Authors

Discussion

The Nuremberg tribunal became instrumental in introducing a new term, "genocide", with the subsequent adoption into the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. The question is whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine can similarly serve as a catalyst for including ecocide into the Rome Statute (RS) and international criminal law. The Hague could potentially serve as a venue for recognizing ecocide as the fifth international crime through its inclusion into the Rome Statute, thereby filling this gap in international criminal law making a “greener” vision for the long-lasting span. 

Despite univocal scholarly debates about the necessity of discussions around ecocide, the viewpoints on the outcomes of its implementation differs. Lindgren (2018) proposes using this shift "not as a legal silver bullet but as a tool for larger processes of decolonization." The paper, on the contrary, views the implementing of ecocide as a revolutionary development and the pivotal moment for international community. The official implementation of the ecocide could lead to the greening of law, as well as greening of the international order per se. Apart from procedural benefits, these changes could drive the necessary transformative change towards environmental protection and become a catalyst for a paradigm shift. Yet, existing critique on the criminalization of ecocide still confirms the necessity to carry on the broad international discussion.

The biggest limitations of inclusion ecocide as a crime in the context of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war is that a new crime would not have retroactive applicability. Therefore, it would not serve as an avenue for awarding reparations to Ukraine, bringing environmental justice. Yet it will have a pivotal symbolic role for the further accountability for environmental harm, as well as for transformative changes and a way for environmental peacebuilding.