ICC. This definition describes ecocide as “unlawful or wanton acts with knowledge of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment”. While the ICC has yet to officially adopt ecocide as a crime, this proposal marks a significant step forward. The adoption process requires support from ICC member states, and opposition from major economic players could impede this process. Some member states, notably from the European Union and Pacific Island nations, have expressed support for ecocide’s inclusion in the Rome Statute. Following notification of UN Secretary General António Guterres, a formal proposal to amend the Rome Statute to include the crime of ecocide has been submitted to the ICC Assembly’s Working Group on Amendments by member state Vanuatu —a low-lying archipelago of 80 islands in Oceania– and co-sponsored by fellow Pacific island nations Fiji and Samoa, reflecting the importance of environmental justice considerations for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Vanuatu was the first nation to call for international recognition of ecocide at the International Criminal Court in 2019.
• The last 18 months have seen a wave of new ecocide legislation making progress at domestic and regional levels. At the start of 2024, Belgium introduced a national crime of ecocide, while the European Union included a ‘qualified’ offence in its newly revised Environmental Crime Directive to tackle ‘conduct comparable to ecocide'. The Directive was adopted with 499 votes in the European Parliament in favour, 100 against and 23 abstentions. New ecocide legislation is advancing in other countries, including Peru, Brazil, Scotland, Italy, and Mexico.  
• Significantly, last week, The Global Commons Survey 2024—a new poll by Ipsos commissioned by Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance—revealed that 72% of people in the world’s richest countries support ecocide law. Nearly three out of four people surveyed across G20 countries (excluding Russia) backed the criminalization of actions causing widespread, long-term or irreversible harm to nature and climate.
• The IPSOS survey categorises respondents from 18 G20 countries into five "Planetary Stewardship Segments," revealing that ‘Steady Progressives’, ‘Concerned Optimists’, and ‘Planetary Stewards’ — groups advocating for strong action to protect the environment — make up the majority (61%) of people across the G20* countries surveyed. This marks a social tipping point, with more people now demanding action to protect the planet than those who do not. The survey conducted across 18 G20 countries also uncovered gender differences in environmental concern. Women tend to exhibit higher levels of concern about the state of nature today and for future generations than men; 62% of women are extremely or very worried about the state of nature today, compared with 56% of men, and 74% of women believe that major action to address environmental issues should be taken immediately within the next decade, compared with 68% of men.
• Just 25% of women believe that many claims about environmental risks are exaggerated while 33% of men do. Women are also significantly less likely to believe technology can solve environmental problems without individuals having to make big lifestyle changes (35% compared with 44% of men).
• In a historic statement at the 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has become the first African nation to declare its support for establishing ecocide as an international crime. This endorsement aligns with a formal proposal from Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa to amend the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), reflecting the growing global momentum to secure accountability in international law for the most severe crimes against nature.
• National & Supernational Legislative developments: Countries like France and Begium have enacted laws incorporating ecocide into their environmental codes, while others, such as the Netherlands, are actively considering similar measures. In 2021, France became the first country to legally define and criminalise ecocide, albeit in a limited form. French law now considers ecocide as an offense under its Environmental Code, with penalties for severe cases of environmental destruction. However, this definition applies only to national contexts and does not equate to international law. Similarly, the European Union (EU) has in response to increasing demands for environmental accountability, the EU has proposed revisions to its environmental crime directive. If adopted, these changes could strengthen environmental protection measures across member states, potentially aligning with ecocide principles.
• Role of Advocacy and Civil Society : The ecocide movement has been strongly supported by global advocacy groups, most notably Stop Ecocide International, which works toward making ecocide an international crime. Founded by lawyer Polly Higgins, Stop Ecocide has successfully mobilized support from environmental activists, indigenous communities, scientists, and lawmakers to raise awareness about ecocide’s impact.

• United Nations Involvement: Advocacy groups are pushing for the United Nations to adopt an international treaty addressing ecocide. Although ecocide is not yet a formally recognized term within the UN framework, UNEP has reported on the environmental impacts of conflicts and industries, reinforcing the need for robust international legal responses.
• Recent Developments in the Pacific and Small Island Nations: Pacific Island nations, particularly vulnerable to climate change and environmental degradation, have been strong proponents of ecocide’s criminalization. Leaders from countries such as Vanuatu and the Maldives have called for ecocide to be recognized internationally, emphasizing that environmental destruction exacerbates existential risks for small island nations.

• Vanuatu and Maldives Advocacy: During the 2021 UN General Assembly, Vanuatu’s representatives highlighted the need to classify ecocide as a crime, arguing that environmental destruction directly threatens their survival.
• Pacific Islands Forum: This regional intergovernmental organization has also supported discussions on ecocide, underscoring its potential as a deterrent against environmental harm in vulnerable areas.
• Recently, the Congress of the Republic of Peru convened a Technical Committee to review a proposal aimed at criminalising ecocide within the country’s national penal code.

• Legal Scholar and Public Opinion Support: Legal scholars and environmental law experts have increasingly advocated for the formal recognition of ecocide. These scholars argue that ecocide as a crime would fill a legal gap in international law, providing a means of holding corporations, governments, and individuals accountable for large-scale environmental harm. Publications in environmental law journals, particularly those from Europe and Australia, have called for incorporating ecocide into international legal frameworks.

• Global Public Opinion: Recent polls, especially in Europe, show high levels of public support for making ecocide an international crime. This reflects growing awareness of environmental issues and a demand for stronger legal accountability for ecological harm. Similarly, there is an ongoing discussion within the EU on corporate liability for environmental damage, the concept of ecocide and its recognition in EU law.
• Established in 2002, the ICC is the only international tribunal with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals in positions of superior responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or the crime of aggression. Under the newly proposed ecocide legislation, such individuals could be held criminally accountable if their actions result in severe environmental damage, such as massive oil or chemical spills, the clearcutting of primary rainforests, or the destruction of entire river systems. The primary goal of criminalising ecocide is ultimately protective: it's deterrence. Criminal law creates powerful moral as well as legal boundaries, making it clear that extreme levels of harm are not just unlawful but totally unacceptable. By establishing legal consequences, we create a guardrail that compels decision-makers to prioritise safety for people and planet, fundamentally altering how they approach their obligations. We also create a route to justice for the worst harms, whether they occur in times of conflict or in times of peace.”

International References

1. Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, in this case the Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch environmental group, sued the Dutch government, arguing that its inaction on climate change violated citizens’ rights to life and well-being. This case is an example of environmental harm being framed as a legal and human rights issue, with implications for ecocide discussions. The Dutch Supreme Court ruled in favour of Urgenda, ordering the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% from 1990 levels by the end of 2020. This was the first case in the world where a court required a government to take action to address climate change.
2. The Philippines Human Rights Commission Case (2015-2022) In 2019, the commission ruled that carbon majors (like Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil) could be held liable for human rights violations resulting from climate change impacts. The findings highlighted the need for accountability mechanisms for corporate-led environmental harm. This case is seen as a groundbreaking example of holding corporations accountable for climate-related ecocide and has influenced similar cases globally.
3. The Yazov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) addressed the environmental degradation caused by Soviet-era industrial practices, including extensive pollution and deforestation in the region of Norilsk, Russia. The applicants alleged that the Russian government’s failure to address pollution levels violated their human rights. This case underscored the potential for regional courts to address ecocide-related issues by framing them as human rights violations, laying groundwork for future ecocide litigation.
4. The Case of Chevron in Ecuador (1993-Present): This case involved allegations that Chevron (formerly Texaco) contaminated large areas of the Ecuadorian Amazon through oil drilling operations between 1964 and 1992. The contamination led to severe health issues and environmental degradation, impacting indigenous communities. In 2011, Ecuadorian courts ordered Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in damages. However, Chevron has not paid, arguing that the judgement was fraudulently obtained. The case has since gone through numerous appeals in the United States and Canada, where Chevron has largely avoided enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgement.

Thus, this case is often cited in discussions of ecocide because it highlights the complexities of holding multinational corporations accountable for environmental harm across borders.

Ecocide Acknowledgment in India

India has neither signed nor ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and has not expressed any official position on the proposal to criminalize ecocide at the international level. However, India has ratified several international environmental treaties and conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The elements of mens rea or prior intention tough to prove as per the Indian laws which protect state actors– ‘in good faith’.

Threats of wars parallelly does not run in India, but it happens mostly in securing in international boundaries, Arunachal, Ladakh, Andaman, Kashmir or say events like1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, Himalayan disaster in 2013.

1. Legal Framework and Environmental Laws

India has a robust framework for environmental protection, though none of these laws officially classify ecocide as a crime. Some key environmental laws in India include: the Environment Protection Act 1986, the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, and Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 (CAMPA).

ecocide as a criminal concept is difficult to be situated in civil law and its liability in EPA,1948.

Although these laws address various aspects of environmental harm, they do not create an independent legal offence of ecocide. Instead, penalties are typically financial or involve imprisonment for limited durations, and cases are often dealt with under pollution control and conservation measures.

2. Judiciary’s Role in Environmental Protection

The Supreme Court of India has significantly expanded environmental jurisprudence, interpreting the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Through public interest litigation (PIL), the judiciary has intervened in cases where large-scale environmental harm occurred, sometimes reflecting principles akin to ecocide.

In the case of Chandra CFS and Terminal Operators Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs and Ors, The Madras High Court noted the continuous and unbridled activities of ecocide related to the removal of valuable timbers.

The Supreme Court in case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors drew attention to the need to shift from an anthropocentric approach to an ecocentric approach for achieving environmental justice.

The Supreme Court in Niyamgiri Hills Case denied a mining project in Odisha’s Niyamgiri Hills due to potential environmental and cultural damage, emphasising the importance of preserving ecologically sensitive and indigenous areas. This case reflects ecocide concerns, as it protected biodiversity and the rights of local communities.

In the case of M.C. Mehta Case, the Environmental activist M.C. Mehta’s PILs led to several judgments, including the closure of polluting industries near the Taj Mahal and the establishment of the “precautionary principle” in environmental cases. This principle mandates preventive action in environmental matters, which is closely aligned with the concept of ecocide prevention.

A notable case reflecting this perspective is the Environment Support Group vs State Of Karnataka (Lakes and Wetlands Protection) case (Karnataka HC, 2021). The court addressed rampant encroachments and pollution of wetlands in Bengaluru, which had led to severe water shortages and urban flooding. The judgment underscored that such acts constitute an environmental catastrophe with direct and indirect harm to the affected population, particularly marginalized communities. The court observed that large-scale environmental degradation could be considered ecocidal behavior, warranting stringent legal action as it threatens both ecosystems and the survival of human communities.

This landmark observation aligns with global trends, including the growing advocacy to recognize ecocide as an international crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Karnataka HC’s stance reflects the judiciary's increasing acknowledgment of the role of environmental degradation in human suffering and societal instability.

Also, recent legislative and policy trends in India, and globally, reflect a move to decriminalize minor infractions in environmental laws to ensure a more focused and effective enforcement framework. This approach recognizes that many petty offenses, such as improper waste disposal by individuals or minor violations of pollution norms, can often be addressed through penalty-based deterrents or administrative measures rather than criminal prosecution.

Summarily, it can be said that while some Indian court judgments have casually used the term 'ecocide,' the concept has not been formally integrated into Indian law.

Research that engages with Ecocide

1. Ecological Economics and Environmental Impact Research

• The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): This initiative calculates the economic cost of biodiversity loss, pollution, and environmental degradation. TEEB’s findings are used in arguments for ecocide, as they show that environmental destruction not only impacts ecosystems but has substantial economic repercussions, supporting the need for preventative laws like ecocide.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ecocide in Conflict Zones: Researchers studying environmental impacts in conflict areas, like those affected by wars in Yemen and Ukraine, assess the ecological and financial toll of warfare. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has conducted research on how armed conflicts exacerbate ecological damage, contributing to calls for ecocide as a crime during wartime.

2. Social Science and Indigenous Studies on Ecocide

• Indigenous Rights and Environmental Research: Studies by scholars like Dr. Deborah McGregor (University of Toronto) focus on how indigenous perspectives and traditional ecological knowledge contribute to ecocide prevention. Research in this area underscores that ecocide not only harms ecosystems but threatens indigenous livelihoods and cultural survival.
• Sociological Studies on Environmental Trauma: Research in environmental sociology and psychology explores the concept of “ecological grief” experienced by communities who witness or live through ecosystem destruction. This adds a human-centered perspective to ecocide discussions, highlighting the sociological and psychological impacts of ecological loss.

3. Global Tipping Points

Research from the Global Systems Centre (December 2023) explores how reaching critical thresholds in Earth's systems—such as Arctic ice melt or Amazon rainforest collapse—could lead to irreversible ecological damage. These tipping points demonstrate the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the potential for cascading effects that exacerbate global crises. This research strengthens the case for ecocide by emphasizing the need for proactive legal measures to prevent crossing such thresholds, which would have catastrophic environmental and societal impacts.

---

4. Ecocide Law and the Rights of the Child

The Youth for Ecocide Law initiative (November 2023) highlights the intersection of ecocide with children’s rights, arguing that environmental destruction disproportionately affects younger generations. This research demonstrates that ecocide not only threatens ecosystems but also undermines children’s access to a safe, healthy, and sustainable future. The initiative emphasizes the moral and legal imperative to recognize ecocide as a crime to protect vulnerable populations, including children, who are the most affected by climate instability and resource scarcity.

---

5. The 1.5°C Business Playbook

The Exponential Roadmap Initiative (September 2023) examines how businesses can align with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It identifies how unsustainable practices, such as deforestation and excessive emissions, could contribute to ecocide by driving environmental collapse. This playbook provides actionable strategies for businesses to mitigate environmental risks and calls for legal frameworks, such as ecocide laws, to enforce corporate accountability in preventing large-scale ecological harm.

---

6. Report on Ecocide

The European Law Institute (February 2023) released a comprehensive report analyzing the feasibility of integrating ecocide into international criminal law. The report examines existing legal frameworks, including the Rome Statute, and identifies gaps in addressing environmental destruction. It advocates for clear definitions and standards to prosecute ecocide, emphasizing the role of international cooperation in establishing accountability for large-scale environmental crimes.

---

7. Biodiversity as Systemic Risk

The International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) (January 2023) explores biodiversity loss as a critical systemic risk to global economies and stability. This research links the destruction of ecosystems with financial and societal instability, arguing for stronger regulatory mechanisms, such as ecocide laws, to safeguard biodiversity. By framing biodiversity loss as not just an environmental issue but a systemic risk, the report underscores the urgency of addressing ecocide through legal and economic tools.

Way Ahead

Severe environmental damage now impacts numerous countries globally, and addressing the climate crisis is becoming more urgent. This may lead to stronger backing for establishing ecocide as a punishable crime. A significant illustration is the increasing advocacy from island nations, particularly those at high risk due to rising sea levels. Countries like the Maldives, Vanuatu, and other small island states urged for serious discussion of ecocide as an international crime at the ICC’s 2019 annual assembly of states, though their appeal met limited success. With the rising intensity of environmental difficulties ecocide has achieved more widespread recognition and broader awareness.

Ecocide: The Fifth International Crime?

Unlike civil lawsuits and fines, criminalising ecocide would hold individuals responsible for funding, permitting, or causing severe environmental harm personally accountable under criminal law. This includes decision-makers within private corporations as well as public institutions. Criminal penalties would act as a stronger deterrent, forcing large corporations to treat environmental protection as essential, rather than simply absorbing fines as a cost of doing business. Key offenders, such as CEOs of mining companies whose operations severely threaten wildlife, ecosystems, and even local communities, could face serious consequences, including corporate dissolution or imprisonment. In essence, criminalising ecocide would give the persistent destruction of our environment the weight and seriousness it truly deserves.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) can be amended to add a fifth crime: Ecocide.

Step 1: One of the member states proposes adding ‘ecocide’ to the list of crimes.

Step 2: At the next annual assembly, a majority of states must vote in favour of making this addition eligible.

Step 3: A special meeting takes place to discuss the final text. If two thirds of the states vote in favour, the law is adopted.

Step 4: At the next annual assembly, a majority of states must vote in favour of making this addition eligible. States can then ratify (officially agree), and must enforce the law in their own country one year later.

Advantages of Criminalization:

1. Seamless Integration: Adding ecocide to the Rome Statute would enable enforcement within the existing criminal systems of all member states upon ratification, allowing smooth integration without the need for new legal mechanisms.
2. Universal Jurisdiction: Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, ecocide offenders could be prosecuted in any ratifying country, regardless of their nationality or where the crime was committed.
3. Alignment with Transboundary Effects: This approach aligns with the cross-border impacts of ecocide, ensuring that legal accountability reflects the widespread nature of environmental harm.
4. Efficient Prosecutions: Universal jurisdiction would enable faster, more efficient prosecutions, including cases against corporations from non-ratifying countries.
5. Name and shame idea of conceptualising ecocide will to an extent prevent states from pursuing such crimes.

The process of amending the Rome Statute is a lengthy and complex journey. To begin, a member state must formally propose the amendment, which then requires approval from a two-thirds majority of all member states. Achieving this level of support seems unlikely at present. However, ongoing public pressure and the increasing severity of climate change could gradually encourage member states to consider this path.

Challenges in Addressing Ecocide as a Crime:

1. Applicability in Conflicts: Ecocide provisions apply primarily to international humanitarian conflicts, creating a gap in addressing environmental harm in non-humanitarian contexts.
2. War Crime Distinction: If ecocide is not categorized as a war crime, establishing individual responsibility is challenging, necessitating a shift to state accountability mechanisms.
3. Insufficient Definitions: The Geneva Conventions and related protocols lack sufficient definitions to address environmental destruction outside war contexts, complicating the legal framework.
4. Threshold for Damage: Liability under ecocide requires a specific level of environmental damage to be reached, making the determination and fixing of accountability a complex process.
5. Involvement of ICC: Even with universal ratification of ecocide as a crime, determining the stage and circumstances under which the International Criminal Court (ICC) would intervene poses a significant challenge.
6. Genocide Comparison: Categorizing ecocide as a crime raises questions about its alignment with genocide definitions and whether it should apply to anthropogenic actions in peacetime or military-related activities.
7. Liability Types: Determining whether strict liability, reckless liability, or corporate liability should apply is contentious, especially as the ICC excludes corporate entities from prosecution.
8. Jurisdictional Ratification: Only states that ratify ecocide as a crime would be legally obligated to comply, leaving victims in non-ratifying states without recourse.
9. Proving Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Establishing guilt with the high standard of proof required in criminal proceedings, particularly for large-scale and complex environmental harm, remains a significant hurdle.
10. Victim Realization: Identifying and compensating victims of ecocide, particularly in global or cross-border contexts, adds complexity to implementing justice.