Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:52:17.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fighting Deforestation in Non-International Armed Conflicts: The Relevance of the Rome Statute for Rosewood Trafficking in Senegal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2021

Pauline Martini Open the ORCID record for Pauline Martini [Opens in a new window]  and
Maud Sarliève
Pauline Martini
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London (United Kingdom (UK)). Email: [email protected].
Maud Sarliève
Affiliation:
University of Paris-Ouest-Nanterre, Nanterre (France). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines rosewood trafficking in the Casamance region of Senegal to determine whether acts of massive deforestation committed in the context of a non-international armed conflict can be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) as war crimes of pillage and destruction of property under Article 8(2)(e)(v) and (xii) of the Rome Statute, respectively. It examines two of the main challenges resulting from the application of these provisions to acts of massive deforestation in the light of the ICC Elements of Crimes. Firstly, the article addresses the delicate issue of the establishment of a nexus between these acts and the related non-international armed conflict. Secondly, it discusses whether natural resources may qualify as ‘property’ for the purpose of Article 8(2)(e)(v) and (xii). It then offers avenues of reflection regarding the determination of ownership of these resources to fulfil the requirements of the Rome Statute.

Keywords

DeforestationInternational criminal lawWar crimesPillageDestruction of propertyNatural resources
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 95 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The original version of this article was presented at the Workshop ‘Climate Litigation in Africa’ organized by the University of Exeter (UK) and the University of the Witwatersrand (South Africa), 25–27 Aug. 2020. The authors warmly thank TEL reviewers, Jennifer Triscone and Martin Evans for their valuable comments and suggestions.

References

1 Rome (Italy), 17 July 1995, in force 1 July 2002, available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf.

2 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), ‘Forests and Climate Change’, Nov. 2017, available at: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/forests_and_climate_change_issues_brief.pdf. See other effects of deforestation in Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) & United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The State of the World's Forests: Forests, Biodiversity and People 2020 (FAO, 2020), available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/ca8642en.pdf.

3 Art. 5, Paris Agreement, Paris (France), 12 Dec. 2015, in force 4 Nov. 2016, available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.

4 FAO, ‘Implementing Article 5 of the Paris Agreement and Achieving Climate Neutrality through Forests: From COFO24 to COP24’, 23 July 2018, available at: http://www.fao.org/redd/news/detail/en/c/1146132.

5 FAO, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Key Findings (FAO, 2020), p. 3, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/CA8753EN/CA8753EN.pdf.

6 Ibid.

7 See Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) report by A. Hoare, ‘Tackling Illegal Logging and the Related Trade: What Progress and Where Next?’, July 2015, available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/20150715IllegalLoggingHoareFinal.pdf.

8 See, e.g., A.J. Paz Cardona & Mongabay Latam, ‘En Colombia: A mayor conflicto armado, mayor deforestación’, 5 Sept. 2019, available at: https://sostenibilidad.semana.com/medio-ambiente/articulo/deforestacion-en-colombia-aumenta-a-medida-que-se-intensifica-el-conflicto-armado/46641; CCFD-Terre Solidaire, ‘Natural Resources at the Heart of Conflict: Taking Action to Produce Ambitious European Legislation’, Oct. 2014, available at: https://ccfd-terresolidaire.org/IMG/pdf/ccfd-natural-resources-at-the-heart-of-conflict.pdf; Enaruvbe, G.O. et al. , ‘Armed Conflict and Mining Induced Land-Use Transition in Northern Nimba County, Liberia’ (2019) 17(1) Global Ecology and Conservation, pp. 1–14, at 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also UNEP, From Conflict to Peacebuilding: The Role of Natural Resources and the Environment (UNEP, 2009), available at: https://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/pcdmb_policy_01.pdf.

9 Global Forest Watch, ‘Location of Tree Cover Loss in Senegal’, 2019, available at: https://www.globalforestwatch.org.

10 FAO, ‘Global Transformation of Forests for People and Climate: A Focus on West Africa’, 25 Sept. 2019, available at: http://www.fao.org/redd/news/detail/en/c/1235031. See also FAO, ‘Towards Better Forest Management across West Africa’, 2019, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6102en/ca6102en.pdf. As no international mechanism, including REDD+, obliges countries to report on drivers of deforestation, there is no comprehensive, recent and quantitative assessment data concerning deforestation drivers and forest degradation at the national level. We have thus relied upon available regional data.

11 TRIAL International, ‘Pillage. Westwood: Dealing in Conflict Timber’, press release, 23 Mar. 2020, available at: https://trialinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/press-kit-Westwood_EN-1.pdf.

12 BBC News Africa, ‘The Trees that Bleed: How Rosewood is Smuggled from Senegal into Gambia’, YouTube, 10 Mar. 2020, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_GmLPPNbGc&ab_channel=BBCNewsAfrica.

13 CITES, 18th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, 23 May–3 June 2019, CoP18 Doc. 34, paras 51–63.

14 Washington, DC (United States), 3 Mar. 1973, in force 1 July 1975, available at: http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php.

15 Rome Statute, n. 1 above.

16 See Greene, A., ‘The Campaign to Make Ecocide an International Crime: Quixotic Quest or Moral Imperative’ (2019) 30(3) Fordham Environmental Law Review, pp. 1–48Google Scholar.

17 See Lawrence, J.L. & Heller, K.J., ‘The First Ecocentric Environmental War Crime: The Limits of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute’ (2007) 20(1) Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, pp. 61–95Google Scholar.

18 M. Kane, ‘The Silent Destruction of Senegal's Last Forests’, ENACT, 10 Jan. 2019, available at: https://enactafrica.org/enact-observer/the-silent-destruction-of-senegals-last-forests.

19 Loi n° 2018-25 portant Code Forestier, 2 Nov. 2018, Art. 2(15).

20 See Senegal Country Report for the FAO 2015 Global Forest Resources Assessment: ‘Évaluation des ressources forestières mondiales 2015 – Rapport national: Sénégal’, 2014, p. 68, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/az329f/az329f.pdf.

21 Loi n° 64-46 relative au domaine national, 17 June 1964, Art. 4.

22 See Diaw, O., ‘The National Forest Programme in Senegal: Developing Decentralized Planning and Management Capacities’ (2006/3) 225(57) Unasylva, pp. 50–5, at 51–2Google Scholar.

23 Arrêté ministériel n° 10 621 portant organisation de la Direction des Eaux et Forêts, Chasses et de la Conservation des Sols, 17 Sept. 1981.

24 Loi n° 2018-25 portant Code Forestier, n. 19 above, Title IV.

25 N. 14 above.

26 CITES, ‘How CITES Works’, available at: https://cites.org/eng/disc/how.php.

27 CITES, 18th Meeting of the CoP, n. 13 above, p. 74.

28 BBC News Africa, n. 12 above.

29 RULAC, ‘Non-International Armed Conflict in Senegal’, 30 Sept. 2019, available at: http://www.rulac.org/browse/conflicts/niac-in-senegal#collapse2accord.

30 ICTY, Dusko Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, IT-94-1, Appeals Chamber, 2 Oct. 1995, para. 70.

31 ICC, Lubanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06, Trial Chamber I, 14 Mar. 2012, paras 533–8. For a complete analysis of the matter, see Klamberg, M., ‘Article 8’, in Klamberg, M. (ed.), Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court (Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2017), pp. 118–9Google Scholar.

32 TRIAL International, n. 11 above, p. 3.

33 Ibid.

34 BBC News Africa, n. 12 above; CITES, 18th Meeting of the CoP, n. 13 above, pp. 77–9; TRIAL International, n. 11 above, p. 6.

35 See TRIAL International, n. 11 above, p. 3.

36 The Court convicted two individuals accused of destruction of property (Germain Katanga and Bosco Ntaganda) and two individuals accused of pillage (Germain Katanga and Dominic Ongwen): ICC, Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07, Trial Chamber II, 7 Mar. 2014; ICC, Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06, Trial Chamber VI, 8 July 2019 (whose conviction was confirmed on appeal: ICC, Ntaganda, Judgment on the Appeals of Mr Bosco Ntaganda and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber VI of 8 July 2019 entitled ‘Judgment’, ICC-01/04-02/06, A.A2, Appeals Chamber, 30 Mar. 2021; and ICC, Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15, Trial Chamber IX, 4 Feb. 2021. A recent case brought before the Court will generate more jurisprudence on these crimes; the ICC confirmed charges against Patrice-Édouard Ngaïssona for pillage and destruction of property: ICC, Yekatom and Ngaïssona, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges against Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona, ICC-01/14-01/18, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 20 Dec. 2019.

37 Katanga, ibid., paras 928 and 932.

38 See the phrasing of the chapeau requirement under Art. 8(2)(e): ‘other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character’ (emphasis added).

39 Bonan, G., ‘Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests’ (2008) 320(5882) Science, pp. 1444–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

40 FAO, The Challenge of Sustainable Forest Management (FAO, 1993, reprinted 1995), Ch. 3 ‘Why Are Forests Important?’, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/t0829e/T0829E05.htm.

41 See Powell, B. et al. , The Role of Forests, Trees and Wild Biodiversity for Nutrition-Sensitive Food Systems and Landscapes (FAO & WHO, 2013), p. 2Google Scholar, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-as570e.pdf.

42 FAO & UNEP, n. 2 above, p. 6.

43 Rome Statute, n. 1 above, Arts 17 and 53. For developments on ICC jurisprudence on admissibility, see inter alia Nouwen, S., Complementarity in the Line of Fire: The Catalysing Effects of the International Criminal Court in Uganda and Sudan (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 34–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Rastan, R., ‘Situation and Case: Defining the Parameters’, in Stahn, C. & Zeidy, M. El (eds), The International Criminal Court and Complementarity: From Theory to Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 421–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 ICC, Elements of Crimes, 2011, available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/resourcelibrary/official-journal/elements-of-crimes.aspx.

45 Ibid., Introduction to Art. 8; Element 4 to Art. 8(2)(e)(v); and Element 6 to Art. 8(2)(e)(xii).

46 Ntaganda, Judgment, n. 36 above, para. 698.

47 Ibid.

48 ICTY, Kunarac et al., Appeals Judgment, IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A, Appeals Chamber, 12 June 2002, para. 58 (quoted in Ntaganda, Judgment, n. 36 above, para. 731).

49 Ntaganda, Judgment, n. 36 above, paras 731–2.

50 Kunarac, n. 48 above, para. 59 (emphasis added).

51 Ibid.

52 See Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), Taylor, Judgment, SCSL-03-01-T, Trial Chamber II, 18 May 2012. The SCSL, however, did not deal with the exploitation of Sierra Leone's natural resources in its cases; charges of pillage against the accused were limited to damage to civil properties. The Court therefore never had to make findings on the substantial link between the acts and the armed conflict between Sierra Leone and various armed groups operating on its territory.

53 BBC News Africa, n. 12 above; CITES, 18th Meeting of the CoP, n. 13 above, pp. 77–9; TRIAL International, n. 11 above, p. 6.

54 See Wisner, S., ‘Criminalizing Corporate Actors for Exploitation of Natural Resources in Armed Conflict: UN Natural Resources Sanctions Committees and the International Criminal Court’ (2018) 16(5) Journal of International Criminal Justice, pp. 963–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stewart, J., Corporate War Crimes: Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources (Open Society Foundations, 2011)Google Scholar.

55 UNEP, n. 8 above, p. 11.

56 Elements of Crimes, Art. 8(2)(e)(v), Elements 1 and 3. Appropriation shall be understood as meaning that the ‘property has come under the control of the perpetrator’: ICC, Katanga, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, ICC-01/04-01/07, Pre-Trial Chamber I, 30 Sept. 2008, para. 330; ICC, Bemba, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/05-01/08, Trial Chamber III, 21 Mar. 2016, paras 115–6; ‘[t]he lack of consent can be inferred from the absence of the rightful owner from the place from where property was taken: Katanga, n. 36 above, para. 954.

57 Elements of Crimes, Art. 8(2)(e)(xii), Elements 1 and 2.

58 Ntaganda, Judgment, n. 36 above, para. 1160.

59 Katanga, n. 36 above, para. 892 (referred to in Ntaganda, Judgment, n. 36 above, para. 1152).

60 Principle 2 of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration), adopted by the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Stockholm (Sweden), 5–16 June 1972, UN Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev. 1, available at: http://www.un-documents.net/aconf48-14r1.pdf.

61 Art. V(1) of the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Algiers (Algeria), 15 Sept. 1968, in force 16 June 1969, available at: https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/7782-treaty-0029_-_revised_african_convention_on_the_conservation_of_nature_and_natural_resources_e.pdf.

62 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ‘Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System’, 30 Dec. 2009, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 56/09, para. 41 (emphasis added).

63 See notably IACtHR, Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru, 6 Feb. 2001, para. 122; IACtHR, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, 31 Aug. 2001, para. 144; IACtHR, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, 17 June 2005, para. 137; IACtHR, Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, 29 Mar. 2006, para. 121.

64 Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru, ibid., para. 121 (emphasis added). See also Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, ibid., para. 137; IACtHR, Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, 27 June 2012, para. 145; IACtHR, Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and Their Members v. Panama, 14 Oct. 2014, paras 111–2; IACtHR, Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and Its Members v. Honduras, 8 Oct. 2015, para. 165; IACtHR, Triunfo de la Cruz Garifuna Community and Its Members v. Honduras, 8 Oct. 2015, para. 100; IACtHR, Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, 25 Nov. 2015, para. 129; IACtHR, Xucuru Indigenous People and Its Members v. Brazil, 5 Feb. 2018, para. 115; IACtHR, Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, 6 Feb. 2020, para. 94.

65 American Convention on Human Rights, San Rosé (Costa Rica), 22 Nov. 1969, in force 16 Nov. 1999, available at: https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/english/basic3.american%20convention.htm.

66 Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association, n. 64 above, para. 94 (quoting Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, n. 63 above, para. 137).

67 IACtHR, Saramaka People v. Suriname, 28 Nov. 2007, para. 122.

68 Nairobi (Kenya), 27 June 1981, in force 21 Oct. 1986, available at: https://www.achpr.org/legalinstruments/detail?id=49.

69 ACHPR, ‘Principles and Guidelines on the Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’, para. 54 (emphasis added). This is in line with the phrasing of Art. 21(1) and (2) of the Banjul Charter.

70 ECtHR, Guide on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights: Protection of Property (Council of Europe, 30 Apr. 2021), para. 74 (referring to ECtHR, 29 June 2004, Doğan and Others v. Turkey, Appl. Nos. 8803-8811/05, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, para. 139).

71 Elements of Crimes, Art. 8(2)(e)(v), Elements 1 and 2.

72 Katanga, n. 36 above, para. 917.

73 Ntaganda, n. 36 above, para. 1032.

74 Ibid.

75 Bemba, n. 56 above, para. 643.

76 Ntaganda, n. 36 above, para. 1032.

77 Stewart, n. 54 above, p. 39.

78 Elements of Crimes, Art. 8(2)(e)(v), Elements 1 and 2.

79 Art. 25(1) of the Senegalese Constitution: ‘Les ressources naturelles appartiennent au peuple. Elles sont utilisées pour l'amélioration de ses conditions de vie. L'exploitation et la gestion des ressources naturelles doivent se faire dans la transparence et de façon à générer une croissance économique, à promouvoir le bien-être de la population en général et à être écologiquement durables. L'Etat et les collectivistés territoriales ont l'obligation de veiller à la préservation du patrimoine foncier’.

80 For a detailed analysis of Senegalese local agreements on the management of natural resources see Granier, L., ‘Les conventions locales de gestion des ressources naturelles et de l'environnement: L’égalité et cohérence en droit sénégalais’ (2006) 65 UICN, Droit et politique de l'environnement, pp. x, 44Google Scholar.

81 Diaw, n. 22 above, pp. 51–2.

82 See Section 2.1 above.

83 J. Falconer & C.R.S. Koppell, The Major Significance of ‘Minor’ Forest Products: The Local Use and Value of Forests in the West African Humid Forest Zone, CF Note 6 (FAO, 1990), p. 3. ‘The Cultural and Symbolic Importance of Forest Resources’, para 3.3, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/t9450e/t9450e06.htm; M. Goudiaby, ‘Les parcs agroforestiers en Basse Casamance: Contribution du Parkia biglobosa (néré) à la réduction des risques de pauvreté des ménages de la communauté rurale de Mangagoulack, au Sénégal’ (M.Sc. thesis, Laval University, Quebec (Canada), 2013), p. 3.

84 CITES, 18th Meeting of the CoP, n. 13 above, p. 79; BBC News Africa, n. 12 above.

85 See, e.g., ACHPR, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Kenya, 26 May 2017, particularly paras 124–201; and the following cases of the IACtHR: Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, n. 63 above, paras 120–1; Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, n. 63 above, particularly para. 147; Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, n. 64 above, para. 146; Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members v. Panama, n. 64 above, paras 111–2; Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and its Members v. Honduras, n. 64 above, para. 165; Triunfo de la Cruz Garifuna Community and its Members v. Honduras, n. 64 above, para. 100; Xucuru Indigenous People and its Members v. Brazil, n. 64 above, para. 115; Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, n. 64 above, para. 94.

86 Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, n. 63 above, paras 148–9 and 151.

87 See, e.g., Triunfo de la Cruz Garifuna Community and its Members v. Honduras, n. 64 above, para. 100; Xucuru Indigenous People and its Members v. Brazil, n. 64 above, para. 115.

88 Stewart, n. 54 above, p. 45.

89 Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, n. 64 above, particularly para. 130; see also ACHPR v. Kenya, n. 85 above, para. 201.

90 ACHPR v. Kenya, n. 85 above, para. 201.

91 Pierre, B., ‘Classification of Property and Conceptions of Ownership in Civil and Common Law’ (1997) 28 Revue générale de droit, pp. 235–75, at 254CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 See M. Pardo, J.M. Echavarren & E. Alemán, ‘The Environment as a Common Good in the Time of Globalization: Its Conceptualization and Social Perception’ (2003) Landscape, Law & Justice: Proceedings from a Workshop on Old and New Commons, pp. 61–8.

93 Finnis, J., ‘What is the Common Good, and Why Does It Concern the Client's Lawyer?’ (1999) 40 South Texas Law Review, pp. 41–53, at 44Google Scholar.

94 Kiss, A., ‘Conserving the Common Heritage of Mankind’ (1990) 59(4) Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico, pp. 773–8, at 775Google Scholar.

95 Washington, DC (US), 1 Dec. 1959, in force 23 June 1961, Preamble, available at: https://www.ats.aq/e/key-documents.html (emphasis added).

96 Ibid., see Arts. I to III.

97 Montego Bay (Jamaica), 10 Dec. 1982, in force 16 Nov. 1994, Art. 136 et seq., available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm.

98 Annex to UN General Assembly Res. 34/68, 5 Dec. 1979, in force 11 July 1984, particularly Arts 4 and 6, available at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html.

99 Radzivill, O. et al. , ‘International Legal and Philosophical Aspects of the New Protection Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind’ (2020) 2(15) Wisdom, pp. 153–74, at 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the Preamble to the Statutes of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 5 Oct. 1948, last amended 10 Sept. 2016, available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48398 (‘Convinced that since protection and conservation of nature and natural resources are of vital importance to all nations’).

100 Vienna (Austria), 22 Mar. 1985, in force 22 Sept. 1988, Preamble, available at: http://ozone.unep.org. See also the ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), 9 July 1985, Arts 1 and 2, available at: http://agreement.asean.org/media/download/20161129035620.pdf; Convention for the Protection of Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (Noumea Convention), Noumea (New Caledonia), 24 Nov. 1986, in force 18 Sept. 1990, Art. 4(6), available at: https://www.sprep.org/attachments/NoumeConventintextATS.pdf.

101 Radzivill et al., n. 99 above, p. 165.

102 Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora [1992] OJ L 206/7, Preamble.

103 CJEU, Case C-441/17, Commission v. Poland, ECLI:EU:C:2018:255, in particular paras 164–8.

104 Elements of Crimes, Art. 8(2)(e)(v), Elements 1 and 2.

105 ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 Dec. 2005, ICJ Reports (2005), p. 168, para. 244.

106 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, ibid., Judgment, Declaration of Judge Koroma, p. 284, para. 11 (emphasis in original).

107 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, n. 105 above, para. 244.

108 Stewart, n. 54 above, pp. 43–4.

109 Ibid., p. 50.

110 Ibid., p. 51.

111 ICJ, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, Advisory Opinion, 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports (1971), p. 16, para. 125; ECtHR, 18 Dec. 1996, Loizidou v. Turkey, Appl. No. 15318/89, paras. 56–7.

112 Stewart, n. 54 above, p. 49.

113 See, particularly, Higgins, P., Eradicating Ecocide (Shepheard-Walwyn, 2010)Google Scholar; Higgins, P., Short, D. & South, N., ‘Protecting the Planet: A Proposal for a Law of Ecocide’ (2013) 59(3) Crime, Law and Social Change, pp. 251–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also, inter alia, Greene, A., ‘The Campaign to Make Ecocide an International Crime: Quixotic Quest or Moral Imperative’ (2019) 30(3) Fordham Environmental Law Review, pp. 1–48Google Scholar; Smith, T., ‘Creating a Framework for the Prosecution of Environmental Crimes in International Criminal Law’, in Schabas, W., McDermott, Y. & Hayes, N. (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives (Ashgate, 2013), pp. 45–62Google Scholar.

114 See, e.g., Falk, R., ‘Environmental Warfare and Ecocide: Facts, Appraisal and Proposals’ (1973) 4(1) Bulletin Peace Proposals, pp. 80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Geneva (Switzerland), 10 Dec. 1976, in force 5 Oct. 1978, available at: https://www.un.org/disarmament/enmod.

116 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva (Switzerland), 8 June 1977, in force 7 Dec. 1978, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470.

117 ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, ‘Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide prepared by Mr B. Whitaker’, 2 July 1985, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6, Item 4, available at: https://undocs.org/en/E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6.

118 Stop Ecocide Foundation, ‘Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide: Commentary and Core Text’, June 2021, available at: https://www.stopecocide.earth/expert-drafting-panel.

119 See M. Sarliève, ‘Ecocide: Past, Present and Future Challenges’, in W. Leal Filho et al. (eds), Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Life on Land (Springer, 2021), available at: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-71065-5_110-1.

120 Neyret, L., Des écocrimes à l’écocide: le droit pénal au secours de l'environnement (Bruylant, 2015)Google Scholar; Neyret, L., ‘Pour la reconnaissance du crime d’écocide’ (2014) 39(HS01) Revue juridique de l'environnement, pp. 177–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 ILC, ‘Protection of the Environment in relation to Armed Conflicts’, 6 June 2019, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.937, available at: https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.4/L.937.

122 ILC, ‘Summaries of the Work of the International Law Commission’, 11 Dec. 2019, available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/summaries/8_7.shtml.

123 For a global approach on the topic see C. Stahn, ‘Liberals vs. Romantics: Challenges of An Emerging Corporate International Criminal Law’, 21 Feb. 2018, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3127843. For a Rome Statute-based approach see, inter alia, Clapham, A., ‘The Question of Jurisdiction under International Criminal Law over Legal Persons: Lessons from the Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court’, in Kamminga, M. & Zia-Zarifi, S. (eds), Liability of Multinational Corporations under International Law (Kluwer Law International, 2000), pp. 139–95Google Scholar; Scheffer, D., ‘Corporate Liability under the Rome Statute’ (2016) 57 Harvard International Law JournalGoogle Scholar, online symposium, available at: https://harvardilj.org/2016/07/corporate-liability-under-the-rome-statute; van der Wilt, H., ‘Corporate Criminal Responsibility for International Crimes: Exploring the Possibilities’ (2013) 12(1) Chinese Journal of International Law, pp. 43–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the question of the exploitation of illegal resources in armed conflicts, see Stewart, n. 54 above, pp. 75–82 and Wisner, n. 54 above.

124 See M. Sarliève, ‘Multinationals and Human Rights: Do States Understand the Urgency of a Treaty?’, Fondation Hirondelle, 9 Nov. 2020, available at: https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/justiceinfo-comment-and-debate/opinion/45922-multinationals-human-rights-do-states-understand-urgency-treaty.html.

125 Malabo (Equatorial Guinea), 27 June 2014, not in force, available at: https://au.int/en/treaties/protocol-amendments-protocol-statute-african-court-justice-and-human-rights.

126 Ibid., Annex, Art. 46C.

127 Malabo Protocol, n. 125 above, Annex, Art. 28L bis.

128 See sources at n. 8 above.

129 ICC OTP, ‘Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation’, 15 Sept. 2016, para. 41, available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsdocuments/20160915_otp-policy_case-selection_eng.pdf.