18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE
Day 1 (2 December 2019)
Name of the Event: Investigating and Prosecuting Ecocide. The Current and Future Role of the ICC (Side Event co-hosted by Vanuatu, Ecological Defence Integrity, Green Transparency, Heinrich Böll Foundation, and Institute for Environmental Security)
Overview by: Emma Bakkum, Senior Research Associate PILPG-NL
Summary of the Event:
During the General Debate, Pacific Island state Vanuatu raised attention to the unprecedented threat of climate change and stated that “an amendment of the Rome Statute could criminalise acts that amount to ecocide. We believe this radical idea merits serious discussion". Just before Vanuatu called upon States Parties to amend the Rome Statute to include ecocide, a side event was held on the possibilities and challenges of prosecuting the crime of ecocide (co-hosted by Vanuatu, Ecological Defence Integrity, Green Transparency, Heinrich Böll Foundation, and the Institute for Environmental Security).
Moderated by ambassador John Licht from Vanuatu, the side event started with guest speeches of Ms. Losaline Teo (Crown Counsel of Tuvalu) and Nathan Brechtefeld Teewe (former Minister of Justice Kiribati). Both raised attention to some of the effects of global warming to Pacific Island States. Mr. Brechtefel Tweewe and Ms. Teo moreover underlined the lack of resources and capacity in small island states and the need for support from the international community in investigating environmental crimes.
The panelists’ discussion focused around two ways in which ecocide could be prosecuted: 1) by using existing law, such as the Rome Statute, and 2) by introducing new laws or amending the Rome Statute.
Richard Rogers (Global Diligence) focused on the second option. He discussed possibilities and limitations to prosecuting ecocide under Article 7 of the Rome Statute as an avenue for accountability and justice for environmental crimes. He referred to land grabbing in Cambodia. Acts often witnessed in the context to land grabbing are in fact enumerated in Article 7, such as illegal detention or persecution. According to Rogers, the ICC can make a real impact regarding environmental crimes as the Court, for example by issuing indictments, will have a deterrent effect. Rodrigo Lledó (FIBGAR) explored the OTP’s 2016 policy paper on case selection and prioritization and referred the crime of genocide, quoting Lemkin: “we must peel the law”. Valerie Cabanes (Earth Jurist) argued that the ecocide should be included in the Rome Statute with the objective to respond to the current climate crisis. She discussed some issues but also opportunities in this regard. For instance, creating a new institution would be a lot more ambitious than extending the ICC’s jurisdiction to include ecocide. Jojo Mehta (Ecological Defence Integrity) touched upon several opportunities “beyond the black letter of the law” that creating a more expansive law covering ecocide can bring. For instance, setting an example for domestic legal systems reduces the risks for domestic implementation of legislation and increases uniformity in the law.
Both panelists and participants agreed that the time is here for the law to adapt and fight against impunity for environmental crimes. However, panelists also underlined the importance of clearly defining the concept of ecocide (meaning “killing our home”) and to be cautious with the way it is used.
For more information on the crime of ecocide as a fifth Rome Statute crime, read for example: https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/justiceinfo-comment-and-debate/opinion/43104-ecocide-atrocity-crime-idea-time-overdue.html and https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/justiceinfo-comment-and-debate/in-depth-interviews/39950-valerie-cabanes-icc-should-recognize-the-crime-of-ecocide.html.