AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: 'Ecocide' As International Crime?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Not sure where this really goes, since we do not have a "pseudo-Science" section. But here it is anyway. And hold on folks, the next terrible crime, on par with genocide,.................may be Ecocide. That's right, Ecocide.

If something like this comes to fruition, can it be long before PETA manages to get the killing of food animals as crimes against the planet?

Quote:British campaigner urges UN to accept 'ecocide' as international crime

Proposal to declare mass destruction of ecosystems a crime on a par with genocide launched by lawyer

Juliette Jowit


A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK.

The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.

The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.

Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

"Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life," says Higgins. "It leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing behind. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace."

Higgins, formerly a barrister in London specialising in employment, has already had success at the UN with a Universal Declaration for Planetary Rights, modelled on the human rights declaration. "My starting point was 'how do we create a duty of care to the planet, a pre-emptive obligation to not harm the planet?'"

After a successful launch at the UN in 2008, the idea has been adopted by the Bolivian government, who will propose a full members' vote, and Higgins has taken up her campaign for ecocide.

Ecocide is already recognised by dictionaries, but Higgins' more legal definition would be: "The extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) 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."

The ICC was set up in 2002 to hear cases for four crimes against peace: genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression (such as unprovoked war), and crimes against humanity.

Higgins makes her case for ecocide to join that list with a simple equation: extraction leads to ecocide, which leads to resource depletion, and resource depletion leads to conflict. "The link is if you keep over-extracting from your capital asset we'll have very little left and we will go to war over our capital asset, the last of it," adds Higgins, who has support in the UN and European commission, and among climate scientists, environmental lawyers and international campaign groups.

Although there is debate over how frequently people go to war over resources such as water, a growing number of important voices are arguing this case. Most recently Sir David King, the UK's former chief scientist, predicted a century of "resource wars", and in response to a report on resource conflicts by campaign group Global Witness, Lessons Unlearned, the UN appeared to accept many of the arguments.

Controversially, Higgins is suggesting ecocide would include damage done to any species - not just humans. This, she says, would stop prosecutions being tied up in legal wrangling over whether humans were harmed, as many environmental cases currently are.: "If you put in a crime that's absolute you can't spend years arguing: you take a soil sample and if it tests as positive it's bang to rights."

Under an ecocide law, which would be more potent because prosecutions would be against individuals such as directors rather than the companies, traditional energy companies could have to become largely clean energy companies, much extractive mining would have to be scaled back or stopped, chemicals which contaminate soil and water and kill wildlife would have to be abandoned and large-scale deforestation would not be possible. "I'm only just beginning to get to terms with how enormous that change will be," admits Higgins.

Higgins will launch her campaign through a website – thisisecocide.com – asking for global support to pressure national governments to vote for the proposed law if it is accepted by the UN Law commission. The deadline for the text is January, and a vote has been scheduled on other amendments in 2012. It would need a two-thirds majority of the 197 member countries to pass.

Higgins hopes the UN's "one member, one vote" system will help over-ride likely opposition of some nations and vested business interests. She also believes many businesses favour clear regulation because they fear a future public backlash. And she cites how, when the US entered world war two, its car manufacturers - despite initial opposition - made 10 times the number of aircraft originally asked for. "It shows you how industry can turn around very fast."

Left wing NAZI's -- it's our way or else.
WarBicycle Wrote:Left wing NAZI's -- it's our way or else.

Dr John J.Ray has stated exactly the same thing too.
I fully agree with that. Ecocide is a crime like genocide, like the crime perpetrated by the Nazy but against ecosystems which means against everyone.
It's high time a sens of responsability emerges out of the devastation of our planet.

It's time to finish with this leftist idea that the environement is not a capital, that it's not a quantifiable asset in term of money.

There are poeple ready to extinguish animal species for a few dollars. They desrve a trial at the The Hague tribunal.
Fredledingue Wrote:I fully agree with that. Ecocide is a crime like genocide, like the crime perpetrated by the Nazy but against ecosystems which means against everyone.
It's high time a sens of responsability emerges out of the devastation of our planet.

It's time to finish with this leftist idea that the environement is not a capital, that it's not a quantifiable asset in term of money.

There are poeple ready to extinguish animal species for a few dollars. They desrve a trial at the The Hague tribunal.

WAIT! Are you stating that forcing liability on those causing the damage, is not enough? Are you saying that they intentionally do this, because they wish to ruin the environment?
Of course, upon the accusation of committing Ecocide, one would be presumed guilty. A Supreme International Panel would be appointed by World Leaders, all located in the EU, to pass judgment. The only people allowed to be charged with Ecocide would be capitalists, but not Asian Capitalists, nor members of BRIC.
I myself have often disagreed with past US foreign affairs and all that isolationism stuff.

One thing I do not disagree with is the USA should remain aggressive and well armed to the teeth to prevent the insanity of Europe from infringing on us.

Europeans will not fight physically for this nonsense,so as long as we're prepared to and are capable,we don't need to concern ourselves with Europe or the UN,IMO.
jt,
The US will be asked to fund the ecocide tribunal with several billion a year, part of that money will go to developing countries to help them hunt US companies. S2
Obama has already given his accord. S1

JhonL,
IMO every polluter know that they pollute or that their activity will pollute. So, yes, they do it intentionaly.
The tribunal should also aim at animal traffickers and savage deforestation.
Palladin Wrote:One thing I do not disagree with is the USA should remain aggressive and well armed to the teeth to prevent the insanity of Europe from infringing on us.

It has already pervaded the UN.
Fredledingue Wrote:jt,
The US will be asked to fund the ecocide tribunal with several billion a year, part of that money will go to developing countries to help them hunt US companies. S2
Obama has already given his accord. S1

JhonL,
IMO every polluter know that they pollute or that their activity will pollute. So, yes, they do it intentionaly.
The tribunal should also aim at animal traffickers and savage deforestation.

Sorry Fred, but you are smarter than the bullshit you are spouting. Based upon your thesis, Exxon was purposefully polluting the Valdez, Alaska, area, when the oil spill occurred. Or even if you don't blame Exxon, you have to blame the ship's captain, right? After all, he did what he did intentionally? Only a fool would actually believe he did not actually go out of his way to cause the accident.

So we should have a Show Trial, for these intentional miscreants.
No, I doesn't mean that every ecological tragedy must have its scapegoat.
On a case by case basis it should determined wether the responsible persons knew that that their activites will inevitably endanger wildlife or cause excessive pollution.

In the case of the Exxon Valdez, I can't say wether or not the owners of the ship or the captain were aware of the risk or if they decided to take such a risk in full knowledge.