INTRODUCTION
Agent Orange was used by America to win the war in Vietnam, destroying acres of land and crops and impacting the lives of Vietnamese for generations, but it has still never been held liable for this. For centuries, many have been exploiting the natural resources for their own gain without even thinking twice about their impact not only on the lives of the upcoming generation but also on our environment. Today’s global issues, like climate change, global warming, and the melting of glaciers, are all because of our actions. The ongoing wars, cutting down trees for building infrastructure compromising forest resources for the profits of companies are all examples of our greed, for which the price will be paid by our upcoming generation. Another example of ecocide is the 1991 Gulf War, when Iraqi forces burned the oil fields, causing widespread environmental destruction as they withdrew from Kuwait. Even though genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are punishable under international law, this mass destruction of the environment, termed ecocide, remains largely unregulated and unpunished at the global level.
WHAT IS ECOCIDE?
Ecocide is defined as acts that are committed by a party or a corporation with complete knowledge about its widespread or long-term impact on the environment. It was first coined by biology professor Arthur W. Galston in the 1970s during the Vietnam War, during his protest against the US military using Agent Orange. It was later used by law professor Harry W. Pettigrew, who argued in 1971 that the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution supports the existence of a right to freedom from ecocide.[1]The term ecocide was initially added in the Rome Statute as a separate crime, but was later dropped because of strong resistance from the Netherlands, France, and the UK.[2] In 2010, a proposal was introduced by Scottish Barrister and environmentalist Polly Higgins to include ecocide, and an alternative definition of ecocide was proposed, including acts or omissions committed in peacetime or war by any State, corporate or other entity, causing widespread ecological, climate, or cultural loss.[3]
THE LEGAL GAP: WHY ECOCIDE IS NOT A CRIME YET?
Even after so many years and threats of severe environmental damage, international law declaring ecocide a crime is a distant dream. With so many regions on the verge of being destroyed, countries like Vanuatu, the Maldives, Fiji, or Samoa have submitted a proposal to the UN Secretary General and the Working Group on Amendments of the Assembly of State Parties to include ecocide as a crime in the Rome Statute[4]. Currently, the Rome Statute of the ICC recognises only genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.
Ecocide is recognised as a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(4) in the Rome Statute, referred to as only environmental damage in times of war, and can only be prosecuted for their acts during war. But still, there have been no charges filed, probably because of the clause requiring “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment”, which is being used as an excuse to not prosecute, as the crimes need to be excessive and have a high threshold of injury. Corporations and state criminal responsibility are also excluded from the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute, meaning that this law is only applicable to States, while corporations can damage the environment without being held liable. This major loophole causes severe damage to our environment as there is no law criminalising the very acts that cause most of the environmental destruction, and it is a threat to the survival of mankind.
WHY SHOULD ECOCIDE BE RECOGNISED AS AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME?
As per the global risk report of 2025, extreme weather events caused by climate change, resulting in biodiversity collapse, are ranked second. Such reports are not new, as in 2023 too, climate change and biodiversity collapse dominated the top 5 positions[5]. A 2018 UN Report found that the existing environmental laws are fragmented, unclear, and ineffective. Though there exists environmental treaties like the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, requiring states to create their own domestic criminal laws but such laws are limited and irregular, and do not solve problems related to ecocide[6]. The absence of international laws criminalising ecocide has been felt throughout centuries, with incidents coming to light which seriously question the loophole and the intention of world leaders. So many summits and conferences are held every year to solve the problem of climate change, but nothing has yet been effective. The main reason behind the ineffectiveness of these summits is the absence of liability. Thousands of promises are made, rules are formulated, and treaties are signed, but none of them hold a clause of accountability in case of non-performance. This is a major loophole, which is resulting in major setbacks.
The incident of Amazon forest deforestation is an example of why ecocide should be criminalised all over the world and not only within state boundaries. The Amazon, being the producer of around 20% of the world’s oxygen, is an unparalleled and complex biome that supports nearly 47 million people who are dependent upon it for their livelihood. As per various reports of 2022, around 17% of the Amazon forest has been completely destroyed, and the additional 17% are degraded because of deforestation.[7] Major causes behind this deforestation are illegal logging, cattle ranching, soy cultivation, mining activities, infrastructure development and fires, which are intentionally set to clear the land. Another recent incident would be the Australian Bushfires, where between June 2019 and March 2020, unprecedented fires destroyed large parts of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia.
All these are done to make a profit on the verge of killing people and the species living in the forest. These selfish motives, without the fear of being held liable, are the reason why we are still not able to make progress. Laws in those nations are weakened not because there is a lack of understanding of the ongoing problem, but because there is nothing more important than earning profit. The laws are purposely weakened for these corporations to act on their own without any supervising authorities. Criminalising ecocide will act as a deterrent for these corporations to act on their own without considering the consequences of their acts over the economic gains. It would not only help in protecting the present communities but would also protect the rights of the upcoming generations.
REMAINING CHALLENGES
Although criminalising ecocide is the need of the hour, there are still challenges in making it a crime under the Rome Statute. Amending the Rome Statute is not easy, as it requires being passed with at least a two-thirds majority. Developed countries like the US, China, etc., which depend on economic and infrastructure growth to maintain their positions as global leaders, though they are not parties to the ICC but have a strong influence over the small nations that are part of the ICC. Such influence makes passing this amendment a difficult task. Many critics argue over potential difficulty in economic development because of aggressive environmental prosecution, but we should never forget that growth that is not sustainable is not important. It’s high time that we start thinking about our future generations and use natural resources wisely.
CONCLUSION
Laws must be framed and updated according to the needs of society, and including ecocide as a crime under the Rome Statute is a need of the hour. It would not only fill the legal vacuum but would also highlight the global principle of shared responsibility and environmental protection. A supervising authority is necessary to oversee the actions of corporations that cause severe harm to the environment. Actions that seriously hamper living conditions, contribute to climate change, or cause biodiversity collapse should be widely discouraged. We need to be united and voice our opinions to protect our planet. This accountability would ensure that nations not only sign treaties but also perform according to those regulations.
Author(s) Name: Anushka Raj (Chanakya National Law University)
References:
[1]Claudia Tam, ‘Why Ecocide Should Be an International Crime’ (EARTH.ORG, 30 Dec 2020) <Why Ecocide Should Be an International Crime | Earth.Org> accessed 26 June 2025
[2]Katherine Martinko, ‘ Why ‘Ecocide’ Needs to Become an International Crime’ (Treehugger, 29 March 2019) <Why ‘Ecocide’ Needs to Become an International Crime> accessed 26 June 2025
[3]Claudia Tam, ‘Why Ecocide Should Be an International Crime’ (EARTH.ORG, 30 Dec 2020) <Why Ecocide Should Be an International Crime | Earth.Org> accessed 26 June 2025
[4]Daniel Bertram, ‘Should Ecocide be an International Crime? It’s Time for States to Decide’ (EJIL: Talk!, 12 Sept 2024) <Should Ecocide be an International Crime? It’s Time for States to Decide – EJIL: Talk!> accessed 26 June 2025
[5] ‘ What is ecocide and which countries recognize it in law?’ (WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, 30 Aug 2021) <What is ecocide and which countries have made it law? | World Economic Forum> accessed 26 June 2025
[6]Claudia Tam, ‘Why Ecocide Should Be an International Crime’ (EARTH.ORG, 30 Dec 2020) <Why Ecocide Should Be an International Crime | Earth.Org> accessed 26 June 2025
[7]‘The Amazon in crisis: Forest loss threatens the region and the planet’ (WWF, 8 Nov 2022) <The Amazon in crisis: Forest loss threatens the region and the planet | Stories | WWF> accessed 26 June 2025
