Another email from the Law Society Gazette popped up in my computer’s inbox this week, and it drew my attention to an online article in the Gazette which discusses the fact that a legal definition of ecocide has now been drafted. The article was written by Josef Rybacki, a lawyer working in the UK office of a US law firm, and I thank him for drawing my attention to this interesting development, and for much of the detail that follows.

The Stop Ecocide Foundationi (registered as a charity in the Netherlands) was set up in 2017 by the late Polly Higgins, a UK barrister who sadly passed away in 2019, and her colleague, Jojo Mehta, the current Chief Executive. As its websiteii says, the Foundation:

promotes and facilitates steps towards making ecocide a crime at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in order to prevent devastation of nature and so protect the future of life on Earth.

To that end, it has campaigned with a view to achieving an amendment to the Rome Statute of the ICC so as to make ecocide an international crime. As part of its campaign, late in 2020 it convened an Independent Expert Panel of twelve lawyers with expertise in criminal, environmental and climate law to draft a definition of the proposed crime. The Panel has now concluded its work, a draft has been produced, and the email from the Law Society Gazette has alerted me to it.

Judging by the opening to the paper introducing the proposed definition, it seems clear that climate change is uppermost in the minds of those seeking to introduce the new crime:

It is widely recognised that humanity stands at a crossroads. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the emission of greenhouse gases and the destruction of ecosystems at current rates will have catastrophic consequences for our common environment.

However, that statement leaves open the possibility that the crime may be committed (i.e. ecosystems may be destroyed) other than as a result of the emission of greenhouse gases, and indeed the proposed definition is drafted in such a way that it could definitely catch other environmentally damaging activities. I briefly harboured hopes that environmentally damaging wind farms might fall within the definition, but no such luck, as will become clear below.

Definition

1. For the purpose of this Statute, “ecocide” means 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.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

a. “Wanton” means with reckless disregard for damage which would be clearly excessive in relation to the social and economic benefits anticipated;

b. “Severe” means damage which involves very serious adverse changes, disruption or harm to any element of the environment, including grave impacts on human life or natural, cultural or economic resources;

c. “Widespread” means damage which extends beyond a limited geographic area, crosses state boundaries, or is suffered by an entire ecosystem or species or a large number of human beings;

d. “Long-term” means damage which is irreversible or which cannot be redressed through natural recovery within a reasonable period of time;

e. “Environment” means the earth, its biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, as well as outer space.

Analysis

In terms of the activities that might form the basis of the crime, the definition provides two potential routes to liability – “unlawful acts” (presumably straightforward if a breach of a national law has occurred) or “wanton acts”. The definition of wanton acts does provide a high threshold, involving an activity with reckless disregard for damage which would clearly be excessive.

So much for the activity in question (what we lawyers still, I think, call the actus reus). Establishing that the activity in question satisfies the definition is not of itself enough. Mens rea, or guilty mind, also needs to be established. Knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe damage to the environment, which can be either widespread or long-term would suffice. I understand that the usual mens rea for crimes under the Rome Statute (under Article 30) is awareness of a near certainty that the event will occur. Thus the proposed definition of ecocide casts the net more widely:

Given the high thresholds for the consequences within the definition of ecocide, the Panel assessed that the Article 30 default mens rea for such consequences was too narrow and would not capture conduct with a high likelihood of resulting in severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment.

The definition of severe is set at a high and substantial level, and should avoid routine environmental infringements at a local or even national level from being caught up in the definition.

In addition the damage must be widespread or long-term. Although I suspect that the proposed crime is aimed at those considered responsible for climate change (and if it is embraced by the ICC, I have no doubt it will be used by activists for that purpose), it could extend to other environmental devastation. If the proposed law was adopted, and if the nuclear explosion at Chernobyl were to happen again, it is easy to see that it might have the potential to fall within the definition.

What happens next?

Well, as its website says, the Stop Ecocide Foundation is already “reaching out to Governments”, no doubt as part of a concerted lobbying campaign to gain international momentum from influential state players, with a view to the law being adopted and the new crime of ecocide becoming a legal reality such that prosecutions for it may take place before the ICC. I have heard nothing to this effect among the welter of IPCC-related news articles recently, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of ecocide lobbying occurs at COP 26. The people involved with this campaign are serious and heavyweight players. If, as seems to me to be likely, COP 26 fails to achieve much in the way of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the part of those countries who are the biggest emitters (most notably China), then I suspect that the adoption of a new crime of ecocide may be the answer to those who will want to declare that COP 26 is a success with major achievements under its belt. Watch this space.

i https://bell-harmonica-g83z.squarespace.com/sef

ii https://www.stopecocide.earth/

35 Comments

  4. I would be interested to know how anyone is supposed to damage outer space. Even damaging the lithosphere seems a little far-fetched.

    I can’t see how any quantity of carbon dioxide emitted could qualify as “ecocide,” even in the fever dream of an alarmist. Here’s hoping, anyway.

    Like

  5. We have good estimates of very large percentages of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during long periods of the Palaeozoic, many many times greater than in a an alarmist worst nightmare. Another part of science ignored or deliberately forgotten. Ecocide: destruction by neglect of human knowledge more like.

    Like

  6. How very odd. I post the above, only to find minutes later on a different thread that it was a CO2 concentration curve in a Wikipedia article that set JIT on the path to scepticism. But the curve has now been removed from today’s version of the article. So it is not neglect of knowledge, but it’s deliberate suppression.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “‘A powerful solution’: activists push to make ecocide an international crime
    Movement aims to make the mass damage and destruction of ecosystems a prosecutable, international crime against peace”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/26/activists-push-make-ecocide-international-crime

    …Yet topping the group’s list of demands was for countries across the world to recognize ecocide as an offense against peace – carrying fines and even prison time – through the UN’s international criminal court.

    Jackson was quick to point out recently that Stop Ecocide doesn’t want to see everyday, working-class car drivers or frequent airline passengers be charged as international criminals and hauled into the same court which prosecutes genocide and wartime atrocities. They just want an ecocide charge to be an arrow in the quiver of those trying to rein in government-level policymakers whose agendas are exacerbating the climate crisis….

    Quite a telling comment, I think.

    Like

  8. I concluded my article on Ecocide as follows:

    If, as seems to me to be likely, COP 26 fails to achieve much in the way of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the part of those countries who are the biggest emitters (most notably China), then I suspect that the adoption of a new crime of ecocide may be the answer to those who will want to declare that COP 26 is a success with major achievements under its belt. Watch this space.

    Well, perhaps I was a COP or two out. Today in the Guardian:

    “Make ecocide an international crime and other legal ideas to help save the planet”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/22/five-legal-ideas-fight-climate-crisis-save-planet

    Ecocide needs to be designated as the world’s fifth atrocity crime, with the same moral power and legal impact as genocide and crimes against humanity. It has been defined by an international panel of jurists led by Philippe Sands as “unlawful or wanton acts” 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”. In plain language, ecocide outlaws the deliberate destruction of the environment such that people die and ecosystems are destroyed. Most importantly, the law applies to private corporations and their executives in their personal capacities.

    This is not theoretical. It expressly outlaws what many oil and mining companies have done repeatedly to vulnerable Indigenous and farming communities around the world. Ecocide is not just normal pollution; it is highly destructive and happens either with intent or extreme recklessness.

    Ecocide would expose executives of fossil fuel companies to potential criminal liability for signing off on acts of pollution. And that personal exposure will significantly change the decision-making calculus of these executives in the planet’s favor.

    Like

  9. It would be intriguing to see the King of Saudi Arabia arraigned on a charge of ecocide. I almost feel inclined to urge the faithful to “bring it on”

    Like

  10. Mark – his post lead in is worth a quote –

    “The world has reached an acute point in the “highway to climate hell”. Talks at Cop27 barely achieved anything, despite the fact that almost one-third of Pakistan’s territory was submerged during unprecedented flooding; record heat over the summer killed nearly 25,000 in Europe; and almost 200,000 people in a major US city have not had clean water for months.”

    I can almost picture him typing away as the climate disaster network AI feeds him the latest facts.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. dfhunter, and note the repeat of the significant untruth that almost one-third of Pakistan’s territory was submerged. I’d also like evidence for the “nearly 25,000” allegedly killed by record heat in Europe. Nor is an explanation offered for the “almost” 200,000 people in a major US city (which one) without clean water and the supposed link with climate change.

    Like

  12. ‘…almost 200,000 people in a major US city have not had clean water for months.’

    Mark, Donziger was talking about Jackson, Mississippi. The Grauniad said the problem was caused by racism, not climate change.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/01/jackson-mississippi-clean-drinking-water-flooding-problems

    (You’d think the Graun would have gone for racism *and* climate change. At its best, it would also have added colonialism, transphobia and the patriarchy for good luck.)

    That article also said that ‘more than 150,000 people’ were affected. Is that the same as ‘almost 200,000 people’? Not usually.

    Most of those people got their clean water back after five days and the city’s ‘boil your water’ advice was withdrawn for everyone after another ten days. There have been problems since (mostly caused by leaks) and it looks like some people are still being told to boil their water but the numbers are probably in the hundreds and none of those people will have been continuously without clean water since the crisis started at the end of August.

    Jackson’s water system does seem to be in a right old mess, though. I’ll give him that.

    (I’m glad he has finally been released from house arrest. Whatever his shenanigans during the Chevron/Ecuador kerfuffles, that did seem a bit weird.)

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Vinny, thanks for the extra insight. It would appear that this could be one for John’s game of Climate Only Connect – it doesn’t matter how many other possible explanations might exist for a problem, in Guardian World, climate change always has to be there somewhere.

    I checked out Wikipedia, too, and although it also mentions the flooding (en passant), climate change doesn’t seem to be an issue so far as they are concerned (other than one, seemingly obligatory, throwaway line near the end of the article):

    “Jackson, Mississippi, water crisis”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson,_Mississippi,_water_crisis

    An ongoing public health crisis in and around the city of Jackson, Mississippi, began in late August 2022 after the Pearl River flooded due to severe storms in the state. The flooding caused the O. B. Curtis Water Treatment Plant, the city’s largest water treatment facility, which was already running on backup pumps due to failures the month prior, to stop the treatment of drinking water indefinitely. This resulted in approximately 150,000 residents of the city being left without access to safe drinking water. United States President Joe Biden declared a federal disaster to trigger federal aid The crisis triggered a political debate regarding racial discrimination, infrastructure neglect, and shifting local demographics…

    …The city’s drinking water treatment system had problems for years before the crisis…

    …From 2017 to 2021, Jackson recorded an annual average of 55 breaks per 100 miles of water line, higher than the “safe” rate of 15 breaks or less. In July 2022, the EPA completed a report which detailed numerous issues with the municipal water utility including understaffing, high employee turnover, malfunctioning water meters, and an inability to properly issue bills to all customers. The city informed the EPA that it estimated that 50 percent of the water it supplied did not result in any revenue, either due to faulty metering or loss of water in the system….

    …Due to the lack of requisite funding and staff, the city did not record water pressure over time, did not regularly flush its lines, did not maintain valves and hydrants, and did not cycle water through storage tanks to maintain appropriate chlorine levels….

    …The crisis has also spurred discussion about how climate change is expected to strain existing infrastructure in the United States. Writing for the American socialist publication Jacobin, Ryan Zickgraf states that the water crisis in Jackson can be attributed to decades of austerity and capital disinvestment.

    But so far as the Guardian is concerned, it seems it was climate change wot dun it.

    Like

  14. An update on the “nearly 25,000” apparently killed by record heat in Europe over the last summer. Turns out it’s “over 20,000” according to the Guardian itself (although add the numbers up in today’s article and they do look more like 25,000 than 20,000 – it’s all very odd):

    “Over 20,000 died in western Europe’s summer heatwaves, figures show
    This year’s temperatures would have been virtually impossible without climate crisis, scientists say”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/24/over-20000-died-western-europe-heatwaves-figures-climate-crisis

    Except that the deaths in question most certainly can’t be definitively attributed to the heat, and are a guesstimate:

    …In England and Wales, 3,271 excess deaths were recorded between 1 June and 7 September, according to the Office for National Statistics – 6.2% higher than the five-year average.

    The analysis does not estimate heat-related deaths specifically, but the number of deaths was higher on average for heat-period days than non-heat-period days. Covid-19 deaths were excluded.

    In France, there were 10,420 excess deaths reported during the summer months, according to data released by Santé Publique France, the government health agency.

    One in four of these deaths, or 2,816, happened during one of the three intense heatwaves that hit the country. The excess deaths were 20% higher in regions where extreme temperature red alerts had been issued.

    In Spain, the state-backed Carlos III Health Institute estimates there were 4,655 heat-attributable deaths between June and August.

    The Robert Koch Institute, the German government health agency, estimates 4,500 people died in the country during the summer months specifically due to extreme temperatures….

    I know it’s difficult to do anything other than make estimates, but this is pretty shoddy stuff. How many of those who died had “due to heat” written on their death certificates? How many were extremely old and/or ill, and would have died within a few days in any case? I don’t wish to downplay the seriousness of the matter in question, but whatever happened to science and facts? And the article completely ignores the fact that a warming planet is leading to a bigger reduction in deaths from cold than any putative increase in deaths from heat.

    Like

  15. “We must call out the ecocide on our doorstep
    Peggy Seeger on a campaign to save four acres of biodiverse meadows in Oxford”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/02/we-must-call-out-the-ecocide-on-our-doorstep

    Your article brings home the severity and extent of the ecological fallout from the war in Ukraine (The ‘silent victim’: Ukraine counts war’s cost for nature, 20 February). This wholesale demolition of nature is described as ecocide – a term put forward by the Stop Ecocide Foundation 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”. Although no law has yet been passed, we know ecocide when we see it. It is a moral red line that is being crossed.

    But how do we view the more insidious, piecemeal devastation of nature on our doorstep – the spraying of bee-killing pesticides, the poisoning of our local rivers, the ravaging of yet another biodiverse habitat for “development”?

    I am part of a campaign to save four acres of undisturbed biodiverse meadows in Iffley village, Oxford. The city council zoned and bought the land for housing. It is even proposing moving all of the wildlife elsewhere. Hundreds of species would just have to hop it. Common sense and natural justice would fly out the window with them.

    Ecocide applies equally to this smaller-scale wrecking of the natural local places that we know and connect with. Calling out such destruction as a crime wherever it happens is a crucial part of acknowledging our own place within – and our responsibility for – Earth’s ecosystems.

    The dismantling of nature’s complexity can no longer be seen as acceptable fallout to maintain the way we have become accustomed to living, and to support the “growth” agenda to which we have become addicted. The planet is perilously close to ecosystem collapse. Humanity created the problem. It is our job to fix it – now.
    Peggy Seeger
    Oxford

    I have quite a lot of sympathy with the sentiments expressed in the penultimate paragraph especially. It seems to me that they can very reasonably be applied to many wind and solar farms.

    Like

  16. “Growing number of countries consider making ecocide a crime
    Mexico latest country where government is considering passing new laws to criminalise environmental destruction”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/26/growing-number-of-countries-consider-making-ecocide-crime

    A growing number of countries are considering introducing laws to make ecocide a crime.

    Mexico is the latest country where politicians are seeking to deter environmental damage – and to get justice for its victims – by criminalising it. Karina Marlen Barrón Perales, congresswoman for Nuevo León, has submitted a bill to the Mexican congress introducing a new crime of “ecocide”.

    While damaging the environment is already a civil offence in most countries, recognition of ecocide elevates the most egregious cases to a crime – with accompanying penalties.

    The new Mexican bill looks to criminalise “any unlawful or wanton act committed with the knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment”. If passed, anyone found guilty of ecocide could be jailed for up to 15 years and fined as much as 1,500 pesos (£70) a day.

    The Mexican bill uses a definition of ecocide developed by an international panel of legal experts in 2021. The definition was mainly intended to be adopted by the international criminal court through an amendment to the Rome statute – the key goal of the Stop Ecocide Foundation – but is now also being used for national-level legislation.

    Only a few states around the world have criminalised ecocide, including Vietnam, Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine’s public prosecutor is already investigating a possible case of ecocide against Russia for breaching the Nova Kakhovka dam.

    France became the first EU country to put ecocide into law in 2021, although the wording is not as strong as campaigners had hoped for. A test case involving carcinogenic chemicals is currently in the courts.

    Similar draft laws have been submitted in other countries, including the Netherlands. Belgium is poised to finalise its own version of the law while the Catalan parliament is leading efforts to criminalise ecocide within the wider Spanish penal code.

    In Scotland, Labour MSP Monica Lennon is trying to introduce an ecocide bill and will launch a public consultation on the matter in the autumn.

    In Brazil, where deforestation of the Amazon rainforest has been repeatedly described as a crime, political party PSOL put forward an ecocide bill to congress in June….

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Jaime, it depends on how it’s defined. Most of the campaigners seem to want to criminalise pretty much any activity that damages the environment, except anything related to renewable energy. I would lay good odds that wherever an ecocide law is enacted, wind farm and solar farm owners and operators will never be successfully prosecuted.

    Like

  19. Ecoside has been defined by ‘an international panel of legal experts’. And yet it is any environmental damage resulting from ‘unlawful or wanton’ acts.

    So a panel of legal experts are saying that something doesn’t have to be unlawful to be criminal? Does that sound right to you, Mark?

    Like

  20. John, yes, actually it does sound fine to me. Read the definitions right through, and the suggested criminality flows via the definition. What it is saying is that if something is already unlawful, then part of the test is automatically satisfied. If not, then it has to satisfy the definition of a wanton act.

    If you think about it, many criminal acts were lawful before they were criminalised.

    Like

  21. This is more complicated than I had thought. I had assumed that a crime cannot be said to have been committed if a law had not been broken. Now I look into it I see that in the English judicial system criminality is not codified. However, I have also found this:

    “The criminal law of the United States, derived from the English common law, has been adapted in some respects to American conditions. In the majority of the U.S. states, the common law of crimes has been repealed by legislation. The effect of such actions is that no person may be tried for any offense that is not specified in the statutory law of the state.”

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law

    Like

  22. John,

    In England and Wales, some crimes are historically recognised by common law, but the vast majority were created (or codified) by statute. The Law Commission has the task of seeking to codify old common law crimes, with a view to removing vagueness and uncertainty. Ecocide is not known to the common law, but would, if enacted, be an example of a crime created by statute.

    Don’t over-think it!

    Like

  23. Mark,

    I am not overthinking it, I am just trying to understand how it works. I had assumed that criminality implies unlawfulness and you are correcting me by saying it doesn’t. I just haven’t quite grasped how that arises. How does a lawful act become criminal without it first becoming unlawful? Is it because our courts allow conviction based upon moral judgment even when there is no legal precedent to cite?

    The other part of my misconception was to assume the world is standardised on this issue. I am not sure it is now.

    Like

  24. P.S. I should have said that it seems that you are correcting my assumption. You may not be, and we might just be at cross purposes. My reading of their statement is that a crime can be lawful or not. It may be that you are just not reading it that way.

    Like

  25. John,

    To a/this lawyer it’s quite simple. “Unlawful” usually implies a civil wrong. “Illegal” implies a criminal wrong. Most, probably all, crimes would found a civil cause of action, but not necessarily vice versa.

    However, any legislature can pass a law rendering previously innocent acts, or previously unlawful (though not heretofore criminal) acts, crimes.

    And there isn’t uniformity around the world on these issues – though if some activists get their way, there might be with regard to ecocide.

    Like

  26. Mark,

    Thank you for persevering.

    You are right, I have been overthinking it. It is clear that they are seeking to render the unlawful illegal. I think my misgiving was that they were seeking to criminalise acts that are not even currently unlawful. But as you say, that wouldn’t actually be anything new. After all, it won’t be too long before the activists will criminalise our right to object to what they are doing.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. John,

    My pleasure – it’s the least I could do, especially given how patiently you have led me and others through the thickets of risk, uncertainty, and all the rest of it. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  28. “Ecocide law: Polluters could see turnover seized and 20 years in jail”

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23908731.ecocide-law-polluters-see-turnover-seized-20-years-jail/

    Big polluters could see 10% of their turnover seized while climate criminals could face up to 20 years in prison for wrecking the environment under plans tabled by a Labour MSP.

    Monica Lennon has tabled proposals for an ecocide prevention law that could see lengthy jail sentences and company profits handed over to act as a tough deterrent to those willfully harming the environment.

    Ecocide is defined as the mass damage and destruction of the natural living world and essentially means killing the environment.

    Scotland would not be the first country to bring forward plans to make ecocide a criminal offence, but Ms Lennon’s proposals would make it the first part of the UK to do so….

    …Ms Lennon pointed the finger at the big polluters, warning that “we do have some serious bad actors who need to be dealt with”.

    She said: “The proposed question of the financial sanctions worth up to 10% of worldwide turnover over a three-year period.

    “That’s about attributing liability to responsible officers, company directors and so on.”..

    …“The aim is to prevent the worst harm to our planet from happening in the first place and to do so we need much tougher laws and enforcement. I’m pleased to be launching this public consultation today and welcome views from people from all communities, sectors and perspectives.”…

    There are some things it’s almost impossible to make up. At the same time as the Scottish government is actively and wilfully encouraging mass damage to the Scottish environment in the form of industrial scale wind farms on- and off-shore, such an Act is being contemplated. It would be nice if it were passed and brought the mass despoliation of the Scottish environment by predatory (and mostly foreign) wind farm companies to an end, but I can almost guarantee that it won’t – there will be an exception for net zero activities or it will be drafted in such a way that wind farms don’t fall within the definition.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. The BBC has caught up with this story now too:

    “Polluters could face jail under MSP’s ecocide plan”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67356905

    …The ecocide legislation would make Scotland the first part of the UK to incorporate a crime of ecocide – defined as “unlawful or wanton acts” which cause widespread environmental damage.

    It is intended to deter and punish events such as oil spills caused by corporate negligence, while deforestation or illegal fishing could also be within its scope. The legislation would set a minimum jail sentence of 10 years for the crime of ecocide, with a maximum of 20 years.

    Ms Lennon said action was needed as “Scotland is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world”.

    “The maximum of 20 years maybe does sound a bit harsh, but we’re talking here about the most severe impact that could have irreversible damage, it could be destroying a whole ecosystem,” the Labour MSP told reporters at a launch event in Edinburgh.

    She said the law would complement existing environmental legislation and provide an overarching deterrent for those who may wish to skirt the current regulations….

    Assuming it makes it to the statute book, my money’s still on it containing exemptions for “renewable” energy projects, regardless of the environmental and ecological damage they cause; and/or that it will be drafted very carefully so as not to catch them. Still, deforestation sounds promising – with 16 million trees cut down in Scotland alone to make room for wind farms, it’s just a pity that criminal legislation tends not to be retrospective.

    Meanwhile, given the environmental damage caused by renewable energy in Scotland, you almost couldn’t make up some of the stuff further down the BBC piece:

    …Meanwhile, it was announced that the first minister, Net Zero Secretary Mairi McAllan and a delegation of Scottish companies will head to Dubai for the COP28 climate conference, which begins on 30 November….

    …the Scottish companies in attendance would aim to attract investment and “enhance Scotland’s global reputation, particularly on renewable energy”….

    Like

  30. “EU criminalises environmental damage ‘comparable to ecocide’
    Directive punishes most serious cases of environmental damage, including habitat loss and illegal logging”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/17/eu-criminalises-environmental-damage-comparable-to-ecocide

    The European Union has become the first international body to criminalise wide-scale environmental damage “comparable to ecocide”.

    Late on Thursday, lawmakers agreed an update to the bloc’s environmental crime directive punishing the most serious cases of ecosystem destruction, including habitat loss and illegal logging, with tougher penalties.

    Marie Toussaint, a French lawyer and MEP heading EU efforts to criminalise ecocide, said the decision “marks the end of impunity for environmental criminals” and could usher in a new age of environmental litigation in Europe.

    The environmental crime directive will be formally passed in the spring, and member states will then have two years to put it into national law.

    Although the agreed text does not itself include the word “ecocide”, its preamble says it intends to criminalise “cases comparable to ecocide”. These are actions that cause widespread, substantial and irreversible or long-lasting damage to large or important ecosystems, habitats or the quality of air, soil or water.

    This closely follows a definition of ecocide developed by an international panel of legal experts in 2021. The definition was mainly intended to be adopted by the international criminal court through an amendment to the Rome statute – the key goal of the Stop Ecocide Foundation – but is now increasingly being used for national-level legislation. Scotland, for example, recently began consulting on whether to introduce the UK’s first ecocide law….

    I’m assuming that all activities associated with !renewable” energy will be fine, however much logging, habitat loss and ecosystem destruction they involve….

    Like

  31. “‘Ecocide in Gaza’: does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime?”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/29/gaza-israel-palestinian-war-ecocide-environmental-destruction-pollution-rome-statute-war-crimes-aoe

    “‘An act of ecocide’

    The scale and long-term impact of the destruction have led to calls for it to be investigated as a potential war crime, and to be classed as ecocide, which covers damage done to the environment by deliberate or negligent actions.

    Under the Rome Statute, which governs the international criminal court, it is a war crime to intentionally launch an excessive attack knowing that it will cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment The Geneva conventions require that warring parties do not use methods of warfare that cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”.

    Saeed Bagheri, a lecturer in international law at Reading University, says that while there are disagreements about how to apply these articles, there are enough grounds to investigate the damage done to Gaza’s environment already.

    Abeer al-Butmeh, the coordinator of the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network, says: “The Israeli occupation has completely damaged all elements of life and all environmental elements in Gaza – they completely destroyed the agriculture and wildlife.

    “What is happening is, for sure, ecocide ,” she says. “[It] is completely damaging the environment in Gaza for the long term, not only for the short term.

    “Palestinian people have a strong relationship with the land – they are very connected to their land and also to the sea,” she says. “People in Gaza cannot live without fishing, without farming.

    FA says: “The destruction of agricultural land and infrastructure in Gaza is a deliberate act of ecocide….”…“

    Like

  32. “Pacific islands submit court proposal for recognition of ecocide as a crime

    Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa want international criminal court to class environmental destruction as crime alongside genocide”

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/sep/09/pacific-islands-ecocide-crime-icc-proposal

    Three developing countries have taken the first steps towards transforming the world’s response to climate breakdown and environmental destruction by making ecocide a punishable criminal offence.

    In a submission to the international criminal court on Monday, they propose a change in the rules to recognise “ecocide” as a crime alongside genocide and war crimes.

    If successful, the change could allow for the prosecution of individuals who have brought about environmental destruction, such as the heads of large polluting companies, or heads of state.

    Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa have proposed a formal recognition by the court of the crime of ecocide, defined 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 proposal was tabled before the ICC in New York on Monday afternoon, and will have to be discussed in full at a later date….

    ...Philippe Sands KC, a prominent international lawyer and professor of law at University College London, acted as a co-chair of the independent expert panel for the legal definition of ecocide, convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation. He told the Guardian he was “100% certain” that ecocide would eventually be recognised by the court.

    “The only question is when,” he said. “I was sceptical at first, but now I am a true believer. There has already been real change, as some countries have put it in domestic law. I think this is the right idea at the right time.”

    Belgium recently adopted ecocide as a crime, and the EU has changed some of its guidance on international crime to include it as a “qualified” offence. Mexico is also considering such a law….

    Obviously, I am not opposed to this in principle, not least since it occurs to me that this definition – “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” – is arguably wide enough to cover large-scale and destructive renewable energy projects. Of course, that isn’t what it’s intended to cover….

    Like

  33. The reference to Philippe Sands reminds me of an article I wrote about a public lecture he gave in September 2015 in the UK Supreme Court calling for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to publish an Advisory Opinion about the responsibilities of States under international law regarding the emission of greenhouse gases.

    The ICJ did not follow suit. I suspect he may be no more successful re ecocide.

    Like

  34. “Bill to jail bosses of polluters to be introduced”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0enl0dn8jo

    Proposals for a new law which could see the bosses of major polluters jailed for up to 20 years has received enough support from MSPs to be introduced at Holyrood next year.

    Monica Lennon’s proposed Ecocide Prevention Bill has the backing of enough cross-party members to be brought forward and the Scottish government has indicated that it will not intervene to stop it.

    This would clear the way for the bill to be formally introduced in the Scottish Parliament next year.

    Scotland would be the first part of the UK to have such a law which could impose harsh penalties on executives responsible for major environmental damage.

    Ecocide ​refers to mass damage and destruction of ecosystems – severe harm to nature which is widespread or long-term. Examples could include oil spills, mass deforestation, air or ocean pollution, mining damage and emissions.

    Campaigners believe the crime should come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which can currently prosecute just four crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.

    Regarding that penultimate paragraph, I shall be very interested to see how the relevant provisions are drafted. They have the potential in theory to catch the bosses of renewables developments, but I bet they don’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. “Examples could include mass deforestation“

    Wonder how far back in time that could apply. Luckily UK moved to coal before the last trees were chopped down.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.