Today I am hoping to attend an event in London’s Supreme Court where there will be a mock trial for ecocide – a proposed new ‘crime against humanity’
Isn’t it an interesting idea – that a company or perhaps a government could be put on trial for destroying the natural environment?
But wouldn’t we all be guilty?
And I will come back to the subject of ‘the tangled bank’ on Monday. Please check previous posts for the really thoughtful comments which still appear there.
[registration_form]
I’ll follow the trial with interest. We are none without some blame (though I’m not an advocate for the concept of eco-original sin), but it’s long overdue that those who do grievous and wilful harm paid the price in the international courts, whoever they are.
To be ecocide, does it have to be deliberate or systematic, rather than just negligent (I always understood this to be necessary in the case of genocide, though I may be entirely mistaken!)? If so, how much large-scale destruction would fit the definition? I think it’s a great concept, but not sure how workable it would be in practice – as you say, we could all be guilty or, at best, accessories to the crime.
As a crime against humanity ecocide would be termed in the context of an international crime; something that one country does to another or one company does to several countries.
It would also have to have some fairly high thresholds.
The question about negligence is spot on and is perhaps the key issue. The other four (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Crimes of Aggression) do require intent.
But it is difficult to see how someone could carelessly commit genocide.
Ecocide is different; most environmental damage is not purposeful but incidental. Ecocide for which negligence was a defence would positively reward ostrich behaviour. CEOs and Ministers would be discouraged from looking for potential environmental problems and solving them,.
A fascinating debate in May – http://www.wildlawuk.org/1/post/2011/5/should-ecocide-be-a-crime-of-strict-liability.html – concluded that ecocide should be a crime of strict liability – i.e. you do it, you are guilty. I worry that this also fails to quite hit the mark. A company that did everything it possibly could to investigate and avoid problems could still cause accidental ecocide – would it be justice if it was just as guilty as a company that had deliberately caused ecocide?
Perhaps having an offence of “deliberate or reckless” ecocide would be a solution. Alternatively the Judge could take into consideration the good work done in trying to avoid ecocide in the sentencing.
Having a crime of ecocide would be an important step towards recognising the intrinsic value of our environment. The interesting question is whether there would be a trickle down to national level.
Cheers
Matt
That’s a great answer to my question, Matt – thank you. I agree that basing ecocide on the damage done, regardless of intent, would fail to hit the mark. In practice, this would mean that a two-tier system of penalties would probably emerge, where a claim of “mere” negligence would be subject to a softer punishment. Not only does that fail to take us much further forward than the current system of penalties, it also means that negligence is almost viewed as relatively acceptable. The term “ecocide” is misleading if it’s not systematic and intentional. And how much environmental damage is really, truly deliberate? Most is probably due to laziness, or is a by-product of putting economic considerations first. Sound familiar, Mr Osborne?