Why these island nations want ecocide to become an international crime

CBC

22-03-2025

Environmental destruction should be on the same level as genocide and war crimes, a group of island nations argues.
"We don't take damage to nature seriously enough. We don't even take nature seriously enough," Jojo Mehta, co-founder and CEO of Stop Ecocide International, told What On Earth.
The South Pacific country of Vanuatu, backed by its fellow island nations of Fiji and Samoa, is pushing to have ecocide recognized by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the independent court based in The Hague, Netherlands, responsible for prosecuting individuals who are charged with the gravest crimes.
Ecocide is defined as the destruction of large areas of the natural environment as a consequence of human activity.
The proposal, made in September 2024, seeks to have ecocide recognized alongside the four crimes under the ICC's jurisdiction through the Rome Statute: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. It would allow for the prosecution of individuals accused of committing the worst environmental destruction.
"We see that law as having always been necessary. But we're just coming to the point now where people are realizing it must be in place," said Mehta.
But opinions are mixed on whether making ecocide a recognized crime would make a difference.
Vulnerability
Payam Akhavan, a professor of international law at the University of Toronto, says these island nations are some of the most at risk.
"Small island states are the canary in the coal mine of climate catastrophe," said Akhavan.
"Some of the low-lying islands … are literally going to be fully submerged in the foreseeable future, they will be swallowed by the ocean. So it's no exaggeration to say that for small island states, climate change and environmental harm is an existential threat."
Mehta says this push for ecocide to be recognized by the ICC is in addition to another legal initiative at the United Nations' International Court of Justice, which is looking at how much nation-states are responsible for human rights and climate change.
"There's a very clear and very concrete wish on the part of those islands to put something in place that actually creates a degree of safety and creates a kind of guardrail," said Mehta.
Why make it an international crime?
The term "ecocide" was first used in 1970, in reference to the damage done by the U.S. military's use of the Agent Orange chemical herbicide during the Vietnam War.
Akhavan says it would have extended to incidents like Russia destroying the Kakhovka Dam near Kherson, Ukraine, in 2023, or when former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein ordered the spilling of 11 million barrels of crude oil into the Persian Gulf in 1991, for example.
Many countries around the world already have environment-specific laws. But according to Mehta, it's "not proving adequate."
She says it's going to take a cultural shift, and putting ecocide alongside some of the world's worst crimes will impact people's perspectives.
"Criminal law taps into the moral and ethical sense that we have in society what is acceptable, what is not, what is bad, what is good, what is wrong, what is right," said Mehta. "So criminalizing something is saying something quite powerful."
Mehta says this would put companies on notice, as a charge of ecocide is more powerful than just a fine. It would come with a larger moral stigma.
According to Stop Ecocide International, once a country ratifies ecocide as a crime at the international level, they are likely to incorporate it into their domestic legislation. Other crimes under the ICC come with a sentence of imprisonment for life.
The ICC is a court of last resort, when nations can't or won't prosecute cases involving the most serious crimes. But Mehta believes that having ecocide under ICC jurisdiction could serve as a deterrent.
That would have the potential to impact a company's reputation and, she says, its stock value.
"If we put ecocide alongside crimes against humanity and genocide, what we're saying is it's just as bad, wrong, dangerous to severely destroy ecosystems as it is to commit those other crimes."
Would it make a difference?
Akhavan isn't so sure this is a magic bullet. He's also a former United Nations prosecutor in The Hague, a former special adviser to the ICC, and recently served as legal counsel in a climate-related case before the International Court of Justice, the UN's main judicial body.
"We have to understand that creating deterrence at the global level is a very long-term historical project," said Akhavan.
"It's not something that's going to be achieved with the wave of a magic wand by simply including the crime of ecocide."
There is ongoing diplomatic conversation around whether to include ecocide as the fifth crime under the Rome Statute, the international treaty that established the ICC. To amend the statute, two-thirds of the 125 member states must approve it, which includes Canada but not the U.S., Russia or China.
"I think other states may be reluctant to expand the remit of the courts," said Akhavan.
He says some may be concerned about how ecocide could be interpreted and applied. Others may worry that the ICC already struggles to prosecute crimes that currently fall under its statutes.
He believes national legislation is the most important area of legal activity, as even if ecocide is recognized by the ICC, it may take years of debate and discussion.
But Mehta says it's a "key piece" of the puzzle.
"It's not just symbolic. Shifting that mindset is actually a very practical thing that needs to happen. So we would say that it's about putting in place a ground rule that should always have been there.… And it's one that needs to be in place going forward into the future."