The International Criminal Court: A Solution to Ecocide?
The author is a rising Sophomore at Laurel School in Ohio.
Over the past few decades, climate issues have only been growing, with no end in sight. People show little care for the world around them and destroy the environment, often with no repercussions. However, there may be a solution to reach accountability and environmental justice all across the globe.
What is the International Criminal Court?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) “aims to hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.” The court tries criminals from across the globe, but is “a court of last resort” and only convenes when nations fail to work on certain cases. Currently, the ICC holds trials for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, and war crimes, so how does the environment play into this? Well, ecocide has been proposed in recent years as a new crime under the International Criminal Court.
What is ecocide?
The Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA explains that ecocide is 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.”
Ecocides across the globe threaten both the environment and climate justice, as these actions harm the planet and those inhabiting it.
Photo courtesy of pixabay.com
What is the ICC’s stance on ecocide?
Currently, the ICC still only recognizes the four founding crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, and war crimes. However, as reported in an article by Milena Sterio in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, there is one provision under war crimes in Article 8(2)(b) that signifies that military attacks may be punishable if they result in severe environmental devastation that is distinctly excessive and intentional. Yet, there has been no enforcement of these rules thus far, and they only apply to wartimes.
Furthermore, Stop Ecocide International writes that “Article 8(2)(b)(iv) does not provide an effective deterrent, only applying in the context of leadership decisions in international armed conflict.” Moreover, the statement in Article 8(2)(b) puts military benefits ahead of the protection of the climate. In fact, part of the provisions in Article 8(2)(b) explain that “the damage must be clearly excessive in relation to the military benefit anticipated.”
Organizations like Stop Ecocide International are aiming for the crime of ecocide to be added. By setting an international precedent for ecocide, the ICC could aim to prevent crimes against the environment, mitigating the devastating harms of the climate crisis. Jojo Mehta, a co-founder of Stop Ecocide International, furthers that “Conviction for ecocide would require demonstrating willful disregard for the consequences of actions such as deforestation, reckless drilling and mining. This threshold implicates a number of global and corporate leaders through their complicity in deforesting the Amazon and Congo basins, drilling recklessly in the Arctic and the Niger delta, or permitting unsustainable palm oil plantations in south-east Asia, among other destructive practices.”
Ralph Regenvanu, an official focused on climate change for the Republic of Vanuatu, corroborates that “Legal recognition of severe and widespread environmental harm holds significant potential to ensure justice and, crucially, to deter further destruction.”
What is the process of adding ecocide to the ICC?
The proposal made in September 2024 had the backing of islands like Fiji and Samoa, which are some of the countries that are likely to feel the harshest effects of the climate disaster, article by Phillip Drost. Additionally, nations including Vanuatu, Belgium, and the Maldives are in support of this fifth crime being added. If ecocide is recognized as one of the crimes by the ICC, it will not only set an international precedent but will also encourage nations to create their own policies surrounding crimes against the environment. However, Payum Akhavan, a professor at the University of Toronto and a former advisor for the ICC, believes that including ecocide under the Rome Statute won’t be a “magic wand” to climate crimes, as international law can result in various interpretations. Another concern is the ICC’s failure to manage its current state of crimes.
To add this new rule into the statute, two-thirds of ICC member nations would have to approve. The issues discussed above may dissuade countries from voting in favor of this plan.
Stop Ecocide International concludes that adding ecocide to the statute would likely result in more climate protection at every level. Moreover, it would be a global signal of the importance of mitigating climate change. This would aid in “creating enforceable environmental protections for people and nature, on earth and in space, for present and future generations.”
However, it is still unclear how effective this improvement would be, and whether or not countries will come together to make this groundbreaking change. While the future of this potential fifth crime is uncertain, it is imperative that accountability is fostered —whether it be through the ICC or another organization in order to preserve the environment for years to come.
