Should Environmental Crimes Be Prosecuted Like War Crimes?

Moving toward holding environmental offenders globally accountable as we do for war crimes.

By Medha deb

Created on Sep 27, 2025

Moving toward holding environmental offenders globally accountable as we do for war crimes.

Across the globe, environmental devastation—from oil spills to deforestation and industrial pollution—continues to threaten ecosystems, climate, and human health. Traditional laws have proven too weak to prevent such harm or bring the worst offenders to account. A growing international movement now calls for the most severe acts of environmental destruction—sometimes called ecocide—to be prosecuted with the same seriousness as war crimes and crimes against humanity. This article explores what it would mean to treat environmental crimes as war crimes, the movement’s rationale, the challenges faced, and the possible path forward for international law.

Why Equate Environmental Crimes and War Crimes?

The push to treat massive environmental destruction as an international crime on par with genocide or war crimes has developed in response to decades of observation that environmental harm is often systemic, deliberate, and leaves communities and ecosystems irreparably damaged. Advocates argue that:

Existing penalties are insufficient: Fines and local prosecution rarely match the scale or global impact of major environmental offenses.
Environmental harm respects no borders: Pollution, deforestation, and other disasters often cross national lines, undermining efforts to contain their effects.
Human and ecological damage is profound: The long-term effects of actions like toxic dumping, arson, or industrial disasters can mirror the devastation of warfare for both people and nature.
Global accountability is needed: Like war crimes, some acts against the environment should “shock the conscience of humanity” and merit prosecution, even when committed by powerful governments or corporations.

The crime of ecocide—deliberate, large-scale damage to the environment—has thus entered international debate as a potential new “fifth crime” under international criminal law.

What Are War Crimes, and How Does International Law Address the Environment?

International law, especially since the mid-20th century, defines war crimes as serious breaches of the laws and customs of war, often perpetrated against civilians or the environment. Key points include:

The Rome Statute (1998) regulates the International Criminal Court (ICC) and names war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of aggression as grounds for prosecution.
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute uniquely criminalizes “intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” This is the only direct ecocentric war crime currently enshrined in the Statute.
Additional international agreements, such as Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) and the ENMOD Convention (1978), restrict or prohibit the use of the environment as a weapon in warfare.

However, the environmental provisions in these statutes apply only during armed conflict and set extremely high thresholds for prosecution. Most peacetime environmental harm, however severe, is left to domestic law or scattered international treaties.

Historical Context: Environmental Damage in Warfare

Throughout history, armies have targeted the environment—scorching earth, poisoning wells, destroying forests or crops—to defeat their enemies. Some notorious examples include:

Romans salting the fields of Carthage
Scorched earth tactics in the American Civil War
Deforestation and wildlife loss during modern conflicts in Africa, such as over 90% decline in animals in Mozambique’s Gorongosa National Park during the 1977 civil war

Despite this, actual prosecution for environmental harm in war is exceedingly rare, as the legal bar remains high and the military advantage defense prevails.

What Would Creating an International Crime of Ecocide Mean?

The proposed recognition of ecocide as an international crime would landmark a fundamental shift in global law. As currently discussed by advocates, it would:

Establish a definition of ecocide: Intentional or reckless destruction of ecosystems or environments that causes significant, long-lasting harm to people or nature.
Enable prosecution regardless of nationality: Like other core international crimes, those accused of ecocide could be brought to justice by courts worldwide or the ICC itself, even if the crime was not committed in that country.
Create personal criminal liability: Both government officials and corporate leaders could be held responsible, breaking through traditional shields of state or corporate immunity.

Current Approach	Proposed Ecocide Approach
Most environmental crimes prosecuted only at national level; rare international enforcement.	Ecocide would be prosecutable in international courts, like war crimes or genocide.
High-profile polluters or decision-makers often avoid accountability.	Leaders could be criminally liable personally, regardless of political or corporate status.
Penalties are mostly fines, or at most civil liability.	Severe penalties, including prison, possible for egregious actions.

Challenges and Critiques

Despite the conceptual appeal of equating environmental crimes with war crimes, numerous legal and political challenges remain:

Definitional complexity: What counts as ‘severe’ or ‘long-lasting’ environmental harm? How to distinguish reckless destruction from harmful but legal industrial activity?
High threshold for prosecution: Current international law (Rome Statute) defines environmental war crimes so narrowly—requiring ‘widespread, long-term and severe’ damage—that no one has ever been held accountable under this provision.
State sovereignty and political will: Many governments hesitate to cede power to international courts or risk prosecution for state-sanctioned projects.
ICC limitations: The International Criminal Court faces resource constraints, questions of legitimacy, and challenges in enforcing its decisions—especially against powerful nations or corporations.
Ambiguity in law: Key terms such as ‘widespread,’ ‘long-term,’ and ‘severe’ are undefined, creating obstacles for consistent prosecution.

The Case for International Accountability

Despite opposition, the rationale for treating environmental crimes at the same level as war crimes and crimes against humanity grows stronger, especially as the climate crisis worsens and environmental harm intrudes into every aspect of life. Proponents highlight that:

Environmental crimes undermine peace and human security, not only harming nature but also causing mass displacement, disease, famine, and even conflict.
Punishing large-scale environmental harm deters future offenses, just as prosecution for war crimes deters atrocities in armed conflict.
Communities harmed by environmental abuses need justice, where other legal channels often fail or are unavailable.

Examples of Environmental Harm With Global Impact

Some historical and recent examples suggest the scale of harm advocates believe should be prosecutable under new international criminal law:

Bhopal disaster (1984): Massive toxic chemical leak in India killed thousands, left hundreds of thousands with lasting injuries; corporate leaders largely escaped criminal accountability.
Amazon deforestation: Deliberate, illegal clearing of rainforest has destroyed habitats and driven climate change, often with official or corporate complicity.
Deliberate oil pollution: Oil spills caused by sabotage, illegal dumping, or as tools of war have devastated ecosystems from Nigeria to the Persian Gulf.

Each of these cases illustrates acts that far exceed routine pollution or negligence—the deliberate infliction of harm for profit or power, sometimes shielded by state interests or war.

What Would an “Ecocide” Law Look Like?

If the International Criminal Court were to recognize ecocide as a core crime, likely components of the law would include:

Definition: Acts committed with knowledge or reckless disregard resulting in severe, widespread, or long-term damage to the natural environment.
Scope: Applies to individuals with the authority to direct, authorize, or enable such acts—corporate executives, heads of state, military leaders.
Universal jurisdiction: No safe haven; suspects could be prosecuted anywhere, under the model of war crimes or genocide laws.
Remedies: Penalties could include imprisonment, reparations for victims, and restoration of damaged environments where possible.

Voices of Support and Dissent

Globally, support for the ecocide movement has come from:

Environmental NGOs: Groups like Stop Ecocide International and Greenpeace advocate for legal reform and bring public attention to critical cases.
Small island states and Indigenous leaders: Those facing existential threats from rising seas, logging, mining, or pollution are prominent advocates for stronger accountability.
Some legal scholars and international jurists: See the criminalization of ecocide as a logical extension of evolving international norms.

However, others caution that:

Implementation is impractical: Given current geopolitical realities, major powers may resist any law that could limit state action or economic interests.
Prosecution risks politicization: As with war crimes, ecocide charges could become tools in international disputes.
Focus should be on enforcement and prevention: Critics say building up domestic environmental law and regulatory capacity may yield better results than pursuing dramatic, but rarely used, international prosecutions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What does “ecocide” actually mean in international law?

“Ecocide” refers to the massive and deliberate destruction of ecosystems or the environment, with consequences severe enough to impact humans and nature at local, regional, or even global scales. It has no formal standing in international law yet but is the subject of active proposals and campaigns.

Why are so few people prosecuted for environmental destruction in war?

Existing war crimes statutes require that environmental harm be “widespread, long-term, and severe”, a legal bar that is rarely met or proven in court. Political, evidentiary, and enforcement challenges further limit prosecutions.

What are the risks of adopting ecocide as an international crime?

States may resist, fearing limits on their sovereignty; there is the risk of politicized trials; and definitions remain ambiguous, which could create loopholes or inconsistent implementation.

How could such a law actually help prevent environmental disasters?

If international leaders and corporate executives face personal criminal liability—not just corporate fines—they may act more responsibly, deterring actions that put the environment and lives at risk.

Would everyday pollution be affected by an ecocide law?

No. The proposed crime targets only the most egregious, deliberate or reckless acts that cause severe, irreversible harm. Routine, regulated pollution would remain subject to national laws.

Conclusion: Toward a New Paradigm of Environmental Justice

As the scale and impact of environmental harm grows, so does the call for robust, global accountability. Elevating ecocide to the level of war crimes would transform how the world treats deliberate environmental harm—marking it as an offense not just against a country, but against all humanity and the planet itself. Whether the international community can overcome legal, political, and practical challenges remains to be seen. What is certain is that with climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution accelerating, the need for stronger mechanisms of justice is more urgent than ever.

References

Author

medha deb

Medha Deb is an editor with a master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Hyderabad. She believes that her qualification has helped her develop a deep understanding of language and its application in various contexts.

Read full bio of medha deb