Paul Spencer Sochaczewski

ECOCIDE – Should killing nature be an international crime?

Posted on 29. Jan, 2021 by Paul Sochaczewski in Environment, Environment EarthLove

Ecocide – Should Killing Nature be an International Crime?

Should killing nature be an international crime?

A recent BBC article notes: “From the Pope to Greta Thunberg, there are growing calls for the crime of “ecocide” to be recognised in international criminal law.  But could such a law ever work?”

Courts in numerous jurisdictions have ruled in favor of nature on a wide-range of environment-related issues:

• Juristic personhood for sacred rivers, trees, and landscapes
• Legal rights for non-human primates
• Pollution and other forms of destruction of nature
• Trade in endangered species
• Destruction of national parks, nature reserves and other protected areas and natural monuments
• Killing wildlife in one’s own backyard

There have been successes, certainly.

But in spite of many well-intentioned local, national, and international initiatives, nature continues to be under threat.  What can be done to stem the tide of climate change, pollution, desertification, and loss of ecosystems?

* * *

The proposed criminalization of ecocide would be a logical extension of four crimes currently under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

I find this a promising idea – that punishing crimes against nature should be viewed in the context of the protection of basic human rights.

Certainly, the idea of “what is right,” has evolved.

Two centuries ago, slavery was widespread.

One century ago, women had few, if any, legal rights.

Similarly, many legal jurisdictions ban child labor, and acknowledge that basic human rights include the right to free speech, fair elections, civil liberties, ownership of property, a living wage, and freedom of movement.

And there is large acceptance (but spotty enforcement) that people have a basic right to clean water and clean air. People have a right to health care, sanitation, education, and religious freedom. (I’d add that it should be a basic human right not to be forced to hear other people’s cellphone conversations in public places.)

I’m certainly not claiming that all these noble social-change initiatives are universal, or effectively applied. But social movements take place all the time – they grow, they become internalized in the public ideology. They evolve from outlandish, outlier pie-in-the-sky desires into generally accepted concepts that are ingrained into our communal DNA.

For instance, who would have thought back in the 1960s that in just a few decades smoking would be banned in most indoor locations, and smokers would become a vague sort of semi-pariah class.  In the 1950s my mother was proud to wear a status-defining mink stole; if she were alive today I doubt she would buy another.

One challenge is that many of the noble environmental guidelines are enshrined in what is called international “soft law.” This includes most international treaties and conventions (and there are many), such as the Paris Agreement on climate change. Countries sign these treaties, make promises, but there is no policing mechanism to enforce things when ego and greed overtake good intentions.

Legal changes respond to social movements.

* * *

Some aggressive (some might say visionary) conservationists are frustrated that, in spite of good laws and good intentions, nature is being devastated at an increasing rate.

As two of the key characters in my novel EarthLove point out, “We’ve tried all the usual tactics, and the rainforest we love is still being destroyed.”

Rema, the brilliant angry bio-engineer-princess, and Olivia, the similarly brilliant, similarly angry  robotics engineer, established a  foundation that, on the surface, engaged in all the “standard” save-the-world activities:

• They supported scientific studies and funded white papers and action plans.
• They helped create national parks and train protected area staff.
• They lobbied the United Nations to create an Environmental Bill of Rights.
• They organized media outreach to warn Western consumers about the evils of oil palm, and supported boycotts of palm oil.
• They helped local organizations write and circulate on-line petitions to be sent to parliamentarians.
• They joined high-level panels that wrote guidelines for “sustainable” oil palm production and “green-certification” schemes.
• They gave interviews on CNN (they alternately cried and shouted on camera), and met with the good and great around the world.
• They marched, arm-in-arm, with young people around the world in loud but peaceful demonstrations, singing “Save my planet, now!” to the theme of “We shall overcome.”

On the surface Rema and Olivia were good women playing the “good girl” role – be confident, work within the system, change will happen once people understand the issues and what’s at stake.

But their earnest, more-of-the-same, efforts weren’t working.

So they went rogue.  To mix a metaphor, you can’t change the system without breaking some eggs.

Here’s a question for you, one that Rema and Oliva asked themselves.  What action, regardless of whether it is moral, ethical, legal, or feasible, would be most effective in destroying the oil palm industry?

All good fiction requires opponents (Writing tip: if your writing is flat, try increasing the strength of the bad guy. That will make your hero bigger, and increase the conflict and the stakes.  Conflict is what drives fiction.)

Rema and Olivia went off-piste.  To many people they were eco-terrorists.  Their efforts were not ones that would sit comfortably with “business-as-usual,” “work-within-the-system” nature conservation groups. These two women were, arguably, more than a little mad. They were angry, they were driven, they were creative, and they had technical skills, political muscle, and lots of money to work with.

• Rema and Olivia manipulated orangutans to perform as eco-guerillas to terrorize oil palm workers, in an attempt to shut down the operations.
• They sabotaged palm oil factories in an attempt to shut down the supply chain. (They considered bombing palm oil factories, but decided they didn’t want to take human lives.)
• They genetically created new forms of weevils that destroyed oil palm trees, and attacked plantations with countless little beasties sent over in drones.
• They bio-engineered a variant of Agent Orange, which they termed “Agent Green,” which was created to destroy oil palms.

In EarthLove’s story, they failed.

* * *

In real life it seems there are several options to reverse the course of destruction.

One would be to continue with “more of the same” – engaging in small, but useful initiatives that hopefully will gather momentum. Such a “realistic” approach might include:

• More and better policing to ensure laws are enforced.
• More autonomy, combined with guarantees of land ownership, to local communities.
• New forms of collaborative protected areas, such as biosphere reserves.
• More initiatives, such as “green labelling” and “sustainable certification,” which unite industry and business groups with conservation and local development organizations.
• An overall improvement in living conditions so people have less incentive to ravage nature.
• Widespread adoption of green energy.
• Innovative financial models to change the way we do business and how we calculate “value.
• Greater public awareness, which might led to political will, of the economic reality that healthy nature is essential for our future well-being.

Or perhaps the emphasis should be placed on the expansion of feel-good initiatives that challenge the Biblical concept that man has dominion over nature?

• The idea that humanity is part of nature, part of the thread of life. We are not conquerors of nature, we are fellow voyagers.
• The concept of juristic personhood for nature.
• The recognition that nature, in all its forms, has rights.
• Enshrining a biophilia relationship with nature in international soft-law such as the “Terra Carta” or Earth charter, recently endorsed by Prince Charles.

* * *

Should we agree with Rema and Olivia that the “forces of evil,” as they termed the anti-nature Big Men, need to be challenged with aggression, not negotiation?

Or should we throw in the towel, accept that at its core, the species of Homo sapiens is a profit-driven, selfish, egocentric animal that continually strives for more-more-more?

Maybe there’s nothing to be done.  Should we should continue to live our lives pretty much as they are and let the next generation worry about such intractable conservation problems such as climate change, desertification, pollution, loss of biodiversity, over-fishing, and … well, you know the list by now.

_____

Questions for readers:

1. How concerned are you about the health of the environment compared to civil justice, freedom of speech, modern-day slavery, challenges to democracy, and other issues?
2. What global social revolutions are likely to take place in the next 20 years?
3. Which conservation problems (local or global) are most urgent?
4. On a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest) how optimistic are you that your children will have a better life than you have?
5. If you had unlimited power, what actions would you take to save our environment?

______________

EarthLove is available at Amazon.com, or on order from any bookstore.

 978-2-940573-34-9 Paperback KDP (Amazon)
978-2-940573-35-6 Paperback IngramSpark (for bookstore orders)
978-2-940573-36-3 E-Book

And you might enjoy watching the two-minute EarthLove video trailer. I wrote the script; it was produced and directed by Marton Varo, brandefy.com .