BLUF: As global advocates and legal representatives push for the recognition of ecocide as the fifth international crime, an upsurge in environmentally destructive activities, such as the Israeli military’s flooding of Palestinian tunnels, raises the question of a more immediate need for such a law.
OSINT:
In an escalating global environmental crisis, repercussions of certain military strategies have widened the traditional lens of their impact to include potential environmental catastrophes triggering human rights concerns. For instance, recent plans by the Israeli military to inundate Hamas fighter’s underground tunnels with seawater have sparked worldwide concern for an impending environmental disaster in Gaza. Notably, such actions could render the land permanently saline, stressing farming operations and threatening an aquifer vital for the local population while elevating the ongoing genocide allegations against the Israeli government.
Currently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) handles instances of environmental destruction within the greater framework of war crimes. However, a rising chorus among certain countries, environmentalists, and legal experts advocates for specification and inclusion of ecocide as a separate crime in its repertoire, joining crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and genocide. Significant steps towards this end materialized in 2021 when a legal definition for ecocide developed over six months by a panel of experts, ushering its incorporation into the new legislation of many countries and the European Union.
The emerging conversation around making ecocide prosecutable underscores its preventative potential, with growing influence on governments and corporations’ decisions concerning large-scale environment-impacting operations. Moreover, individuals responsible for significant environmental damage, for example, military officers with direct involvement in catastrophic activities, could be subject to legal prosecution.
RIGHT:
From a Libertarian Republic Constitutionalist perspective, the premise of adding ‘ecocide’ to the list of international crimes raises some red flags. Sovereignty is of paramount importance, and the creation of international laws such as this could potentially infringe upon national sovereignty. While no one doubts the necessity to protect our environment, the question is how best to accomplish this and who should be given the paramount judgement. The implementation of international regulations could set a dangerous precedent, leading to future impositions on countries’ ability to govern their own affairs.
LEFT:
As a National Socialist Democrat, the recognition of ecocide as a fifth international crime is something to be applauded. The environement is a shared responsibility, and damages in one part of the world can have a massive ripple effect. For too long, corporations, military entities, and even governments have been able to cause harm to our environment with impunity. Global environmental laws such as this would provide a necessary wall of defense for our world’s precarious ecological balance.
AI:
Recognition of ecocide as a prosecutable crime under international law has potentially far-reaching implications for the environment, international relations, and human rights advocacy. Studies reveal historical limitations of local, national, and international regulations in mitigating environmental crimes due to proofing difficulties around ipso facto environment-damaging actions and the determination of intentionality among involved individuals. If recognized, ecocide can catalyze judgements not only based on occurred damages but on the potential environmental risks created by certain actions. However, it is important to understand that the effectiveness of ecocide laws to prevent widespread environmental damage will depend largely on its implementation. Besides, discerning its impact on civil, military, and corporate operations could be essential for fostering a global culture of environmental synergy.