By Inzam P I
The current decade is characterized by an ongoing cycle of wars, indiscriminate killing, genocide, and armed conflicts. This costs not only the lives of millions of people but also causes irrevocable damage to the environment and local populations. From the political crisis in Bangladesh to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the severity of harm inflicted upon the environment is undisputed. Consequently, the warmongering mentality of certain states around the world has led to a rapid surge in eco-violence this decade. Hence, it is a time of urgency for the international community to discuss the serious repercussions of mass environmental damage and adopt possible legal mechanisms to mitigate it.
Arthur Galston, an American botanist, first coined the term 'ecocide' in 1970 to describe the environmental devastation that resulted from United States’ use of Agent Orange, a harsh herbicide, in Vietnam. ‘Ecocide’ literally means ‘killing the environment.’ Therefore, ecocide can be referred to as the deliberate or unintended destruction of the environment by human action. The demand for criminalisation of ecocide may sound highly radical, fresh and new. But it is quite opposite. The question on the legality of ecocide was addressed five decades ago. One of the first efforts to address it was proposed by former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme at the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. The momentum for the global movement to criminalize ecocide was maintained by Stop Ecocide International (SEI), which acted as a catalyst in mobilizing resisting voices together. It consistently urges for the inclusion of ecocide as the fifth crime in the Rome Statute, along with the “crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression”. According to the Stop Ecocide International, criminalization of ecocide would address and punish violators if they commit large-scale damage to the ecosystem through chemical disasters, deforestation, wide-ranging water and land contamination, and mass destruction of endangered species.
Independent Expert Panel of Stop Ecocide International in June 2021 defined 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." The judgement of Dutch Supreme court in State of the Netherlands v Urgenda on 20th December, 2019, was a beacon of hope for future litigation on climate change. According to the ruling , the Netherlands is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to take proactive steps to avoid climate change and to cut its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020. Although there are noticeable positive trends in international law, like the Urgenda case ruling for the prevention of harm to the environment, its architecture still lacks sufficient strength to prevent countries and individuals from committing blatant violations of its provisions. While a few countries like France, Belgium, Georgia and Armenia have incorporated ecocide under criminal law, there is no international law with respect to the crime of ecocide in peacetime. This is where the necessity of including ecocide as a fifth crime in the Rome Statute comes in. Thus, it is germane to discuss that, as in war and armed conflict times, peacetime also witnesses the huge number of grave destructions of habitats. UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres reiterated that “the world can no longer wait to take bold and resolute international climate action.” Undoubtedly, the need of the hour is to walk the talk, putting down the ego of developed and most powerful countries in the UN is a must for succeeding in the mission of legal recognition of ecocide as a serious international crime.
Developed countries like the US must learn from, appreciate, and join the initiative taken by Pacific Island States like Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa in proposing the criminalization of severe harm to the environment. The official statement by the Government of Republic of Vanuatu states that “Strengthening international peace and security is everyone's business, and particularly important to us Small Island Developing States. While our region is characterized by relative peace and stability, the fight against impunity is global.” It should be noted that legal recognition of ecocide should not be solely the responsibility of small countries more vulnerable to climate change. Rather, it demands coordinated efforts by all member parties to the ICC.
Regarding the procedural aspect in the ICC, for adoption of ecocide as a fifth crime, at least a 2/3 majority of votes in favor of the proposal is essential at an assembly of parties. This requires discussions and consistent negotiation among attending parties. However, according to Washington Post, one of the potential challenges for the legal recognition of ecocide could come from some of the world's biggest pollution contributors, such as China, Russia, India, and the United States, which are not ICC member states. This non-member status gives them the freedom to challenge any of the court's rulings on jurisdictional grounds.
The criminalization of ecocide as a fifth international crime may bring several positive changes. In addition, states will start incorporating ecocide law into their municipal criminal laws. Thereby, the amendment will push private corporate giants, and industrialists into a position to become more eco-sensitized. Additionally, policy elites in the government will be more conscious and careful in checking the possible damages of any project thoroughly before proceeding with such projects lightly. Most importantly, the new ecocide law and amendment to the Rome Statute should be framed without loopholes. Otherwise, certain parties could exploit these loopholes in the law to justify and enjoy impunity for law violations. It should not also neglect the multiplicity of actors involved in causing environmental damage, as most conflicts involve multiple players, including but not limited to states, non-state entities, MNCs, NGOs, individuals, etc. After all, only a massive global movement against ecocide could bring a significant change to the status quo, which requires persistent discussions, coordination, pressuring politicians, and demand for policy change from the grass root to the global level.
This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog
Inzam P I is currently a second-year student pursuing a Master’s in Politics with
Specialization in International Studies (M.A PISM) from the School of International Studies
(SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, JNU.