The devastation of the natural world is no longer a distant concern. A 2022 report from the United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”) revealed that human activity is responsible for seventy-five percent of global biodiversity loss, with the Amazon rainforest and the Great Barrier Reef as stark examples of the planet’s deteriorating ecosystems.[1] These are just two of the many examples, signaling a global environmental crisis that not only endangers biodiversity but also threatens the health and safety of humanity.[2] In light of these growing concerns, ecocide—the extensive and irreversible destruction of ecosystems—should be classified as an international crime.[3] Recognizing ecocide as an offense within international criminal law would establish a global framework to hold governments, corporations, and individuals accountable for causing widespread ecological harm.[4] Such a move would also underscore the intersection between environmental protection and human rights, emphasizing that the destruction of ecosystems threatens the health and survival of humanity itself.[5]
Ecocide refers to large-scale, systemic damage to the environment that causes long-term harm, particularly when such destruction threatens the survival of ecosystems, communities, or biodiversity.[6] Unlike environmental harm caused by accidents or isolated incidents, ecocide entails deliberate actions or reckless behavior, resulting in widespread environmental destruction of habitats, ecosystems, and communities.[7] Distinguishing ecocide from other forms of environmental harm is crucial because, while environmental degradation can occur accidentally or as the result of negligence, ecocide specifically involves intentional acts or gross disregard for environmental protection, often with lasting, irreversible effects on both the ecosystem and the people who depend on it.[8]
Historically, international law has focused on crimes that directly harm people—such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.[9] However, environmental degradation, largely driven by human negligence and corporate activity, is intrinsically linked to human rights abuses as well.[10] The contamination of water sources, the destruction of farmland, and the poisoning of air affect the most fundamental human rights: the right to life, health, and an adequate standard of living.[11] The ethical argument for recognizing ecocide as a crime is deeply rooted in the concept of intergenerational justice—the belief that current generations bear a responsibility to protect the planet for future generations.[12] This is based on the understanding that the choices made today directly affect the well-being and survival of future populations, and thus, we have an obligation to ensure they inherit a livable planet.[13] As environmentalist A. Dan Tarlock emphasizes, “We as a species, hold the natural and cultural environment of our planet, both with members of the present generation and with other generations.”[14] By formally classifying ecocide as a crime, international law would recognize that environmental degradation is not only an ecological concern but also a profound human rights and moral issue, requiring urgent legal action to safeguard the planet and ensure environmental justice for our current population and future generations.[15]
In recent decades, there has been growing recognition of the profound implications environmental degradation has for human rights.[16] The United Nations’ (“UN”) 2015 Paris Agreement (“Agreement”) on climate change marks a key milestone in the global effort to address environmental harm.[17] The Agreement commits countries to limit global warming to well below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, aiming to prevent catastrophic environmental changes.[18] Exceeding this target could lead to irreversible impacts such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and loss of biodiversity.[19] Moreover, the UN Human Rights Council has increasingly acknowledged the human rights implications of environmental destruction, affirming the right to a healthy environment as part of the broader human rights framework.[20] Despite these advancements, however, international law remains insufficiently equipped to address large-scale environmental destruction, such as ecocide, and existing legal mechanisms often fail to provide adequate deterrence or accountability.[21] Defining ecocide as a crime could help fill this gap in international law by providing a legal basis to prosecute those responsible for large-scale environmental harm, thereby strengthening deterrence and ensuring accountability for corporate and state actors.[22]
For crimes like genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, proof of intent is typically required—meaning the perpetrator acted with a clear, deliberate purpose to cause harm.[23] Ecocide, however, involves large-scale environmental degradation that may result from industrial processes, agricultural activities, or governmental policies that prioritize short-term economic gains over environmental sustainability.[24] Proving intent can be challenging in such cases as the abstract nature of environmental harm makes it difficult to trace direct intent to specific outcome.[25] However, the concept of recklessness may be applicable in ecocide cases, where corporations or governments engage in environmental practices with full knowledge of the potential harm but proceed regardless.[26] Recklessness refers to situations where the perpetrator is aware of a substantial risk of harm, but chooses to proceed in their actions anyways, disregarding the potential consequences.[27] Under this framework, corporations and governments would be held accountable not only for intentional environmental harm but also for practices that foreseeably lead to ecological destruction.[28] This shift would lower the burden of proof and facilitate more consistent accountability, allowing for a broader range of environmental violations to be prosecuted.[29]
Another significant obstacle to addressing ecocide is the resistance from states and corporate actors.[30] Governments, particularly in developing countries, and industries such as oil, mining, and agriculture, often oppose stricter environmental laws, viewing themes as barriers to economic development and industrial growth.[31] For example, in 2020, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faced international criticism for his pro-deforestation policies in the Amazon, despite growing concerns about the region’s critical role in combating climate change.[32] Similarly, large multinational corporations in industries such as oil, mining, and agriculture have historically resisted regulatory frameworks that could expose them to environmental liability.[33] For instance. despite widespread scientific consensus on the need for reduced carbon emissions, ExxonMobil and other companies have lobbied against policies, including carbon taxes and emission caps, and have even downplayed the severity of environmental degradation.[34] However, growing public pressure and heightened awareness of climate change may compel these actors to reassess their positions.
At its core, the classification of ecocide as an international crime is not merely a legal issue—it is a moral and ethical imperative. The destruction of ecosystems not only undermines biodiversity but also infringes upon the fundamental human rights of populations who depend on these ecosystems for food, water, and shelter.[35] This connection between environmental degradation and human rights abuses is particularly evident in the case of Indigenous peoples, who are especially vulnerable in these situations due to their deep, cultural, spiritual, and economic ties to the land.[36] For instance, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest—driven largely by agribusiness and mining—jeopardizes the livelihoods and cultural survival of Indigenous communities in Brazil as these communities rely on the forest for food, medicine, shelter, and cultural practices.[37] These communities often have little recourse, as the governments that should protect them are complicit in the very destruction they endure, either through direct enablement or a failure to enforce protections.[38] As E. Tendayi Achiume, UN Special Rapporteur, argues, “The devastating effects of ecological crisis are disproportionately borne by racially, ethnically and nationally marginalized groups.”[39]
There is increasing global support for recognizing ecocide as an international crime.[40] Movements such as Stop Ecocide International are advocating for the adoption of a legal definition of ecocide by the International Criminal Court, establishing a clear and enforceable framework for prosecution.[41] These movements are gaining significant international endorsements, with influential figures such as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and numerous international lawyers advocating for stronger environmental protections.[42] In 2021, Vanuatu, a Pacific Island nation particularly vulnerable to climate change, proposed a resolution at the UN to recognize ecocide as a crime under international law.[43] This proposal reflects the growing recognition of the need to address environmental harm in a manner akin to other international crimes, such as genocide and crimes against humanity.[44] By framing ecocide not only as an environmental issue but also as a human rights and justice concern, advocates are helping to catalyze international policy change.[45]
The moral obligation to prevent ecocide is undeniable: human rights and the health of the planet are inextricably linked.[46] As international law has evolved to address crimes like genocide and war crimes, it must similarly evolve to include environmental destruction as a crime of equal gravity.[47] The growing body of legal scholarship and political support for recognizing ecocide as an international crime reflects the urgent need for legal accountability for environmental harm. While resistance persists, the ethical and legal rationale for this classification is compelling. [48] As the global community confronts increasingly severe environmental degradation, recognizing ecocide as an international crime will be a crucial step in safeguarding ecosystems, protecting human rights, and ensuring the well-being of future generations.[49]
[1] Making Peace With Nature: A Scientific Blueprint to Tackle the Climate, Biodiversity and Pollution Emergencies, U.N. ENV’T PROGRAMME, at 25 (2021); Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss; WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss, at 25 (2020).
[2] See Shilu Tong et al., Current and Future Threats to Human Health in the Anthropocene, ENV’T INT’L, 1, 3 (Elsevier 2022).
[3] Legal Definition of Ecocide: Report of the Independent Expert Panel, INDEPENDENT EXPERT PANEL FOR THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF ECOCIDE, at 9 (2021).
[4] See Vanessa Schwegler, The Disposable Nature: The Case of Ecocide and Corporate Accountability, 9 AMSTERDAM LAW F. 72, 88-90 (2017).
[5] See Liana G. Minkova, Ecocide, Sustainable Development and Critical Environmental Law Insights, 22 J. INT’L CRIM. JUST. 81, 84 (2024).
[6] See Adam Branch & Liana Minkova, Ecocide, the Anthropocene, and the International Criminal Court, 37 ETHICS & INT’L AFFAIRS, 52 (2023).
[7] See Rachel Killean & Damien Short, Scoping a Domestic Legal Framework for Ecocide in Scotland, ENV’T RTS. CTR. OF SCOTLAND, at 22 (Mar. 2021).
[8] See Darryl Robinson, Ecocide – Puzzles and Possibilities, 20 J. INT’L CRIM. JUST., 314, 331, 344 (May 2022).
[9] Id. at 319.
[10] See E.W. Chu & J.R. Karr, Environmental Impact: Concept, Consequences, Measurement, in REFERENCE MODULE IN LIFE SCIENCES 1, 10 (Elsevier 2017).
[11] Id.
[12] A. D. Tarlock, International Water Law and the Protection of River System Ecosystem Integrity, 10 BYU J. PUB. L. 181, 210 (1996).
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] See Matthew Gillett, Using International Criminal Law to Protect the Environment During and After Non-International Armed Conflict, in ECO-STRUGGLES, 220, 224-25, 236 (2017).
[16] Human Rights Council Res. 48/13 U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/48/13, at 2 (Oct. 8, 2021).
[17] Conference of the Parties, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, U.N. Doc FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1 (Dec. 12. 2015).
[18] Id. at 4.
[19] Special Rep. Global Warming of 1.5°C, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, (Ch.1) 49, 61, 69.
[20] Human Rights Council Res., supra note 16, at 2.
[21] See Minkova, supra note 5, at 87.
[22] See Lisa Oldring & Kate Mackintosh, The Crime of Ecocide Through Human Rights: A New Tool for Climate Justice, INT’L CRIMESDATABASE, 1, 16 (May 2022).
[23]Elements of Crimes, INT’L CRIM. CT., at 1 (2013), available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf.
[24] See Branch & Minkova, supra note 6, at 54.
[25] Id.
[26] See Clifford Chance, A Game Changer for Ecosystem Protection? THE ENV’T CRIME DIRECTIVE 1, 8 (2024).
[27] Reckless, LEGAL INFO. INST., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless.
[28] See Schwegler, supra note 4, at 91.
[29] Id.
[30] See Frank W. Geels, Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transition: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective, THEORY, CULTURE, & SOC’Y, 21, 28 (2014).
[31] Id. at 26.
[32] See Richard Perez, Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon under Jair Bolsonaro’s Reign: A Growing Ecological Disaster and How It May Be Reduced, 52 U. MIAMI INTER-AM. L. REV. 195, 211 (Spring/Summer 2021).
[33] See Antoine Dechezlepretre & Misato Sato, The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness, 11 REV. OF ENV’T ECON. & POL’Y, 183, 186-87.
[34] See Geoffrey Supran & Naomi Oreskes, Rhetoric and Frame Analysis of ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications, ONE EARTH 696, 710-12 (May 21, 2021).
[35] See Chu & Karr, supra note 10, at 10.
[36] See Carla Davis-Castro, Indigenous Peoples in Latin America: Statistical Information, CONG. RSCH. SERV., 1, 18 (2023); Shiham Drissi, Indigenous Peoples and The Nature They Protect, U.N. ENV’T PROGRAMME, (June 8. 2020).
[37] See Winston P. Nagan & Judit K. Otvos, Legal Theory and the Anthropocene Challenge: The Implications of Law, Science, and Policy for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Climate Change: The Expanding the Constraining Boundaries of Legal Space and Time and the Challenge of the Anthropocene, 12 J. L. & SOC. CHALLENGES 150, 187, 190, 212 (2010).
[38] Id. at 187.
[39] E. Tendayi Achiume (Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance), Ecological Crisis, Climate Justice and Racial Justice, ¶ 1, U.N. Doc. A/77/549 (Oct. 25, 2022).
[40] See FAQs – Ecocide & The Law, STOP ECOCIDE INT’L, https://www.stopecocide.earth/faqs-ecocide-the-law; Message from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on World Environment Day, UN (2014), https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/2014/06/message-from-united-nations-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon-on-world-environment-day/; Rep. of the Int’l Ct. of Just., Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, U.N. Doc A/77/L.58 (2023).
[41] FAQs – Ecocide & The Law, STOP ECOCIDE INT’L, https://www.stopecocide.earth/faqs-ecocide-the-law.
[42] Message from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on World Environment Day, UN (2014), https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/2014/06/message-from-united-nations-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon-on-world-environment-day/.
[43] Rep. of the Int’l Ct. of Just., Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, U.N. Doc A/77/L.58 (2023).
[44] San Kwon, Vanuatu Leads Recent Initiatives in the International Push for Environmental Justice, EARTH L. CTR. (Oct. 16 2024).
[45] Id.
[46] See Chu & Karr, supra note 10, at 10.
[47] See Robinson, supra note 8, at 319.
[48] See Geels, supra note 28, at 28.
[49] See Gillett, supra note 15, at 224-25, 236.
