On Sept. 9, three Pacific Island states – Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa – announced their submission of a formal proposal to amend the International Criminal Court’s statute to make ecocide an international crime. It bears noting at the outset: Amending the Rome Statute is, politically , a Herculean task so no one should expect to see an international prosecution for ecocide anytime soon. However, the advent of this submission by states who have been at the forefront of pushing international law to grapple with the realities of climate change spotlights a vital question: What do engaged stakeholders imagine that the international criminalization of ecocide can achieve? International criminal law has various goals including deterrence, retribution, expressivism, and the creation of an accurate historical record. It also, and especially since the advent of the International Criminal Court, has the ability to capture the imagination of the global public to a degree that vastly outstrips its actual resources. One negative consequence of this misalignment is the risk that the international criminalization of any behavior raises expectations that exceed what international criminal law can provide. With these realities in mind, it is an opportune moment to ask what those closest to the efforts to make ecocide an international crime believe that criminalization can achieve. And, to the extent that any consensus emerges, to begin the work of connecting legal theories to actionable outcomes for those most affected by environmental destruction. * * * Daniel Bertram , PhD candidate at the European University Institute; has closely followed the criminalization of ecocide for the past three years in the context of his doctoral project: In an increasingly fractured international normative topography, the resurrection of ecocide has engendered unlikely alliances. From Pope Francis to Greta Thunberg, from Indigenous environmental defenders to white collar lawyers, from […]
Click here to view original web page at www.justsecurity.org