The International Prosecution of Ecocide: Opportunities, Limits and Challenges
The severity of environmental damage and the current climate situation have reignited the debate that began some years ago about the need to strengthen international criminal accountability mechanisms. The destruction of ecosystems, pollution and the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources can—and indeed do—have consequences that transcend state borders, while the prosecution of those responsible continues to depend, to a large extent, on national legal systems.
In this regard, the national mechanisms of territorial states themselves often prove insufficient, since it is frequently more profitable for companies to pay any compensation they may eventually be ordered to pay for the environmental damage caused than to fund the preventive and precautionary measures required by the legislation in force—where such legislation exists.
Furthermore, asymmetrical political and economic power relations between certain companies and some States, particularly those with weaker institutions, can encourage undue corporate influence over public decisions. This is especially true in countries of the Global South, where dependence on foreign investment gives companies considerable leverage at the local level.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has observed that States in whose territory the damage occurs do not always have sufficient institutional conditions to ensure effective accountability, nor adequate state mechanisms to prevent human rights violations, mitigate the damage caused, provide full reparation to victims and, where appropriate, sanction the state authorities or companies involved. In this regard, both the IACHR and its Special Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights (REDESCA) have continuously received information about States’ failure to comply with their human rights obligations in connection with business activities and operations of various kinds and across different industrial or productive sectors.
In view of the high levels of impunity prevailing in some countries, international criminal justice therefore presents an option for victims to seek the prosecution of those responsible and possible compensation for the harm suffered.
In this context, the possibility of adding ecocide to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been raised. The Rome Statute recognises four crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
The issue was in fact first raised at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm by the then Swedish Prime Minister, Olof Palme. It was not until 2019 that the issue returned to the agenda, with the Republic of Vanuatu submitting a proposal to amend the Rome Statute.
In 2020, the Stop Ecocide Foundation—with the support of the International Baltasar Garzón Foundation (FIBGAR)—launched the “Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide” to draft a proposal for a fifth crime. In June 2021, the expert panel completed its work and defined ecocide as “any unlawful or wanton act committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment”.
Building on that definition, on 9 September 2024 Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa expanded the 2019 declaration by formally submitting a proposal to amend the Rome Statute to include the crime of “ecocide”.
The possible inclusion of “ecocide” in the Rome Statute as a fifth crime could represent progress in the international criminal protection of the environment, although certain limits on the ICC’s action would remain, arising from the timing of the acts and the State in which they were committed. In this regard, it should be borne in mind that, in the face of the campaign to dismantle and delegitimise the ICC led by the United States, many States have withdrawn from the Rome Statute. Therefore, alongside efforts to include “ecocide” in the Rome Statute, it is necessary to make it a criminal offence in domestic legal systems, establishing the possibility of prosecuting and trying it under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
Although the 2021 Expert Panel definition prompted a wave of draft laws on ecocide, the mere existence of the offence does not mean that the State concerned can exercise universal jurisdiction over any act committed outside its territory. It is essential to distinguish between defining ecocide as a criminal offence in domestic law and conferring jurisdiction on national courts to prosecute it on the basis of universal jurisdiction, which is generally established through rules of procedural law. Other countries, even without a specific provision, have developed the principle of universal jurisdiction through evolving case law.
We must also distinguish extraterritorial jurisdiction—jurisdiction exercised by a State over acts committed outside its territory—which is triggered by the active personality principle, where the alleged perpetrator is a national of the State seeking to prosecute them; the passive personality principle, where the victim is a national of that State; or the protective principle, where the acts affect the State’s essential interests, such as its security or certain protected public interests. These grounds may justify intervention beyond national borders.
By contrast, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, the prosecution of certain offences—even when committed abroad and where there is no traditional territorial or personal link with the State conducting the trial—is justified by their nature; that is, by the nature and gravity of the acts being tried, since the international community as a whole has an interest in ensuring that such acts do not go unpunished.
The debate should therefore not be limited to creating a new international crime, but should also address the legal mechanisms needed to ensure its prosecution. In this regard, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has observed that universal jurisdiction could play an important role in addressing shortcomings in the enforcement of international environmental law.
In 2025, the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly published a document listing the offences in respect of which States have indicated that universal jurisdiction or other bases of extraterritorial jurisdiction are provided for in their domestic legal systems. Without making a quantitative assessment, the number of States that provide for it makes clear that efforts to address an environmental crisis on the scale of the current one remain insufficient.
With regard to “ecocide”, Armenia, Belarus, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova are listed under this category. Other States, such as Lithuania, Georgia and Jordan, referred to “environmental crimes” in general terms. Türkiye referred to intentional environmental pollution, while Cameroon and Portugal mentioned offences relating to toxic waste.
To date, however, there are no recorded precedents of the prosecution of an autonomous environmental crime under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Although there have been instances of extraterritorial investigations into international crimes with environmental consequences, such as the investigation initiated by Switzerland into the alleged illegal exploitation of rosewood in Casamance, a region of Senegal, this does not mean that universal jurisdiction over ecocide has become established. Current precedents concern the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction on the basis of the active personality principle.
Ultimately, incorporating ecocide into the Rome Statute would constitute progress in the international criminal protection of the environment, but would not, in itself, guarantee its prosecution beyond state borders. One possible way to reduce impunity for environmental harm would be to adopt an international instrument that, in addition to defining ecocide, establishes obligations concerning cooperation, the alignment of domestic law and clear jurisdictional bases for prosecuting such acts. More specifically, it should expressly provide that such acts may be prosecuted and tried on the basis of universal jurisdiction, in order to end the impunity of companies that exert control over governments and societies in vulnerable cities, without facing any consequences.
Perhaps the next question is: are States willing to take on the major extractive and polluting economic groups? As noted, asymmetrical power relations and dependence on foreign investment often leave no real freedom to make decisions. Yet many other States that are not in this position lack the political will to curb corporate business activities.
The climate crisis is not a problem of the future. It is happening now. If States do not act with commitment and urgency, consolidating domestic legislative instruments and legal mechanisms that make prosecution possible, including universal jurisdiction, the law will have arrived too late to prevent an environmental collapse that has long been foretold.
By Valentina Belen Cabezas, master’s student in Governance and Human Rights, contributor to FIBGAR.
References:
United Nations General Assembly; List of crimes mentioned in the comments by Governments concerning which universal jurisdiction (including other bases of jurisdiction) is established under their national legislation; n.d. Available at:https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/80/universal_jurisdiction/scope_table.pdf
United Nations General Assembly; The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction: List of crimes mentioned in the comments by Governments concerning which universal jurisdiction (including other bases of jurisdiction) is established under their national legislation; n.d. Available at:https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/75/universal_jurisdiction/unep_e.pdf
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Special Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights (REDESCA); Business and Human Rights: Inter-American Standards; 1 November 2019. Available at:https://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/empresasddhh.pdf
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR); Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant Communities and Extractive Industries; 2016. Available at:https://www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/industriasextractivas2016.pdf
Eco Jurisprudence Tracker; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: amendment on ecocide; n.d. Available at:https://ecojurisprudence.org/es/iniciativas/propuesta-de-enmienda-al-estatuto-del-cromo/
Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court; Policy on Environmental Crimes under the Rome Statute; December 2024. Available at:https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2025-01/2024-12-18-OTP-Policy-Environmental-Crime-Spa.pdf
Stop Ecocide Foundation; Commentary and Core Text of the Legal Definition of Ecocide; n.d. Available at:https://fibgar.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/SEFoundationCommentaryandcoretextESrev3.pdf
Justice Info (Asymmetrical Haircuts); Ecocide: Waiting for the ICC; 2 April 2026. Available at:https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/157358-ecocide-waiting-for-the-icc.html
Killean, Rachel; Ecocide’s evolving relationship with war; 24 June 2025. Available at:https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/27538796251347111
Environmental Law Review, University of Chile; title and authorship pending verification; n.d. Available at:https://revistaderechoambiental.uchile.cl/index.php/RDA/article/view/68825/76574
Stop Ecocide International; Legal Definition of “Ecocide”; June 2021. Available at:https://es.stopecocide.earth/legal-definition
TRIAL International; Prosecuting environmental crimes through extraterritorial jurisdiction: Strategic Reflections and Recommendations; February 2024. Available at:https://trialinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/TRIAL_recs_EC.pdf
