Ecocide: A Fifth International Crime or An Unaccepted Notion?

“There is no question that climate change is happening; the only arguable point is what part humans are playing in it.”

David Attenborough

The human race and the surrounding environment, needless to say, are interconnected and for the same, the technological progress and its ramifications are also interconnected to the environment. The rising sea levels, global warming, mass deforestation, destruction of coral reefs are the perfect examples of ‘development over environment’. Nevertheless, every gabfest international climate change talks have failed to reach a consensus. Every time the technology and development pushed aside ecological progress and here we find ourselves amidst the most devastating climate change crisis ever in decades. The question emerges who should be held liable for destroying the ecosystem? This question keeps looming amidst this crisis and still ultimately the question remains a question.

The Etymology of the Word 'Ecocide'

The term ‘ecocide’ was coined by Professor Arthur W. Galston at the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington. Being a biologist, he identified the deterioration of the environment by effects of a chemical that later developed into Agent Orange (The war between USA and Vietnam).

The Inch-Perfect meaning of ‘Ecocide’

Before dwelling further on the coherent definition of ecocide, it is crucial to be conversant knowledge about the similar word of ‘genocide’. Genocide is the word associated with the meaning of the mass annihilation of the human race or can be described as a severe atrocity against human diversity.

Similarly, the meaning of ecocide ought to perceive that acts that obliterate the natural ecosystem and lead to species eradication and extinction. Regardless of saying this whole ecocide problem will lead to severe extinction of not only animal species but several varieties of flora and fauna that are on the verge of extinction.

The New Proposal of the Definition of ‘Ecocide’

The Stop Ecocide Foundation is restlessly working for getting a new definition of ecocide that will help in posing the liability on any person who tries to deteriorate the environment. For the same, the organization reached the International Criminal Court for inculcating the proposed definition in ‘Article 8 ter’ of Rome Statute. The definition reads as,

“unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

The afore-mentioned definition specifically makes that person liable who ‘unlawfully’ and ‘knowingly’ damage the environment after having the knowledge of its ramifications.

The confusing and debatable terms in the newly proposed definition

The newly proposed definition by the Stop Ecocide Foundation needs proper clarification for all sorts of confusing elements there. For example, the proposed definition suggests "unlawful or wanton demonstrations" liable to cause "serious and either far-reaching or long-haul harm" to the climate. On one hand, the term "unlawful" recommends that the direction should be now illicit under homegrown regulation, it is also specified that "wanton" signifies "the knowing harm to the environment on account of economic and financial benefit."

This is the bone of contention that the aforementioned terms suggest that it is completely fine to harm the climate as long as the harm isn't " unreasonable" corresponding to the lucrative business of the human race.

Consequences of designating Ecocide as an international crime

By making 'Ecocide' the fifth international crime, the long and the most side-lined agenda i.e. climate change by the ravenous acts of humanity will acquire its lost significance. Also, the monetary benefits and their profitable areas that deteriorate the environment will be caged and limited. The inclusion of these new international crimes will support and inspire the countries of the international community to inculcate a crime against the environment in their domestic laws.

The most lucrative approach in the given definition of ecocide is the onus of the destruction of the environment resting in the shoulders of those only who try to 'knowingly destroy the environment. To which, it will be an easy step for the nations to punish the perpetrator.

Recognition: An Easy task?

Notwithstanding the blatant warnings about the environmental crisis by certain countries to diminish carbon dioxide emissions, the overall utilization of non-renewable energy sources - and with-it worldwide ozone harming substance discharges - surged in these years. The never-ending demand for coal extraction and their lucrative business keeps destroying the ecosystem and in addition to this, according to International Energy Agency, these excessive mining are resulting in the increase of GHG emissions. On the other hand, the recognition of ecocide as an international crime has a long road that will not be easier for every country to digest. The top rankers in this list of nations are USA and China. Being the most polluter nations in the world, the excessive industrial development alongside the destruction of the environment of these nations will catalyze answerability in front of the whole world. The inculcation of ecocide as an international crime will be a major roadblock for these two countries. For the same, being the first-world and ruling countries, they will not allow the recognition of ecocide as an international crime.

Conclusion

The gradual deterioration of the environment carries the most harmful ramifications which will affect every living entity on this planet. The concept of ecocide is not limited to any borders of a specific country or human. The technological diversity and its never-ending progress are connected to the hefty lucrative business world that is ceasing the profit makers to once consider the environment before economic profits. Every person and their nation are continuously contributing to the detrimental effects of their own environment and for the same, this practice needs to get a full stop as soon as possible. However, this will be a daunting task to achieve as not every nation going to give their consent in making their own environment a better place. Nevertheless, if considered as a fifth international crime, the world will get at least a practice and a hope of ultimately a clear ecosystem without any baleful contributions from the human race.