The Arctic ice cap first formed some three million years ago, and despite its remote location and harsh, inhospitable conditions it is home to some four million people and provides unique habitat for polar bears, seals, reindeer, amongst others. Over 40 indigenous languages are spoken in the Arctic; some languages are down to only one or two remaining speakers.¹ It remains a unique, fragile and symbolic part of this planet.

The impacts of climate change are being felt most intensely in the Arctic and the region is changing rapidly – with dramatic consequences. The region holds the largest remaining untapped gas reserves and some of the largest undeveloped oil reserves (according to estimates, the region holds 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas). Changing environmental conditions present opportunities for a grotesque carve up: the new, and perhaps final frontier for oil and gas. What most expected to be an environmental wake-up call, instead has become a promise of access and lure of profit.

Oil companies have yet to prove that they could responsibly clean up any potential oil spill in extreme conditions and yet exploration has already begun. Repeated failures and setbacks in recent months in this harshest of environments shows that drilling should not be happening here. Existing infrastructure is inadequate to respond to any emergency, and, since the Arctic features a short productive season, low temperatures, and limited sunlight, it can take much longer than would be expected for these regions to recover from habitat disruption, tundra disturbance and oil spills. Costly lessons from the past, including the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska and the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico teach us that there is no safe way to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic, no way to guarantee wildlife will not be harmed by exploration and extraction and no way to ensure the Arctic will be protected for future generations.  For what offers a supply of fuel for only a few years, environmental and social problems will remain long after the oil and gas has been extracted.

Issuing an Early Warning. The threat of drilling in the Arctic presents such enormous risk that we do not need to wait for such a crime to be committed. We have a clear warning of the possibility of that crime, and we need to do all we can now to prevent it.

Read other examples of crimes against future generations: Bottom Trawling, Cultural Heritage Destruction, Denying Girls an Education, Nuclear Weapons, Casino Finance, Razing the Rainforest

Since bottom trawling literally pulverises everything in its path, it has been shown to not only damage or destroy long-lived species such as corals and sponges, but also to harm the complexity of the seabed, reducing species diversity and faunal biomass.² Given the slow growth rates of habitat-forming corals, which may take hundreds of years to develop, observations show that it is likely that such ecosystems will recover only very slowly if at all.³ In many areas, even many years after the cessation of fishing, there is no evidence of recovery.⁴  The impact has been compared to cutting down a rainforest: what has taken thousands of years to evolve, can be destroyed in a matter of moments, leaving behind a barren wasteland.

Before the DAY is over, an Indigenous homeland will be clear-cut, strip-mined, or flooded by a dam.

Before the WEEK is over, an Indigenous person will be killed or displaced, because of economic interests or simply because he or she has a different culture.

Before the YEAR is over, dozens of languages could disappear forever, taking with them ancient worldviews and a priceless record of earth’s biodiversity.

– Cultural Survival (www.culturalsurvival.org)

There are more than 150 million tribal people in over 60 countries around the globe. Their land rights are cemented in international law but are often not respected or protected in practice. The Awá are an Indian tribe in Brazil, some of whom still remain uncontacted. They are under an existential threat by loggers, settlers and ranchers who are invading their land and thus their only livelihood. These are one of the last nomadic Amazonian tribes in existence.

‘Every day as the white population by our reserve increases so do diseases like malaria and flu, and we have to share the game with the settlers. They have guns, so they kill more game than us. We are very worried about the lack of game and being able to feed our children in the future. Without the forest we’ll be gone, we’ll be extinct’. – To’o, an Awá tribes-man.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoplesrecognises “the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources”.

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversityaffirms that ‘respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and cooperation, in a climate of mutual trust and understanding are among the best guarantees of international peace and security’ as well as stating that cultural diversity is ‘the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations’.

Building on this existing legal and treaty framework, making cultural and Indigenous heritage destruction a crime against future generations would bring the above-mentioned declarations together and add another desperately needed layer of protection to the most vulnerable of minorities.

In our view, when individuals act despite knowing the that their actions could gravely or irreparably imperil the health, means of survival or safety of a given human population, – this should constitute a crime against future generations.

Read other examples of crimes against future generations: Arctic Drilling, Bottom Trawling, Denying Girls an Education, Nuclear Weapons, Casino Finance, Razing the Rainforest

Everybody has the right to education, recognised since 1948 by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The right to free and compulsory primary education, without discrimination and of good quality, has been reaffirmed in all major subsequent international human rights conventions. Yet in some parts of the world, girls are systematically denied access to education, which has significant and far reaching consequences.

Too often marriage is seen as a higher priority than education, and girls who are forced into marriage or are pregnant are taken out of school. Over 51 million girls under the age of 18 in countries in the Global South are forced to marry and in some places marriage of girls as young as seven to men ten times their age is commonplace.⁸  In 2005, the UNFPA predicted that over 100 million girls would become child brides by 2015 based on existing practices.⁹

There is often a powerful economic and social rationale for investing in the education of sons over daughters, as educated daughters are perceived to be less suitable for marriage, and less likely to abide by the will of the father, brother or husband. The perceived opportunity costs linked to sending girls to school are significant in poor households. Girls are frequently used to substitute for their mother, often expected to care for siblings. The loss of girls’ labour during school hours thus has a detrimental impact on such families’ ability to raise their household income, either through food production or wage labour.

A pervasive vicious cycle is in full swing. The limited number of female teachers in both primary and secondary schools is also a major constraint on girls’ education since their presence helps to make schools more girl-friendly, and provides them important role models. Some leaders struggle to recruit female teachers: often failing to ensure equal rights of women in teaching, failing to remove cultural prejudice against female teachers and failing to provide effective incentives to encourage female teachers to work.

The United States Army conducted the first detonation of a nuclear device on July 16 1945 in the Jornada del Muerto desert in the state of New Mexico. Less than a month later, on August 6, an atomic bomb was detonated over Hiroshima, Japan, and a further nuclear bomb was dropped over Nagasaki on August 9. These two bombs combined killed around 120,000 instantly, while many more died of the long-term effects of radiation.

Although arsenals have been reduced after the end of the Cold War, more than 17,000 nuclear weapons still remain across the globe with an average explosive yield 20-30 times higher than that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Roughly 10% of these warheads are maintained on hair-trigger alert, keeping humankind on the constant brink of nuclear war. The prolongation of this situation increases the probability of these weapons being used by accident, design or miscalculation.

There rests a legal obligation on nuclear-armed States to eliminate their arsenals, as derived from the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law. In its 1996 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice unanimously proclaimed that “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leadings to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” However, the nuclear-armed States have failed to implement their nuclear disarmament obligations and remain in violation of international law. Despite reductions to the overall number of nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, all of the world’s nuclear-armed states are modernizing their arsenals and continue to reaffirm importance of such weapons in their defence and security policies.

When the state invests too little in public infrastructure – education, medical and social care, it is societal negligence that does not just affect current generations but negatively impacts societies for generations to come. Private companies step in and begin to increasingly provide these essential services, turning public services into business enterprises answerable to shareholders rather than the needs of the general public. The redistribution effects of austerity policies further exacerbate this economic crime.

The world is tied into a debt-based financial system where the only currency entering into circulation is through lending. Irresponsible lending caused the 2008 global financial crisis. Trade was conducted at much higher rates that the product’s intrinsic value (economic bubbles).¹⁵  When a sudden drop in these rates occurred, the bubbles ‘burst’ and the system crashed. Once this happened, governments lent even more money to bail out or recapitalise banks. This debt is being shouldered by current generations in the form of lack of investment in socio-environmental infrastructure through austerity measures and passed on to future generations who face huge amounts of compounded interest¹⁶ as well as the consequences of current lack in socio-environmental investment.¹⁷

In our view, when individuals act despite knowing the threat from their acts to the survival and well-being of future generations and ecosystems – this should constitute a crime against future generations.

Read other examples of crimes against future generations: Arctic Drilling, Bottom Trawling, Cultural Heritage Destruction, Denying Girls an Education, Nuclear Weapons

A significant, immediate effect of deforestation on this scale is the loss of valuable and unique plants and animals, leading to the potential extinction of many species. Many species are losing whole populations at such a rate that threatens their genetic variability and thus their ability to adapt to climate change and other forms of environmental adversity. Functioning ecosystems are wiped out. As a carbon storage system, the lost forests contribute to some 20-25% of global CO2 emissions through release of stored carbon dioxide. The loss of moisture from the forests reduces the production of rain clouds, leading to less regional rainfall, risking large scale desertification. Long term vicious cycles are unleashed. Further far reaching effects are only beginning to be understood.

For affected communities, for whom the forest is their life, deforestation brings violence, conflict and forced migration, often to nearby cities. Communities’ land rights often remain unclear or are blatantly violated. The biological, economic and cultural importance of their attachment to the land is often ignored by logging companies. In some recent commercial attempts to establish large scale oil palm plantations, communities cite a lack of transparency by the companies and illegal clearing of land despite their lack of consent²². Many express concern that their governments or regional authorities fail to defend their interests.