Ökozid (Umweltrecht)

Ecocide is the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished.

Anthropogenic ecocide

The term ecocide is more recently used to refer to the destructive impact of humanity on its own natural environment. As a group of complex organisms we are committing ecocide through unsustainable exploitation of the planet's resources. The geological era we are living in, known as the anthropocene, is so named because the activities of the human species are influencing the Earth's natural state in a way never seen before. The most notable example is that of the atmosphere which is being transformed through the emission of gases from fossil fuel use : carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons etc. The population explosion of the last century in conjunction with economic models built on growth are fuelling this misuse, a form of global ecocide. The ecocide we are witnessing is a symptom of the disregard and reward for accounting for the damage being caused. U.S. environmental theorist and activist Patrick Hossay argues that the human species is committing ecocide, via industrial civilization's effects on the global environment. Much of the modern environmental movement stems from this belief as a precept.

International crime

The crime of ecocide, or rather wilful and severe damage to the environment, surfaced for the first time in the 1991 ILC yearbook report, and was defined as "An individual who wilfully causes or orders the causing of widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment shall, on conviction thereof, be sentenced [to...]."

International crime

1945

United Nations Charter: "The General Assembly shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of a. encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification"

1947

General Assembly resolution to prepare a Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (renamed and known as the Rome Statute from 1998).

1948

The International Law Commission is established by the United Nations General Assembly for the "promotion of the progressive development of international law and its codification."

1970s onwards

There was growing support from government, the United Nations and communities to include Ecocide as the fifth International crime to stand alongside the crime of Genocide by amending the Rome Statute. It is recognised as part of an emerging body of Earth Law or Earth jurisprudence.

In an obiter dictum in the 1970 Barcelona Traction case judgement, the International Court of Justice identified a category of international obligations called ‘erga omnes’, namely obligations owed by states to the international community as a whole, intended to protect and promote the basic values and common interests of all.

1978

Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind discussions commence. At the same time, state responsibility and international crimes are discussed and drafted.

1998

Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, renamed the Rome Statute, includes only 4 international crimes (minus ecocide) and is the founding document of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is classified as a Court of last resort - to be used when a state is either unwilling or unable to bring their prosecutions for international crimes.

2001

Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the ILC on the Work of its Fifty-third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess, Supp No 10, A/56/10 minus Article 19 (state crimes).

2002

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force, including only four international crimes of ‘the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole’.

A Proposed Definition

Ecocide law is sometimes referred to as green crime, eco-crime, corporate crime, a crime against peace, leadership crime, as well as a crime against humanity, a crime against nature and a crime against future generations.

Ecocide is not currently an international crime, although it is a domestic crime in ten countries (see list below). Ecocide law has not only criminal law but also civil law requirements and application. Some jurisdictions adopted ecocide into their criminal penal codes along with other international crimes as were discussed by the General Assembly and the International Law Commission between 1991 and 1996 (see below for list).

Examples of human caused ecocide include:

• large scale land use change causing direct destruction of habitats e.g. deforestation of the Amazon rain forest;
• significant pollution whether deliberate or incidental e.g. oil pumping and spills in the Niger Delta; and
• Open cast mining where entire landscapes are removed e.g. Abathsca tar sands.

Rather than a watering-down of the crime of ecocide to a restricted remit, the definition proposed by Higgins allows for a number of aspects to be addressed. They are; creating a strict liability crime (intent or negligence are included as aggravating features for sentencing purposes) that meets the criteria of international crime (the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole) to prevent and prohibit crimes against the peace and security of mankind. As was highlighted in earlier attempts (see below), often ecocide is caused by the use of dangerous industrial activity (for profit), not for the intent to willfully cause harm. A second ecocide, no less important, is naturally-occurring ecocide. For the purposes of criminality, the prosecution can arise through state responsibility eg. where a state either fails to assist or refuses to assist a Small Island State that seeks to migrate with dignity when their land becomes uninhabitable.

Human caused ecocide (human agency) or naturally occurring ecocide is unique every time; the evidence of the harm differs in every circumstance (e.g. rising sea levels, dangerous industrial activity).The correct test to apply, as proposed by Higgins is therefore a parameter based disjunctive test as set out under the 1977 United Nations Environmental Modification Convention specifies the terms ‘widespread’, ‘long-lasting’ and ‘severe’ as:

1. widespread: encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers; and/or
2. long-lasting: lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season; and/or
3. severe: involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.

The purpose for applying parameters (and not limits) is that crime prohibits harm. To establish how severe the harm is is dependent on the size and/or duration and/or impact, which is a question of evidence to be determined by the court.

Who is prosecuted: concerns that this will criminalise the whole human race are met by the application of the principle of superior responsibility that applies to all international crime. These are persons in positions of higher ranks and authority who make decisions in their capacity as CEOs, directors, ministers, heads of state; senior decision-makers, permit and license providers, financiers etc.

Ecocide law, as drafted in the Ecocide Act, can be brought as a crime against humanity (where humans are harmed/ at risk of injury or harm), a crime against nature (where ecosystems are harmed/ at risk of injury or harm) and/or a crime against future generations (where human and/or ecosystems are at future risk of injury or harm). Ecocide is a collective harm, has universal jurisdiction application and can adversely impact multi-jurisdictions over time and space. Prosecutions can be brought in member states (signatories to the Rome Statute), and where a member state refuses or is unwilling to prosecute, the International Criminal Court has the power to prosecute.

Criminal law is a reflection of society’s acceptance and adoption of what are in essence moral wrongs that are denounced and codified as criminal acts. When an act is wrong in and of itself, criminal law prohibits it (‘malum in se/malum prohibitum’). Many rights and harms are still unenforceable per se, e.g. indigenous rights, through lack of criminal enforcement. Ecocide law gives enforcement to corporate and state responsibility multi-jurisdictionally. The gravity of the crime is emphasised by the obligation of enforcement by the state, not just at a national level but also internationally.

History

Over 40 years of discourse surrounds and gives legal weight to the 2010 proposal for Ecocide law. The concept of creating an international crime of Ecocide as the extensive damage, destruction to and loss of ecosystems has a history dating back to the 1970s.

1970

The word was recorded at the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington 1970, where Arthur Galston proposed a new international agreement to ban ecocide. Galston was a US biologist who identified the defoliant effects of a chemical later developed into Agent Orange. Subsequently a bioethicist, he was the first in 1970 to name massive damage and destruction of ecosystems as an ecocide.

1972

In 1972 at the United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment which adopted the Stockholm Declaration, Olof Palme the Prime Minister of Sweden, in his opening speech spoke explicitly of the Vietnam war as an ecocide and it was discussed in the unofficial events running parallel to the official UN Stockholm Conference on Human Environment. Others, including Indira Gandhi from India and Tang Ke, the leader of the Chinese delegation, also denounced the war in human and environmental terms. They too called for ecocide to be an international crime. A Working Group on Crimes Against the Environment was formed at the conference, and a draft Ecocide Convention was submitted into the United Nations in 1973.

In 1972 Dai Dong, a branch of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation sponsored a Convention on Ecocidal War which took place in Stockholm, Sweden. The Convention brought together many people including experts Richard A. Falk, expert on the international law of war crimes and Robert Jay Lifton, a psychohistorian. The Convention called for a United Nations Convention on Ecocidal Warfare, which would amongst other matters seek to define and condemn ecocide as an international crime of war. Richard A. Falk drafted an Ecocide Convention in 1973, explicitly stating at the outset to recognise "that man has consciously and unconsciously inflicted irreparable damage to the environment in times of war and peace"

It was recognised from the outset that the element of intent did not always apply. “Intent may not only be impossible to establish without admission but, I believe, it is essentially irrelevant.”

1970s

The idea of expanding the 1948 Genocide Convention led to extensive enquiry as to whether ecocide should be included as an international crime by the United Nations. The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities prepared a study discussing the effectiveness of the Genocide Convention, proposing the adoption of ecocide as well as cultural genocide to the list of crimes. In the following years making ecocide a crime was examined by working groups and mentioned in several studies. Although primary source documents are not fully comprehensive or available, some of the key documents are listed here.

1978

Yearbook of the ILC : Draft articles on State Responsibility and international crime include: “an international crime (which) may result, inter alia, from: (d) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for the safeguarding and preservation of the human environment, such as those prohibiting massive pollution of the atmosphere or of the seas.” Supporters who spoke out in favour of a crime of ecocide included Romania and the Holy See Austria, Poland, Rwanda, Congo and Oman.

1985

Ecocide as a crime continued to be addressed. The Whitaker report, commissoned by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide was prepared by then Special Rapporteur, Benjamin Whitaker. “Some members of the Sub-Commission have however proposed that the definition of genocide should be broadened to include cultural genocide or "ethnocide", and also "ecocide": adverse alterations, often irreparable, to the environment - for example through nuclear explosions, chemical weapons, serious pollution and acid rain, or destruction of the rain forest - which threaten the existence of entire populations, whether deliberately or with criminal negligence.”

A draft resolution, prepared for the Commission on Human Rights submitted by Deschênes and Mubanga-Chipoya as part of the review, included the recommendation to have Whitaker expand and deepen the study of the notions of cultural genocide, ethnocide and ecocide. In the UN report on its 38th session, a reference is missing as to whether the Sub-Commission finally determined what route they were to take.

1987

Discussion of international crimes continued in the International Law Commission, where it was proposed that “the list of international crimes include "ecocide", as a reflection of the need to safeguard and preserve the environment, as well as the first use of nuclear weapons, colonialism, apartheid, economic aggression and mercenarism".987 Yearbook of the ILC Vol I

1991

The Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind contain 12 crimes. 1991 Yearbook of the ILC

Ecocide was replaced by ’wilful and severe damage to the environment’ (Article 26) without vote. The Draft Articles were transmitted to governments for their comments and observations.

1993

As of 29 March 1993, the Secretary-General had received 23 replies from Member States and one reply from a non-member State. They were: Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Greece, Netherlands, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden), Paraguay, Poland, Senegal, Sudan, Turkey, UK, USA, Uruguay and Switzerland. Many objections were raised for summarised commentary see 1993 Yearbook of the ILC. Only three countries, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, opposed the inclusion of an environmental crime.

The issue of adding a high test of intent (‘wilful’) was of concern; e.g Austria commented: “Since perpetrators of this crime are usually acting out of a profit motive, intent should not be a condition for liability to punishment.” See Australia, Belgium and Uruguay, who also took the position that no element of intent was necessary for Article 26. 1993 Yearbook of the ILC Vol II, Part 1.

1995

The International Law Commission reduced the 12 crimes to 6. The draft code discussions moved to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly (see: 12th - 25th and 44th meetings reports). At the GA Sixth Committee’s 12th Meeting held on 12 October 1995: “the Special Rapporteur on the topic had presented his thirteenth report recommending that only 6 of the 12 crimes identified in first reading for inclusion in the Code should be retained, namely… wilful and severe damage to the environment (article 26).”

Records show concerns were raised, and reasons for retaining it included the fact that environmental harm is a state responsibility. 1995 Yearbook of the ILC Vol II, Part 2

By the General Assembly Sixth Committee’s 16th meeting held on 17 October 1995, ‘wilful and severe damage to the environment’ was removed. Various countries including Chile did not agree. It was recorded that environmental crime during peace-time was removed from the 1996 Draft Code because the Special-Rapporteur wanted 'to limit the list of crimes to be considered during the second reading to offences whose characterization as crimes against the peace and security of mankind was hard to challenge.'

1996

Meanwhile in the ILC, ‘wilful and severe damage to the environment’ (Article 26) had been tasked to a working-group: “The Commission further decided that consultations would continue as regards [Article 26] …the Commission decided … to establish a working group that would meet … to examine the possibility of covering in the draft Code the issue of wilful and severe damage to the environment.”

In the same year, Canadian/Australian lawyer Mark Gray published his 1988 proposal for an international crime of ecocide, based on established international environmental and human rights law. He demonstrated that states, and arguably individuals and organisations, causing or permitting harm to the natural environment on a massive scale breach a duty of care owed to humanity in general. He proposed that such breaches, where deliberate, reckless or negligent, be identified as ecocide where they entail serious, and extensive or lasting, ecological damage; international consequences; and waste.

19 countries spoke out in the Legal Committee in favour of retaining damage to the environment on the list of crimes covered in the draft Code. In the same session Mr. Lukashuk objected: “at the fiftieth session of the General Assembly, the majority of Member States had come out in favour of characterizing "ecocide" as a crime, and only three States, France, Brazil and the Czech Republic were against it.”

But within weeks, the International Law Commission had also reduced the 6 crimes to 4 without vote. On 5 July 1996, the final Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind was adopted on second reading by the ILC. Ecocide was not reinstated and ‘wilful and severe damage to the environment’ had been removed, as was the section on State Responsibility.

1998

The final Draft Code was renamed the Rome Statute; ecocide was excluded and any mention of environmental harm was restricted to war-crime only, not a peace-crime. Under the Environmental Modification Convention 1977 (ENMOD) the test for war-time environmental destruction is ‘widespread, or long-term or severe’, whereas Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute 1998 modified the ENMOD test with the change of one word to ‘widespread, long-term and severe.’ Under Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute environmental harm is a crime only in limited circumstances when "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated." Christian Tomuschat noted that this was done so that 'only harm of exceptional circumstances shall be taken into account' despite objections.

2010

In 2010 international environmental lawyer and author Polly Higgins proposed to the United Nations that ecocide be made the fifth international crime. At the time she was unaware of the history that preceded her proposal. The full proposal which was submitted to the UN Law Commission is set out in chapters 5 and 6 of her book Eradicating Ecocide: Laws and Governance to Prevent the Destruction of our Planet published September 2010. Her legal proposal was developed further in her second book Earth is our Business: Changing the Rules of the Game, published May 2012.

2011

Higgins drafted the Ecocide Act, which was then tested in the UK Supreme Court mock trial.

2012

A concept paper by Higgins on the Law of Ecocide was sent out to governments. In June 2012 the idea of making ecocide a crime was presented to legislators and judges from around the world at the World Congress on Justice Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability. held in Mangaratiba before the Rio +20 Earth Summit, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

Making ecocide an international crime was voted as one of the top twenty solutions to achieving sustainable development at the World Youth Congress in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012.

In July 2012 the University of London Human Rights Consortium launched The Ecocide Project to further carry out research into the history of the Law of Ecocide and develop the law further. The research paper, Ecocide the Missing 5th Crime Against the Peace was published in 2012 and updated in 2013.

October 2012: a range of experts gathered at the international conference Environmental Crime: Current and Emerging Threats held in Rome at the UN Food and Agricultural Organization Headquarters hosted by the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute(UNICRI) in cooperation with United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the Ministry of the Environment (Italy). It was recognized that environmental crime is an important new form of transnational organized crime in need a greater response. One of the outcomes was that UNEP and UNICRI head up a study into the definition of environmental crime and look into suggest new environmental crime and give due consideration to the history of making ecocide an international crime once again.

2013 - 2014: European citizen Initiative for criminalising ecocide

On January 22, 2013, a committee of eleven citizens from nine EU countries officially launched the "European Citizens Initiative "End Ecocide in Europe"" The European Citizens' Initiative, or ECI, is a tool created by the Lisbon Treaty to promote participative and direct democracy. The ECI is a way for EU citizens to propose new or suggest amendments to legislation directly to the European Commission which is the institution proposing new EU laws. This initiative aims at criminalising ecocide, the extensive damage and destruction of ecosystems, including the denial of market access for products based on ecocide to the EU and investments in activities causing ecocide. Three MEPs, Keith Taylor, Eva Joly, and Jo Leinen, publicly gave the first signatures on this day. The ECI obtained less than 120 000 signatures, far less than the required 1 million signatures required for it to be considered by the European Commission.

The international crime of ecocide

within the definition proposed by Higgins provision for two types of ecocide ensure that both individual and state responsibility are covered.

Ascertainable ecocide

Ascertainable or human made ecocide is caused by humans and can be the consequence of corporate activity. Here, an individual responsible for the activity which has resulted in ecocide can be identified. Examples of ascertainable ecocide include:

1. Large-scale land use change that causes the direct destruction of habitats – as is the case with deforestation in most tropical rainforests and including the Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest
2. Significant pollution whether deliberate or incidental – such as oil dumping and spills as in the Niger Delta;
3. Open cast mining where entire landscapes are removed – as is the case with oil sands and some coal and gold mining such as the Athabasca oil sands.

Proponents for the criminalisation of ascertainable ecocide argue that it will act to prevent it and restore the damage once it is caused and open the doors to sustainable development. As a crime of strict liability it will hold those in a position of superior or Command responsibility criminally liable if they commit ecocide, without the necessity to prove mens rea. This will act to prevent businesses from carrying out dangerous industrial activity, Heads of States will redirect policy and subsidies away from the fossil fuel industry to renewable energy, and financial institutions will redirect investment into the green economy. If ecocide is committed a range of measures are proposed including restorative justice. A draft Ecocide Act and Sentencing Guidelines have been drafted by Polly Higgins. If ecocide is made an international crime by amending the Rome Statuteprosecutions will take place in national courts, according to principal of complementarity, but where States are complicit or unwilling to prosecute, a case will go to the International Criminal Court.

Opponents to making ascertainable ecocide an international crime argue that it could potentially criminalise the whole of humanity and also that it is anti development. It could potentially criminalise any business activity which environmentalists loath. The wording of the proposed definition, and the use of the wartime model for preventing a peacetime crime, has also been challenged.

Non-ascertainable ecocide

The second type of ecocide is caused by "other causes" or non ascertainable ecocide. These are catastrophic events which are referred to in law as a force majeure or an ‘act of God’, such as flooding or an earthquake. Such events can be termed ‘non-ascertainable ecocide’ as either they occur naturally or, no one perpetrator can be identified, as is the case with climate change and its effects.

A law of Ecocide could potentially imposes a duty of care on all states to provide assistance to those facing naturally occurring ecocides, using Articles 73 and 75 of the United Nations Charter. It could ensure governments open a dialogue and talk about how to assist those facing rising sea levels and flooding. Article 73 in the United Nations Charter sets out the Sacred Trust of Civilization. It states:

Members of the UN... recognise that the interests of the inhabitants are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost... the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories…

The Sacred Trust of Civilization highlights that the number one responsibility for members of the UN is to ensure the well being of people and the planet.

One of the founding pillars of the UN is the United Nations Trusteeship Council, to help territories in need of assistance. Article 75 in the United Nations Charter states:

The UN shall establish ...an international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of trust territories.

Critics argue that creating an international crime to deal with naturally occurring ecocide does not make sense. You cannot criminalise an act of God or something which occurs naturally.

State Responsibility

Ecocide law imputes a state responsibility on a number of fronts. First and foremost the crime of ecocide safeguards and ensures the preservation of ecosystems. The state therefore has the responsibility to ensure the welfare of citizens and that includes prohibiting, preventing and pre-empting ecocide. Attendant to this responsibility is the duty of the state to bring criminal prosecutions where there is evidence of or a risk of ecocide occurring.

Secondly the state has a responsibility to assist other states suffering from ecocide, in particular where that state is unable to self-govern (eg. rising sea-levels). As proposed by Higgins in first her book, Eradicating Ecocide, [footnote to chapters 5 and 6 of Eradicating Ecocide, Shepheard Walwyn, 2010] the United Nations Trusteeship Council can be re-opened to uphold its original mandate - to help non-self governing territories (NSGTs): ‘the interests of the inhabitants are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost... the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories’. Where a territory or state suffers ecocide that renders the state unable to self-govern, Higgins proposes putting back into use the Trusteeship Council. By re-opening the UN Trusteeship Council (closed in 1994) chamber, member states have a ready-made forum in which to determine what support and aid to put in place for non-self governing territories facing ecocide.

Concerns that resistance may be met from a number of very important countries to making ecocide a crime, have been raised. As was the case previously (see History), just a few countries objections prevented one of the most important crimes from being implemented. Likewise it caused the removal of the parallel State Responsibility under Article 19.3 (d) of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. More countries, however, are inclined to become signatories of the Rome Statute where ecocide is reinstated due to climate change concerns; an amendment to the Rome Statute does not require all signatory parties to agree.

Practical application of the law

In 2011 a mock ecocide trial was held in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to test how the International Crime of Ecocide would work in practice. Three counts of ecocide were tried. One specific aspect of harm was examined to test whether ecocide as a crime could be established applying the test as set out in the Ecocide Act (the disjunctive ENMOD test of size, duration or impact). The jury upheld findings of guilt on two of the three counts. Sky news live-streamed the trial worldwide and the court building was opened to the public to watch on additional screens. The legal teams were headed up by Chris Parker QC for the defence and international human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield QC acted as the prosecution in the case.

In 2012 a restorative justice sentencing hearing was held at the University of Essex as a follow up to the mock trial. Lawrence Kershen, chair of the Restorative Justice Council, UK facilitated the process and the hearing included a number of participants including a member of First Nations people of Northern British Columbia.

Implementing the Crime of Ecocide

It is already an international crime to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment during war time. In peace time there is no correlating crime. The Rome Statute sets out the four core international crimes and established the International Criminal Court to prosecute these.

The Rome Statute can be amended to include ecocide as the fifth crime in the Statute. To do this requires one party to the Rome Statute to call for an amendment for this document to be reviewed. When put to the vote, it requires a total of 82 signatories, a two thirds majority, to be declared a lawful amendment.

Once implemented Higgins proposes that there be a 5-year transition phase before the law comes into force to allow for subsidies to be redirected and businesses to adapt.

Existing domestic ecocide laws

Ten countries have codified ecocide as a crime during peacetime. Although there are Laws of Ecocide in place, the effectiveness of these laws depends on a number of factors including the enforcement of the law, an independent judiciary and respect for the rule of law. Many of the countries with national laws of ecocide in place are ranked very highly for corruption and low for respect for the rule of law by Transparency International.

Georgia 1999

Article 409. Ecocide: "Ecocide, i.e. contamination of atmosphere, land and water resources, mass destruction of flora and fauna or any other action that could have caused ecological disaster - shall be punishable by ..."

Republic of Armenia 2003

Article 394. Ecocide: "Mass destruction of flora or fauna, poisoning the environment, the soils or water resources, as well as implementation of other actions causing an ecological catastrophe, is punished ..."

Ukraine 2001

Article 441. Ecocide: "Mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning of air or water resources, and also any other actions that may cause an environmental disaster, - shall be punishable by ..."

Belarus 1999

Art 131. Ecocide: "Deliberate mass destruction of flora and fauna, or poisoning the air or water, or the commission of other intentional acts that could cause an ecological disaster (ecocide), - shall be punished by ..."

Kazakhstan 1997

Art 161. Ecocide: "Mass destruction of flora or fauna, poisoning the atmosphere, land or water resources, as well as the commission of other acts which caused or a capable of causation of an ecological catastrophe, - shall be punished by..."

Kyrgyzstan 1997

Art 374. Ecocide: "Massive destruction of the animal or plant kingdoms, contamination of the atmosphere or water resources, and also commission of other actions capable of causing an ecological catastrophe, shall be punishable ..."

Republic of Moldova 2002

Art 136. Ecocide: "Deliberate mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning the atmosphere or water resources, and the commission of other acts that may cause or caused an ecological disaster shall be punished ..."

Russian Federation 1996

Art 358. Ecocide: "Massive destruction of the animal or plant kingdoms, contamination of the atmosphere or water resources, and also commission of other actions capable of causing an ecological catastrophe, shall be punishable by ..."

Tajikistan 1998

Art 400. Ecocide: "Mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning the atmosphere or water resources, as well as commitment of other actions which may cause ecological disasters is punishable ..."

Uzbekistan 1994

Art 196. Pollution of Natural Environment: "Pollution or damage of land, water, or atmospheric air, resulted in mass disease incidence of people, death of animals, birds, or fish, or other grave consequences – shall be punished ..."

Vietnam 1990

Art 342 Crimes against mankind: "Those who, in peace time or war time, commit acts of ... as well as other acts of genocide or acts of ecocide or destroying the natural environment, shall be sentenced ..."

See also

• Ecophagy
• Ecotage
• Environmental disaster
• List of environmental issues
• Operation Ranch Hand
• Scorched earth
• WALL-E, ecocide in fiction
• War on Drugs

External links

• Official website of Polly Higgins International campaign
• Official website of the European citizens' initiative
• The story of stuff
• Polly Higgins on YouTube
• The Ecocide Research Aggregator
• EcocideUSA Twitter Feed

Further reading

• Broswimmer Franz: Ecocide: A Short History of Mass Extinction of Species. Pluto Press, 2002, ISBN 0-7453-1934-3. 

• Jared Diamond: [[Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed]]. Penguin Books, England 2005, ISBN 0-14-303655-6, S. 575. 

• Adam Cherson: Ecocide: Humanity's Environmental Demons. Greencore Books, 2009, ISBN 978-0-595-46318-3, S. 135. 

• Polly Higgins: Eradicating Ecocide: Laws and Governance to Prevent the Destruction of our Planet. Shepheard-Walwyn, 2010, ISBN 978-0-85683-275-8, S. 202.