The Crime of Ecocide through Human Rights Approach The “Universal” Right to a Healthy Environment as a Driving Force Calling for Ecocide Legislation

Abstract

The environment is often called the “silent victim of war” – the case is not
different in the Russo–Ukrainian armed conflict. Since 2014, nature − home
to 35% of European biodiversity and varied natural habitats − has suffered
a tremendous loss in Ukraine. The war has been responsible for the emission
of 33 m tonnes of CO2 , and postwar reconstruction is estimated to generate
even more. Additional environmental concerns include extensive pollution,
degradation of natural habitats, and species extinction. Regarding the new
data, more than 2 thousand events can be considered ecocide. Ecocide is the
destruction of the natural environment by deliberate or negligent human
action. Transboundary environmental harm is also a pressing issue, as
pollution “travels” by wind, air, and water to other countries.
Ecocide is a new yet old concept concerning severe environmental
destruction. In the last decade, a debate has emerged concerning legislation,
definition and enforcement. Instead of international criminal law, many
believe that the solution will be the human rights approach.
Meanwhile, the right to a healthy environment, initially not included in
“traditional” human rights conventions, is getting more attention worldwide
and in Europe. Recently, the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted an own-initiative opinion on the right to a healthy environment in
the EU in the context of the war. The aim is to criminalise Russia’s actions
under European law and ensure environmental protection to safeguard
fundamental rights. In the paper, the author would like to focus on the
parallel development of the right to a healthy environment and ecocide.

Full text

75
STUDIES
e Crime of Ecocide through
Human Rights Approach
e “Universal” Right to aHealthy Environment
asaDriving Force Calling for Ecocide Legislation
ORSOLYA JOHANNA SZIEBIG1
e environment is often called the “silent victim of war”– the case is not
dierent in the Russo–Ukrainian armed conict. Since 2014, nature − home
to 35% of European biodiversity and varied natural habitats − has suered
atremendous loss in Ukraine. e war has been responsible for the emission
of 33m tonnes of CO2, and postwar reconstruction is estimated to generate
even more. Additional environmental concerns include extensive pollution,
degradation of natural habitats, and species extinction. Regarding the new
data, more than 2thousand events can be considered ecocide. Ecocide is the
destruction of the natural environment by deliberate or negligent human
action. Transboundary environmental harm is also a pressing issue, as
pollution “travels” by wind, air, and water to other countries.
Ecocide is a new yet old concept concerning severe environmental
destruction. In the last decade, adebate has emerged concerning legislation,
denition and enforcement. Instead of international criminal law, many
believe that the solution will be the human rights approach.
Meanwhile, the right to ahealthy environment, initially not included in
“traditional” human rights conventions, is getting more attention worldwide
and in Europe. Recently, the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted an own-initiative opinion on the right to ahealthy environment in
the EU in the context of the war. e aim is to criminalise Russia’s actions
under European law and ensure environmental protection to safeguard
fundamental rights. In the paper, the author would like to focus on the
parallel development of the right to ahealthy environment and ecocide.
Keywords: environmental destruction at times of armed conicts, ecocide,
right to ahealthy environment, human rights approach, international
criminal law
1 Senior Lecturer, University of Szeged Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Department of
International and European Law, e-mail: sziebig.orsolya.johanna@szte.hu
ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024) 75–89. • DOI: 10.32566/ah.2024.2.5

ORSOLyA JOHANNA SZIEBIG
76 ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024)
STUDIES
“Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.
ey are entitled to ahealthy and productive life in harmony with nature.”
Rio Declaration, Principle 1
Introduction
Human history is intertwined with the destruction of the environment and the
methods of environmental warfare used in armed conicts. Traditional human
rights conventions and other documents, such as the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, were accepted before the era of environmental rights. Under these
circumstances, accepting widespread and severe environmental destruction as
the fth international crime seems illusory. Ecocide was already being considered
in the 1970s as aresult of US military action in Vietnam, however, it has not been
incorporated into international law. Nowadays, because of the Russo–Ukrainian
armed conict, the regulation and implementation of ecocide have come to the fore.
At the same time, the debate also concerns the perspective from which it should be
regulated. First and foremost, international criminal law emerged since ecocide has
always been linked to crimes against peace. However, with the declaration of the right
to ahealthy environment, the possibility of anew path has arisen, namely the human
rights approach. e author briey discusses the history of ecocide. Still, the main
focus is on the distinction between international criminal law and the human rights
approach, particularly which path is more acceptable and feasible. e author rst
focuses on the relationship between human rights and environmental degradation,
the extent to which the full enjoyment of human rights depends on the quality of
the environment, and new trends in the interpretation of human rights. e article
also deals with the declaration of the right to ahealthy environment, whether we can
talk about its universal recognition and what developments have taken place in this
direction in recent years.
e background for the study was the presentation at the War and Peace conference
in the autumn of 2023, but the study focuses on recent developments given the
passage of time. e research methodology relied mostly on desk research, mapping
previous studies that are still relevant today, as well as recentliterature. e author
has endeavoured to synthesise the research ndings and develop aunique viewpoint.
Human rights in the shadow of environmental destruction
e link between human well-being and environmental quality is complex and
inextricable. For the full enjoyment of human rights, a healthy environment is
necessary, as highlighted by several resolutions of various organisations. Also, human
rights have long provided an opportunity to approach the most severe injustices
from alegal perspective, for example, in the ght against discriminatory treatment
and poverty. At the same time, there is agrowing demand within the international

ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024) 77
The Crime of Ecocide through Human Rights Approach
community for asimilar approach to climate change, linking intergenerational equity,
the rights of future generations and the right to ahealthy, liveable environment.2 e
interface between ecocide and human rights can be approached from two angles. First,
some serious acts of environmental destruction, which may fall within the concept of
ecocide, lead to serious violations of human rights. e second link concerns the
extent to which relevant human rights instruments, conventions, and forums can
help remedy the violation of rights caused by ecocide and whether it is even possible
to bring proceedings before the relevant forums on this subject.3 Environmental
degradation highly inuences the enjoyment of human rights, including political,
social, cultural, economic and solidarity rights. e consequences for the rights to
life, health, food, water, housing, and self-determination will worsen as the climate
crisis intensies. e newly emerged human rights concepts –such as the right to
food, water, and adequate sanitation–are also impaired by environmental harm.4
In 1994the Report on Human Rights and the Environment highlighted the direct
impact of environmental degradation on the enjoyment of arange of human rights,
including the right to life and health: “environmental damage has direct eects
on the enjoyment of aseries of human rights, such as the right to life, to health,
to asatisfactory standard of living, to sucient food, to housing, to education, to
work, to culture, to non-discrimination, to dignity and the harmonious development
of one’s personality, to security of person and family, to development, to peace, etc.”5
Already existing human rights bodies increasingly often have to deal with
petitions of environmental concern. In 2019, sixteen children led apetition alleging
that Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey violated their rights under the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by making insucient cuts to
greenhouse gases and failing to encourage the world’s biggest emitters to curb carbon
pollution. e UN Committee on the Rights of the Child armed that astate party
to the Convention could be held responsible for the negative impact of its carbon
emissions on the rights of children, both within and outside its territory, and countries
have extraterritorial responsibilities related to carbon pollution.6 e Committee
applied the method established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(IACtHR) to decide the jurisdiction of the body.7 In 2019, the UN Human Rights
Committee concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stated
that “environmental degradation, climate change and unsustainable development
constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present
and future generations to enjoy the right to life”.8 Furthermore, state parties should
“ensure sustainable use of natural resources, develop and implement substantive
2 A 2014: 5.
3 In details, see S 2021: 85–98.
4 See T K 2022: 93–123.
5 K 1994: section 248.
6 CRC/C/88/D/104/2019.
7 Sacchi, et al. v. Argentina, et al.
8 CCPR/C/GC/36para. 62.

ORSOLyA JOHANNA SZIEBIG
78 ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024)
STUDIES
environmental standards, conduct environmental impact assessments and consult
with relevant States about activities likely to have a signicant impact on the
environment, provide notication to other States concerned about natural disasters
and emergencies and cooperate with them, provide appropriate access to information
on environmental hazards and pay due regard to the precautionary approach”.9
In 2018, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights released asimilar
statement concerning climate change and its eects on human rights.10
e universal right to ahealthy environment
In 1987, the nal report of the Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future, stated
that “all human beings have the fundamental right to an environment adequate for
their health and well-being”.11 To reach sustainability, “some necessary changes in the
legal framework start from the proposition that an environment adequate for health
and well-being is essential for all human beings, including future generations”.12 Most
human rights treaties were adopted before the era of environmental consciousness, so
treaty law does not guarantee the right to asafe and healthy environment. However,
there are several non-binding instruments where the right to ahealthy environment
appears. Furthermore, several international conventions contain indirect references.
e right to a healthy environment exists as acomponent of human rights in
general and the right to life specically, as well as in the body of environmental law
and connection areas, such as humanitarian law.13 e International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides the right to the highest attainable
physical and mental health standard and calls on state parties to take steps to improve
all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene.14 e Convention on the Rights
of the Child provides that parties shall take appropriate measures to combat disease
and malnutrition by providing adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking water,
considering the dangers and risks of environmental pollution.15
9 CCPR/C/GC/36para. 62.
10 Statement, Climate change and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights.
11 Our Common Future, Annexe 1, 1.
12 Our Common Future, Annexe 1, 56para. 76.
13 L 2000: 73.
14 Art. 12 1: “e States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” and 2.[…] (b) “e
improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;”
15 Art. 24 2(c): “To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary
health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the
provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the
dangers and risks of environmental pollution;”

ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024) 79
The Crime of Ecocide through Human Rights Approach
e main regional human rights conventions contain the right to a healthy
environment to some extent: the African Charter of Human Rights and Peoples,16 the
Arab Charter of Human Rights17 and the Protocol of San Salvador.18 In the European
sphere, the preamble of the Aarhus Convention19 also refers to an adequate quality of
the environment. Nevertheless, the European Convention on Human Rights, opened
for signature in 1950, does not mention any environmental standards or rights.
Although the greening practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
reects the development of environmental standards, the evolving interpretation of
human rights can raise questions.20 In this manner, the ECtHR interprets the already
declared human rights that “can be undermined by the existence of harm to the
environment and exposure to environmental risks”. 21 ese rights are the right to
life (Art. 2), the Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 3), the right
toliberty and security (Art. 5), the right to afair trial (Art. 6), the right to respect
for private and family life and home (Art 8), the freedom of expression and the
freedom to receive and impart information (Art. 10) and the protection of property
(Art.1ofProtocol No.1to the Convention). ere is an ongoing dispute about anew
additional protocolto the ECtHR concerning the right to ahealthy environment, which
has also emerged with the growing importance of environmental considerations.
eUN Human Rights Council resolution is the leading catalysator for human rights
development that nally declared the universal right to a healthy environment.22
Onemust not forget that the declaration is anon-binding document. On the other
hand, soft law has been an important source of international environmental law, often
leading to the development of hard law regimes.
It is a growing question of international law whether the right to a healthy
environment can be considered erga omnes. e right forms the necessary foundation
for fully realising all other human rights because “they would become meaningless to
acommunity unable to breathe, drink, produce food, clothing and shelter”.23
Ecocide
Ecocide is anew yet old concept of international law. e idea that the perpetrators
of severe environmental harm must be punished under international criminal law
is quite new, yet the concept itself has along history. e Vietnam War acted as
16 Art. 24: “all peoples shall have the right to ageneral satisfactory environment favorable to their
development.”
17 Art. 38: “every person has the right […] to ahealthy environment.”
18 Art. 11: “everyone shall have the right to live in ahealthy environment.”
19 Preamble: “every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and
well-being.”
20 ECHR 2023: 1.
21 See F 2013: 143–371.
22 A/HRC/48/L.23/Rev.1
23 G 1996: 257.

ORSOLyA JOHANNA SZIEBIG
80 ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024)
STUDIES
acatalyst for ecocide, because, between 1961and 1971, 73million litres of chemicals
were sprayed on enemy territory, resulting in agricultural land and plantations
being destroyed and natural habitats being bulldozed. e term ecocide was rst
documented in 1970when American plant biologist and bioethics professor Arthur
W. Galston argued for anew international agreement to ban ecocide. Galston, then
President of the Yale University Botany Institute, was one of the rst to speak out
against pesticides in Vietnam as early as 1966, citing their ecological and human
health eects. 1972marked aturning point in international environmental protection
when the Stockholm Conference on Human Environment was organised. Former
Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme (1969–1976; 1982–1986) explicitly referred to
the USA ecological warfare as ecocide, which he sharply referred to as an “outrage”.24
Following the conference, the Working Group on Environmental Crimes was set up in
1972and has been supported by several NGOs. Professor Richard A. Falk, an expert
on international law and war crimes, published adraft of the Ecocide Convention in
1973− focusing specically on wartime ecocide.25 Subsequently, between 1984and
1996, ecocide was also on the agenda of the International Law Commission, which
dealt with the issue of serious environmental damage as a possible crime against
peace at the time. e modern history of ecocide goes back to Pauline Helène “Polly”
Higgins, a Scottish international lawyer, author and environmental lobbyist, who
submitted aproposal to the United Nations in April 2010to initiate the adoption
of an international crime of ecocide. In her proposal, an amendment to the Rome
Statute was issued. Since then, Higgins’ organisation, the “Stop Ecocide Foundation”,
has been working tirelessly for international acceptance of ecocide and the “ocial”
denition of the crime was established by an independent expert panel: “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.”26
Ecocide and the human rights approach
Saad Alfarargi, Special Rapporteur on the right to development, “warned that
climate change was aglobal human rights threat multiplier”.27 e legal acceptance
of ecocide is growing, but there is aserious debate about whether it can be the fth
international crime. In this section, the author would like to dierentiate between the
criminal law approach and the human rights approach in relation to ecocide. Why
is it benecial if ecocide is accepted through the human rights approach and not
as an international crime? ere is arapidly evolving relationship between human
rights, climate change, and the environment, and human rights in climate litigation
24 Palme Stockholm Conference 1972.
25 F 1973.
26 Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Denition of Ecocide 2021: 5.
27 OHCHR 2021.

ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024) 81
The Crime of Ecocide through Human Rights Approach
have become extremely important. Accepting the right to ahealthy environment
has parallelled the growing attention on ecocide legislation. In 2022, the General
Assembly declared the right to aclean, healthy, and sustainable environment related
to other rights and existing international law. It armed that it’s “promotion requires
the full implementation” of the multilateral environmental agreements “under the
principles of international environmental law”.28 e proposal of ecocide calls for
the development of international criminal law to penalise wide-scale environmental
destruction. Meanwhile, the growing attention on the right to ahealthy environment
presents another method, the human rights approach. ese territories of
international law are quite far from each other. Still, there is a possibility that the
solution for the incorporation of ecocide into the body of international law will be
through human rights law and not criminallaw.29
As a denition, “a human rights-based approach is a conceptual framework
normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed
to promoting and protecting human rights. It seeks to analyse obligations, inequalities
and vulnerabilities and to redress discriminatory practices and unjust distributions
of power that impede progress and undercut human rights.”30 Andreas von Arnauld
and Jens eilen identied ve functions of human rights rhetoric: an appellative
function, a contesting function, a connecting function, a triggering function and
ajurisgenerative function. e appellative function draws attention to environmental
harm, such as ecocide. e connecting function connects to the appellative function,
which serves as a critique of present injustices. e connecting function brings
together national, regional and international human rights advocates and unies
them globally. Furthermore, the human rights approach triggers the institutions to
ght injustices and respond to violations. Finally, it supports “discursive practices”
and grassroot levels beyond the formal law-making of institutions.31
International criminal law establishes the legal responsibility of individual persons
for international crimes. International human rights law is relevant to international
criminal law from several aspects. For example, human rights law denes international
fair-trial standards and the principles of legality and culpability.32 Whether it is the
criminal law approach or the human rights approach, the keyword is accountability.
Who and under which legal norms can be held accountable for severe environmental
harm or destruction? e supporters of ecocide legislation share the strong belief
that ecocide would serve as alegal basis for establishing responsibility for those who
breach climate laws. Meanwhile, it is hard to establish the responsibility of large
28 Res. A/76/L.75 28
29 M 2023: 179.
30 OHCHR 2010: 1.
31 V A–T 2020: 34–50.
32 B 2011: 10.

ORSOLyA JOHANNA SZIEBIG
82 ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024)
STUDIES
emitters because of the lack of jurisdiction or hard law.33 Asmall but growing number
of countries included ecocide legislation in national law, including some post-soviet
countries (such as Russia), and recently France.34 In 2021, France passed the “Climate
& Resilience Act” under Article 296 of the new law to report back to parliament
within one year on “its action in favour of the recognition of ecocide as acrime which
can be tried by international criminal courts”.35
Based on Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute: “intentionally launching an attack
in the knowledge that such attack will cause […] 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” considered as
“other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed
conict”, awar crime. e green shift at the International Criminal Court (ICC)
was indicated in 2016with aPolicy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation by
the Oce of the Prosecutor at the ICC.36 So far, the green shift is still waiting for
realisation at the ICC.
ere is another angle of human rights that strongly connects human rights and
ecocide. Indigenous communities are highly aected by environmental destruction,
such as in Brazil, but other countries also have to be considered, including Canada.
In 2019, a national inquiry’s ndings showed a strong link between missing and
murdered indigenous women and resource extraction projects, boomtowns and
man camps.37 Based on the ndings of the inquiry commission, indigenous activists
at COP26wanted to raise awareness of the linkages between extractive industries,
climate destruction and violence against indigenous women and girls. ey asserted
that femicide is directly linked to ecocide.38
e following table (Table 1) shows the dierences between international criminal
law and the human rights approach.
33 As it was visible from so called „Inuit case”. In 2005, two organisations led acomplaint with
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States of America and
Canada, alleging that their actions, or lack thereof, related to climate change violated the human
rights of the Inuit people. However, the Commission dismissed the complaint on the grounds
of lack of jurisdiction, as it had not been proven that any of the rights enshrined in the Inter-
American Convention on Human Rights had been violated. e Inuit case would have provided
an opportunity to strengthen the correlation between human rights and the environment, but the
Commission has shied away from this possibility. See O 2007: 675–697.
34 Ecocide Law [s. a.].
35 Loi no2021-1104du 22août 2021portant lutte contre le dérèglement climatique et renforcement
de la résilience face à ses eets, Journal ociel électronique authentié n° 0196du 24/08/2021.
36 ICC 2016: 5, 13.
37 Reclaiming Power and Place: e Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered
Indigenous Women and Girls 2019.
38 B 2021.

ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024) 83
The Crime of Ecocide through Human Rights Approach
Table 1: Comparison of international criminal law and human rights approach
International Criminal Law Human Rights Approach
Focus
Penalise the severest environmental
destruction as an international crime
Adequate punishment
Identifying rights-holders and duty-
bearers
Functions Deterring, punishing
Appellative, contestation, connecting,
triggering, jurisgenerative (based on
von Arnauld–eilen)
Aim of process Application of criminal law sanction Reparation
Result Punish the perpetrators of high-
crimes
Spurs duty-bearers to meet their
obligations
Legal
background
ICC Statute, international criminal
law
Human rights treaties and
conventions, national legislation
Forum ICC, national courts/ad hoc bodies Human Rights Courts and bodies
Source: compiled by the author
e impact of the Russo–Ukrainian armed conict
e Russo–Ukrainian armed conict raised attention towards environmental
destruction and ecocide. Environmental destruction as a method of warfare is
not new. Even in ancient times, systematic destruction or pollution of the natural
environment was used to break the power of the enemy. Defenders denied attackers
food, water or shelter, or attackers induced defenders to surrender, or as acounter-
insurgency measure, to quell stubborn rebellion. As far back as 512B.C., during the
Persian and Scythian War, the Scythians, after being defeated by Darius the Great,
resorted to ascorched-earth policy in their retreat, causing along-term famine for
the surrounding population. Later, during the Franco–Dutch War of 1672–1678, the
Netherlands self-inicted large-scale ooding to impede the French forces. As part of
the colonisation of the American continent, the ecosystem that supported the Indian
tribes has been completely destroyed, causing species extinction (such as pigeons and
bualos). e never-seen systematic destruction of their food stores, crops, and game
served the purpose that Indian tribes lose their livelihoods. e methods applied by
the United States of America during the Vietnam War eort led to the development
of the ecocide denition and the acceptance of the Convention on Prohibition of

ORSOLyA JOHANNA SZIEBIG
84 ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024)
STUDIES
Military or Any Other Hostile Use of the Environmental Techniques (ENMOD
Convention).39
Military techniques harm the agricultural and wildlands and are increasingly
capable of disrupting natural habitats. For example, World War II caused enormous
agricultural, forest, and other ecological devastation and destruction of cities.
ewarring parties used high-explosive and incendiary munitions for area bombing
of densely populated urban and industrial areas. As it is well known, two cities
(Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were destroyed by nuclear weapons. Due to the extent of
the war, numerous tropical Pacic Ocean island ecosystems suered. Furthermore,
Germany destroyed 200thousand hectares (17%) of Dutch agricultural lands through
intentional salt-water inundation.40 On 2August, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, leading
to awar of severe environmental destruction, whose real impact is still unknown.
e total volume of oil in the lakes and rivers has been estimated to be between
10and 20million tons, and the marine environment was exposed too. e volume of
the spills has been calculated to be between 1and 1.7million tons.41
As Falk stated: “environmental war- fare is adramatic reminder of the extent to
which the planet as a whole must mobilise a response to the ecological challenge
to sustain life on earth and beat back reversions to barbarism emanating from the
‘advanced’ regions and applied to those that are relatively ‘backward’.” As aresult of
the armed conict, the Ukrainian Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural
Resources identied and estimated that the current environmental costs of military
actions amount to 2,194billion Ukrainian Hryv nia. e Ministry established awebsite,
“EcoZagora”, where consequences of military actions and impact on the environment
are constantly published. e most well-known event was the breach of the Nova
Kakhovka Dam, which resulted in 150tonnes of oil and other toxic substances entering
the Dnipro.42 As aresult of the war, air, water, land, and soil pollution and damage
to the ecosystem can be detected. Furthermore, natural habitats, including forests,
protected biosphere reserves, and national parks, are degraded. Environmental harm,
acts of deforestation, explosions, the building of fortications, and the poisoning of
the soil and water became daily problems in the Ukrainian territory.
Despite the ongoing dispute about ecocide as afth international crime, the war
in Ukraine has served as a catalysator and put ecocide in the headlines. In 2023,
aspecial panel discussed ecocide legislation at the United for Justice Conference.43
At the European sphere, the European Parliament proposed to include ecocide in
the revised Environmental Crimes Directive, which could legally enshrine ecocide
and would require implementation into national law. e negotiators agreed on
39 T 1994: 933–954.
40 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 1980: 17.
41 L et al. (2004): 6.
42 EcoZagora as it is on 9February 2024.
43 Stop Ecocide Foundation 2023.

ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024) 85
The Crime of Ecocide through Human Rights Approach
stricter sanctions for so-called qualied oences comparable to ecocide.44 In 2022,
after adecade-long negotiation, the International Law Commission adopted alegal
framework to protect the environment during and after an armed conict, and the
principles will apply in intrastate and interstate conicts.45
ere are several other international law documents concerning the protection
of the environment during armed conicts, such as the Additional Protocol I to the
Geneva Conventions and its Articles 54 (objects indispensable to survival), 35 and
55 (natural environment), and 56 (dams). Furthermore, e Convention on the
Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modication
Techniques obliges the State parties not to engage in any hostile use of environmental
modication techniques having “widespread, long-lasting or severe” eects as the
means of destruction, damage or injury. e Russian Federation and Ukraine are also
parties to the ENMOD Convention.
Final remarks
In recent years, increased attention has be en paid to the protection of the environment,
especially in times of armed conict, the guarantee of environmental rights and the
codication of the right to ahe althy environment. We are clearly witnessing the parallel
development of the right to ahealthy environment and ecocide. e interrelationship
between the two areas is evident since both regulations are based on understanding
the environment and recognising that the realisation of human rights is closely linked
to the quality of the environment, its liveability, its cleanliness and human conditions.
e place of the right to ahealthy environment in the corpus of international law
is still amatter of debate, in particular as to whether we can speak of the creation of
anew cogens norm. Ius cogens are “those rules which derive from principles that
the legal conscience of mankind deems absolutely essential to coexistence in the
international community”.46 Numerous national constitutions provide the right to
ahealthy environment, which has spread transnationally, establishing a“transnational
environmental constitutional constellation”.47 ere is amoral responsibility toward
nature–to “establish an equilibrium between humanity and nature is an international
human and environmental rights convention, the environmental human rights”.48
So far, several soft law documents and resolutions have strengthened the right to
a healthy environment, and the importance of these instruments is indisputable.
However, the incorporation of the right to ahealthy environment into the traditional
and binding human rights conventions is still atask to be done.
44 European Parliament 2023.
45 Protection of the environment in relation to armed conicts (PERAC).
46 P 1989: 415.
47 K 2018: 136.
48 S, 1998: 103.

ORSOLyA JOHANNA SZIEBIG
86 ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024)
STUDIES
Regarding ecocide, it is still just aforming concept, apossible solution to punish
those who are responsible for severe environmental destruction. From the appearance
of the terminology at the beginning of the 1970s, ecocide has been asimple idea
rather than a reality for several decades. However, the paradigm shifts of recent
years and the appreciation of environmental protection have led to the creation of
the exact denition of ecocide. e key question is whether ecocide regulation will
be implemented through the human rights approach or international criminal law.
e anthropocentric conception of environmental law is considered by many to
be outdated, and an ecocentric concept that takes into account the complexity of
the environment is advocated instead, especially in the creation of new regulations.
Under these circumstances, human rights might not be abenecial way to include
ecocide. Despite the growing attention of the International Criminal Court, we
cannot talk about an increase in the number of environmental cases. e amendment
of the Statute relies on acomplex procedure, and the state parties have to accept and
ratify the changes in the core document of the ICC. e already existing version of
war crimes has practically remained unreferenced in the last decades.
e support for ecocide is unquestionable in the European Union, both within
the EU institutions and in several Member States.49 is is reinforced by the fact
thatthe proposal under the current revision of the Environmental Crimes Directive
will now explicitly include the need to take action against acts that constitute ecocide.
e green shift is now unquestionable in international law, given the practice ofthe
courts, including human rights bodies, the evolving human rights regime and
thedevelopment of new concepts. At the same time, it should be remembered that
all legislation exists only on paper until it is put into practice and applied. Armed
conicts, in particular, have drawn attention to the fact that environmental protection
and nature conservation always take aback seat when the necessity of armed conicts
calls for action.
e author did not take a clear position on the future of the ecocide concept
and its future place in international law. e reason for this is that the aim of this
study was primarily to provide a “snapshot” of the current visions. In the author’s
view, it is feasible that ecocide law will nd its way into both human rights practice
and international criminal law. e only question is whether and how long it will
take the states to translate the concept to binding sources and for the forums to put
regulations into practice. Certainly, time is running out for the environment, and
every day, humanity witnesses irreversible damage to our living planet.
49 See S 2022.

ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024) 87
The Crime of Ecocide through Human Rights Approach
References
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights (1988).
A, Sam (2014): Human Rights and Climate Change. Legal Studies Research Papers
2014/4, University of Warwick School of Law. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=2431628
African Charter of Human Rights and Peoples (1981).
Arab Charter of Human Rights (2004).
B, Libby (2021): Indigenous Women Speak Out at Cop26Rally: ‘Femicide is Linked to Ecocide’.
e Guardian, 10November, 2021.Online: www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/10/
indigenous-women-speak-out-at-cop26-rally-femicide-is-linked-to-ecocide
B, Bartram (2011): International Criminal Law: Nature, Origins and a Few Key Issues. In
B, Bartram (ed.): Research Handbook on International Criminal Law. [s. l.]: Edward Elgar,
3–16. Online: https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857933225.00008
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2018): Climate change and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Statement.
Committee on the Rights of the Child (2021): Decision adopted by the Committee on the Rights
of the Child under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on
aCommunications Procedure in Respect of Communication No.104/2019.
Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modication
techniques (ENMOD) 1976(1978) UNTS vol.1108, p. 151
Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989(1990).
Ecocide Law [s. a.]: Ecocide / serious environmental crimes in national jurisdictions. Online: https://
ecocidelaw.com/existing-ecocide-laws/
ECHR (2023): Environment and the European Convention on Human Rights. Online: www.echr.coe.
int/documents/d/echr/fs_environment_eng
F, Richard A. (1973): Environmental Warfare and Ecocide– Facts, Appraisal, and Proposals.
Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 4(1), 80–96.Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/096701067300400105
F, Jürgen (2013): International Environmental “Soft Law”. Berlin: Springer.
General Assembly Resolution (2022): Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Human Rights
Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Eective Enjoyment of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Res. A/76/L.75 28
G, Mark Allan (1996): e International Crime of Ecocide. California Western International
Law Journal, 26(2), 215–272.
ICC (2016): Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation. 15September 2016. Online: www.
icc-cpi.int/sites/default/les/itemsDocuments/20160915_OTP-Policy_Case-Selection_Eng.pdf
Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Denition of Ecocide (2021): Commentary and Core Text.
Online: www.stopecocide.earth/legal-denition
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966(1976).
International Law Commission (2022): Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in
Relation to Armed Conicts. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol.II,Part Two.
Online: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/8_7_2022.pdf

ORSOLyA JOHANNA SZIEBIG
88 ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024)
STUDIES
K, Louis J. (2018): In Search of aRight to a Healthy Environment in International Law Ius
Cogens Norms In K, John H.–P, Ramin (eds.) e Human Right to aHealthy Envi-
ronment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 136–154.Online: https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781108367530.008
K, Fathma Zora (1994): Report on Human Rights and the Environment. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/9
L, Olof – J, Arne – E, Johanna (2004): e Environmental Impacts of the
Gulf War 1991. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Interim Report IR-04-
019.Online: https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/7427/1/IR-04-019.pdf
Loi no2021-1104du 22août 2021portant lutte contre le dérèglement climatique et renforcement
de la résilience face à ses eets, Journal ociel électronique authentié n° 0196du 24/08/2021.
L, Christopher H. (2000): Environmental Human Rights: Emerging Trends in International
Law and Ecocide. Environmental Claims Journal, 13(1), 73–91. Online: https://doi.
org/10.1080/10406020009355152
M, Rosemary (2023): Symposium on UN Recognition of the Human Right to a Healthy
Environment. e Right to aHealthy Environment as a Catalyst for the Codication of the
Crime of Ecocide. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 117, 189–193. Online:
https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.29
OHCHR (2010): Applying aHuman Rights-Based Approach to Climate Change Negotiations, Policies
and Measures. Online: www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ClimateChange/InfoNoteHRBA.pdf
OHCHR (2021): Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development to the Human Rights Council:
Climate Change is aGlobal Human Rights reat Multiplier. 17September, 2021.Online: www.
ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/09/special-rapporteur-right-development-human-rights-
council-climate-change
O, Hari M.(2007): e Inuit Petition as aBridge? Beyond Dialectics of Climate Change and
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. American Indian Law Review, 31(2), 675–697.Online: https://doi.
org/10.2307/20070803
Our Common Future, Annexe 1: Summary of Proposed Legal Principles for Environmental Protection
and Sustainable Development, Adopted by the WCED Experts Group on Environmental Law,
1987. Online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-
future.pdf
Palme Stockholm Conference (1972). YouTube.com, 5August, 2012. Online: www.youtube.com/
watch?v=0dGIsMEQYgI
P, Karen (1989): Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights. Hastings International &
Comparative Law Review, 12(2), 411–463.
European Parliament (2023): Environmental Crimes: Deal on New Oences and Reinforced
Sanctions. Press releases 16 November, 2023. Online: www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/
press-room/20230929IPR06108/environmental-crimes-deal-on-new-oences-and-reinforced-
sanctions
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12August 1949, and Relating to the Protection
of Victims of International Armed Conicts (Protocol I) 1977(1978).
Reclaiming Power and Place: e Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered
Indigenous Women and Girls (2019). Canada. Online: www.mmiwg-ada.ca/nal-report/
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992.A/CONF.151/26(Vol.I).
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998(2002).
S, Dinah (1991): Human Rights, Environmental Rights, and the Right to Environment.
Stanford Journal of International Law, 28(1), 103–138.

ACTA HUMANA • 2 (2024) 89
The Crime of Ecocide through Human Rights Approach
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (1980): Warfare in a Fragile World Military
Impact on the Human Environment. London: Taylor & Francis.
Stop Ecocide Foundation (2023): Ukraine Justice Conference Addresses Ecocide Law. 13 March,
2023. Online: www.stopecocide.earth/breaking-news-2023/ukraine-justice-conference-addresses-
ecocide-law
S, Orsolya Johanna (2021): Emberi jogok a környezetrombolás árnyékában: Az ekocídium
ésazemberi jogok kapcsolódási pontjai. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 17(2), 85–98.Online: https://
ias.jak.ppke.hu/20212sz/06_SziebigOJ_IAS_2021_2.pdf
S, Orsolya Johanna (2022): Ökocídium az uniós jogban ‒ eddigi történések és lehetséges
szcenáriók. EU Jog, 2(3).
T K, Ágnes (2022): Azéghajlatváltozás emberi jogokra gyakorolt hatásairól, különös
tekintettel azélelemhez való jogra. Acta Humana– Emberi Jogi Közlemények, 10(2), 93–123.
Online: https://doi.org/10.32566/ah.2022.2.6
T, Ludwik A. (1991): Beyond Restoration–e Case of Ecocide. Natural Resources Journal,
34(4), 933–956.Online: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol34/iss4/6
UN Human Rights Committee (2019): International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General
comment No.36CCPR/C/GC/36.
UN Human Rights Council (2021): Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political,
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development. A/HRC/48/L.23/Rev.1.
V A, Andreas – T, Jens T. (2020): Rhetoric of Rights. In V A,
Andreas–V  D, Kerstin– S, Mart (eds.): e Cambridge Handbook of New
Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 34–50.
Online: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108676106.004