Ecocide Trial
ecocide /ˈɛkəˌsaɪd, ˈikə-/
noun
mass damage, destruction to or loss of ecosystems of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.
Earthquakes, storms, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis show us the unstoppable power of nature. There is little we can do to avert these events but we can take responsibility for our own actions and the sometimes devastating effects they have on planet earth.
Creating an international law on ecocide, the environmental equivalent of genocide, would establish the requirement of heads of states and corporations to take individual and personal responsibility for their actions. By making ecocide a crime, mass environmental damage and the destruction of ecosystems will be prohibited and a legal duty of care can be the imposed upon corporations and governments to assist those suffering or at risk of ecocide.
The trial
The mock ecocide trial aims to raise awareness of the ecocide concept and answer key practical questions: What will this mean in practice? Is it legally possible? Will it have more negative effects than positive? Would the Alberta Tar Sands mining, destruction of the Amazon rainforest or oil spills be classed as ecocide? Who would be the individuals prosecuted under this proposed law? Could banks also be culpable if they provide funding for activities prosecuted under ecocide? In reality, what effect would the law have on the environment and businesses and the people who run them?
The mock trial took place 30 September 2011, webcast live on SKY, and followed UK court procedures. There was a judge, a jury, and prosecuting and defence barristers who called expert witnesses. The trial was open to the public and had full media coverage. Edited versions of the event are available for international, national and local television, radio and other media outlets and for public and private screenings.
The trial, organised by the Hamilton Group, is the focus of a sustained campaign to raise awareness of the issues around ecocide and to have them internationally debated and discussed fully within government, business, communities, the media, universities and schools.
Polly Higgins, British barrister and international environmental lawyer, proposed to the United Nations in April 2010 that a law on ecocide to be classed as an international law alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression and war crimes, as a fifth crime against peace. The proposed law will be debated and a decision taken at the UN Earth Summit in Rio in June 2012. If ecocide is accepted as a crime under international law it will have a profound effect on governments, heads of state, corporations and those who run them, and on the ecosystems of the Earth.
The Hamilton Group, a not-for-profit organisation encouraging businesses, organisations and communities to bring responsibility for the world to the forefront of their decision-making, is putting the concept of ecocide on trial in an event aimed to raise awareness of the arguments for and against Ecocide.
The World Future Council and several of its Councillors are assisting the Hamilton Group in making the trial a success. We have been actively working to develop a draft code of Crimes against Future Generations to ensure personal and corporate responsibility, and are therefore supporting the mock trial as a partner.
Read our press release: A Law to Stop the Destruction of Nature
The press release of the results of the trial: Law of Ecocide Proved Valid at London’s Supreme Court
Further information on ecocide
There are two types of ecocide: ascertainable and non-ascertainable. Ascertainable is human-caused, such as the razing of the Amazon, oil disasters and mining. Non-ascertainable ecocide includes tsunamis, earthquakes and climate change created damage and destruction. There is an argument that corporate ecocide creates and triggers climate related ecocide.
The UN says, "world systems are now at risk of rapid degeneration and collapse," which could imply that our ecosystems are at a tipping point.
Proponents of criminalising ecocide say that now more than ever, the moral, economic, ecological and environmental case is clear for implementing the crime of ecocide. In so doing, the march of destruction of our ecosystems can be halted and a legal duty of care can be the imposed upon corporations and governments to assist those suffering or at risk of climate-related ecocide.
By making ecocide a crime:
- mass damage, destruction or loss of ecosystems will be prohibited
- the flow of destruction can be stopped at source
- it creates a pre-emptive legal duty of care
The international legal doctrine known as ‘superior responsibility’ would apply to CEOs, heads of state and heads of financial institutions to ensure that those in top positions do not make decisions that lead to, support or finance mass damage, destruction or loss of ecosystems.
The aim is to ensure that responsibility lies with human beings, not legal entities (i.e. the corporation, which normally just pays a fine when sued), and that their human rights are withdrawn and they are imprisoned. In this way, the cycle of destruction and accrual of silent rights (the right to pollute, the right to destroy habitat etc) could be broken.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court sets out the existing Crimes Against Peace. It could be amended to include the crime of ecocide. This would provide both voice and a route to prohibit, restore and remedy. More importantly, it establishes the requirement of heads of states and corporations to take individual and personal responsibility. Setting up Trust Territories under the UN would provide protection to territories at the receiving end of ecocide, and restore collective duties and obligations to facilitate the advancement of the explicitly stated aim: “We the peoples of the united nations determined… to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”
Future Justice…
...is about thinking and acting differently, based on respect, dignity and mutual trust
…considers not just what is happening now, but the effects of our actions in the years, decades and centuries to come
… is a means of creating new rules for how we live and work, pass laws and run countries
…is the giving of rights to the poorest, the weakest, the ignored, to the planet and to the other living creatures we share it with
…is a protection for all the people yet to be born, whose lives we are blighting before they have even started
…is about what we do now. Our actions today will determine the conditions of life for centuries to come