Ecocide, or ecocatastrophe, is the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss
of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by
other, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of
that territory has been or will be severely diminished. Ecocide may have
been previously used to refer to a very potent pesticide, particularly 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate).
Anthropogenic ecocide
Ecocide as a proposed international crime
The concept of ecocide as an international crime originated in the 1970s.In 2010 it was proposed that the Rome Statute be amended to include the international crime of Ecocide. The proposal was submitted to the United Nations International Law Commission who are '‘'mandated to promote the progressive development of international law and its codification’. The definition proposed includes provisions for both individual and state responsibility and would be a strict liability crime(including both intent and negligence). It would create a duty of care in events of naturally occurring ecocide as well as creating criminal responsibility for human caused ecocide.
Severity of environmental harm
To be considered an ecocide under the proposed law, an environmental harm would need to be widespread, long lasting or severe. This is the parameter based disjunctive test, as already set out under the 1977 United Nations Convention on Environmental Modification, which specifies the terms ‘widespread’, ‘long-lasting’ or ‘severe’ as:- widespread: encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers; and/or
- long-lasting: lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season; and/or
- severe: involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.
History
1970The word was recorded at the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington 1970, where Arthur Galston proposed a new international agreement to ban ecocide. Galston was a US biologist who identified the defoliant effects of a chemical later developed into Agent Orange. Subsequently a bioethicist, he was the first in 1970 to name massive damage and destruction of ecosystems as an ecocide.
In an obiter dictum in the 1970 Barcelona Traction case judgement, the International Court of Justice identified a category of international obligations called erga omnes, namely obligations owed by states to the international community as a whole, intended to protect and promote the basic values and common interests of all.
1972
In 1972 at the United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment which adopted the Stockholm Declaration, Olof Palme the Prime Minister of Sweden, in his opening speech spoke explicitly of the Vietnam war as an ecocide and it was discussed in the unofficial events running parallel to the official UN Stockholm Conference on Human Environment. Others, including Indira Gandhi from India and Tang Ke, the leader of the Chinese delegation, also denounced the war in human and environmental terms. They too called for ecocide to be an international crime[citation needed]. A Working Group on Crimes Against the Environment was formed at the conference, and a draft Ecocide Convention was submitted into the United Nations in 1973.
Dai Dong, a branch of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation sponsored a Convention on Ecocidal War which took place in Stockholm, Sweden. The Convention brought together many people including experts Richard A. Falk, expert on the international law of war crimes and Robert Jay Lifton, a psychohistorian. The Convention called for a United Nations Convention on Ecocidal Warfare, which would amongst other matters seek to define and condemn ecocide as an international crime of war. Richard A. Falk drafted an Ecocide Convention in 1973, explicitly stating at the outset to recognise "that man has consciously and unconsciously inflicted irreparable damage to the environment in times of war and peace".
Westing's view was that the element of intent did not always apply. "Intent may not only be impossible to establish without admission but, I believe, it is essentially irrelevant."
1978
Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind discussions commence. At the same time, State responsibility and international crimes are discussed and drafted.
The ILC 1978 Yearbook's 'Draft articles on State Responsibility and International Crime' included: "an international crime (which) may result, inter alia, from: (d) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for the safeguarding and preservation of the human environment, such as those prohibiting massive pollution of the atmosphere or of the seas." Supporters who spoke out in favour of a crime of ecocide included Romania and the Holy See, Austria, Poland, Rwanda, Congo and Oman
1985
Ecocide as a crime continued to be addressed. The Whitaker Report, commissioned by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide was prepared by then Special Rapporteur, Benjamin Whitaker. The report contained a passage that "some members of the Sub-Commission have, however, proposed that the definition of genocide should be broadened to include cultural genocide or "ethnocide", and also "ecocide": adverse alterations, often irreparable, to the environment - for example through nuclear explosions, chemical weapons, serious pollution and acid rain, or destruction of the rain forest - which threaten the existence of entire populations, whether deliberately or with criminal negligence."
1987
Discussion of international crimes continued in the International Law Commission, where it was proposed that "the list of international crimes include "ecocide", as a reflection of the need to safeguard and preserve the environment, as well as the first use of nuclear weapons, colonialism, apartheid, economic aggression and mercenarism".
1991
The ILC 'Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind' of 1991 contained 12 crimes. One of those was 'wilful damage to the environment (Article 26)'.
1993
As of 29 March 1993, the Secretary-General had received 23 replies from Member States and one reply from a non-member State. They were: Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Greece, Netherlands, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden), Paraguay, Poland, Senegal, Sudan, Turkey, UK, USA, Uruguay and Switzerland. Many objections were raised, for summarised commentary see the 1993 ILC Yearbook. Only three countries, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, opposed the inclusion of an environmental crime. The issue of adding a high test of intent (‘wilful’) was of concern: Austria commented: "Since perpetrators of this crime are usually acting out of a profit motive, intent should not be a condition for liability to punishment." Belgium and Uruguay also took the position that no element of intent was necessary for the crime of severe damage to the environment (Article 26).
1996
In 1996, Canadian/Australian lawyer Mark Gray published his proposal for an international crime of ecocide, based on established international environmental and human rights law. He demonstrated that states, and arguably individuals and organisations, causing or permitting harm to the natural environment on a massive scale breach a duty of care owed to humanity in general. He proposed that such breaches, where deliberate, reckless or negligent, be identified as ecocide where they entail serious, and extensive or lasting, ecological damage; international consequences; and waste.
Meanwhile, in the ILC, ‘wilful and severe damage to the environment’ (Article 26) had been tasked to a working-group: "The Commission further decided that consultations would continue as regards [Article 26] …the Commission decided … to establish a working group that would meet … to examine the possibility of covering in the draft Code the issue of wilful and severe damage to the environment ... the Commission decided by a vote to refer to the Drafting Committee only the text prepared by the working group for inclusion of wilful and severe damage to the environment as a war crime. "
1998
The final Draft Code was used as inspiration for the Rome Statute at the United Nations United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, which was held in Rome. The Rome Statute was the founding document of the International Criminal Court (ICC), to be used when a state is either unwilling or unable to bring their own prosecutions for international crimes.
Ecocide was not included in the Rome Statute as a separate crime, but featured in relation to a war-crime. The test for this war crime was narrower than previous proposed tests. Under the Environmental Modification Convention 1977 (ENMOD) the test for war-time environmental destruction is ‘widespread, long-term or severe’, whereas Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute 1998 modified the ENMOD test with the change of one word to ‘widespread, long-term and severe.’ Article 8(2)(b) limited environmental harm to circumstances when "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated."
2010
The proposal for the crime of Ecocide was submitted to the United Nations by a private party. In March 2010, British "earth lawyer" Polly Higgins submitted to the United Nations an amendment to the Rome Statute, proposing that “ecocide” be legally recognised as the fifth international Crime against peace. The Rome Statute currently acknowledges four crimes against peace: genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime of aggression. Each of these crimes affects human victims. While Higgins’ proposed definition of ecocide attends to inhabitants’ “peaceful enjoyment”, the victim the amendment is primarily promising to protect is not human but environmental.
2011
A mock Ecocide Act was drafted and then tested in the UK Supreme Court via a mock trial by the Hamilton Group.
2012
A concept paper on the Law of Ecocide was sent out to governments In June 2012 the idea of making ecocide a crime was presented to legislators and judges from around the world at the World Congress on Justice Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability, held in Mangaratiba before the Rio +20 Earth Summit, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Making ecocide an international crime was voted as one of the top twenty solutions to achieving sustainable development at the World Youth Congress in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012.
In October 2012 a range of experts gathered at the international conference Environmental Crime: Current and Emerging Threats[40] held in Rome at the UN Food and Agricultural Organization Headquarters hosted by the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute(UNICRI) in cooperation with United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the Ministry of the Environment (Italy). The conference recognized that environmental crime is an important new form of transnational organized crime in need a greater response. One of the outcomes was that UNEP and UNICRI head up a study into the definition of environmental crime, new environmental crime and give due consideration to the history of making ecocide an international crime once again.
2013 - 2014
European citizen Initiative for criminalising ecocide
On January 22, 2013, a committee of eleven citizens from nine EU countries officially launched the "European Citizens Initiative "End Ecocide in Europe". The European Citizens' Initiative, or ECI, is a tool created by the Lisbon Treaty to promote participative and direct democracy. The ECI is a way for EU citizens to propose new or suggest amendments to legislation directly to the European Commission which is the institution proposing new EU laws. This initiative aimed at criminalising ecocide, the extensive damage and destruction of ecosystems, including the denial of market access for products based on ecocide to the EU and investments in activities causing ecocide. Three MEPs, Keith Taylor, Eva Joly, and Jo Leinen, publicly gave the first signatures. The initiative did not collect the 1 million signatures needed, but was discussed in the European Parliament.
