international law- master thesis - tilburg university
TRANSCRIPT
1
Masterthesis
‘OptionsforaddressinginstancesofecologicalharmundertheRomeStatute,theaddedvalueofanautonomousinternationalcrimeof
ecocide,anditshurdles’.
TilburgUniversityFacultyofLawLLMInternationalandEuropeanLaw
• InternationalLawandHumanRightsTrackFirstsupervisor:ProfessorMelissaLewisSecondsupervisor:ProfessorArieTrouwborstStudent:CélinevandenBergStudentnumber:U1257842ANR:190190
2
TableofContent
1Introduction,legalissueandmethodology........................................................................................31.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................31.2LegalIssue........................................................................................................................................................................41.3StructureandMethodology......................................................................................................................................7
2Howhasecocidebeendefinedbydifferentlegalscholarsandarethereanycommonelementsinthesedefinitions?.................................................................................................................112.1Thestartoftheecocidedebate............................................................................................................................112.1.1ArthurW.Galston:1970......................................................................................................................................112.1.2OlofPalme:1972.....................................................................................................................................................122.1.3RichardA.Falk:1973...........................................................................................................................................132.1.4LynnBerat:1993....................................................................................................................................................152.1.5LudwikA.Teclaff:1994.......................................................................................................................................162.1.6MarkAllenGray:1995.........................................................................................................................................162.1.7StevenFreeland:2005..........................................................................................................................................172.1.8MishkatAlMoumin:2008...................................................................................................................................182.1.9PollyHiggins:2010................................................................................................................................................18
2.2Concludingremarks..................................................................................................................................................20
3TheInternationalCriminalCourtandtheRomeStatute............................................................223.1Thehistoryofinternationalcriminallaw........................................................................................................223.2TheestablishmentoftheInternationalCriminalCourt............................................................................24
4TowhatextentcanindividualsbeheldcriminallyliableforenvironmentaldestructionunderthecrimescurrentlyrecognizedbytheRomeStatute,andwhatarethebenefitsandshortcomingsofprosecutingenvironmentaldestructionunderthesecrimes?....................264.1Genocide.........................................................................................................................................................................264.1.1‘TheProsecutorv.OmarHassanAhmadAlBashir’.................................................................................274.1.2Theactusreusandmensrearequirementsforthecrimeofgenocide...........................................28
4.2.Crimesagainsthumanity.......................................................................................................................................294.3Thesoleecocentricwarcrimesprovision:Article8(2)(b)(iv)..............................................................314.3.1Thehistoryoftheecocentricwarcrimesprovision................................................................................314.3.2TheshortcomingsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv).......................................................................................................34
4.4Ecocideandthecrimeofaggression..................................................................................................................384.5InwhatwaysmightanautonomouscrimeofecocidemakeupfortheshortcomingsofthecurrentRomeStatutecrimes?......................................................................................................................................40
5Whyisitinsufficienttoaddressecocidethroughnationallawsalone?................................445.1Theaddedvalueofaninternationallawonecocide..................................................................................47
6IncorporatingnewinternationalcrimesundertheRomeStatute..........................................496.1EcocideasafifthinternationalcrimeundertheRomeStatute.............................................................496.2Areasofdivergencebetweenexistingdefinitionsandaproposedwayforward..........................526.3Concludingremarks..................................................................................................................................................54
7Ifecocideisrecognizedasaninternationalcrime,isthesuperiorresponsibilitydoctrineafeasibleavenueforholdingcompanydirectorscriminallyliableforenvironmentaldamage?...........................................................................................................................................................557.1TheProsecutorv.AlfredMusema..........................................................................................................................587.2TheProsecutorv.FerdinandNahimana,Jean-BoscoBarayagwiza,HassanNgeze..........................597.3Concludingremarks..................................................................................................................................................60
8Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................61
9Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................67
3
1Introduction,legalissueandmethodology
1.1 IntroductionOn the 1st of July 1998, the Rome Statutewas adopted and later entered into
forcein2002;theStatutecurrentlyhas123StateParties1.AccordingtoArticle5,
theStatutehasjurisdictionoverthefourmostseriouscrimesintheinternational
community, namely: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the
crime of aggression2. This makes the International Criminal Court the first
permanent international judicialbody thathas thecapacity tohear individuals
forsuchcrimes;itisalsoabletoreviewcasesthatnationalcourtsareunableor
unwillingtodo3.
Whileecocidecanbedefinedinmanydifferentways,accordingtointernational
environmental lawyer Polly Higgins it refers to the “extensive destruction,
damagetoorlossofecosystem(s)ofagiventerritory,whetherbyhumanagencyor
by other causes, to suchan extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of
that territory has been severely diminished”4. According to Polly Higgins, along
with many other legal scholars such as Arthur W. Galston, Olof Palme and
RichardA.Falk,thecrimeofecocideshouldbeaddedtotheRomeStatuteasthe
fifth international crime5. The reason being that thus far there is no single
international definition of ecocide and no internationally recognized law to
address mass destruction of the earth. Since there is no single treaty in
internationallawthatestablishestheprinciplesandrulesofgeneralapplication
to all hazardous substances or activities6, this generally means that it is very
challenging to hold individuals accountable for environmental harms under
internationallaw.
1"UN, UnitedNations, UN Treaties, Treaties."RomeStatuteof the InternationalCriminalCourt.TreatyCollection.2"RomeStatuteof1998."CrimeswithintheJurisdictionoftheCourt,Article5.3"UnderstandingtheInternationalCriminalCourt."CrimeswithintheJurisdictionoftheICC,13.4"TheEcocideProject."HumanRightsConsortium.UniversityofLondon.5 Wijdekop, Femke. "The Duty to Care for Our Common Home." Ecocide, a crime underInternationalLaw.FeatureEcocide.6Higgins,Polly."HoldingBusinesstoAccount."EradicatingEcocide.Page93.Print.
4
1.2LegalIssueThemainquestionsthisthesisaimstoanswerare: Whatoptionsarecurrently
available for addressing instances of ecological harm under the Rome Statute,
what would be the added value of introducing ecocide as an autonomous
international crime, and what are the potential hurdles that may arise in
establishingandprosecutingsuchacrime?
Themaincomponentsof the thesisdealwithdefining ‘ecocide’; identifying the
shortcomings of the existing Rome Statute crimes, and of national-level
prohibitions of ecocide when wanting to prosecute individuals for ecological
harm.Inlightoftheseshortcomings,thethesiswillcriticallydiscussthepossible
addedvalueofintroducingecocideasanautonomousinternationalcrime;andit
will examine thepotentialhurdles thatmayarise inestablishingecocideasan
internationalcrimeandusing it toprosecute instancesofecologicalharmonce
establishedwithregardstothesuperiorresponsibilitydoctrine.
Theimportanceofthisresearchinvolvesthefactthatenvironmentaldestruction
is problematic for the living conditions on planet earth. It is considered
problematicbecauseenvironmentaldestructionisoneofthelargestthreatsthat
theworldisfacingtoday.Theplanet'snaturalecosystemsandregeneratingbio-
capacity are being severely degraded and, as a result, this compromises the
ability of the planet to sustain life7. Many natural ecosystems such as forests,
fisheries, oceans, lakesand rivesareall threatened.Moreover,water, landand
airaregettingincreasinglypollutedwhichleadstoglobalwarmingandcausing
speciestodiea1000timesfasterthantheirnaturalrateofextinction8.
Theexistingenvironmentallawsarenotabletopreventmassdestruction.This
isdue to the fact that there is amixtureof insufficientmechanisms to enforce
compliance and existing laws being insufficiently onerous. Moreover, the
problemalso lieswith the fact thatneitherpoliticalentitiesnorbusinessesare7United Nations, ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development’, OurCommonFuture.8United Nations, ‘Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development’, OurCommonFuture.
5
goingtotakeactionspontaneouslytobringanendtothewidespreaddamaging
anddestructionofecosystems9.Togiveanexample,theParisAgreementwhich
enteredintoforceonthe4thofNovember2016aimsto:“strengthentheglobal
response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise
this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to
pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees
Celsius” 10 . Even though 175 parties ratified the Convention, enforcement
mechanismsforclimatechangetargetshavenotbeenimplementedintheParis
Agreement11.Withoutthelegalforceofanenforcementmechanism,thereareno
international sanctions for noncompliance. On the one hand, having
international sanctionswhenStates fail tokeep temperaturesbelow2degrees
Celsiuswouldbebeneficial foravertingclimatechange in the longrun.On the
otherhand,whenhavingsuchstrictenforcementmechanisms,itishighlylikely
thatcertainStateswouldchoosetonotratifysuchaninternationalagreement.
Additionally, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
issued a starkwarning on the 15th ofMarch 2012 inwhich it stated: “carbon
dioxide emissions from energy use are expected to grow by 70% in the next
thirty-eight years because of our dependence on fossil fuels”12. This yet again
showsthatthereareinsufficientchangesbeingmadewithinthebusinessworld
andpoliticalsphereregardingthelawsonenvironmentaldamage13.
Overallthisthesiswill indicatethatovertheyearstherehavebeendiscussions
on the regulation of ecocide by different members of the International Law
Commission,theUNandsofartencountrieshavemadeprovisionsforthecrime
of ecocide within their national regulations. However, since there is no
internationallyrecognizedlawonecocide,itisworthwhileinvestigatingwhether
internationalcriminallawwouldserveasanapproachinwhichaninternational
9Higgins,Polly."HoldingBusinesstoAccount."EradicatingEcocide.Page93.Print.10UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange.“UNFCCC”.TheParisAgreement.11UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange.“UNFCCC”.TheParisAgreement.12Higgins, Polly. “TheLawof Ecocide.” ‘Earth is our business, changing the rules of the game’,Page17.Print13Higgins, Polly. “TheLawof Ecocide.” ‘Earth is our business, changing the rules of the game’,Page17.Print
6
lawonecocidecouldbecreated.Hence,thethesiswillexplorenewandexisting
lawsatnationaland international level inordertodeterminethebestpossible
way to create a global standard of care in which there will be ecological
responsibilityandaccountabilityforsuchdestruction.
7
1.3StructureandMethodologySection 2 of the thesiswill start off by explaining how different legal scholars
have defined ecocide since the 1970s. History shows that in the past legal
scholars such as Richard A. Falk and ArthurW. Galston considered the Rome
Statuteasanappropriateplatformtohold individualsaccountable forecocidal
acts14. Many of these legal scholars proposed their own definition on ecocide.
Theirdefinitionsillustratethattherearetwomainwaysinwhichecocidecanbe
defined, namely: ‘environmental warfare in which the environment is
intentionally harmed’ or as ‘a crime in which an ecosystem is harmed and in
whichhumanrightsareviolated’.Thismeansthataccordingtothesedefinitions,
individualscouldbeprosecutedbywayofintent,bywayofnegligenceorbyway
ofstrictliability.Duetoalackofagreementononecommondefinition,thereis
thus far no single definition, which has been a significant hurdle to the
recognition of ecocide as an autonomous international crime. Before any
amendmentoftheRomeStatutecantakeplace,onedefinitiononecocidewould
havetobecreatedandbe internationallyagreedupon.Moreover, italsoraises
thequestionwhetherecocideshouldonlyencompassmilitaryactivitiesoralso
corporate actions, andwhether or not intention is a necessary element of the
crime.
Section 3 explains the history of how the International Criminal Court came
aboutandillustrateshowtheCourtoperates,whichisimportantwhenwanting
toestablishthepossibilitiesofprosecutingindividualsbeforetheCourt.
Section4ofthethesiswillproceedtoanalyzethepossibleoptionstoprosecute
individuals for ecological harm under the crimes currently recognized by the
RomeStatute,andtheextenttowhichthesecrimesareabletoaddressinstances
of ecocide. This is important to analyze as it helps in determiningwhether an
autonomous international crime on ecocide would be necessary or whether
more priority should be given to using the existing international crimes to
14Falk,RichardA."EnvironmentalWarfareandEcocideFacts,AppraisalandProposals."
8
prosecute individuals for environmental damage. Overall, this section will
indicate that the Rome Statute contains a provision which relates to
environmental damage namely under Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the war crimes
provision.However,thisprovisiondealsspecificallywithwartimesandnotwith
peace times. Also, there are certain possibilities to prosecute individuals for
environmentalrelatedcrimesunder thegenocideandcrimesagainsthumanity
provisions. However, these provisions do not come without hurdles. For
instance,certaincriteriaarenotclearlydefinedwhichmakesitdifficulttofulfill
therequirementsneededinordertoprosecute.Thesecriteriainvolvetheactus
reusandmensrearequirementswhichareneededtodeterminethecriminalact
and the intent of the environmental crime. Although the existing crimes can
theoretically be used to address some instances of environmental destruction,
theyhave inherent limitations,whichprevent themfrombeingable toaddress
all instancesofecocide.Therefore,creatinganautonomous internationalcrime
of ecocide would be an alternative option when wanting to hold individuals
liable for such crimes. However, also creating an autonomous international
crimeofecocidewillnotbewithouthurdles.
Section5willidentifythealreadyexistingnationallawsonecocideandexamine
whethertheyareeffectiveregardingholdingindividualsliableforenvironmental
destruction. It adds to the argument of why there is a need for international
accountability for individuals who have committed acts of ecocide. As this
sectionwillpointout,therearecurrently10countriesthatrecognizethecrime
of ecocide as a ‘crime against peace’ and have implemented it through their
national law. These countries are: “Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan and Vietnam”15 . These
countries,unlikeinternationallaw,diddevelopsomesortofcommondefinition
on ecocide. Certain common elements can be found within these national
criminal codes with regards to the poisoning of the flora and fauna and the
punishmentthereof.Alsomanyothercountriesthatdonothaveanational law
on ecocide still do nevertheless criminalize various types of environmental
15 "Eradicating Ecocide."Existing Ecocide Laws, “Criminalizing Ecosystem Destruction”,‘Internationalroadmaptoearthprotectionandclimatejustice’.
9
destruction. However, there are various reasons why these laws are still
insufficientandwhythereshouldbeaninternationalrecognizedlawonecocide.
For instance, the downside of these national laws is that they are not very
successfulwithregardstotheenforcementofthelawandtherespectfortherule
oflaw16.Thatistosay,manyofthecountrieswithnationalecocidelawsinplace
arerankedveryhighlyforcorruptionandlowforrespectfortheruleof lawby
‘Transparency International’ 17 . Therefore, this section concludes that an
international law on ecocide would be an added value for providing
accountabilityforindividualsguiltyofperformingactsofecocide.
Section 6 looks at the possible options to create an autonomous international
crime of ecocide. The Rome Statute is the main legislation used by the
InternationalCourt,whichcontainsaprovisionthatallowstheincorporationof
new international crimes. This is an important provision as it gives the
opportunitytomakeecocideanautonomousinternationalcrime.However,this
sectionalsoindicatesthatthebiggestpopulatedcountriesintheworldhavenot
ratifiedtheStatute,whichleadstothequestionwhetheritisworthwhiletofocus
uponthe InternationalCriminalCourt forprosecuting individuals forcrimesof
ecocide.Theseareimportantchallengestotakeintoconsiderationwhenwanting
toaddress instancesofecocide throughtheRomeStatute.Furthermore, in this
sectiona‘made-up’definitiononecocideisgiven.Thethesissuggeststhatifsuch
aninternationaldefinitiononecocidewouldbecreated,itwillhelptoovercome
manyofthehurdlesdiscussedinthethesis.Ifinthefutureofinternationallaw,
suchacommondefinitiononecocidewouldbecreated,ideallyitwouldfocuson
strictliabilityratherthanintentduetothefulfillmentofnecessarymensreaand
actusreusrequirements.
Section 7 explains the possibilities for prosecuting individuals for crimes of
ecocide under the superior-subordinate doctrine of the Rome Statute, if an
autonomous crime of ecocide were ever to be included. This is an important
16 "Eradicating Ecocide."Existing Ecocide Laws, “Criminalizing Ecosystem Destruction”,‘Internationalroadmaptoearthprotectionandclimatejustice’.17 "Eradicating Ecocide."Existing Ecocide Laws, “Criminalizing Ecosystem Destruction”,‘Internationalroadmaptoearthprotectionandclimatejustice’.
10
considerationindeterminingwhetheritisworthamendingtheRomeStatuteto
includeecocideasthefifthinternationalrecognizedcrime.Moreover,thisoption
canbe usedwhen there is not sufficient evidence of direct individual criminal
responsibilityfromthesuperiorandwillthusserveasasubsidiaryprovision.In
this way, CEOs and directors of certain companies could be prosecuted.
Moreover,Article28oftheRomeStatutelaysoutthefourrequirementsneeded
inordertoestablishasuperior-subordinaterelationship,namely:“1)theremust
be a superior-subordinate relationship inwhicheffective control ispresent, 2)
knowledgeormensreaofthecrimeswhichwerecommitted,3)theobligationto
prevent or punish the crime, 4) the crime is the result of the violated duty of
control”18.Furthermore,thissectionwillexplainthatitisratherdifficulttofulfill
all four criteria, which will be further explained through case law and will
indicate that most of the cases have led to acquittals while there were only
several cases in which corporate leaders were convicted. Certain aspects of
Article28wouldhavetobeamendedinordertoconsideritasafeasibleavenue
whenwantingtocreateanautonomousinternationalcrimeonecocide.
Section8willcriticallylookbackuponallthesectionsdiscussedthroughoutthe
thesis.Itwillconcludethatthecurrentavailableoptionsforholdingindividuals
accountableforcrimesofecocideundertheRomeStatuteremainunsatisfactory
on an international level. The thesis concludes that theworld is in need of an
autonomous international crime on ecocide as an added value to prosecute
individuals.However,as theresearchwill indicate,manypotentialhurdleswill
also arise when trying to accomplish making ecocide the fifth international
recognizedcrime.
Inordertoconductthisresearch,thethesiswillmostlylookattheRomeStatute
which is the main treaty used by the International Criminal Court. Moreover,
different case law will be analyzed along with legal proposals made by legal
scholars. Furthermore, international treaties and national laws will also be
explained.
18Jansen, René. "Prosecuting Corporate Leaders for Environmental Damage in InternationalCriminalLaw."DefiningtheCrimeofEcocideandItsAddedValuetotheRomeStatute.
11
2Howhasecocidebeendefinedbydifferentlegalscholarsandarethereanycommonelementsinthesedefinitions?Ever since the beginning of the 1970smany contributions have beenmade in
order to define the concept of ecocide. Even though the discussion has been
aroundformanyyears,thereisnointernationalfullyrecognizeddefinition.This
partofthethesiswillreviewdifferentdefinitionsgivenonecocide(andsimilar
terms) by different legal scholars. It will also indicate to what extent certain
definitionsoverlapandtowhatextentitisreasonableforacommondefinitionto
beestablishedinthefuture.Theimportanceofthissectionrelatestothefactthat
these legal scholars have called for recognition of a crime of ecocide at the
international level in order to hold military and private individuals, such as
militaryandcorporateleaders,responsibleforenvironmentalcrimes.Moreover,
an understanding of the concept of ecocide is a necessary precursor to
examining, in section 3, the extent to which acts of ecocide can already be
prosecuted under the existing Rome Statute crimes; and if the international
communityeverdecidestocreateanautonomouscrimeofecocide, itwillneed
tobeinagreementastowhatthistermmeans.
2.1Thestartoftheecocidedebate
Theconceptofecocidehasbeenaroundeversincethe1970swhenitwasfirst
recordedattheConferenceonWarandNationalResponsibilityinWashington.It
was used to describe the destruction, which caused the chemical warfare in
Vietnam19. Ever since that time, legal scholars havebeendebating onwhether
thereshouldbeacriminalisationofecocideandwhatpossibleelementsshould
be required in order for ecocide to be considered a crime at the international
level.
2.1.1ArthurW.Galston:1970
In 1970, Professor Arthur W. Galston discussed the act of ecocide at the
conference onWar and National Responsibility. He was a Yale plant biologist
19Zierler,David.TheInventionofEcocide:AgentOrange,Vietnam,andtheScientistsWhoChangedtheWayWeThinkabouttheEnvironment.Athens:UofGeorgia,2011.Pages2-4and14-5.Print.
12
whohelpedraiseawarenessofthemilitary’suseof‘agentorange’,anherbicide
anddefoliantchemical,whichwasused inVietnamandhaddevastatingeffects
onriverecosystems20.Also,hemadethefollowingcommentregardingecocideat
awarcrimesconference‘TechnologyandAmericanPower’21:
“AftertheendofWorldWarII,andasaresultoftheNuremburgtrials,wejustly
condemned thewilful destruction of an entire people and its culture, calling this
crime against humanity genocide. It seems tome that thewilful and permanent
destruction of environment inwhich a people can live in amanner of their own
choosing ought similarly to be considered as a crime against humanity, to be
designated by the term ecocide. I believe that themost highly developed nations
havealready committedauto ecocide over largeparts of their own countries. At
the present time, the United States stands alone as possibly having committed
ecocide against another country, Vietnam, through its massive use of chemical
defoliantsandherbicides.TheUnitedNationswouldappeartobeanappropriate
bodyfortheformulationofaproposalagainstecocide”22.
The above paragraph indicates that Galston recognized ecocide as a wilful
destructionoftheenvironment.Hisdefinitionleadstothefactthattheremustbe
a certain level of intent, which has to be taken into account. Moreover, his
proposalforanewinternationalagreementtobanecocideaimedatmaintaining
globalsecurityandtoprotecthumanpopulationsfromfuturewars23.
2.1.2OlofPalme:1972
In 1972, the term ecocide was discussed at the United Nations Stockholm
Conferenceon theHumanEnvironment,whereMr.OlofPalme, the thenPrime
Minister of Sweden, used thewordecocide explicitly inhis opening speechon20Galston,ArthurW.,andShirleyCohen.InterviewwithArthurW.Galston.Pasadena,CA:CaltechArchives,2004.21Zierler,David.TheInventionofEcocide:AgentOrange,Vietnam,andtheScientistsWhoChangedtheWayWeThinkabouttheEnvironment.Athens:UofGeorgia,2011.Pages2-4and14-5.Print.22Knoll,Erwin,andJudithNiesMcFadden."WarCrimesandtheAmericanConscience."Page71-72.23Zierler,David.TheInventionofEcocide:AgentOrange,Vietnam,andtheScientistsWhoChangedtheWayWeThinkabouttheEnvironment.Athens:UofGeorgia,2011.Page19.Print.
13
theVietnamWar24.EcocidebecameahighlydiscussedtopicduringtheVietnam
War, therefore Palme asked for the international responsiveness as he
considered the unselective bombing and large-scale use of bulldozers and
pesticides to be part of ecocide25. However, in the official outcome of the
Stockholm Conference document, there was no reference to ecocide. Even
thoughMr.OlofPalmediscussedmattersofecocide,hedidnotspeakabouthow
ecocideshouldbedefined.
2.1.3RichardA.Falk:1973
Alongside the UN Stockholm Conference, there were many discussions by
different NGOs about a potential law, which would criminalise ecocide. For
instance,abranchof the ‘InternationalFellowshipofReconciliation’26,which is
an “independent organisation that builds awareness among governments and
society on damage to nature by human misuse of technology and chemical
products”27, they sponsoreda ‘ConventiononEcocidalWar’ (CEW)which took
place in Stockholm, Sweden28. They brought together many people, which
included doctors, lawyers and biologists. Among the group, an expert in
international law and war crimes named Richard A. Falk drew up a draft
conventiononecocide.Hewasthefirstlegalscholarwhosuggestedintroducing
ecocide in international law as he made the proposed notion of ecocide by
Galstonintoalegalconcept29.ThisdraftconventionwassubmittedtotheUNin
1973.Hebelievedthatecocidewouldneedtobemadeillegalduringpeacetime
just as much as during wartime. He said: “man has consciously and
unconsciously inflicted irreparabledamage to theenvironment in timesofwar
24Mowry,Curtis,AdamPimentel,ElizabethSparks,andBrittanyHanlon. "TheEcocideProject."EcocideIstheMissing5thCrimeAgainstPeace(2013).25Hörnfeldt, Isabelle. "A Law on Ecocide: A Way to End Mass Destruction of the World’sEcosystems?"HistoryoftheConcept.LawFacultyUniversityofLund.26"InternationalFellowshipofReconciliation." 27Hörnfeldt, Isabelle. "A Law on Ecocide: A Way to End Mass Destruction of the World’sEcosystems?"HistoryoftheConcept.LawFacultyUniversityofLund.28Mowry,Curtis,AdamPimentel,ElizabethSparks,andBrittanyHanlon. "TheEcocideProject."EcocideIstheMissing5thCrimeAgainstPeace(2013):29Falk,RichardA."EnvironmentalWarfareandEcocideFacts,AppraisalandProposals."Page21.
14
andpeace”30.ArticleIIoftheproposedConventiondefinestheactofecocideas
followed:
“[E]cocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to disrupt or
destroy,inwholeorinpart,ahumanecosystem:
a) The use of weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, bacteriological,
chemical,orother:
b) The use of chemical herbicides to defoliate and deforest natural forests for
militarypurposes;
c)Theuseofbombsandartilleryinsuchquantity,density,orsizeastoimpairthe
qualityofsoilortheenhancetheprospectofdiseasesdangeroustohumanbeings,
animals,orcrops;
d)Theuseofbulldozingequipmenttodestroylargetractsofforestorcroplandfor
militarypurposes;
e) The use of techniques designed to increase or decrease rainfall or otherwise
modifyweatherasaweaponofwar;
f)The forcibleremovalofhumanbeingsoranimals fromtheirhabitualplacesof
habitationtoexpeditethepursuitofmilitaryorindustrialobjectives”31.
When looking at Falk’s definition, it is clear that his focus lies on military
purposesratherthancorporationsandcivilians.Also,accordingtohisdefinition,
the ecocidal act has to be committed with the intention of ‘disrupting or
destroyingahumanecosystem’.Therefore,thefocusis laiduponthenecessary
intentoftheecocidalact,whichwouldhavetobeprovenbytheprosecutor.
However,whentakingintoconsiderationArticleIVofhisproposedConvention:
“Personscommittingecocide(…)shallbepunished,at leasttotheextentofbeing
removed for a period of years from any position of leadership or public trust.
30Lay, Bronwyn, Laurent Neyret, Damien Short, Michael Baumgartner, and Antonio A. Oposa."TIMELY AND NECESSARY: ECOCIDE LAW AS URGENT AND EMERGING."THE JOURNALJURISPRUDENCE.31Hörnfeldt, Isabelle. "A Law on Ecocide: A Way to End Mass Destruction of the World’sEcosystems?"HistoryoftheConcept.LawFacultyUniversityofLund.
15
Constitutionallyresponsiblerulers,publicofficials,militarycommanders,orprivate
individualsmay all be chargedwith and convicted of the crimes associatedwith
ecocide(…)15”32.
The paragraph indicates that both military and civilian leaders can be held
accountableforsuchactsofecocide.
2.1.4LynnBerat:1993
In1993,legalscholarLynnBeratintroducedtheconceptofgeocideratherthan
ecocide in the international criminal law debate when wanting to prosecute
individuals responsible for environmental damage33 . Berat explains that a
geocidal act “destroys a species or seriously impairs on a part of the global
environment and that it thereby deprives humans of their right to a healthy
environment because a planetwhose biodiversity is severely diminished does
not offer a healthy environment to humans”34. Moreover, she provides the
followingdefinitionofgeocide:
“Geocideistheintentionaldestruction,inwholeorinpart,ofanyofportionofthe
globalecosystem,viakillingmembersofaspecies;causingseriousbodilyormental
harm to members of the species; inflicting on the species conditions of life that
bring about its physical destruction inwhole or in part; and imposingmeasures
that prevent births within the group or lead to birth defects. While ideally all
behaviorthatcompromisestheintegrityoftheenvironmentshouldbepunishable
because it impinges upon the totality of life on the planet, it would seem that
geocide, like genocide, should be reserved for the most heinous abuses of the
environment”35.
32Falk,RichardA."EnvironmentalWarfareandEcocideFacts,AppraisalandProposals.".33Merz,Prisca,ValérieCabanes,andEmilieGaillard.EndingEcocide-thenextNecessaryStepinInternationalLaw.6Apr.2014.34Berat Lynn, ‘Defending the Right to a Healthy Environment: Toward a Crime of Geocide inInternationalLaw’,page327-340.BostonUniversityInternational.Print.35Berat Lynn, ‘Defending the Right to a Healthy Environment: Toward a Crime of Geocide inInternationalLaw’,page343-344.BostonUniversityInternational.Print.
16
Regarding intent, Berat claims that public and private individuals can be held
criminallyliableonthebasisofintentbutalsonegligence36.
2.1.5LudwikA.Teclaff:1994
Besidesdefiningecocideasanactofwarfare,environmentalactivistsbegan to
define ecocide as the “killing of the environment bymankind”37. For instance,
legal scholarLudwikA.Teclaff recognizedecocideas “peacetimeactivities that
destroy or damage ecosystemson amassive scale”38.Hedescribes an ecocidal
actas“thedestructionoflargeareasofthenaturalenvironmentbysuchactivity
as nuclear warfare, overexploitation of resources or dumping of harmful
chemicals39.Furthermore,Teclaffdoesnotmentionhisopiniononthenecessary
levelofintentorknowledgeanindividualmusthaveinordertobeheldliablein
internationalcriminallaw40.
2.1.6MarkAllenGray:1995
BesidesLudwikA.Teclaff, legalscholarMarkAllenGraydefinedecocideonthe
basisof“thedeliberateornegligentviolationofkeystateandhumanrightsand
accordingtothefollowingcriteria:1)serious,andextensiveorlasting,ecological
damage, 2) international consequences, and 3) waste”41. The first criterion
involves the seriousness of the act, which can be defined from the scale of
damagedone tohumansorother species42.The secondcriterion suggests that
theactmustthreatenglobalinterestsandvaluesofvictimsofdifferentstates43.
Thethirdcriteriasuggeststhattheactorshaveknowledgeaboutthewastesuch
36Berat Lynn, ‘Defending the Right to a Healthy Environment: Toward a Crime of Geocide inInternationalLaw’,page345-346.BostonUniversityInternational.Print.37Zierler,David.TheInventionofEcocide:AgentOrange,Vietnam,andtheScientistsWhoChangedtheWayWeThinkabouttheEnvironment.Athens:UofGeorgia,2011.Page27.Print.38Teclaff,LudwikA."BeyondRestoration-TheCaseofEcocide."NaturalResourcesJournal.39Zierler,David.TheInventionofEcocide:AgentOrange,Vietnam,andtheScientistsWhoChangedtheWayWeThinkabouttheEnvironment.Athens:UofGeorgia,2011.Page27.Print.40Teclaff,LudwikA."BeyondRestoration-TheCaseofEcocide."NaturalResourcesJournal.41Grey,MarkAllan."TheInternationalCrimeofEcocide."Page215-216.42Grey,MarkAllan."TheInternationalCrimeofEcocide."Page217.43Grey,MarkAllan."TheInternationalCrimeofEcocide."Page215-216.
17
ecocidalactscause44.Moreover,headvocates forecocide toberecognizedasa
crime of strict liability under which individuals can be held criminally
responsible for ecocidal acts45. He mentions that this standard would “best
encouragepreventivebehavior, advance the ‘polluterpays’and ‘precautionary’
principles, and simplify issues of proof of knowledge, intent and causation”46.
Therefore,hebelievesthat:“States, individuals,aswellasorganisations,where
theyarerecognisedashavinginternationallegalpersonality,shouldbeliable”47.
2.1.7StevenFreeland:2005
Steven Freeland proposed the new crime of ‘crimes against the environment’
under the Rome Statute 48 . He proposed to hold individuals criminally
responsiblefordestroyingtheenvironmentduringwartimesandforthosewho
“threatened the lives of specifically targetedpopulations”49.Hedefines ‘crimes
againsttheenvironment’asthefollowing:
“A deliberate action committed with intent to cause significant harm to the
environment, including ecological, biological and natural resource systems, in
ordertopromoteaparticularmilitary,strategic,politicalorotheraim,andwhich
doesinfactcausesuchdamage”50.
Alternatively, Freeland suggests interpreting “actions intended to cause
significantenvironmentalharm”tobecriminalizedunderthecurrentfourcore
international crimes. Furthermore, he believes in standard of intent rather
negligenceforindividualcriminalresponsibility51.
44Grey,MarkAllan."TheInternationalCrimeofEcocide."Page218.45Grey,MarkAllan."TheInternationalCrimeofEcocide."Page216.46Grey,MarkAllan."TheInternationalCrimeofEcocide."Page218.47Merz,Prisca,ValérieCabanes,andEmilieGaillard.EndingEcocide-thenextNecessaryStepinInternationalLaw.6Apr.2014.48Freeland,Steven.CrimesagainsttheEnvironment-ARolefortheInternationalCriminalCourt?Page358.49Merz,Prisca,ValérieCabanes,andEmilieGaillard.EndingEcocide-thenextNecessaryStepinInternationalLaw.6Apr.2014.50Grey,MarkAllan."TheInternationalCrimeofEcocide."Page218.51Freeland, Steven.CrimesagainsttheEnvironment-ARole fortheInternationalCriminalCourt?Page343-344.
18
2.1.8MishkatAlMoumin:2008
MishkatAlMouministhefounderandChiefExecutiveOfficerofWomenandthe
EnvironmentOrganizationinIraq52.Shedefinedecocideas“takingadeliberate
action to kill a group of people based on their race, religion, or culture by
destroyingtheecosystemonwhichtheydepend53.Shementionsthattheintent
lieswiththedeterminationofkillingpeopleofacertainrace,religionorculture
while the injustice to the environment does not involve intent to kill54. She
discussedtheconceptofecocideinthecaseofthedrainageoftheMesopotamian
Marshlands.Thedrainingoccurred in Iraqand insomeplacesof Iran inwhich
they cleared largeareasof themarshes in theTigris-Euphrates river system55.
Even though the draining was intended to “reclaim land for agriculture and
exterminate a breeding ground for the malaria-spreading mosquitoes, some
WesternandIslamistsourceshavedescribedthedrainingasapoliticalattempt
to force theMa'dan people out of the area throughwater diversion tactics”56.
Therefore,AlMoumindescribesecocideasacrimeof intentratherthanbasing
theactonnegligence.
2.1.9PollyHiggins:2010
Polly Higgins explains ecocide through the basis of the 16th century Greek
wording.Sheclarifiesthat‘eco’inecocideisderivedfromtheGreekwordoikos,
whichmeans‘house,dwellingplace,habitation,family’57.‘Cide’inecocidemeans
killer,whichcomesfromtheLatinwordceadere,meaning‘tostrikedown,chop,
beat,hew,fell,slayahumanhabitat’58.Inherfirstpublicationofecocide,Higgins
mentionsthatecocideisthemissingfifthinternationalcrime59.
52"MishkatAlMoumin."InclusiveSecurity.53 Mishkat Al Moumin, ‘Mesopotamian Marshlands: An Ecocide Case’. The GeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,page499.Print.54 Mishkat Al Moumin, ‘Mesopotamian Marshlands: An Ecocide Case’. The GeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,page506.Print.55"Iraq'sEcologicalDisaster."InternationalReview.12Feb.2003.56North, Andrew. "Saddam Drains Life from Arab Marshes: Scientists Fear Iraq's HistoricWetlandsFaceDestructionin10to20Years,SaysAndrewNorth."Independent.57PollyHiggins,"EndEcocideonEarth."Print.58North, Andrew. "Saddam Drains Life from Arab Marshes: Scientists Fear Iraq's HistoricWetlandsFaceDestructionin10to20Years,SaysAndrewNorth."Independent.59Higgins,Polly."EradicatingecocideChapterXI."EradicatingEcocide.Print.
19
In 2010, Higgins proposed to the adoption of an Ecocide Act for the United
Kingdominwhichshedefinesecocideasthefollowing:
Theextensivedamageto,destructionoforlossofecosystem(s)ofagiventerritory,
whetherbyhumanagencyorbyothercauses,tosuchanextentthat:
(1)peacefulenjoymentbytheinhabitantshasbeenseverelydiminished;andor
(2) peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of another territory has been severely
diminished.
Moreover,shemakesadistinctionbetweenascertainableandnon-ascertainable
ecocide. Meaning naturally occurring or human made mass destruction of a
definedareaofanecosystem.Togiveanexample,itcanbeconsideredan‘actof
God’inthesensethatanearthquakeorfloodingmayariseoritcanbetheresult
ofhumaninterventionsuchaseconomicactivity,particularlywhenconnectedto
natural resources, canbeadriverof conflict60. It is an important argument, as
history shows, that humanerrorplays a large role in environmental disasters.
Some examples of human error are the ‘DeepwaterHorizon oil spill’ or better
known as the BP oil spill, the ‘Chernobyl disaster’ and the ‘FukushimaDaiichi
nucleardisaster’61.
PollyHigginsfocusesontheecocidalactsperformedbyindividualactors.Thatis
tosay,shebelievescorporateleadersratherthanmilitaryactorsshouldbeheld
liableunderthesuperiorresponsibilitydoctrineininternationalcriminallaw62.
Therefore,ecocideshouldbelookedatasacrimeofstrictliabilityforwhichno
proofofintentisnecessary63.
Furthermore,shedefinesecocideasthefollowing:
60"AmendmentfortheRomeStatute."ClosingtheDoortoDangerousIndustrialActivity.Annex.61Merz,Prisca,ValérieCabanes,andEmilieGaillard.EndingEcocide-thenextNecessaryStepinInternationalLaw.6Apr.2014.62Higgins,Polly."HoldingBusinesstoAccount."EradicatingEcocide.Page108-110.Print.63Higgins,Polly."HoldingBusinesstoAccount."EradicatingEcocide.Page110.Print.
20
“Ecocideistheextensivedestruction,damagetoorlossofecosystem(s)ofagiven
territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that
peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely
diminished”64.
InherproposedEcocideActsheexplainsthethree-foldtest,whichisneededin
order to assess whether the damage of an ecosystem has been extensive; it
involvesthesize,durationandimpactofthedamage.Higginsreferstothe1977
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of
EnvironmentalModificationTechniques(ENMOD)65.ArticleI(2)oftheENMOD
defines“'widespread'as'encompassinganareaonthescaleofseveralhundred
square kilometres', 'long lasting' as 'approximately a season' and 'severe' as
'involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and
economicresourcesorotherassets'”66.
2.2Concludingremarks
The above research has shown that the ecocide debate started in the 1970s.
Accordingtodifferentlegalscholars,therearetwowaysinwhichecocidecanbe
defined.On the one hand, ecocide can be applied to environmentalwarfare in
whichtheenvironmentis intentionallyharmed.Ontheotherhand,ecocidecan
be applied as a crime in which an ecosystem is harmed and in which human
rightsareviolated.
The importanceof theabove-mentionedsection is theestablishmentregarding
the different ways in which individuals can be held criminally liable for
environmentalcrimesaccordingtothelegalscholars,namely:bywayofintent,
bywayofnegligenceandbywayofstrictliability.Asaconsequence,theconcept
of ecocide does not have one single definition, which is shared by all legal
scholars.Due to theabsenceof significantoverlapbetween thedefinitions, the
64"TheEcocideProject."HumanRightsConsortium.UniversityofLondon.65Higgins,Polly."Ecocidethe5thCrimeAgainstPeace."EradicatingEcocide.Page64.Print.66"ArticleI(2)."CustomaryIHL-SectionB.EnvironmentalModificationTechniques.
21
questionremainswhetherecocideshouldonlyencompassmilitaryactivitiesor
also corporate actions, andwhetherornot intention is anecessary elementof
thecrime.
Even though there is a difference in the interpretation of the definition, all
scholarsaimtofindalegaltoolthatwillpreventinternationaldestructionofthe
environment.Also, alldefinitionsenvisageseriousharmto theenvironment to
beincludedwhentalkingaboutecocide.
In section 6, the thesis will introduce its own definition on ecocide, which it
believes to be the best possible option in creating a common international
meaning of ecocide. It will also explain the necessary threshold in order to
determinewhatamountstoacrimeofecocide.
22
3TheInternationalCriminalCourtandtheRomeStatute
It is essential to explain the history of the International Criminal Court and
illustratehow theCourt currentlyoperates.Asmentioned, theRomeStatute is
themainlegislationoftheCourt,whichwillbediscussedthroughoutthethesis.
Overall,explaininghowtheCourtandtheRomeStatutecameaboutisimportant
whenwantingtoestablishthepossibilitiesforprosecutingindividualsbeforethe
Court.
3.1Thehistoryofinternationalcriminallaw
International law refers primarily to the “law that governs the legal relations
betweenoramongstatesornations”67.Itconferstherightsandresponsibilities,
which States have towards each other. International law generally does not
apply to individuals; this indicates thatonlyStatescanbeheldaccountable for
violationsof international law68. If an individual violates international law, the
State,whichhastherulesofinternationallawimplementedintotheirdomestic
laws, are responsible for the punishment of the individual. There must be a
necessary link between the offence committed by the individual and the
jurisdictiontheStatehasoverthisperson69.However,Internationalcriminallaw
isanexceptionanddoesrelatetotheconductofindividuals70anditistherefore
possible to prosecute the direct individual criminal responsibility. Hence the
purposeofinternationalcriminallawistoprotectthepeace,securityandwell-
beingoftheworld71.
The first time a desirewas shown towardswanting to create an International
Criminal Court was during the Franco-German War of 1980-1871. It was
expressedbythethenPresidentoftheInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross,
67"InternationalLaw."TheFreeDictionary.Farlex,W68Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page183.Print.69Cassese,Antonio."TheRepressionofInternationalCrimes."InternationalLaw.Oxford:OxfordUP,2005.Page435.Print.70"CulpabilityofIndividualsunderInternationalLaw."HumanRightsWatch.71"RomeStatute."UnitedNations.Preamble.
23
Gustave Moynier72. He proposed that this Court would be able to prosecute
individuals who had committed war crimes during the war. This proposition
however,failedduetothelackofpoliticalsupport73.
The end of the Second World War is considered to be the most important
moment for internationalcriminal lawas the InternationalMilitaryTribunal in
Nuremberg was created. It was a breakthrough because individuals would be
triedonthebasisofaninternationalagreementratherthanondomestic law74.
Withinthe InternationalMilitaryTribunal, theLondonAgreementonthe8thof
August1945wasanimportantinternationalagreement.DuetoArticle1andthe
Charter,whichisdescribedintheAnnex,theTribunalwasabletosentence“the
major war criminals of the European Axis countries for crimes against peace,
war crimes and crimes against humanity when a particular location of the
offencewasabsent”75. In1950, an international criminal code for globalpeace
andsecuritywascreatedfortheNurembergTribunal76.
In1954,theSpecialCommitteeoftheGeneralAssemblydraftedastatuteforthe
InternationalCriminalCourt.Atthattime,however,Statesdidnotwanttolimit
theirsovereigntyduetotheColdWar77.Nevertheless,in1989theformerPrime
MinisterofTrinidadandTobagoaskedtheGeneralAssemblytoassistregarding
international drug trafficking 78 . Therefore, in 1994 a draft statute of an
InternationalCourtwassubmittedbytheInternationalLawCommission,which
alongsidetheLondonAgreementalsoincludeddrugcrimesandterrorism79.
72Hall, Christopher Keith. "International Review of the Red Cross." The First Proposal for aPermanentInternationalCriminalCourt:57.73Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page185-186.Print.74 Roosevelt, Franklin D., Winston Churchill, and Marshal Stalin. "Moscow Declaration onAtrocities."UnitedNationsInformationOrganisation:Page681-86.27Nov.1978.75"AgreementfortheProsecutionandPunishmentoftheMajorWarCriminalsoftheEuropeanAxis,andCharteroftheInternationalMilitaryTribunal."HumanRightsLibrary.8Aug.1945.76Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page190-191.Print.77Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page191.Print.78"A/RES/44/39. International Criminal Responsibility of Individuals and Entities Engaged inIllicitTrafficking inNarcoticDrugsacrossNationalFrontiersandOtherTransnationalCriminalActivities:EstablishmentofanInternationalCriminalCourtwithJurisdictionoverSuchCrimes."UnitedNations.UnitedNations.79"YearbookoftheInternationalLawCommission."A/CN.4/SER.A/1997/Add.l(Part2).ReportoftheCommissiontotheGeneralAssemblyontheWorkofItsForty-ninthSession.1996.
24
Alsoduringthattime,theSecurityCounciloftheUnitedNationsestablishedthe
International Criminal Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the
InternationalCriminalTribunal of the formerRwanda (ICTR).TheseTribunals
were created on the basis of Chapter VII of the Charter of the UnitedNations
during the post-ColdWar times80and because of themassive atrocities,which
tookplaceduringthattime.ThejurisdictionoftheseTribunalswasbasedupon
customary international law since therewas no international binding criminal
code 81 . Moreover, the Tribunals deal with breaches of the 1949 Geneva
Convention and with crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of
genocide82. The creationof theseTribunals canbe considered as an important
partofthedevelopmentoftheinternationalcriminallawregime83.
3.2TheestablishmentoftheInternationalCriminalCourt
In 1994 a preparatory committee worked on drafting a Convention for the
International Criminal Court based upon the ILC Draft Statute 84 . The
establishment of the Rome Statute was negotiated in Rome in 1998. After
negotiating,120statesvotedinfavoroftheICC,whilesevenstatesvotedagainst
and21statesdidnotvote85.TheRomeStatuteneeded60ratificationsinorderto
comeintoforce,whichitdidonthefirstofJuly2002.Currently,123statesare
partytotheRomeStatute86.
TheRomeStatuteisabletoprovidecriminalresponsibilityforindividualsrather
thanforStates.Inthisway,itcandealwiththemostseriouscommittedcrimes
withintheinternationalcommunity87.Asmentioned,ithasjurisdictionoverthe
fourcorecrimes,whichmeans thatwhenacitizenofaMemberStatecommits
80"Resolution827."SecurityCouncil.UnitedNations.81Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page193.Print.82"TheGenevaConventionsof1949andTheirAdditionalProtocols."ICRC.29Oct.2010.83Cryer,Robert,HakanFriman,DarrylRobinson, andElizabethWilmshurst.AnIntroductiontoInternationalCriminalLawandProcedure.Cambridge:CambridgeUP,2013.84"A/RES/50/46. Establishment of an International Criminal Court." United Nations. UnitedNations.85"RomeStatuteof1998."Article126.InternationalCriminalCourt.86"UN,UnitedNations,UNTreaties,."Signatories:139.Parties:124.UnitedNations.87RomeStatute."UnitedNations.Preamble,paragraph4.
25
suchaninternationalcrimeontheterritoryofanotherMemberStateorwithin
hisorherownterritory,theCourtwillhavejurisdiction88.Also,itispossiblefor
anon-MemberStatetobringsinglecasestotheICCif itaccepts its jurisdiction
onanadhocbasis89.Also,theICChasjurisdictiontoinvestigatecaseswhenitis
triggered by a resolution of the Security Council, a State complaint or an
independentinvestigationofaprosecutor90.Thiscouldalsoinvolvecaseswithin
anon-MemberStatewhenthereisanauthorizationbyaUnitedNationsSecurity
Councilresolution.
TheICCisknownforbeingacomplementaryCourt;thismeansthatitisaCourt
of last resort, which supplements national courts 91 . Normally, States are
responsibletobringallegedperpetratorsofinternationalcrimestojusticesince
theyhavejurisdictionoverindividualswithintheirterritorial.Therefore,States
incorporatenormsofinternationalcriminallawintotheirdomesticlawinorder
toconvictperpetratorswhocommitthesecrimes.Sincenationallawsdifferona
substantive and procedural aspect, it is impossible to obtain a uniform
punishment of international crimes worldwide 92 . If states are unable or
unwilling to investigate andprosecute international crimes through the use of
their national authorities, the ICC is competent to prosecute93. The ICC relies
uponthecooperationoftheStatethatisinvolved.“Withoutit,theCourtcannot
reachsuspectsandtheirpowerstoissuewarrantsfortheseizureofevidence,to
issuesubpoenasortoissuearrestwarrantswillnotleadtoanyresults”94.
88"RomeStatuteof1998."Article12(2)InternationalCriminalCourt.89"RomeStatuteof1998."Article12(3).InternationalCriminalCourt.90"RomeStatuteof1998."Article13(1).InternationalCriminalCourt.91"RomeStatuteof1998."Article17.InternationalCriminalCourt.92Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page181-182.Print.93Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page183.Print.94Cassese,Antonio."TheRepressionofInternationalCrimes."InternationalLaw.Oxford:OxfordUP,2005.Page471.Print.
26
4 To what extent can individuals be held criminally liable forenvironmental destruction under the crimes currentlyrecognizedby theRomeStatute,andwhatare thebenefitsandshortcomings of prosecuting environmental destruction underthesecrimes?
Thenextpartoftheresearchwillexaminetowhatextentenvironmentalharmis
covered in the already existing four core international crimes, which are:
genocide,crimesagainsthumanity,warcrimesandcrimesofaggression.Itwill
alsoconsidertowhatextentitiscurrentlypossibletoholdindividualsliablefor
environmental crimes under the Rome Stature. This section is importantwith
regards toestablishingwhether theRomeStatute is inneedofanautonomous
international crimeof ecocide, orwhether the existing crimes are sufficient to
prosecute environmental harm. Especially since the ICC announced on
September 15th 2016 that it will work on prosecuting and adjudicating
environmentalcrimes.ThisindicatesthattheICCwillgivemoreconsiderationto
crimes involving the destruction of the environment, illegal exploitation of
naturalresourcesortheillegaldispossessionof land,whichisasteptowardto
theinternationalprotectionoftheenvironment95.
4.1Genocide
APolishjuristnamedRaphaelLemkinfirstdefinedthewordgenocidein1944.
HeusedtheGreekword‘genos’whichmeansnationorraceandtheLatinverb
‘caedere’ meaning an act of killing96. The Genocide Convention recognized
genocideasanautonomouscrimesince1948,followingtheResolution96(1)of
theGeneralAssemblyoftheUnitedNations97.Beforebecominganautonomous
crime,genocidewaspartofcrimesagainsthumanity.
Genocide is codified inArticle II in theGenocideConvention, in theStatutesof
the ICTY, ICTR and in the Rome Statute. According to Article 6 of the Rome
95International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Policy paper on case selection andprioritisation’,15September2016.96Lemkin, Raphael.AxisRule inOccuopiedEurope: LawsofOccupation,Analysis ofGovernment,ProposalsforRedress.Page79.Print.97ArticleI(2)."CustomaryIHL-SectionB.EnvironmentalModificationTechniques.
27
Statute,genocideisdefinedas“actscommittedwithintenttodestroy, inwhole
orinpart,anational,ethnical,racialorreligiousgroup”98,suchas:
(a)Killingmembersofthegroup;
(b)Causingseriousbodilyormentalharmtomembersofthegroup;
(c)Deliberately inflictingonthegroupconditionsof lifecalculatedtobringabout
itsphysicaldestructioninwholeorinpart;
(d)Imposingmeasuresintendedtopreventbirthswithinthegroup;
(e)Forciblytransferringchildrenofthegrouptoanothergroup. WhenlookingatthelistofrequirementsstatedinArticle6oftheRomeStatute,
onecanarguethatperhapsenvironmentaldestructioncanfallundersubsection
(b)and(c).
4.1.1‘TheProsecutorv.OmarHassanAhmadAlBashir’
To give an example, subsection c of the genocide definition according to the
Rome Statute, was used in 2009 when the Sudanese President Omar Hassan
Ahmad Bashir was being chargedwith a list of ten counts underwhich three
countswereinvolvedwithgenocide99.Hewaschargedwith“thecontamination
ofwatersourcesandthedestructionofwaterpumpsthatresultedintheforcible
expulsion of the targeted group from their homes and the non-accessibility of
water for thegroupmembers”100.This indicates that,assubsectioncstates,he
deliberately inflicted on the group’s conditions of life, which brought about
physicaldestruction.
98"RomeStatuteof1998."Article6.InternationalCriminalCourt.99"Case Information Sheet."TheProsecutor v.OmarHassanAhmadAlBashir, Suspectedof FiveCounts of Crimes againstHumanity, TwoCounts ofWar, andThreeCounts of GenocideAllegedlyCommittedinDarfur,Sudan.100"TryingIndividualsforGenocide,WarCrimesandCrimesagainstHumanity."TheProsecutorv.OmarHassanAhmadAlBashir.
28
When examining the case, the judges did recognize the link between genocide
and environmental degradation101. However, the Pre-Trial Chamber did not
supportthefactthatthecontaminationofwatersourceswasthecorefeatureof
theattacks;thereforethepresidentwasnotconvicted102.
4.1.2Theactusreusandmensrearequirementsforthecrimeofgenocide
The actus reus of genocide requires: (i) the perpetrator to inflict certain
conditions of life upon one or more persons (ii) that such person or persons
belongedtoaparticularnational,ethnical,racialorreligiousgroupand(iii)that
the conduct took place in the context of amanifest pattern of similar conduct
directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such
destruction”103; itusuallyisnotdifficulttoprovethis.Theproblemhowever, is
that the prosecutors of the ICC have difficulty showing the specific genocidal
intentormensreawhichisneededinordertoprovewhetherornottherewas
anintenttodestroyagroupbyanenvironmentalharmingactivity104.Therefore,
thecrimeofgenocidehasverylimitedabilitytoprovideminimalenvironmental
protection105 . Moreover, this would mean that individuals are only being
prosecuted if they had genocidal intent for the atrocities, which harmed the
environment106.
101"Case Information Sheet."TheProsecutorv.OmarHassanAhmadAlBashir,SuspectedofFiveCounts of Crimes againstHumanity, TwoCounts ofWar, andThreeCounts of GenocideAllegedlyCommittedinDarfur,Sudan.102"TryingIndividualsforGenocide,WarCrimesandCrimesagainstHumanity."TheProsecutorv.OmarHassanAhmadAlBashir.103InternationalCriminalCourt,ElementsofCrimes,U.N.Doc.PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2(2000) 104Sharp, Peter. "Prospects for Environmental Liability in the International Criminal Court."EnvironmentalLawJournal.105InternationalCriminalCourt,ElementsofCrimes,U.N.Doc.PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2(2000)106Wyatt,Julian."Law-makingattheIntersectionofInternationalEnvironmental,Humanitarian,andCriminalLaw:TheIssueofDamagetotheEnvironmentinInternationalArmedConflict."30-09-2010Article,InternationalReviewoftheRedCross,No.879.Page593,640.
29
4.2.Crimesagainsthumanity
AccordingtoArticle7oftheRomeStatute,crimesagainsthumanitymeans,“any
of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic
attackdirectedagainstanycivilianpopulation,withknowledgeoftheattack”:
(a)Murder;
(b)Extermination;
(c)Enslavement;
(d)Deportationorforcibletransferofpopulation;
(e)Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamentalrulesofinternationallaw;
(f)Torture;
(g)Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization,oranyotherformofsexualviolenceofcomparablegravity;
(h)Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other
groundsthatareuniversallyrecognizedasimpermissibleunderinternationallaw,
inconnectionwithanyact referred to in thisparagraphoranycrimewithin the
jurisdictionoftheCourt;
(i)Enforceddisappearanceofpersons;
(j)Thecrimeofapartheid;
(k)Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
suffering,orseriousinjurytobodyortomentalorphysicalhealth107.
Besides this list, subsection 2 of the Article explains in further detail the
definitionofallacts.
Crimesagainsthumanity indicate that the crimemustbepartof a systemicor
widespread attack. Therefore, the mens rea requirement involves the
perpetratorto“haveanintentiontocommitthecrimeandknowledgeof itand
must have knowledge of the fact that the crime falls within the context of a
107"RomeStatuteof1998."Article7.InternationalCriminalCourt.Web.6June2017.
30
widespreadorsystematicattackagainstacivilianpopulation”108.Thedefinition
ofanattackisdefinedinArticle7(2)(a)whichstates:“anattackdirectedagainst
any civilian population means a course of conduct involving the multiple
commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population,
pursuanttoorinfurtheranceofaStateororganizationalpolicytocommitsuch
attack”109.AccordingtothisArticle,theattackdoesnotrequireittobeamilitary
attack,however,thiswilloftenbethecase110.
It would be more appropriate to address ecocide, under the crimes against
humanity provision than under the genocide provision. This is due to the fact
thatcrimesagainsthumanityhavemorepossibilitiesthangenocidefortheICCto
prosecuteforenvironmentalharmingactivity.Asmentionedabove,itisdifficult
to prove genocidal intent, which is not a requirement for crimes against
humanity.
For instance, when referring back to the case of the drainage of the
Mesopotamian Marshlands, the prosecution for environmental harm would
applysincethe“continuousandknowingdischargeofmillionsofgallonsoftoxic
wasteandoilonto theancestralhomelandsof indigenouspeoples, resulting in
injury,displacement,ordeathtoasignificantnumberofthepopulation,because
this iscertainlyawidespreadorsystematicattackdirectedagainstanycivilian
population,withknowledgeoftheattack”111.Forinstance,thecriteriaofArticle
7(2)(b)forthecrimesagainsthumanitycanbeapplied.AccordingtothisArticle,
“‘extermination’ includes the mass killing of civilians through the intentional
inflictionofconditionsoflifecalculatedtobringaboutthedestructionofpartof
a population”112 . While the actus reus requirement is largely the same as
describedinthegenocidecontext,themensrearequirementislessburdensome.
Forinstance,“themensreaforthecrimeofexterminationistheknowledgethat
theactwasintendedtobepartofawidespreadorsystematicattackagainstthe
108Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page256.Print.109"RomeStatuteof1998."Article7(2)(a).InternationalCriminalCourt.110Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page258.Print.111North, Andrew. "Saddam Drains Life from Arab Marshes: Scientists Fear Iraq's HistoricWetlandsFaceDestructionin10to20Years,SaysAndrewNorth."Independent. 112"RomeStatuteof1998."Article7(1)(k).InternationalCriminalCourt.
31
civilianpopulation”113.Thedifferenceofthelevelofintentbetweenthegenocide
and crimes against humanity requirement involves the fact that as long as the
allegedperpetrator knew that the act amounted to a systematic attack against
the civilian population, they may be guilty of this crime against humanity.
“Therefore,wheredevelopmentpoliciesarepursuedaggressivelyandresult in
thewidespreadkillingofciviliansasaresultofseriousenvironmentaldamage,
for example, it may be easier to pursue an alleged perpetrator for the crime
againsthumanityofexterminationratherthangenocide”114.
Moreover, Article 7(1)(d) would also apply in this case as it involves the
deportation or forcible transfer of population and therefore the forced
displacement of the Marsh Arabs could amount under this section of crimes
against humanity. Also, Article 7(1)(k) can provide possibilities for the ICC
prosecutor regarding crimes against humanity relating to environmental harm
asitrelatesto ‘otherinhumaneacts’which“intentionallycausegreatsuffering,
orseriousinjurytobodyortomentalorphysicalhealth”115.
Crimes against humanity, just like genocideprovidepossibilities for individual
criminal responsibility for acts of environmental damage as a result of its
impactsonthehumanpopulation116.
4.3Thesoleecocentricwarcrimesprovision:Article8(2)(b)(iv)
4.3.1Thehistoryoftheecocentricwarcrimesprovision
Article8(2)(b)(iv)oftheRomeStatuteisthesoleecocentricprovisionwhichcan
be relied upon to prosecute individuals for environmental damage117. This
113InternationalCriminalCourt,ElementsofCrimes,U.N.Doc.PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2(2000)114 Smith, Tara. "Creating a Framework for the Prosecution of Environmental Crimes inInternationalCriminalLaw."Page52.115North, Andrew. "Saddam Drains Life from Arab Marshes: Scientists Fear Iraq's HistoricWetlandsFaceDestructionin10to20Years,SaysAndrewNorth."Independent.116InternationalCriminalCourt,ElementsofCrimes,U.N.Doc.PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2(2000)117"RomeStatuteof1998."Article8(2)(b)(iv).InternationalCriminalCourt.
32
provision explicitly relates to environmental damage for which no human
sufferingisneededasarequirementtoholdindividualsliableforsuchacrime.
As mentioned before, Polly Higgins and other legal scholars, proposed to
incorporateanautonomousprovisionforcrimesagainsttheenvironmentunder
theRomeStatute.In1996,ChristianTomuschat,amemberoftheInternational
Law Commission prepared a document inwhich theworking group proposed
theoptionofanautonomouscrimeagainsttheenvironmenttobeincorporated
under the Rome Statute or under the war crimes or crimes against humanity
crimes118.Therecordsof48thmeetingsessionof the ILCmembersprovide the
following draft statute for incorporating the crime of environmental damage
undertheICC:
“Article22.Warcrimes
2 (a) (iii) (bis). Employingmethods ormeans ofwarfare,which are intended or
maybe expected to cause suchwidespread, long-termand severe damage to the
natural environment that the health or survival of a population will be gravely
prejudiced;
Article21.Crimesagainsthumanity
2(h)(bis).Wilfullycausingsuchwidespread,long-termandseveredamagetothe
natural environment that the health or survival of a population will be gravely
prejudiced;
or
Article 26. Wilful and severe damage to the environment. "An individual who
wilfully causes such widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural
118"A/cn.4/ser.a/1996/add.l(Part2)."YearbookoftheInternationalLawCommission.ReportoftheCommissiontotheGeneralAssemblyontheWorkofItsForty-eighthSession.ILC(XLVIII)/DC/CRD.3Part1,Paragraph4.
33
environmentthatthehealthorsurvivalofapopulationwillbegravelyprejudiced,
shall,onconvictionthereof,besentencedto..."119
Thisindicatesthatin1996therewasatimeinwhichaproposedautonomous
provisionforenvironmentaldamagewasconsidered,namelyArticle26.
Unfortunately, none of these recommendationswere followed up and in 1996
the Chairman of themeeting of the ILC namedMr AhmedMahiou decided to
remove the entire provision of the crime of ecocide. The decision was made
without voting andwithout taking into consideration the recommendations of
theworkinggroup.Oneof thegroupmembers,MrAlbertoSzekelyobjected to
thisdecision120.Afterthat, theILCvotedonwhetherto“includeenvironmental
damagesolely in thecontextof awarcrimeor to include it asa crimeagainst
humanity, which would be applicable in peacetime. The result was that the
Drafting Committee was notified only to draft the far smaller remit of
environmental damage in the context ofwar crimes, and not in the context of
crimesagainsthumanity”121.Thismeantthattherewasanexclusionofthecrime
ofenvironmentaldamageduringpeacetime.
Moreover, the Member States were given four different options as to how
environmentaldamageshouldbedefinedunder thewarcrimesprovision.The
followingoptionswereproposed:
“Option1
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 or119"A/cn.4/ser.a/1996/add.l(Part 2)."Yearbookof the InternationalLawCommission.Report ofthe Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of Its Forty-eighth Session.ILC(XLVIII)/DC/CRD.3Part1,Paragraph3.120"A/cn.4/ser.a/1996/add.l(Part 2)."Yearbookof the InternationalLawCommission.Report oftheCommissiontotheGeneralAssemblyontheWorkofItsForty-eighthSession.2431thmeeting,21May1996.121"A/cn.4/ser.a/1996/add.l(Part 2)."Yearbookof the InternationalLawCommission.Report ofthe Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of Its Forty-eighth Session.ILC(XLVIII)/DC/CRD.3Part1,Paragraph3.
34
widespread,long-termandseveredamagetothenaturalenvironment,whichisnot
justifiedbymilitarynecessity;
Option2
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
wouldbeexcessiveinrelationtotheconcreteanddirectoverallmilitaryadvantage
anticipated;
Option3
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-termandseveredamagetothenaturalenvironment;
Option4
Noparagraph(b).”122
TherepresentativesoftheMemberStatesdecidedtochoosethesecondoption.
Theoptionstatesthatitcriminalises‘intentionallylaunchingofanattackinthe
knowledgethatsuchattackwillcausewidespread,long-termandseveredamage
tothenaturalenvironment’123.
4.3.2TheshortcomingsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)
AccordingtoArticle8oftheRomeStatute,theCourthasjurisdictionover“war
crimes inparticularwhencommittedaspartofaplanorpolicyoraspartofa122Bassiouni,M.Cherif.TheLegislativeHistoryoftheInternationalCriminalCourt.Ardsley(N.Y.):Transnational,2005.Page,79.Print.123"A/cn.4/ser.a/1996/add.l(Part 2)."Yearbookof the InternationalLawCommission.Report ofthe Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of Its Forty-eighth Session.ILC(XLVIII)/DC/CRD.3Part1,Paragraph3.
35
large-scalecommissionofsuchcrimes”124.InthisArticle,warcrimesaredefined
as:
“GravebreachesoftheGenevaConventionsof12August1949,namely,anyofthe
following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the
relevantGenevaConvention:
(i)Wilfulkilling;
(ii)Tortureorinhumantreatment,includingbiologicalexperiments;
(iii)Wilfullycausinggreatsuffering,orseriousinjurytobodyorhealth;
(iv)Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified bymilitary
necessityandcarriedoutunlawfullyandwantonly;
(v)Compellingaprisonerofwarorotherprotectedpersontoserveintheforcesof
ahostilePower;
(vi)Wilfullydeprivingaprisonerofwarorotherprotectedpersonoftherightsof
fairandregulartrial;
(vii)Unlawfuldeportationortransferorunlawfulconfinement;
(viii)Takingofhostages.”125
Furthermore, subsection b and c of this Article defines the other serious
violationsofthelawsandcustomsofwarandtheirrequirements.
Asmentioned,Article8(2)(b)(iv) is the soleecocentricprovisionwhichcanbe
reliedupontoprosecuteindividualsforenvironmentaldamage.Thenextsection
will discuss the shortcomings regarding the possibilities of prosecuting
individualsunderArticle8(2)(b)(iv).
Asstated,thecurrentdefinitionofthisArticleisthefollowing:
124"RomeStatuteof1998."Article8.InternationalCriminalCourt.125"A/cn.4/ser.a/1996/add.l(Part 2)."Yearbookof the InternationalLawCommission.Report ofthe Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of Its Forty-eighth Session.ILC(XLVIII)/DC/CRD.3Part1,Paragraph3.
36
“Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attackwill 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
wouldbeexcessiveinrelationtotheconcreteanddirectoverallmilitaryadvantage
anticipated”126.
Thereareseveralelementswithinthisprovision,whichmakesitdifficultforthe
prosecutors at the ICC to prosecute individuals under this provision. The first
challenge can be described on the basis that Article 8(2)(b)(iv) focuses on
international armed conflicts, which refers to conflicts between two or more
States127ratherthaninternalconflicts.Thisisconsideredashortcomingasmany
oftheharmfulcasesanddamageisdoneininternalconflicts.
Evenmore importantly, thearticledemands there tobe ‘widespread,long-term
andseveredamagetothenaturalenvironment’.Thiswouldbecome challenging
fortheICCprosecutorasallthreeelements‘widespread’,‘long-term’and‘severe’
wouldhave toproven.Moreover, it isevenmoredifficult for theprosecutor to
provetheseelements,asthereisnodefinitionprovidedbytheRomeStatuteas
towhattheelementsmeanandwhatcriteriamustbemet;overallitcomplicates
theactusreusoftheprovision.TherearedifferentConventions,whichdefinethe
threerequiredelementsfortheactusreus.Forinstance,theENMODConvention
definestheelementsinadisjunctivemanner.Asmentioned,ArticleI(2)defines
the threeelements as: (a) “widespread”: encompassinganareaon the scaleof
several hundred square kilometres; (b) “long-lasting”: lasting for a period of
months,orapproximatelyaseason;(c)“severe”:involvingseriousorsignificant
disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other
assets”128 . Even though this Convention provides definitions for the three
elements, it also states that: “the interpretation set forth above is intended
exclusively for this Convention and is not intended to prejudice the
interpretationofthesameorsimilartermsifusedinconnectionwithanyother
126"RomeStatuteof1998."Article8(2)(b)(iv).InternationalCriminalCourt.127"RomeStatuteof1998."Article8(2)(b)(iv).InternationalCriminalCourt.128"ArticleI(2)."CustomaryIHL-SectionB.EnvironmentalModificationTechniques.
37
international agreement” 129 . Moreover, Articles 35(3) and 55(1) of the
AdditionalProtocol1of the1949GenevaConventionsmention theseelements
conjunctively but do not provide definitions of these elements130. Only the
Protocol’spreparatorydocumentsindicatethat‘long-term’referstodamagethat
lasts decades, but are silent concerning the definitions of ‘widespread’ and
‘severe’131. Therefore, theRomeStatute andhow it is currentlywritten canbe
considered too general and lacks precision regarding the three necessary
elementsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)132.
Furthermore, the Article requires that the crime must be committed
intentionally.Thismeans that the accused canbeacquittedwhen claimed that
he/she was unaware that it would cause damage to the environment. Even
worsewouldbewhentheaccuseddecidestopurposelynot informthemselves
andthereforenothavetheknowledgeabouttheconsequencesinordertoescape
criminalpunishment133.Thiscreatesproblemswiththemensreaelementofthe
provision134.
Lastly,theArticlemustfulfilaproportionalitytestregardingmilitaryadvantage.
That is to say, the act is not considered to be illegal if there is a military
advantage,whichthenjustifiesthedamagethathasbeencaused.Togetherwith
theuseofmilitaryadvantage,thewords‘concrete’,‘direct’and‘overall’areused.
However,itisnotclearlydefinedintheRomeStatuteastohowandbywhomthe
damage must be performed, which then again becomes difficult for the
129Treaties,StatesParties,andCommentaries-ConventionProhibitingEnvironmentalModificationTechniques(ENMOD),1976-Understandings-Understandings.130Treaties,StatesParties,andCommentaries-AdditionalProtocol(I)totheGenevaConventions,1977-55-ProtectionoftheNaturalEnvironment.131Lawrence, JessicaC., andKevin JonHeller. "‘TheFirstEcocentricEnvironmentalWarCrime:TheLimitsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)oftheRomeStatute’."GeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,Page73. 132Lawrence, JessicaC.,andKevin JonHeller. "‘TheFirstEcocentricEnvironmentalWarCrime:TheLimitsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)oftheRomeStatute’."GeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,Page72.133Lawrence, JessicaC., andKevin JonHeller. "‘TheFirstEcocentricEnvironmentalWarCrime:TheLimitsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)oftheRomeStatute’."GeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,Page72.134Lawrence, JessicaC., andKevin JonHeller. "‘TheFirstEcocentricEnvironmentalWarCrime:TheLimitsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)oftheRomeStatute’."GeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,Page72.
38
prosecutor to prove these elements135. Due to the fact that this provision is
rathervagueastowhensuchconductbecomespunishableunder international
criminallaw,itmakesitdifficultfortheprosecutortodothework.Overall,itis
fairtosaythatatacertaintimeinhistorytherewasaninterestincreatinglaws
onecocideforbothinpeaceandwartime.EventhoughweareleftwithArticle8
exclusively for intimesofwar, itremainstobeahurdlewhenwantingtohold
perpetrators accountable for environmental damage under this Article at the
internationallevel.
4.4Ecocideandthecrimeofaggression
AccordingtoArticle5oftheRomeStatute,“theCourtshallexercisejurisdiction
over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with
Articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under
which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a
provisionshallbeconsistentwith the relevantprovisionsof theCharterof the
United Nations”136. The crime of aggression is defined in Article 8bis which
states: the “crime of aggression means the planning, preparation, initiation or
execution,byapersoninapositioneffectivelytoexercisecontroloverortodirect
the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its
character,gravityandscale,constitutesamanifestviolationoftheCharterof the
UnitedNations”137.
ThesecondparagraphoftheArticleexplainstheactofaggressioninmoredetail.
Itstatesthefollowing:
“The act of aggression means the use of armed force by a State against the
sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in
135Lawrence, JessicaC., andKevin JonHeller. "‘TheFirstEcocentricEnvironmentalWarCrime:TheLimitsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)oftheRomeStatute’."GeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,Page72.136"RomeStatuteof1998."Article5.InternationalCriminalCourt.137Lawrence, JessicaC., andKevin JonHeller. "‘TheFirstEcocentricEnvironmentalWarCrime:TheLimitsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)oftheRomeStatute’."GeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,Page72.
39
anyothermanner inconsistentwiththeCharterof theUnitedNations.Anyofthe
followingacts,regardlessofadeclarationofwar,shall,inaccordancewithUnited
NationsGeneralAssemblyresolution3314(XXIX)of14December1974,qualifyas
anactofaggression:
(a)TheinvasionorattackbythearmedforcesofaStateoftheterritoryofanother
State,oranymilitaryoccupation,howevertemporary,resultingfromsuchinvasion
orattack,oranyannexationbytheuseofforceoftheterritoryofanotherStateor
partthereof;
(b)Bombardmentbythearmed forcesofaStateagainst theterritoryofanother
StateortheuseofanyweaponsbyaStateagainsttheterritoryofanotherState;
(c)Theblockadeof theportsorcoastsofaStateby thearmed forcesofanother
State;
(d)AnattackbythearmedforcesofaStateontheland,seaorairforces,ormarine
andairfleetsofanotherState;
(e)TheuseofarmedforcesofoneStatewhicharewithintheterritoryofanother
StatewiththeagreementofthereceivingState,incontraventionoftheconditions
providedforintheagreementoranyextensionoftheirpresenceinsuchterritory
beyondtheterminationoftheagreement;
(f)TheactionofaStateinallowingitsterritory,whichithasplacedatthedisposal
of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of
aggressionagainstathirdState;
(g)The sendingbyoronbehalf of a Stateof armedbands, groups, irregularsor
mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such
gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement
therein”138.
Whenlookingatthedefinitionofaggression,itwouldbeunrealistictoconsider
Article 8bis as a route for theprosecutionof environmental crimes at the ICC.
Thisisduetothefactthatthereisanunfinishedstatusofthecrimeofaggression
138"RomeStatuteof1998."Article5.InternationalCriminalCourt.
40
within the international community139.Moreover, “it isdifficult to seehow the
crime of aggression as it stands could be perpetrated by any means of
environmentaldamage falling shortof theuseofnuclearweapons, or extreme
biologicalorchemicalattacks”140.Forinstance,whenaStateinvadesorattacks
anotherStatethroughtheuseofarmedforcesasstatedinArticle8bis,itwould
certainly lead to environmental damage. “However, such acts could easily be
transformedintoanarmedconflict,atwhichpointtherelationshipbetweenthe
armedforcesandtheenvironmentbecomesgovernedbyArticle8(2)(b)(iv)of
the Rome Statute or Articles 35(3) and 55(1) of Additional Protocol I if the
conflictisinternationalinnature”141.
4.5InwhatwaysmightanautonomouscrimeofecocidemakeupfortheshortcomingsofthecurrentRomeStatutecrimes?The research above aimed to illustrate towhat extent individuals can be held
criminally liable for environmental crimes under the crimes that are currently
recognized by the Rome Statute. As mentioned, there are some possibilities
available under the existing crimes. The advantage lies with the fact that the
Rome Statute already contains a provision (the war crime provision) which
explicitly relates to environmental damage for which no human suffering is
needed as a requirement to hold individuals liable for such a crime.However,
therearemanyweaknesses foundwithin thisprovisionaswellas in theother
three existing international crimes provisions. The shortcomings are mostly
relatedtothemensreaandactusreus.Forinstance,Article8(2)(b)(iv)ofthewar
crime provision focuses on international armed conflicts rather than internal
conflicts. Also, Article 8(2)(b)(iv) demands there to be ‘widespread, long-term
andseveredamagetothenaturalenvironment’,which isusuallydifficult for the
ICCprosecutorwouldtoprove.Itisevenmorechallengingfortheprosecutorto
provetheseelements,asthereisnodefinitionprovidedbytheRomeStatuteas
towhattheelementsmeanandwhatcriteriamustbemet;overallitcomplicates
the actus reus of the provision. As mentioned, even though the ENMOD139Smith,Tara."CreatingaFrameworkfortheProsecutionofEnvironmentalCrimesinInternationalCriminalLaw."Mar.2016. 140"RomeStatuteof1998."Article5.InternationalCriminalCourt.141Smith,Tara."CreatingaFrameworkfortheProsecutionofEnvironmentalCrimesinInternationalCriminalLaw."Page57.
41
Convention provides definitions for all three elements, such definitions are
intendedexclusively for thisConventionandarenot intended toprejudice the
interpretationofthesameorsimilartermsifusedinconnectionwithanyother
international agreement. Therefore, the Rome Statute and how it is currently
written can be considered too general and lacks precision regarding the three
necessaryelementsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv).Also,Article8(2)(b)(iv)requiresthat
the crime must be committed intentionally, meaning that the accused can be
acquittedwhenclaimedthathe/shewasunawarethatitwouldcausedamageto
theenvironmentorevenworse, if theaccuseddecidestopurposelynot inform
themselves and therefore not have the knowledge about the consequences in
order to escape criminal punishment. Lastly, the Article must fulfil a
proportionality test regardingmilitary advantage. That is to say, the act is not
consideredtobeillegal if thereisamilitaryadvantage,whichthenjustifiesthe
damagethathasbeencaused.Togetherwith theuseofmilitaryadvantage, the
words‘concrete’,‘direct’and‘overall’areused.However,itisnotclearlydefined
in the Rome Statute as to how and bywhom the damagemust be performed,
which thenagainbecomesdifficult for theprosecutor toprove theseelements.
Due to the fact that this provision is rather vague as to when such conduct
becomespunishableunderinternationalcriminallaw,itmakesitdifficultforthe
prosecutorstodotheirwork.Also,Article8isexclusivelyusedfortimesofwar;
it remains to be a hurdle when wanting to hold perpetrators accountable for
environmentaldamageintimesofpeace.
Additionally, there were some possibilities to prosecute environmental crime
under the crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. For instance, the
actusreusofgenocideisusuallynottoodifficulttoproveas itrequires: (i)the
perpetratortoinflictcertainconditionsoflifeupononeormorepersons(ii)that
such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or
religiousgroupand(iii)thattheconducttookplaceinthecontextofamanifest
patternofsimilarconductdirectedagainstthatgrouporwasconductthatcould
itselfeffectsuchdestruction.Theweaknessofthegenocideprovision,however,
layswith the fact that ‘specific genocidal intent’ or the ‘mensrea’ is needed in
order to prove whether or not there was intent to destroy a group by an
42
environmental harming activity. This leads to the crime of genocide not being
able to provide minimal environmental protection, it would also mean that
individuals are only being prosecuted if they had genocidal intent for the
atrocities,whichharmedtheenvironment.
Therefore, it is argued that crimes of humanitywould bemore appropriate to
address ecocide since it has more possibilities than genocide for the ICC to
prosecute for environmental harming activity. This is due to the fact that the
mensrearequirementis lessburdensome.Thishastodowiththedifferencein
level of intent. Themens rea requirement for crimes against humanity simply
entails thatas longastheallegedperpetratorknewthat theactamountedtoa
systematicattackagainstthecivilianpopulation,theymaybeguiltyofthiscrime
against humanity. However, the hurdle with the crimes against humanity
provisionisthatthecrimemustbedirectedagainstacivilianpopulation.
Lastly, asmentioned, the crime of aggressionwould be an unrealistic route to
consider for theprosecutionofenvironmentalcrimesat theICCbecauseof the
unfinishedstatusofthecrimewithintheinternationalcommunity.Moreover,it
isdifficulttoseehowthecrimeofaggressionasitstands,couldbeperpetrated
by any means of environmental damage falling short of the use of nuclear
weapons,orextremebiologicalorchemicalattacks.Therefore,thiscrimeisnot
consideredapossibleavenuefortheprosecutionofenvironmentalcrime.
Due to the above explanation, creating an autonomous international crime of
ecocidewouldgenerateanaddedvaluewhenwantingtoholdindividualsliable
forcrimesofecocide,itwouldhelptoovercomemanyofthehurdles,whichare
found when wanting to prosecute ecocide under the already existing
international crimes. For instance, when creating the autonomous crime for
ecocide, it shouldbedefinedasa crimeof strict liability forwhichnoproofof
intentisnecessary.Thatistosay,strictliabilitycrimesarecrimes,whichrequire
noproof ofmensrea in relation to oneormore aspects of the actusreus. This
means that the prosecutor would not have to prove that the defendant acted
withaculpablementalstate.Overall,definingthecrimeofecocideonthebasisof
43
strict liabilitywouldmakethecriteriaforthemensreaandactusreuseasierto
fulfill, which until now is considered a big hurdle in the already existing
international crimes. Also, strict liability brings practical benefits and it is
oftenusedtoprovideagreaterlevelofprotectiontothepublicinareaswhereit
isperceivedthatthereisaneedtoprovidesuchprotection142.
Moreover,theautonomouscrimeofecocideshouldideallybecreatedinawayin
which it is criminalized in both peace and war times. This is in line with the
arguments made by international environmental lawyer Polly Higgins. In her
definition on ecocide, shemakes a distinction between ascertainable and non-
ascertainable ecocide. Meaning naturally occurring or human made mass
destructionofadefinedareaofanecosystem.Theadvantageofdefiningecocide
in such away lieswith the fact that the autonomous crimewould protect the
wellbeingofall life insteadof justhumanity.Hence,whenprosecuting,theICC
couldlaymorefocusupontheactualharmdonetotheenvironmentasawhole
ratherthanonlydirectedagainstacivilianpopulation.Thiswouldfillupthegaps
established in the crimes against humanity and war crimes provisions as the
autonomouscrimeofecocidewouldnotonlylayfocusonthecivilianpopulation,
andwould not only prosecute the crimes committed inwar times but also in
peacetimes.Itisimportanttoaddthatsincetherewouldbelegalconsequences
for both naturally and intentionally occurring environmental devastation, the
autonomouscrimeofecocidewouldalsomakesurethatnationsshouldbecome
legally responsible for helping those who have been affected by the naturally
occurringecocide.Inthisway,thereisalegaldutyofcaretoprovideassistance
inurgent situations inwhich there is clearevidence thatanevent,or seriesof
events, has occurred which causes human suffering or imminently threatens
livesorlivelihoods,andwhichthegovernmentconcernedhasnotthemeansto
remedy; and it is a demonstrably abnormal event, or series of events, which
produces dislocation in the life of a community on an exceptional scale”143. In
142Definitiononstrictliabilityincriminallaw,E-law-resources.143"EmergencyRelief."Definition.WorldFoodProgramme.
44
thisway States should be responsible formass damage and ecosystem failure
andwillbeboundtosupportotherstatesfacingtheseissues144.
Preferably,thenewprovisiononecocidewouldbeclearlydefinedwithregards
to the necessary threshold. In thisway, the necessary requirementswould be
easiertoprovebytheprosecutors’ratherthanleavingmanyelementsvaguein
which itbecomesdifficult todeterminewhat ispunishableunder international
criminal law.Asmentioned, in section6, aproposeddefinitiononecocideand
the necessary threshold will be explained for the creation of an autonomous
internationalcrimeonecocide.
5Whyisitinsufficienttoaddressecocidethroughnationallawsalone?
Thissectionwillidentifythealreadyexistingnationallawsonecocideanditwill
explainwhy it isproblematic toonly criminalize it atnational level.Moreover,
thissectionwilldiscusswhythereisaneedforinternationalaccountabilityfor
individualswhohavecommittedactsofecocide.
Ecocideisrecognizedasacrimeintencountries,namelyin:“Georgia,Armenia,
Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan and
Vietnam”145.Most of the penal codes of these countries set down the crime of
ecocideasa“‘crimeagainstpeace’,alongsidethenamedfourcoreinternational
crimeswhicharecrimesagainsthumanity,genocide,warcrimesandcrimesof
aggression”146.
EcocideiscriminalisedinGeorgiaunderArticle409oftheCriminalCodeGeorgia
1999.TheArticlestates:
144TEDxTalks. "Ecocide, the 5th Crime Against Peace: Polly Higgins at TEDxExeter." YouTube.YouTube,01May2012.145"EradicatingEcocide."ExistingEcocideLaws.146"RomeStatuteof1998."Article5.InternationalCriminalCourt.
45
“1. Ecocide, that is the poisoning of atmosphere, soil or water resources, and
massivedestructionoffloraorfauna,oranyotheractionthatcouldhaveresulted
inecologicaldisaster.
Shallbepunishablewiththedeprivationoflibertyforaperiodfromeighttotwenty
years.
2.Thesameactioncommittedduringthearmedconflict,-
Shallbepunishablewiththedeprivationoflibertyforaperiodfromtentotwenty
years147”
TheCriminalCodeoftheRepublicofArmenia2003definesecocideunderArticle
394asthefollowing:
“Massdestructionoffloraorfauna,poisoningtheenvironment,thesoilsorwater
resources, as well as implementation of other actions causing an ecological
catastrophe,ispunishedwithimprisonmentforthetermof10to15years”148.
TheCriminalCodeoftheUkraine2001definesecocideunderArticle441asthe
following:
“Massdestructionoffloraandfauna,poisoningofairorwaterresources,andalso
anyotheractionsthatmaycauseanenvironmentaldisaster,–shallbepunishable
byimprisonmentforatermofeighttofifteenyears”149.
TheCriminalCodeofBelarus1999criminalizesecocideunderArticle131as:
“Mass destruction of the faunaand flora, pollution of the atmosphereandwater
resourcesaswellasanyotheractliabletocauseanecologicaldisaster”150.
147Shevardnadze, Eduard. LAW OF GEORGIA ON AMENDMENTS TO THE “CRIMINAL CODE OFGEORGIA”.148"EradicatingEcocide."ExistingEcocideLaws.149Kuchma,L."CRIMINALCODEOFUKRAINE."150"CriminalProcedureCodeoftheRepublicofBelarus(RU)."UnitedNationsOfficeonDrugsandCrime.
46
The Penal Code of Kazakhstan 1997 defines ecocide under Article 161 as the
following:
“Massdestructionofthefaunaorflora,pollutionoftheatmosphere,agriculturalor
waterresources,aswellasotheractswhichhavecausedorarecapableofcausing
an ecological catastrophe, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of
mankind-
Shallbepunishedbyimprisonmentforaperiodfromtentofifteenyears”151.
TheCriminalCodeofKyrgyzstan1997definesecocideunderArticle374asthe
following:
“Massive destruction of the animal or plant kingdoms, contamination of the
atmosphere orwater resources, andalso commission of other actions capable of
causinganecologicalcatastrophe,shallbepunishablebydeprivationoflibertyfor
atermof12to20years”152. ThePenalCodeof theRepublicofMoldova2002definesecocideunderArticle136,asthefollowing:“Deliberate mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning the atmosphere or
water resources, and the commission of other acts thatmay cause or caused an
ecologicaldisastershallbepunishedbyimprisonmentfor10to15years”153.
Russia criminalized ecocide under Article 358 of the Criminal Code of theRussianFederation1996.Ecocideisdefinedas:
“Massivedestructionof the faunaand flora, contaminationof theatmosphereor
waterresources,aswellasotheractscapableofcausinganecologicalcatastrophe,
constitutesacrimeagainstthepeaceandsecurityofmankind-
151NAZARBAEV,N."TheCriminalCodeofKazakhstan."152AKAEV,A."THEKYRGYZREPUBLICCRIMINALCODE."153"EradicatingEcocide."ExistingEcocideLaws.
47
Shallbepunishablebydeprivationoflibertyforatermof12to20years”154.
Also,theCriminalCodeofTajikistan1998definesecocideunderArticle400asthefollowing:
“Massdestructionoffloraandfauna,poisoningtheatmosphereorwaterresources,
as well as commitment of other actions whichmay cause ecological disasters is
punishablebyimprisonmentforaperiodof15to20years”155.
In Vietnam, Article 342 of the 1990 Vietnam Crimes against mankind definesecocideasthefollowing:
“Thosewho,inpeacetimeorwartime,commitactsofGenocideoractsofEcocide
ordestroyingthenaturalenvironmentshallbesentenced”156.
5.1TheaddedvalueofaninternationallawonecocideThe above research indicates that even though there is no recognition of the
crimeofecocideattheinternationallevel,therearetencountriesthatdoalready
recognize this crime and have implemented it through their national law. As
previously emphasized, it is difficult to find a common definition on ecocide.
However,withinthetenmentionedlawsonecocide,commonelementsinthese
definitionscanbefound. Forinstance,alltenlawsdescribethattheremustbe
anelementofmassdestructionpresent. Interestingly, these lawsdonotdefine
what mass destruction actually entails and there is no threshold in order to
assesswhenonecantalkabouttherebeing‘massdestruction’.Moreover,these
definitionsalsodonot require theproofofharmcaused tohumansbut rather
focusonthefloraandfauna.
Besides the fact that only ten countries have incorporated ecocide in their
nationallaw,manycountriesthatdonothavesuchanationallawonecocidestill
do nevertheless criminalize various types of environmental destruction.
However, the reason why these laws are still insufficient on an international
level has to do with the fact that in some of these ten countries only a small
154"RussianFederation."CriminalCodes.155PenalCodeoftheRepublicofTajikistanof21May1998.156"VietnamCriminalCode."PenalCodeNo.15/1999/QH10.
48
numberofperpetratorsareactuallycaughtandevenfewerarepunished;there
is a low number of detected and reported crimes157. When comparing the
sanctions toprofits, thesentences thatarepronouncedareoften lowand fines
areminorwhencomparedtotheprofitsandgainsmadebycriminals.Thisleads
tothecriminalsanctionsoftennotbeingsufficientlyseveretoensureahighlevel
of environmental protection158.Moreover, one can argue that having these ten
countriesrecognizeecocideasanationalcrimeisagoodsteptowardsregulating
environmental crimes. However, since there is an international lack of
consensus, it may enable criminals to go ‘forum shopping’ because what
constitutesasa crimeof ecocide inone countrymightnotbe so inanother159.
Even though forumshoppingmight still be consideredaproblem ifnot all the
countries intheworldweretobesubjecttothe internationalcrimeofecocide,
making ecocide an international crimewould have a significant impact on the
risk minimizing strategies of transnational companies who operate in nations
withweak governance structures andwhich are facing difficulty with holding
powerfulcompaniestoaccountforenvironmentalharm160.
Therefore,inorderforecocidelawstobemoresuccessful,itmustberecognized
andimplementedonaninternationallevel.Inthisrespect,anautonomouscrime
of ecocide could be considered an added value to the Rome Statute and the
InternationalCriminalCourt,as itwillhelptoensurethatthe lawiseffectively
enforced161. Moreover, the ICC would be able to intervene when the national
judicial systems fail and when a State Party is either “unwilling or unable to
bringperpetratorsofecocidetojustice”162.
157 Luttenberger Axel, Luttenberger Runko Lidija, ‘Challenges in regulating environmentalcrimes’,UniversityofRijeka,page219.158 Luttenberger Axel, Luttenberger Runko Lidija, ‘Challenges in regulating environmentalcrimes’,UniversityofRijeka,page219.159 Luttenberger Axel, Luttenberger Runko Lidija, ‘Challenges in regulating environmentalcrimes’,UniversityofRijeka,page218.160Neyret Laurent, ‘Protecting the environment through criminal law’, United Nations, fromecocrimestoecocide,2017.161Neyret Laurent, ‘Protecting the environment through criminal law’, United Nations, fromecocrimestoecocide,2017.162Wijdekop, Femke. "Against Ecocide: Legal Protection for Earth." Great Transition Initiative:TowardsaTransformativeVisionandPraxis.Aug.2016.
49
6IncorporatingnewinternationalcrimesundertheRomeStatute
This sectionwill analyze the possibilities to introduce a new crime under the
RomeStatuteoftheICC.Itwillalsoexplainthepossiblehurdlesthatmaycome
along when wanting to make ecocide the fifth international autonomous
recognized crime. Besides that, this sectionwillpropose itsowndefinitionon
ecocide and explain the threshold for assessing what constitutes a crime of
ecocideaccordingtothedefinition.
6.1EcocideasafifthinternationalcrimeundertheRomeStatute
AccordingtoArticle121oftheRomeStatute,itwouldbepossibletoaddecocide
asafifthinternationalcrime.ThisArticleallowsthepossibilitytoaddcrimesvia
amendments,whichhavetobesubmittedtotheSecretary-GeneraloftheUnited
Nations,whoshallpromptlycirculate it toallStateParties163.TheAssemblyof
StatePartieswillthendecideupontheamendmentthroughmeetingsandvoting.
Someamendmentscome into force forallStatePartiesoneyearafter theyare
ratified by seven-eighths of the State Parties. However, any amendment to
Articles 5, 6, 7, or 8 of the Statute (the provisions on crimes within the
jurisdictionoftheCourt)onlyentersintoforceforStatePartiesthathaveratified
theamendment164.ThedownsidetoArticle121isthatStatePartiesdonothave
toacceptthenewcrimeiftheydonotwantto.Subsection5states:“Inrespectof
aStatePartywhichhasnotacceptedtheamendment,theCourtshallnotexercise
itsjurisdictionregardingacrimecoveredbytheamendmentwhencommittedby
thatStateParty'snationalsoronitsterritory”165.Moreover,subsection6states
that “if an amendment has been accepted by seven-eighths of State Parties in
accordance with paragraph 4, any State Party which has not accepted the
amendment may withdraw from this Statute with immediate effect”166. This
indicatesthattherearetwosortsofproblemswhichcanoccurwhilewantingto
163"RomeStatuteof1998."Article121.InternationalCriminalCourt.164Articles121(3),(4),and(6)oftheRomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt.165"RomeStatuteof1998."Article121.InternationalCriminalCourt.166"RomeStatuteof1998."Article121.InternationalCriminalCourt.
50
create an autonomous crime of ecocide, namely: 1) States not wanting to be
Partyto(orchoosingtowithdrawfrom)theRomeStatute,and2)thepossibility
thatsomeStatesmightchoosenottoratifyanamendmenttotheRomeStatute.
Togiveanexample,somecountrieslikeIndia,IndonesiaandChinadidnotsign
orratifytheRomeStatute167.Moreover,“onMay6,2002,theUnitedStates,ina
position shared with Israel and Sudan, having previously signed the Rome
Statute, formallywithdrew its intent of ratification”168. Regarding ecocide, this
would mean that such a provision would not apply to the countries that
withdrew from the Court or decided to not ratify it. From an environmental
destructionperspectivethisisratherproblematicduetothefactthattheUnited
States,ChinaandIndiaareconsideredtheworld’sbiggestpolluters.Chinaisthe
largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, it emits about 10,357 million
metric tons per year; the United States comes second with 5,414million and
Indiathirdwith2,274million169.Itisratherproblematicthatthesecountriesdid
notsignand/orratifiedtheRomeStatuteifecocideweretobeincorporatedin
the Statute. Thiswouldmean that the international law on ecocidewould not
apply to the countries, which represent a large part of the world and which
together with Europe accounts for 60% of the dioxide emissions. It would
complicatetheeffectiveandlong-termglobalenforcementoftheprohibitionof
ecocide170.Themainchallengewouldbetoget thesecountriesonboardof the
Rome Statute. Despite the challenges this movement faces, the Paris Climate
Agreement does offer some grounds for optimism since India and China did
ratify theagreement171. Signing theParisClimateAgreement indicates that the
bigger polluters do show interest in wanting to protect the environment. For
instance, the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi said that “care and
concern towards nature is integral to the Indian ethos” and that “India is
167"UN Treaties: Chapter XVIII – Penal Matters – item 10. Rome Statute of the InternationalCriminalCourt".168"UN Treaties: Chapter XVIII – Penal Matters – item 10. Rome Statute of the InternationalCriminalCourt".169ThomsonReuters,‘Whoaretheworld’sbiggestpolluters?’,2017.170WijdekopFemke,‘AgainstEcocide:LegalProtectionforEarth’,2016.171UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange.“StatusofRatification.”TheParisAgreement,10Apr.2017.
51
committed to doing everything possible to mitigate climate change”172. The
signing of the bigger polluters is a step in the good direction and it may
encourage these countries to also sign and becomeParty to a potential future
lawonecocideoftheRomeStatute.
AnotherissuetheInternationalCriminalCourtfacesisthefactthattheCourtis
losingthesupportofanincreasingnumberofAfricancountries.InOctober2016,
Burundi and South Africa formally wrote to the United Nations Secretary-
General to communicate their decision to withdraw from the ICC173 . The
dissatisfactioncameaboutbecauseAfricancountriesfelttargetedsincenineout
of ten cases before the court involved African countries174. However, the ICC
prosecutor FatouBensoudawho investigates andprosecutes crimesunder the
jurisdiction of the Court finds such accusations to make no sense since the
countriesthemselvesinitiatedmostofthecases.UntilnowonlyBurundihasleft
the Court but the thought of leaving is on the mind of many other African
countries.TheeffectsofleavingtheCourtaremajorsinceitwillhaveanimpact
ontheaccesstojusticeandredressforvictimsofgravecrimes.Africancountries
leavingtheICCwillalsohaveanegativeimpactonthecontinentifecocidewere
tobeincludedintheRomeStatute.TheecosystemsinmanyAfricanregionsare
being destroyed in order to maximize profits and to secure and expand the
prosperityof thewest175.Thisbringsalongmanydisadvantages for thepeople
wholiveintheseareas;manypeopleareforcedtoleavetheirhomesduetothe
fact that life has become unbearable in most of the resource rich regions in
Africa176.IfmoreAfricancountriesweretoleavetheICC,theywouldtakeaway
the opportunity to hold individuals and companies accountable for crimes of
environmental devastation. However, one may argue that creating an
autonomouscrimeofecocidewouldmakeAfricancountriesmoreeagertostay172DennisBrady,MooneyChris, ‘India just ratified theParis climate deal- brining it extremelyclosetotakingeffect’,TheWashingtonPost,2016.173KuwonuFranck,‘ICC:beyondthethreatsofwithdrawal’,AfricaattheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly,2017.174KuwonuFranck,‘ICC:beyondthethreatsofwithdrawal’,AfricaattheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly,2017.175DonatusPeter, ‘Ecocide in theNigerdelta’,Western resourcepolitics area reason for flightandmigrationinNigeria,2016.176DonatusPeter, ‘Ecocide in theNigerdelta’,Western resourcepolitics area reason for flightandmigrationinNigeria,2016.
52
PartytotheRomeStatutesincetheyareoftenthevictimsofmassdestructionto
the environment. In thisway, the Rome Statutewould create an international
platformforcountriessuchasAfricatoprotectthemselvesandtheenvironment
fromsuchharm.
6.2Areasofdivergencebetweenexistingdefinitionsandaproposedwayforward
Asmentioned before, ever since the 1970smany different legal scholars have
tried to define ecocide. On the one hand, defining ecocide with regards to
environmentalwarfareinwhichtheenvironmentisintentionallyharmed.Onthe
other hand, defining ecocide on the basis of a crime inwhich an ecosystem is
harmed and in which human rights are violated. These legal scholars have
argued for different ways in which individuals can be held criminally liable,
namely:bywayofintent,bywayofnegligenceandbywayofstrictliability.Asa
consequence,theconceptofecocidedoesnothaveonesingledefinition,whichis
sharedbyall legal scholars.Therefore, this sectionwillpresentadefinitionon
ecocide,whichwouldbestaddressthevarioushurdlesdiscussedthroughoutthe
othersectionsofthethesis.
As discussed, when wanting to create a common definition on ecocide in the
futureofinternationallaw,ideallyitwouldfocusonstrictliabilityforwhichno
proofofintentornegligenceisnecessary.Thisgenerallymeansthattherewillbe
liabilityforcrimesofecocideeveniftherewasnointentiontocommitthecrime.
Strict liabilitymayapply incases inwhich thedamage is inherentlyhazardous
suchasdamagestoorlossofecosystems.Thereasonwhythedefinitionshould
ideallyfocusonstrictliabilityisduetothefactthatitwouldbeeasiertoprovein
Court rather than negligence or intent. Moreover, the definition should also
expand to corporate actionmeaning that strict liabilitywould ideally not only
apply to individuals but also to corporate leaders of companies. This will be
explainedinfurtherdepthinsection7.
53
The thesis suggests that an appropriate definition of ecocide is: ‘The mass
destruction on areas of ecosystems in which human or naturally caused
environmentaldevastationactivitieshave takenplace, to suchadegree inwhich
the living conditions of the occupants (humans and/or other fauna or flora) are
endangered’.
Thedefinitioncouldrelyonthe1977ConventionontheProhibitionofMilitary
orAnyOtherHostileUseofEnvironmentalModificationTechniques(ENMOD)177
inordertodeterminethethresholdforthedifferentelementsofthedefinition.
For instance, in order to talk about ‘mass’ destruction of an ecosystem, the
destruction should be extensive. Extensive destruction involves the size,
durationandimpactofthedamage.ThethresholdmentionedintheConvention
focusesonthreeelements,namely:‘widespread’,‘long-term’and‘severe’.Assaid
before,itisdifficultfortheprosecutortoproveallthreeelementssincethereis
nodefinitionprovidedby theRomeStatuteas towhat theelementsmeanand
whatcriteriamustbemet.Also,theENMODmentionsthatitshouldnotbeused
forotherinternationalagreements.Ideally,theRomeStatuteshouldamendthe
elementsinawaythattheyareclearlydefined.Anotherpossibilitywouldbethat
theENMODwouldmakeanexceptionallowingtheRomeStatutetomakeuseof
theENMODcriteriafortheautonomouscrimeofecocide.
Asdiscussed,ArticleI(2)oftheENMODdefines“'widespread'as'encompassing
an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometres', 'long lasting' as
'approximately a season' and 'severe' as 'involving serious or significant
disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other
assets'”178.Withregardstotheproposeddefinition,‘widespread’couldbelinked
to the ‘mass destruction on areas of ecosystems’, 'long lasting' to ‘human or
naturally caused environmental devastation activities have taken place’ (which
makes the place a unsafe place to live for a long lasting period of time) and
‘severe’to‘endangeringthelivingconditionsofanecosystem’soccupants’.
177"ArticleI(2)."CustomaryIHL-SectionB.EnvironmentalModificationTechniques.178"ArticleI(2)."CustomaryIHL-SectionB.EnvironmentalModificationTechniques.
54
Furthermore, thedefinitionsuggests that it is important for there tobea legal
dutyofcareinordertopreventtheriskofmassecosystemcollapse,whetheritis
as a result of ascertainable or non-ascertainable occurring environmental
devastation. The duty of care should lay on “any person or persons who
exercises a position of superior responsibility, without exemption, in either
privateorpubliccapacitytopreventtheriskofand/oractualextensivedamage
toordestructionoforlossofecosystem(s);onCEOsanddirectorsofabusiness
and/oranypersonwhoexercisesrightsoveragiventerritorytoensureecocide
doesnotoccur;ongovernmentalactors,specificallyHeadsofStateandMinisters
withenvironment/energy/climatechangeportfolios,toensureecocidedoesnot
occur and to provide emergency assistance before, during and after to other
territoriesatriskoradverselyaffectedbyecocide;andonfinanciers, investors,
CEOsanddirectorsofanybankingandinvestment institutionswhoexercisesa
position of superior responsibility, to ensure ecocide is not financed’179. This
thesis does recognize the fact that the likelihoodof States agreeing to such an
expansive definition might be difficult to realize, especially considering that
nationaldefinitionsofecocidedocurrentlynotencompasssuchadutyofcare.
However,ifStateswouldbeabletoagreetosuchadefinition,itisimportantto
analyzewhetherthesuperiorresponsibilitydoctrinewouldbeafeasibleavenue
for holding company directors criminally liable for environmental crimes; this
willbeexaminedinthenextsection.
6.3Concludingremarks
Thissectionhasshownthatsomeofthebiggestpopulatedcountriesintheworld
have not ratified the Statute, which leads to the question whether it is
worthwhile to focus upon the ICC for prosecuting individuals for crimes of
ecocide. Moreover, besides the fact that it would be possible to create an
autonomous international crime of ecocide under the Rome Statute for its
currentmembers, its applicationwouldbe limited, given thatnot all countries
arePartiestotheRomeStatuteandsomePartiesmightchoosenottoratifythe
amendment.Overall, these are important challenges to take into consideration
179HigginsPolly,EradictingEcocide,‘ProposedamendmenttotheRomeStatute’.
55
whengranting thepower to the ICC to address casesof ecocide.However, the
fact that India and China did ratify the Paris Climate agreement leaves some
room for optimism. The same goes for the fact that many African countries
decidedtostayStatePartytotheRomeStatuteandtheICC.
Thesectionalsoprovidesitsowndefinitiononecocide.Thethesistakesonthe
pointofviewthat ifanautonomouscrimeofecocide isbeingcreated, itwould
more likely become successful if it is created according to the proposed
definition given. For instance, strict liability instead of negligence or intent is
easiertoproveinCourt.
The next section will determine whether the superior responsibility doctrine
underArticle28oftheRomeStatutewouldbeafeasibleavenueforprosecuting
individualsforenvironmentaldegradingactivitiesifecocidewouldbeaddedto
theRomeStatuteasthefifthautonomousinternationalcrime.
7 If ecocide is recognized as an international crime, is thesuperior responsibility doctrine a feasible avenue for holdingcompanydirectorscriminallyliableforenvironmentaldamage?
Theprevioussectionshaveshownthatcurrentlyitisdifficulttoholdindividuals
criminally liable for crimes of ecocide under the Rome Statute. Asmentioned,
there are some possibilities to prosecute under the crimes against humanity,
genocide and war crimes provision. However, it is often difficult to fulfill all
necessarymensreaandactusreusrequirements.Moreover,thereisalsoalackof
aninternationallyrecognizeddefinitiononecocide,whichmakesitproblematic,
ifnecessary,todeterminethelevelofintent.Therefore,thisthesisproposesthe
alternative option of creating an autonomous international crime of ecocide,
whichitunderstandsdoesnotcomewithouthurdles.Ifsuchanoptioniscreated,
itmightbepossibletoholdindividualsaccountableforenvironmentaldegrading
activitiesonthebasisofthesuperiorresponsibilitydoctrineoftheRomeStatute.
However,thisoptionwillalsonotcomewithoutobstacles.Thissectionaimsto
examine the possibilities of establishing a legal duty of the superior. It is an
56
importantconsiderationindeterminingwhetheritisworthamendingtheRome
Statutetoincludeecocide.
Ifanautonomousecocentricprovisionwillbecreatedwhichappliestobothwar
andpeacetimes,itwouldbepossibletoholdprivateindividualsresponsiblefor
environmentalharmscausedbytheirsubordinates180.Thedoctrineofsuperior
responsibilitycanbeappliedasapotentialoptioninwhichtheCEOand/orany
one of or all of the directors can be prosecuted181. The doctrine of superior
responsibility isusedwhen there isnot sufficientevidenceofdirect individual
criminal responsibility from the superior and thus serves as a subsidiary
provision182.Itisalsousedtomakesurethattheonewhohadalegaldutytoact
butfailedwillnotgounpunished183.Thelegaldutyofthesuperiorisexplainedin
Article28oftheRomeStatute.
Article28
Responsibilityofcommandersandothersuperiors
In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility under this Statute for
crimeswithinthejurisdictionoftheCourt:
(a)Amilitarycommanderorpersoneffectivelyactingasamilitarycommander
shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
committedbyforcesunderhisorhereffectivecommandandcontrol,oreffective
authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to
exercisecontrolproperlyoversuchforces,where:
180Fenrick,William J. "Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."Page521,superiorswhofallunderArticle28(b)‘canincludepoliticalleaders,businessleaders,andseniorcivilservants’.181Higgins,Polly."Ecocide:The5thMissingCrimeAgainstPeace."EradicatingEcocide.Page62-63.Print.182Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page241.Print.183Werle, Gerhard, and Florian Jessberger. Principles of International Criminal Law. Oxford:OxfordUP,2014.Page222.Print.
57
(i) That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the
circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were
committingorabouttocommitsuchcrimes;and
(ii) Thatmilitary commander or person failed to take all necessary and
reasonablemeasureswithin his or her power to prevent or repress
theircommissionortosubmitthemattertothecompetentauthorities
forinvestigationandprosecution.
(b) With respect to superior and subordinate relationships not described in
paragraph (a), a superior shall be criminally responsible for crimeswithin the
jurisdiction of theCourt committedby subordinates under his or her effective
authorityandcontrol,asaresultofhisorherfailuretoexercisecontrolproperly
oversuchsubordinates,where:
(i) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information,
which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or
abouttocommitsuchcrimes;
(ii) The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective
responsibilityandcontrolofthesuperior;and
(iii) The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures
withinhisorherpowertopreventorrepresstheircommissionorto
submit thematter to thecompetentauthorities for investigationand
prosecution184.
This Article indicates that the superior has to: “1) prevent that subordinates
commitinternationalcrimesand2)topunishthesubordinatesforinternational
crimes they have committed or to submit the matter to the competent
184"RomeStatuteof1998."Article28.InternationalCriminalCourt.
58
investigative authorities”185. There are four requirements under the superior
responsibilitycriteria,whichneedtobefulfilledinorderforittobesuccessful.
TheserequirementsarelaiddowninArticle28oftheStatute,namely:“1)there
mustbeasuperior-subordinaterelationshipinwhicheffectivecontrolispresent,
2)knowledgeormensreaofthecrimeswhichwerecommitted,3)theobligation
topreventorpunishthecrime,4)thecrimeistheresultoftheviolateddutyof
control”186. Even though Article 28(a) and (b) make a distinction between
military andother leaders187, it is stillmore challenging to apply it to civilians
than to military commanders. For instance, it is very challenging to apply
superior responsibility to civilian leaders as case law shows that most of the
civiliancaseshaveledtoacquittalswhiletherewereonlyseveralcasesinwhich
corporateleaderswereconvicted188.
7.1TheProsecutorv.AlfredMusema
ThiscaseinvolvedadirectorofapublicteacompanycalledGisovuTeaFactory.
He was also amember of several regional governmental authorities and very
influentialintheRwandanregion.TheProsecutoralleged:“Musematransported
armed attackers, including employees of the factory, to different locations in
GisovuandGishyitacommunesandorderedthemtoattackTutsisseekingrefuge
there.Healsopersonally tookpart insuchattacksandkillings.The indictment
against Musema was later amended to include charges that he committed
variousactsofrapeandthatheorderedandencouragedotherstorapeandkill
Tutsi women”189. Therefore, he was convicted for committing genocide and
crimes against humanity and besides that also for the failure to prevent and
punish the criminal acts of his subordinates190; the Trial Chamber sentenced
Musematolifeinprison.
185"RomeStatuteof1998."Article28.InternationalCriminalCourt.186Jansen,René. "ProsecutingCorporateLeaders forEnvironmentalDaM-Age in InternationalCriminalLaw."DefiningtheCrimeofEcocideandItsAddedValuetotheRomeStatute.187Ronen, Yaël. "Superior Responsibility of Civilians for International Crimes Committed inCivilianSettings."CIVILIANSUPERIORRESPONSIBILITY.Page313,354.188Nybondas, Maria L. Command Responsibility and Its Applicability to Civilian Superiors. Page114.Print. 189"TheProsecutorv.AlfredMusema."ICD-Musema-AsserInstitute.190"THEPROSECUTORv.ALFREDMUSEMA."CaseNo.ICTR-96-13-A.
59
7.2TheProsecutorv.FerdinandNahimana,Jean-BoscoBarayagwiza,HassanNgeze
“Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza founded Rwanda's Radio-
TelevisionLibredesMilleCollines(RTLM).Besidesbeingthefounderanddirector
of this radio station and Hassan Ngeze edited the twice-monthly Kangura
newspaper. Bothmedia outletswere used as vehicles for promoting extremist
Hutu ideology, inciting hatred, and exhorting listeners and readers tomurder
Tutsis during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Moreover, Nahima was also a
member of the ruling political party at that time191. On December 3, 2003, an
ICTRTrialChamberconvicted the threedefendantsof charges includingdirect
andpublicincitementtocommitgenocide”192.
The cases above also show that theywerenot ordinary businessmen involved
with purely corporate activities. Moreover, this indicates that it is very
challenging to establish the superior-subordinate relationship for corporate
leaders. Also, the effective control criterion is more emphasized on military
leadersthancivilianleaderssinceeffectiveresponsibilityandcontrol is limited
to the time place of the function193. That is to say, the civilian leader is only
responsible for crimes committed during the working hours of their
subordinates while the military commanders are also responsible for crimes
committedoutsidethescopeoftheirduties194.Thesecondrequirementrefersto
the fact that the civilian leadermust have known, or consciously disregarded
information. This might also be challenging for the prosecutor of the ICC to
provideevidenceforsuchmensreaasitsetsahighstandardtobeproven.The
third requirement, which deals with the obligation to prevent or punish the
crime,wouldbeeasier toprove for theprosecutor.This isdue to the fact that
usually within companies systems of supervision and reporting are installed
191The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze."Refworld.ICTR-99-52-A(28November2007)Paragraphs606-09.192"TheProsecutorv.NahimanaEtAl."OpenSocietyFoundations.28Nov.2007.193Werle, Gerhard, and Florian Jessberger. Principles of International Criminal Law. Oxford:OxfordUP,2014.Page228.Print. 194Triffterer,Otto,andKaiAmbos.CommentaryontheRomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt:Observers'Notes,ArticlebyArticle.MuÌnchen:VerlagC.H.Beck,2016.Print.
60
which makes it easier to determine the crime195. This means that the fourth
requirement inwhich the crimemust have been committed as a result of the
superior’sfailuretoexercisecontroloverthesubordinatewillalsobeeasierto
provethroughtheuseofmonitoringandsupervision.Thisisduetothefactthat
untilnowtheICC“hasheldthatthisrequirementonlyappliestothosecasesin
whichthesuperiordidnottakeanypreventivemeasuresandtherebyincreased
theriskthathissubordinatewasgoingtocommitthecrime196.
7.3Concludingremarks
The above section aimed to answer the question whether the superior
responsibility doctrine can be considered a feasible avenue for holding
individuals criminally liable for environmental damage if ecocide were to be
recognized as a fifth autonomous international crime. The importance of this
doctrineisthatitallowsholdingbothgovernmentsandbusinessesaccountable
for crimes of ecocide. The idea is that individuals such as the CEO and/or
directors of the companies who are responsible for the decision-making that
resulted inharm to the environment shouldbeprosecutedunder the superior
responsibilitydoctrineasciviliancorporateleaders.
Theresearchhasshownsomeofthechallengeswhenholdingindividualssuchas
corporate leaders criminally responsible under the superior responsibility
doctrineofArticle28oftheRomeStatute.Forinstance,thusfaradhoctribunals
have rarely convicted civilian leaders on the basis of the doctrine of superior
responsibility. In the examples of ‘TheProsecutorv.FerdinandNahimana, Jean-
Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze’ and ‘The Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema’
convictionsdidsucceedonthebasisof thisprinciple,however, thesecasesdid
not deal with the average civilian corporate leaders involved with purely
corporate activities. Moreover, the four necessarily requirements in order to
fulfillthesuperiorresponsibilitydoctrinehaveshownthatitisratherdifficultto
195"The Prosecutor v. Jean - Pierre Bemba Gombo." Found Guilty, on 21 March 2016, of TwoCountsofCrimesagainstHumanity(murderandRape)andThreeCountsofWarCrimes(murder,Rape,andPillaging).Sentenced,on21June2016,to18YearsofImprisonment.InICCCustody.196Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page241.Print.
61
lead to a successful prosecution before the ICC. Therefore, regarding ecocide
havingasuccessfulapplicationofsuperiorresponsibilitytoprosecutecorporate
leadersseemshighlyunlikely.
ApossiblewayofovercomingthishurdlewouldbetorewriteoramendArticle
28 in such a way that it applies more to ‘normal’ civilian corporate leaders
insteadofmilitaryleaders.Inthisway,Article28couldbeconsideredafeasible
avenue when ecocide is made into an autonomous international crime. The
other possible option would be to create an entire new Article in the Rome
Statute, which would apply more to civilian corporate leaders rather then
militaryleaders,andtothecrimeofecocideratherthantotheotherfouralready
establishedcrimes.
8Conclusion
Thisfinalpartaimstoprovideananswertothecentralquestionsofthethesis,
namely: What options are currently available for addressing instances of
ecological harm under the Rome Statute, what would be the added value of
introducing ecocide as an autonomous international crime, and what are the
potentialhurdlesthatmayariseinestablishingandprosecutingsuchacrime?
Inordertoanswerthesequestions,themainfindingswillbediscussedbelow.
Thethesisstartedoffbypointingoutthattheecocidedebatestartedintheearly
1970s. Around this time many legal scholars gave their opinion about how
ecocideshouldbedefined.Duetoalackofagreementwithregardstoacommon
definition, there isno internationaldefinitiononecocide.Thiscanbeseenasa
possiblehurdlewhenwantingtoholdindividualsliableandalsowhenwanting
tomakeecocidethefifthinternationalcrimeundertheRomeStatute.Thethesis
aims to eliminate this hurdle by creating its own definition namely: ‘Themass
destruction on areas of ecosystems in which human or naturally caused
environmentaldevastationactivitieshave takenplace, to suchadegree inwhich
the living conditions of the occupants (humans and/or other fauna or flora) are
endangered’.Thisdefinitionismoreinlinewithwantingtoprosecutebywayof
62
strict liability rather than negligence or intent. This definition also aims to
prosecute both ascertainable and non-ascertainable occurring environmental
devastationsincehumanerroralsoplaysalargeroleinenvironmentaldisasters.
Creatingsuchadefinitionwouldbeabetterroadtochooseasmanyofthemens
reaandactusreus requirementsare incertain instancesdifficult toprove.This
wasillustratedinsection4,inwhichthethesislookedatwhetheritiscurrently
possible tohold individuals liable forcrimesofecocideunder theexisting four
international crimes of the Rome Statute. The section indicates that there are
certain possibilities available to hold individuals accountable under the Rome
Statute. As explained, the Rome Statute already contains a provision (thewar
crimeprovision),whichexplicitlyrelatestoenvironmentaldamageforwhichno
humansufferingisneededasarequirementtoholdindividualsliableforsucha
crime. However, the provision focuses on international armed conflicts rather
than internal conflicts and is written in a way in which ecocide can only be
prosecuted during war times and not at peace times. Also, many of the
requirementstofulfilthisprovisionarevaguelydefined.Therefore,thewaythe
Rome Statute is currently written can be considered too general and lacks
precisionregardingthethreenecessaryelementsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)whichare
‘widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment’. The
provisionalsolacksclaritywithregardstothe‘militaryadvantage’conceptand
thedefinitionof‘concrete’,‘direct’and‘overall’.
Furthermore, the research also shows that it is possible to prosecute cases
involving ecocide under genocide and crimes against humanity. However, the
weakness of the genocide provision, layswith the fact that ‘specific genocidal
intent’ or the ‘mensrea’ isneeded inorder toprovewhetherornot therewas
intenttodestroyagroupbyanenvironmentalharmingactivity.Thisleadstothe
crimeofgenocidenotbeingabletoprovideminimalenvironmentalprotection,
whichmeans that individuals are only being prosecuted if they had genocidal
intentfortheatrocitiesthatharmedtheenvironment.Moreover,thehurdlewith
thecrimesagainsthumanityprovisionisthatthecrimemustbedirectedagainst
a civilian population. Therefore, it reaches the conclusion that the current
recognized crimes are not a feasible avenue for prosecuting ecocide, and that
63
ideally an autonomous crime of ecocide should be created. In this way, when
prosecuting, the ICC could lay more focus upon the actual harm done to the
environmentratherthandirectedagainstacivilianpopulationanditwouldalso
includeecocideoffensesatpeacetimeratherthanjustatwartimes.
Additionally,thethesislookedatthealreadyexistingnationallawsonecocide.It
isconsideredanimportantsectionasithelpstoexaminewhetherthesenational
laws are successfulwhenwanting to hold individuals liable for environmental
destruction. It also adds to the argument that international accountability for
individuals is needed since the current laws in place are insufficient. The
researchshowsthatcurrently there isno international lawonecocidebut it is
recognized in ten countries under their national law. These countries are:
Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia,
TajikistanandVietnam.
Thedownsideof these laws is that insomeof thesetencountries,onlyasmall
numberofperpetratorsareactuallycaughtandevenfewerarepunished;there
arealownumberofdetectedandreportedcrimes197.Also,whencomparingthe
sanctions toprofits, thesentences thatarepronouncedareoften lowand fines
areminorwhencomparedtotheprofitsandgainsmadebycriminals.Thisleads
tothecriminalsanctionsoftennotbeingsufficientlyseveretoensureahighlevel
ofenvironmentalprotection198.Moreover,sincethereisaninternationallackof
consensus, it may enable criminals to go ‘forum shopping’ because what
constitutesasa crimeof ecocide inone countrymightnotbe so inanother199.
Duetothesereasons,anautonomouscrimeofecocideundertheRomeStatute
couldbeconsideredanaddedvalueduetothefactthatnationallawsalonedoes
not bring sufficient support for creating liability for environmental crimes.
Making ecocide an international crimewould have a significant impact on the
risk minimizing strategies of transnational companies who operate in nations
197 Luttenberger Axel, Luttenberger Runko Lidija, ‘Challenges in regulating environmentalcrimes’,UniversityofRijeka,page219.198 Luttenberger Axel, Luttenberger Runko Lidija, ‘Challenges in regulating environmentalcrimes’,UniversityofRijeka,page219.199 Luttenberger Axel, Luttenberger Runko Lidija, ‘Challenges in regulating environmentalcrimes’,UniversityofRijeka,page218.
64
withweak governance structures andwhich are facing difficulty with holding
powerfulcompaniestoaccountforenvironmentalharm200.Additionally,theICC
wouldbeable to intervenewhen thenational judicial systems fail andwhena
state party is either “unwilling or unable to bring perpetrators of ecocide to
justice,whichcould leadtoadecrease incorruption.However, this thesisdoes
recognizethattheICC’sabilitytodosodependsuponwhetherornotaparticular
StateisaPartyoftheRomeStatute.
Since this thesis takes on the viewpoint that ecocide should be made an
autonomousinternationalcrimeundertheRomeStatute,itprovidesananalysis
inwhich itdetermines thepossibilities todoso.Section6explains thatArticle
121oftheRomeStatuteallowsforanewcrimetobeintroduced,whichwould
havetobesubmittedtotheSecretary-GeneraloftheUnitedNations.However,
the twomain problems that can come about are: 1) States not wanting to be
Partyto(orchoosingtowithdrawfrom)theRomeStatute,and2)thepossibility
thatsomeStatesmightchoosenottoratifyanamendmenttotheRomeStatute.
Besidesthefactthatitwouldbepossibletocreateanautonomousinternational
crimeofecocideundertheRomeStatuteforitscurrentmembers,itsapplication
wouldbelimited,giventhatnotallcountriesarePartiestotheRomeStatuteand
somePartiesmightchoosenottoratifytheamendment.Thatistosay,someof
thebiggestpopulatedcountriesintheworldhavenotratifiedtheStatutesuchas
IndiaandChina.However,thenagain,thefactthatIndiaandChinadidratifythe
ParisClimateagreementleavessomeroomforoptimism.Thesamegoesforthe
factthatmanyAfricancountriesdecidedtostayStatePartytotheRomeStatute
andtheICC.
The thesis also looked at whether the superior responsibility doctrine under
Article 28 of the Rome Statute would be a feasible avenue for prosecuting
individualsforenvironmentaldegradingactivitiesifecocidewouldbeaddedto
the Rome Statute as the fifth autonomous international crime. In this way, it
200Neyret Laurent, ‘Protecting the environment through criminal law’, United Nations, fromecocrimestoecocide,2017.
65
looksat thepossibilitytohold individualssuchaspolicymakers,directorsand
otherswhoareresponsibleforthedecision-makingaccountable.
TheproblemwithArticle28of theRomeStatute is that itoriginallyappliedto
militarycommandersandcouldnoteasilybeapplied tocorporate leaders.For
instance,thishasbeenpointedoutwithexamplesofpreviouscasesbytheICTY
and the ICTR. It indicates that there are only a few convictions and those
convictions involvedcivilian leaderswhomwereassociatedwithgovernmental
or policing authorities. Therefore, these leaders are not considered ‘normal’
civilian corporate leaders. The reason for limited convictions regarding the
superiorresponsibilitydoctrineisbecauseit isverydifficult fortheprosecutor
to establish the superior-subordinate relationship and to provide evidence for
thenecessaryrequirementssuchasmensrea.Therefore, thisthesishasargued
that that the superior responsibility doctrine would only be a successful
prosecutionbeforetheICCifthecivilianleaderactsinamilitaryofparamilitary
position201.
Toconclude,itisverycomplextoholdindividualsliableundertheRomeStatute
forcrimesofecocide.TheRomeStatute,asitiscurrentlywritten,doesnotoffer
thepossibilitytoprosecutesevereenvironmentalharm;onlyifitfallswithinthe
scopeofcertainalreadyestablishedcrimes.Besidesthat,itisalsochallengingto
hold corporate leaders accountable on the basis of the superior responsibility
doctrine,astheyshouldoperateinamilitaryorparamilitarysetting.Apossible
wayofovercomingthishurdlewouldbetorewriteArticle28insuchawaythat
itappliesmoreto‘normal’civiliancorporateleadersinsteadofmilitaryleaders,
ortocreateanentirenewArticleintheRomeStatute,whichwouldapplymore
to civilian corporate leaders rather thenmilitary leaders, and to the crime of
ecocide rather than to the other four already established crimes. In this way,
Article 28 could be a potential feasible avenue. However, overall it can be
concluded that the current available options are not sufficient on an
international level to criminalize harm against the environment. Despite the
201Bonafé,BeatriceI."FindingaProperRoleforCommandResponsibility."CommandResponsibilitybetweenPersonalCulpabilityandObjectiveLiability.
66
hurdles, the thesis intended to introduce new possibilities in which an
international crime of ecocide could be created. It did so by proposing a
definition for thecrimeofecocide,andbyanalyzing thedifferentprovisionsof
theRomeStatute.
The hurdles found within the thesis are probably the reason why there is
currentlynotalreadyafifthcrimeofecocideundertheRomeStatute.However,
the creation of such an autonomous crime would be the appropriate way
forwardsimplybecausetheworld is inneedofsuchacrime.Theinternational
crimeofecocidewouldbeconsideredanaddedvaluetopreventthe21stcentury
from becoming a century of resource wars and to avoid the escalation of
resourcedepletion202. It isnecessarysinceenvironmentaldestruction isoneof
thelargestthreatsthattheworldisfacingtoday.Theplanet'snaturalecosystems
andregeneratingbio-capacityarebeingseverelydegradedand,asaresult,this
compromises the ability of the planet to sustain life203. If the lawswill not be
changed,theearthwillcontinuetoworsen,whichwillhaveanegativeimpacton
thelivingconditionsofallbeingsoftheplanet.
202Higgins,Polly.“TheLawofEcocide.”‘Earthisourbusiness,changingtherulesofthegame’,Page9.Print.203UnitedNations,‘ReportoftheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment’,OurCommonFuture.
67
9BibliographyTreaties"AgreementfortheProsecutionandPunishmentoftheMajorWarCriminalsoftheEuropeanAxis,andCharteroftheInternationalMilitaryTribunal."HumanRightsLibrary.8Aug.1945."ArticleI(2)."CustomaryIHL-SectionB.EnvironmentalModificationTechniques.Web.21June2017.https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter14_rule45_sectionb"ObjectoftheInternationalLawCommission."Article1,Paragraph1,oftheStatuteoftheInternationalLawCommission.http://legal.un.org/ilc/work.shtmlTheRomeStatute."UnitedNations.Preamble.Treaties,StatesParties,andCommentaries-AdditionalProtocol(I)totheGenevaConventions,1977-35-BasicRules.Web.21June2017.https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=0DF4B935977689E8C12563CD0051DAE4Treaties,StatesParties,andCommentaries-AdditionalProtocol(I)totheGenevaConventions,1977-55-ProtectionoftheNaturalEnvironment.https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E20CAD5E1C078E94C12563CD0051DD24Treaties,StatesParties,andCommentaries-ConventionProhibitingEnvironmentalModificationTechniques(ENMOD),1976-Understandings-Understandings.https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/460-920013?OpenDocumentTreatycommentariesInternationalCriminalCourt,ElementsofCrimes,U.N.Doc.PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2(2000)http://legal.un.org/icc/prepcomm/report/prepreportdocs.htm"TheGenevaConventionsof1949andTheirAdditionalProtocols."ICRC.29Oct.2010.https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htmUnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange.“UNFCCC”.TheParisAgreement.http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php"UNTreaties:ChapterXVIII–PenalMatters–item10.RomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt".
68
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en"UN,UnitedNations,UNTreaties,Treaties."RomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt.TreatyCollection,http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en"UN,UnitedNations,UNTreaties,."Signatories:139.Parties:124.UnitedNations.https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&clang=_enUNresolutions31/72.ConventionontheProhibitionofMilitaryorAnyOtherHostileUseofEnvironmentalModificationTechniques."UNDocumentsGatheringaBodyofGlobalAgreements.http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm"A/cn.4/ser.a/1986/add.l(Part1)."YearbookoftheInternationalLawCommission.DocumentsoftheThirty-eighthSession.Part2,Page46,Paragraph96.http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1986_v2_p1.pdf"A/cn.4/ser.a/1993/add.l(Part2)."YearbookoftheInternationalLawCommission.ReportoftheCommissiontotheGeneralAssemblyontheWorkofItsForty-fifthSession.Part1,Page66,Paragraph50andPage68,Paragraph30.http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1993_v2_p2.pdf"A/cn.4/ser.a/1996/add.l(Part2)."YearbookoftheInternationalLawCommission.ReportoftheCommissiontotheGeneralAssemblyontheWorkofItsForty-eighthSession.ILC(XLVIII)/DC/CRD.3Part1,Paragraph1.http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1996_v2_p2.pdf"A/RES/44/39.InternationalCriminalResponsibilityofIndividualsandEntitiesEngagedinIllicitTraffickinginNarcoticDrugsacrossNationalFrontiersandOtherTransnationalCriminalActivities:EstablishmentofanInternationalCriminalCourtwithJurisdictionoverSuchCrimes."UnitedNations.UnitedNations.http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r039.htm"A/RES/50/46.EstablishmentofanInternationalCriminalCourt."UnitedNations.UnitedNations.http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/a50r046.htm"AnalyticalGuidetotheWorkoftheInternationalLawCommission."Resolution42/151of7December1987.http://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/7_4.shtml
69
"ConventiononthePreventionandPunishmentoftheCrimeofGenocide."AdoptedbyResolution260(III)AoftheUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyon9December1948."OfficialDocumentoftheUnitedNations."A/CN.4/377andCorr.1.UnitedNations,Page95,Paragraph46.Web.06June2017.A/CN.4/377andCorr.1,para.46,p.95.http://legal.un.org/docs/?path=../ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_377.pdf&lang=EFS"ReportontheConferenceoftheCommitteeonDisarmament."ASEEPrism26.6(2017):43-54.Page91.GeneralAssembly.https://disarmament-library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/7ea0a65906287d128525757d004f04aa/b47d23bf00885b1c8525780f006d66f9/$FILE/A-31-27-Vol-I.pdf"Resolution827."SecurityCouncil.UnitedNations.http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_827_1993_en.pdf"ResolutionsandDecisionsAdoptedbytheGeneralAssemblyduringIts2ndSession."UNDocumentationResearchGuide.GeneralAssemblyresolution177(II)of21November1947.http://research.un.org/en/docs/ga/quick/regular/2"Sub-CommissiononthePromotionandProtectionofHumanRights."UnitedNationsHumanRights.http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SC/Pages/SubCommission.aspx"U.N.Sub-CommissiononPreventionofDiscriminationandProtectionofMinorities,ReportoftheSub-CommissiononPreventionofDiscriminationandProtectionofMinoritiesonIts46thSession,U.N.Doc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/56(1994)."HumanRightsLibrary.http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/demo/1994min.htmlWhitaker,B."UnitedNationsEconomicandSocialCouncilCommissiononHumanRightsSub-CommissiononPreventionofDiscriminationandProtectionofMinoritiesThirty-eighthSession,Item4oftheProvisionalAgenda,E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6—2July1985."WhitakerReport.http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/UNdocs/whitaker/"YearbookoftheInternationalLawCommission."A/CN.4/SER.A/1997/Add.l(Part2).ReportoftheCommissiontotheGeneralAssemblyontheWorkofItsForty-ninthSession.1996.http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1997_v2_p2.pdfNationalstatutesAKAEV,A."THEKYRGYZREPUBLICCRIMINALCODE."Kuchma,L."CRIMINALCODEOFUKRAINE."http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/16257/preview
70
NAZARBAEV,N."TheCriminalCodeofKazakhstan."http://www.parliament.am/library/Qreakan/kazakstan.pdfPenalCodeoftheRepublicofTajikistanof21May1998.http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=68663"RussianFederation."CriminalCodes-Legislationline.http://legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/7Shevardnadze,Eduard.LAWOFGEORGIAONAMENDMENTSTOTHE“CRIMINALCODEOFGEORGIA”.https://iccdb.hrlc.net/documents/implementations/pdf/Law_on_Amendments_to_the_Criminal_Code.pdf"VietnamCriminalCode."PenalCodeNo.15/1999/QH10.http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=385615CourtdecisionsBudayevaandOthersvRussia[2008]EuropeanCourtofHumanRights,COU-154684(EuropeanCourtofHumanRights)."CaseInformationSheet."TheProsecutorv.OmarHassanAhmadAlBashir,SuspectedofFiveCountsofCrimesagainstHumanity,TwoCountsofWar,andThreeCountsofGenocideAllegedlyCommittedinDarfur,Sudan.Web.6June2017.https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir/Documents/AlBashirEng.pdfOneryildizvTurkey[2004]EuropeanCourtofHumanRights,[2004]ECHR657(EuropeanCourtofHumanRights).Web.7June2017."THEPROSECUTORv.ALFREDMUSEMA."CaseNo.ICTR-96-13-A.http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/ICTR/MUSEMA_ICTR-96-13/MUSEMA_ICTR-96-13-A.html"TheProsecutorv.AlfredMusema."ICD-Musema-AsserInstitute.http://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/121/Musema/"TheProsecutorv.FerdinandNahimana,Jean-BoscoBarayagwiza,HassanNgeze."Refworld.ICTR-99-52-A(28November2007)Paragraphs606-09.http://www.refworld.org/cases,ICTR,404468bc2.html"TheProsecutorv.Jean-PierreBembaGombo."FoundGuilty,on21March2016,ofTwoCountsofCrimesagainstHumanity(murderandRape)andThreeCountsofWarCrimes(murder,Rape,andPillaging).Sentenced,on21June2016,to18YearsofImprisonment.InICCCustody.https://www.icc-cpi.int/car/bemba/Documents/BembaEng.pdf
71
"TheProsecutorv.NahimanaEtAl."OpenSocietyFoundations.28Nov.2007.https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/litigation/prosecutor-v-nahimana-et-al"TrailSmelterCase(UnitedStates,Canada)."REPORTSOFINTERNATIONALARBITRALAWARDS.Pages1905-1982,1965.https://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup17/Batch%202/Trail%20smelter%20case%20(United%20States,%20Canada).pdf"TryingIndividualsforGenocide,WarCrimesandCrimesagainstHumanity."TheProsecutorv.OmarHassanAhmadAlBashir.https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir/pages/alleged-crimes.aspxUNIONCARBIDECORPORATIONVRESPONDENT:UNIONOFINDIAANDOTHERS,ETC[1989]SUPREMECOURTOFINDIA,JT1989(1)296(SUPREMECOURTOFINDIA).http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/scbhopal.pdfJournalarticlesBonafé,BeatriceI."FindingaProperRoleforCommandResponsibility."JournalofInternationalCriminalJustice,Volume5,Issue3.https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article-abstract/5/3/599/790801?redirectedFrom=fulltextFalk,RichardA."EnvironmentalWarfareandEcocideFacts,AppraisalandProposals."Volume:4issue:1,page(s):80-96.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096701067300400105?journalCode=sdia Freeland,Steven.CrimesagainsttheEnvironment-ARolefortheInternationalCriminalCourt?Vol.4(2004),pp.201-237.https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/352205628.pdfGrey,MarkAllan."TheInternationalCrimeofEcocide."CaliforniaWesternInternationalLawJournal,Volume26,page215.http://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1335&context=cwiljLawrence,JessicaC.,andKevinJonHeller."‘TheFirstEcocentricEnvironmentalWarCrime:TheLimitsofArticle8(2)(b)(iv)oftheRomeStatute’."GeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,Page72.Volume20,No.1,2007.Lay,Bronwyn,LaurentNeyret,DamienShort,MichaelBaumgartner,andAntonioA.Oposa."TIMELYANDNECESSARY:ECOCIDELAWASURGENTANDEMERGING."THEJOURNALJURISPRUDENCE.http://www.jurisprudence.com.au/juris28/lay.pdf
72
Lipscy,PhillipY.,KenjiE.Kushida,andTrevorIncerti."TheFukushimaDisasterandJapan’sNuclearPlantVulnerabilityinComparativePerspective."EnvironmentalScience&Technology(2013):130529150607006.http://web.stanford.edu/~plipscy/LipscyKushidaIncertiEST2013.pdfMishkatAlMoumin,‘MesopotamianMarshlands:AnEcocideCase’2008)20TheGeorgetownInternationalEnvironmentalLawReview,page499.Print.Prunella,Catherine."AnInternationalEnvironmentalLawCaseStudy:TheTrailSmelterArbitration”.Dec.2014.https://intlpollution.commons.gc.cuny.edu/an-international-environmental-law-case-study-the-trail-smelter-arbitration/Ronen,Yaël."SuperiorResponsibilityofCiviliansforInternationalCrimesCommittedinCivilianSettings."CIVILIANSUPERIORRESPONSIBILITY.VanderbiltJournalofTransnationalLaw,volume43,page313.https://www.vanderbilt.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/Ronen-cr1.pdfSharp,Peter."ProspectsforEnvironmentalLiabilityintheInternationalCriminalCourt."EnvironmentalLawJournal.Teclaff,LudwikA."BeyondRestoration-TheCaseofEcocide."NaturalResourcesJournal.http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1847&context=nrjBooksBassiouni,M.Cherif.TheLegislativeHistoryoftheInternationalCriminalCourt.Ardsley(N.Y.):Transnational,2005.Page,79.Print.BeratLynn,‘DefendingtheRighttoaHealthyEnvironment:TowardaCrimeofGeocideinInternationalLaw’,page327-340.BostonUniversityInternational.Print.Cassese,Antonio."TheHierarchyofRulesinInternationalLaw:TheRoleofJusCogens."OxfordUniversityPress,20July2016.Web.07June2017.http://www.oxfordlawtrove.com/view/10.1093/he/9780199259397.001.0001/he-9780199259397-chapter-11Cassese,Antonio."TheRepressionofInternationalCrimes."InternationalLaw.Oxford:OxfordUP,2005.Page435.Print.Cryer,Robert,HakanFriman,DarrylRobinson,andElizabethWilmshurst.AnIntroductiontoInternationalCriminalLawandProcedure.Cambridge:CambridgeUP,2013.http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/35818/frontmatter/9780521135818_frontmatter.pdf
73
Dupuy,Pierre-Marie,andJorgeE.Viñuales.InternationalEnvironmentalLaw.Cambridge:CambridgeUP,2016.Page56-57.http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/41240/frontmatter/9781107041240_frontmatter.pdfFenrick,WilliamJ."CommentaryontheRomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt."GoogleBooks.Page521,superiorswhofallunderArticle28(b)‘canincludepoliticalleaders,businessleaders,andseniorcivilservants’.https://books.google.nl/books?id=iIbAkLRWPUgC&pg=PA465&lpg=PA465&dq=William+J.+Fenrick,+%E2%80%98Article+28%E2%80%99+in+Otto+Triffterer+(ed),Commentary+on+the+Rome+Statute+of+the+International+Criminal+Court&source=bl&ots=JJcBwJnHea&sig=APKhCtdlJE76J-lWk5axIhe9Hqo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8yam3hKzUAhUKLlAKHemmADYQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=William%20J.%20Fenrick%2C%20%E2%80%98Article%2028%E2%80%99%20in%20Otto%20Triffterer%20(ed)%2CCommentary%20on%20the%20Rome%20Statute%20of%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court&f=falseFischer,Frank,FridolinWild,RosamundSutherland,andLenaZirn.GrandChallengesinTechnologyEnhancedLearningOutcomesofthe3rdAlpineRendez-Vous.Cham:SpringerInternational,2014.Page358-259.Print.Galston,ArthurW.,andShirleyCohen.InterviewwithArthurW.Galston.Pasadena,CA:CaltechArchives,2004.http://oralhistories.library.caltech.edu/150/1/Galston_OHO.pdfHiggins,Polly."EcocideAct."EradicatingEcocide.Print.Higgins,Polly.“EcocideAct”‘Earthisourbusiness,changingtherulesofthegame’,Print.Knoll,Erwin,andJudithNiesMcFadden."WarCrimesandtheAmericanConscience."01Apr.2017.Page71-72.Lemkin,Raphael.AxisRuleinOccuopiedEurope:LawsofOccupation,AnalysisofGovernment,ProposalsforRedress.Page79.Print.MASON,MARTINR.DOOMSDAYSCENARIOS.S.l.:LULUCOM,2015.Print.https://books.google.nl/books?id=D2O-CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=ecocide+wont+work+rome+statute&source=bl&ots=RPJS1ymFY_&sig=24flXLeuTYZ9n9PitQhyuWhrk0E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1p-L9wqTUAhVJbVAKHeVIAHMQ6AEIRjAF#v=onepage&q=ecocide%20wont%20work%20rome%20statute&f=false
74
Nybondas,MariaL.CommandResponsibilityandItsApplicabilitytoCivilianSuperiors.Page114.Print.Satzger,Helmut.InternationalandEuropeanCriminalLaw.Hart,2011.Page183.Print.Smith,Tara."CreatingaFrameworkfortheProsecutionofEnvironmentalCrimesinInternationalCriminalLaw.".Mar.2016.https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315613062.ch2Triffterer,Otto,andKaiAmbos.CommentaryontheRomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt:Observers'Notes,ArticlebyArticle.C.H.Beck,2016.Print.Werle,Gerhard,andFlorianJessberger.PrinciplesofInternationalCriminalLaw.Oxford:OxfordUP,2014.Page222.Print.https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdfZierler,David.TheInventionofEcocide:AgentOrange,Vietnam,andtheScientistsWhoChangedtheWayWeThinkabouttheEnvironment.Athens:UofGeorgia,2011.Pages2-4and14-5.Print.Internetresources"AfricanUnionBacksMassWithdrawalfromICC."BBCNews.BBC,01Feb.2017.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38826073"AmendmentfortheRomeStatute."ClosingtheDoortoDangerousIndustrialActivity.Annex.http://eradicatingecocide.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Concept-Paper.pdfCorr,Anders.“ExpectClimateCatastrophe:ParisAgreementLacksEnforcement.”Forbes,ForbesMagazine,1Dec.2016.https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2016/12/01/expect-climate-catastrophe-paris-agreement-lacks-enforcement/#12583d303313"CriminalProcedureCodeoftheRepublicofBelarus(RU)."UnitedNationsOfficeonDrugsandCrime.https://www.unodc.org/cld/document/blr/1999/criminal_procedure_code_of_the_republic_of_belarus_ru.html"CulpabilityofIndividualsunderInternationalLaw."HumanRightsWatch.https://www.hrw.org/legacy/features/darfur/fiveyearson/report9.htmlDennisBrady,MooneyChris,‘IndiajustratifiedtheParisclimatedeal-briningitextremelyclosetotakingeffect’,TheWashingtonPost,2016.
75
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/02/india-ratifies-global-climate-agreement-on-gandhis-birthday/?utm_term=.3518504d149aDefinitiononstrictliabilityincriminallaw,E-law-resources.http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Strict-liability.phpDocker,John."RaphaelLemkin’sHistoryofGenocideandColonialism."Lemkin'sDefinitions..https://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/speakers-and-events/all-speakers-and-events/raphael-lemkins-history-of-genocide-and-colonialismDonatusPeter,‘EcocideintheNigerdelta’,WesternresourcepoliticsareareasonforflightandmigrationinNigeria,2016.https://www.pambazuka.org/global-south/ecocide-niger-delta"Ecocide:TheFifthCrimeagainstPeace."JUNOMagazine.http://www.junomagazine.com/ecocide-polly-higgins-32/"EmergencyRelief."WorldFoodProgramme.http://www1.wfp.org/emergency-relief"EndEcocideonEarth."PollyHiggins.https://www.endecocide.org/"EradicatingEcocide."HowWillEcocideLawAffectBusinessesThatAlreadyHaveEffectiveMonitoringSystemsinPlace?.http://eradicatingecocide.com/the-law/faqs/#faq-13"ErgaOmnesObligations."OxfordReference.17Mar.2017.http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095756413"FukushimaNuclearDisasterWillImpactForests,RiversandEstuariesforHundredsofYears,WarnsGreenpeaceReport."GreenpeaceInternational.http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2016/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster-will-impact-forests-rivers-and-estuaries-for-hundreds-of-years-warns-Greenpeace-report-/Higgins,Polly."EarthIsOurBusiness."TheGuardian.GuardianNewsandMedia,04June2012.https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jun/04/ecocide-earth-business-extract"InternationalCrime."ECOCIDELAWHISTORICALBACKGROUNDInternationalCrime.http://eradicatingecocide.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/EL-Historical-Background-27.09.15.pdf"InternationalFellowshipofReconciliation."http://www.ifor.org/#mission"InternationalLaw."TheFreeDictionary.Farlex.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/international+law
76
"Iraq'sEcologicalDisaster."InternationalReview.12Feb.2003.http://www.int-review.org/terr36a.htmlJohnTaggart,'Ecocide:AWorthy"FifthCrimeAgainstPeace"?'(TheJournal,2014)http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/59-3/1013715.aspx"JusCogens."TheFreeDictionary.Farlex.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Jus+CogensKuwonuFranck,‘ICC:beyondthethreatsofwithdrawal’,AfricaattheUnitedNationsGeneralAssembly,2017.https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/may-july-2017/icc-beyond-threats-withdrawalLawrence,D.Grant."EnvironmentalLiabilityDirective(ELD),EnvironmentalDamageDirective(EDD)."InternationalDocumentsonEnvironmentalLiability(2008):3-21.Page1.http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/pdf/Summary%20ELD.pdfMemeti,Ardit."TheConceptofErgaOmnesObligationsinInternationalLaw."NewBalkanPolitics.http://www.newbalkanpolitics.org.mk/item/the-concept-of-erga-omnes-obligations-in-international-law#.WTAJOMmkIyk'MensReaNegligence'(e-lawresources,2016).http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Negligence-in-criminal-liability.php"‘No-harmRule’andClimateChange."LawyersRespondingtoClimateChange.http://legalresponseinitiative.org/legaladvice/no-harm-rule-and-climate-change/North,Andrew."SaddamDrainsLifefromArabMarshes:ScientistsFearIraq'sHistoricWetlandsFaceDestructionin10to20Years,SaysAndrewNorth."Independent.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/saddam-drains-life-from-arab-marshes-scientists-fear-iraqs-historic-wetlands-face-destruction-in-10-1436553.htmlOnSceneCoordinatorReport:DeepwaterHorizonOilSpill.Washington,D.C.:U.S.Dept.ofHomelandSecurity,U.S.CoastGuard,2011.https://www.loc.gov/item/2012427375"PixarStoryPartThree–TheBusinessAdvantagestotheLawofEcocide."22Oct.2013.http://6-heads.com/2013/10/22/pixar-story-part-three-the-business-advantages-to-the-law-of-ecocide/Relations,University.TheBhopalDisaster:StudentWebsiteforPubH6101:EnvironmentalHealth:UniversityofMinneosta.http://enhs.umn.edu/current/2008studentwebsites/pubh6101/bhopal/environment.html
77
Sherman,Richard."TheInternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment."CLIMATE-LNEWS.http://enb.iisd.org/email/climate-l/Climate-L_News_4.htmlShouldEcocideBeDeemedACrimeAgainstPeace?'http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/should-ecocide-be-deemed-a-crime-against-peaceSimD,'ChernobylDisaster:InsideTheExclusionZoneAndAbandonedGhostTownOfPripyat[Photos]'(InternationalBusinessTimes,2015).http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-disaster-inside-exclusion-zone-abandoned-ghost-town-pripyat-photos-1523628TEDxTalks."Ecocide,the5thCrimeAgainstPeace:PollyHigginsatTEDxExeter."YouTube.YouTube,01May2012.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EuxYzQ65H4"TheEcocideProject."HumanRightsConsortium.UniversityofLondon.https://hrc.sas.ac.uk/research-themes/environmental-justice/ecocide-projectThomsonReuters,‘Whoaretheworld’sbiggestpolluters?’,2017.https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/who-are-the-worlds-biggest-polluters-idUSRTXRKSI“Visie&Missie.”StopEcocide.https://stopecocide.nl/en/vision-mission/Wijdekop,Femke."AgainstEcocide:LegalProtectionforEarth."GreatTransitionInitiative:TowardsaTransformativeVisionandPraxis.Aug.2016.http://www.tellus.org/pub/Against-Ecocide.pdfWijdekop,Femke."TheDutytoCareforOurCommonHome."Ecocide,aCrimeunderInternationalLaw.FeatureEcocide.http://eradicatingecocide.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NewInt_Femke_May16.pdfWyatt,Julian."Law-makingattheIntersectionofInternationalEnvironmental,Humanitarian,andCriminalLaw:TheIssueofDamagetotheEnvironmentinInternationalArmedConflict."30-09-2010Article,InternationalReviewoftheRedCross,No.879.Page593,640.https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/review-2010/irrc-879-wyatt.htmResearchreportsanddiscussionpapers"Chernnobyl:AssessmentofRadiologicalandHealthImpacts."RadiationProtection.https://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/reports/2003/nea3508-chernobyl.pdf
78
"ECDirectiveonEnvironmentalLiability."JournalofEnvironmentalLaw16.3(2004):419-38.http://efface.eu/sites/default/files/EFFACE_Directive%202004_35_EC%20on%20Environmental%20liability.pdfHall,ChristopherKeith."InternationalReviewoftheRedCross."TheFirstProposalforaPermanentInternationalCriminalCourt:57.https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/other/57jp4m.htmHörnfeldt,Isabelle."ALawonEcocide:AWaytoEndMassDestructionoftheWorld’sEcosystems?"HistoryoftheConcept.LawFacultyUniversityofLund.InternationalCriminalCourt,OfficeoftheProsecutor,‘Policypaperoncaseselectionandprioritisation,15September2016.https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/20160915_OTP-Policy_Case-Selection_Eng.pdfMerz,Prisca,ValérieCabanes,andEmilieGaillard.EndingEcocide-thenextNecessaryStepinInternationalLaw.6Apr.2014.https://www.endecocide.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/iadlcongress.pdfMowry,Curtis,AdamPimentel,ElizabethSparks,andBrittanyHanlon."TheEcocideProject."EcocideIstheMissing5thCrimeAgainstPeace(2013).http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4830/1/Ecocide_research_report_19_July_13.pdfNeyretLaurent,‘Protectingtheenvironmentthroughcriminallaw’,UnitedNations,fromecocrimestoecocide,2017.http://drustage.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/ecocrimes-ecocideRoosevelt,FranklinD.,WinstonChurchill,andMarshalStalin."MoscowDeclarationonAtrocities."UnitedNationsInformationOrganisation:Page681-86.27Nov.1978."UnderstandingtheInternationalCriminalCourt."CrimeswithintheJurisdictionoftheICC,13..https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/UICCEng.pdfUnitedNations,‘ReportoftheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment’,OurCommonFuture.http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Portal/es/PoliticaExteriorCooperacion/Desarrollosostenible/Documents/Informe%20Brundtland%20(En%20ingl%C3%A9s).pdf"WhatIsthePolluterPaysPrinciple?"WhatIsthePolluterPaysPrinciple?|GranthamResearchInstituteonClimateChangeandtheEnvironment.http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/faqs/what-is-the-polluter-pays-principle/WijdekopFemke,‘AgainstEcocide:LegalProtectionforEarth’,2016.http://www.greattransition.org/publication/against-ecocide