In this article we adopt a political economic lens to analyse the revival of the concept of ecocide in present international legal scholarship and practice. The current campaign to codify the crime of ecocide under international criminal law represents the epitome of a problem-solving approach, which conceives of the law as external to society and as a corrective to its evils. Yet, a large body of critical literature has drawn attention to the constitutive role of international law and to the problems with its depoliticized approach when it comes to tackling global injustices. We build upon this diverse scholarship to illuminate how the technical, acontextual, and ahistorical legal debate on the codification of ecocide ends up normalizing the violent structures of extractive capitalism and its hierarchies. Further, we situate the proposed crime within the wider context of how international law regulates and constitutes the natural world. Drawing on critiques of sustainable development and of business and human rights discourse, we argue that the ‘imbroglio’ of ecocide, in its current legal definition, lies in presenting ecological preservation and devastation as simultaneously legitimate aims. The article ultimately raises the question of the role of international law in progressive political agendas, a question that could not be more pressing in times of entangled socio-ecological-economic disruptions.

Throughout history, armed conflicts have frequently seen serious harm committed against the natural environment. From the early 1960s to 1971, the United States used Agent Orange to defoliate large tracts of Vietnamese forests. In the 1990s, Saddam Hussein vengefully ordered the burning of Kuwaiti oil wells, resulting in massive pollution to the air, land and surrounding seas. More recently, ecocentric harm has been documented in the Colombian civil war, by the so-called Islamic State group, and in the Ukraine conflict, among others. Whilst international humanitarian law (IHL) contains several prohibitions against environmental harm, the most striking is Article 55(2) of Additional Protocol I, whereby “[a]ttacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited”. Although this provision appears absolute and unconditional, critical questions persist regarding its status under customary international law and its applicability in non-international armed conflicts. Moreover, its criminalization has not been explored in the jurisprudence of international courts or in the relevant scholarly literature, despite the fact that penal sanctions against individuals are an important factor for enforcement of environmental protections.

To fill the lacuna, the following analysis examines the prohibition and criminalization of reprisals against the natural environment. It reviews conventional and customary international law to determine the current status of a putative criminal prohibition and its potential as lex ferenda. Importantly, it also assesses the relevance of reprisals against the natural environment for prosecutions under existing war crimes, such as attacks on civilian objects and destruction of enemy property. It generates novel insights for the application of international law to ecocentric harm, including that (1) reprisals against the natural environment are not criminal per se, but (2) conceptualizing the environment as a civilian object opens up clear paths for prosecuting attacks, including reprisals, against it; (3) the inherently intentional nature of reprisals has far-reaching implications for their prosecution; (4) reprisals can significantly impact the pivotal test of military necessity which arises in criminal prohibitions such as that found in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute; and (5) situations of reprisals could impact the application of the proposed definition of ecocide.

Traversing IHL and international criminal law (ICL), the article identifies ways in which these traditionally anthropocentric bodies of law can be reoriented to accommodate ecocentric values. This reconceptualization is significant, as the prospect of criminal sanctions is critical for deterring potential perpetrators and potentially adds a basis for reparations designed to remediate damage to the environment. The assessment redresses the fact that the natural environment has been seen as a peripheral matter under both IHL and ICL and has remained under-explored despite the ongoing destruction wrought on nature including during armed conflict. It seeks to elevate the environment to a core protected value under these legal regimes, as a reflection of our increasing awareness that the natural environment is critical for the well-being of current and future generations and our growing appreciation of the intrinsic importance of protecting nature.

The recent proposal by the Independent Expert Panel of the Stop Ecocide initiative to include the crime of ecocide in the International Criminal Court's Rome Statute has raised expectations for preventing and remedying severe environmental harm through international prosecution. As alluring as this image is, we argue that ecocide prosecutions may be the most difficult, perhaps even impossible, in precisely the cases that the ICC would need to be concerned with; namely, the gravest global incidents of environmental harm, including those associated with planetary climate change. We explore a series of questions about the panel's formulation of ecocide that resonate with longer debates around criminalizing environmental harm but take on new dimensions amid the Anthropocene and after twenty years of ICC trials. Ecocide must contend with the hard lessons learned concerning the ICC's limitations in realizing justice in a fraught international political context and also with fundamental challenges to knowledge and legitimacy arising from the uncertainty and dynamic socioenvironmental context of the Anthropocene. The proposed amendment, if adopted, risks ineffective prosecutions or even perverse outcomes for the environment itself. This risk, however, may characterize any effort to prosecute ecocide internationally in the Anthropocene unless the terms of international criminal law are fundamentally rethought.

An expert panel formed by Stop Ecocide International has proposed an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which, if adopted, would create a new international crime of ecocide. However, the panel's proposal is compromised throughout by anthropocentrism in the sense that it places too much emphasis on the needs of humans and not enough on the needs of the environment. It is argued here that this anthropocentric dilution of ecocide resulted from the panel's lack of standing, influence and confidence on the international stage. Its weakness pushed it towards a strategy of producing something palatable to states in the hope of securing their support. That strategy will prove futile. The article considers whether other actors, such as the international courts or experts working in different contexts, might be better placed to design the blueprint for ecocide. It concludes, tentatively, that the International Law Commission remains the architect best positioned to set out a bold vision of ecocide.

Cette réflexion se propose d’analyser le texte du projet d’amendements du Statut de Rome visant à inclure dans le champ matériel de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) un crime d’écocide. Conçu sous l’égide d’une organisation non gouvernementale réunissant douze spécialistes-praticiens du droit international de l’environnement et du droit international pénal, ce texte vient marquer les bases d’une définition juridique d’un crime écologique autonome. S’inscrivant dans la dynamique d’incrimination des dommages gravement attentatoires à l’environnement, cette démarche de caractérisation remonte dans la brume grisâtre d’un passé un tout petit peu lointain. L’on relèvera à cet effet que l’opération Ranch Hand au Vietnam constitue l’un des repères structurant l’urgence de criminaliser les actes graves d’atteinte écologique. C’est dans cette perspective que les travaux de la Commission du droit international sur la codification des crimes contre la paix et la sécurité de l’humanité soulignent l’intérêt d’incriminer aussi bien les dommages écologiques perpétrés en temps de paix que dans le contexte de belligérance. Le Statut de Rome s’étant limité, dans sa conception originale, aux seuls dommages écologiques perpétrés en temps de guerre, ce projet d’amendements du Statut de Rome rend compte de l’intérêt de prendre en charge notamment les milliers d’atteintes écologiques émanant, en temps normal, des multinationales et des criminels maffieux, à travers une incrimination autonome consacrant l’écocide comme cinquième crime contre la paix et la sécurité de l’humanité. Force est de souligner que cette proposition de révision vient rééquilibrer les fondements épistémologiques d’une convention par excellence anthropocentrique en lui assignant une bonne dose d’éco-centrisme. C’est donc l’occasion de souligner qu’ayant été assumé par le Vanuatu à l’occasion de la 20ème session de l’Assemblée générale des États-parties du Statut de Rome, ce texte constitue la base sur laquelle repose cette révision conventionnelle. Il appartiendra aux États-parties au texte instituant la CPI de se l’approprier à travers leur implication dans le processus de révision.

The Monsanto International Tribunal, a creation of civil society, sat at The Hague in October 2016. In its “Advisory Opinion” of 18 April 2017, this popular tribunal assessed Monsanto’s conduct under international law with regard to the right to a healthy environment, the right to food, the right to health, scientific freedom, as well as war crimes and ecocide. This article analyzes that opinion and situates it in its international legal context. Given that Monsanto did not participate in the proceedings, the question of a fair trial — which can have a decisive impact on the content of the opinion — is the first issue examined. In regard to the opinion itself, the findings are measured: the Tribunal concluded that Monsanto clearly violated human rights, but not international criminal law under existing legal standards. Given that, the Tribunal suggested two measures to redress the imbalance of the international legal order: on the one hand, to establish a hierarchy in favour of human rights and, on the other hand, to make companies direct bearers of international obligations deriving from these rights.