From the scorched earth tactics of ancient Rome to the burning oilfields of Kuwait and the bulldozed olive groves of Palestine, history is littered with examples of environmental devastation used as a weapon of war.
Yet, while the world has made strides in holding military leaders accountable for crimes against humanity, the natural world—our forests, rivers, and wildlife—has often been left defenceless, its suffering overlooked even as its destruction ripples through generations of people.
But what if the destruction of nature itself could be prosecuted as a crime?
Enter the concept of ‘ecocide’—a term that’s gaining momentum in legal and environmental circles, and could soon become one of the most significant changes to international law in decades.
What is ecocide, and where did the idea come from?
The word ‘ecocide’ might sound new, but its roots stretch back to the 1970s.
It was first coined by biologist Arthur Galston, who was horrified by the mass deforestation caused by Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
The idea simmered for decades, occasionally surfacing at environmental summits, before being championed in the 2000s by the late barrister Polly Higgins.
Higgins defined ecocide as ‘the extensive damage to, destruction of 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 or will be severely diminished’.
In simple terms, ecocide is to nature what genocide is to people: the deliberate, large-scale destruction of the environment, with devastating consequences for all who depend on it.
Is ecocide already a crime?
Surprisingly, yes—sort of.
The Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), includes a little-known clause (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)) that makes it a war crime to intentionally launch attacks knowing they will cause ‘widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment’.
But there’s a catch: the bar is set so high, and the language so narrow, that no one has ever been prosecuted under this provision.
The act must be intentional, the damage must be extreme, and it must be ‘clearly excessive’ compared to any military advantage.
Campaigners propose adding ecocide as a fifth international crime—joining genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression—to hold those responsible for large-scale environmental harm legally accountable.
Why push for a new, separate crime?
Campaigners argue that the current law is simply not enough.
The proposed new definition of ecocide would lower the threshold, targeting ‘unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment’.
Crucially, this would apply not just in wartime, but in peacetime as well—meaning corporations and governments could be held accountable for environmental destruction, whether it’s the result of war, industrial activity, or reckless policy.
Jojo Mehta, chief executive of Stop Ecocide International, says this change would ‘create a clear tool for justiciability in wartime’—and, just as importantly, in times of peace.
How would it work in practice?
Cases under the Rome Statute are heard by the ICC in The Hague, the same court that deals with genocide and crimes against humanity.
Cases can be brought by the UN Security Council, by states, or even by private individuals petitioning the court’s prosecutor.
However, the ICC is a court of last resort—meaning all domestic legal avenues must be exhausted first.
We’re already seeing this play out in Ukraine, where prosecutors are using domestic courts to seek justice for the environmental devastation caused by Russia’s invasion. If those efforts fail, the ICC could step in.
Is the world ready for ecocide laws?
Ecocide was almost included in the original Rome Statute in the 1990s, but fell by the wayside.
Now, thanks in part to the environmental destruction witnessed in Ukraine, the idea is back on the table.
An independent panel of legal experts, convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation, has developed a new international definition that’s inspiring countries around the world to consider their own ecocide laws.
Belgium and France have already taken steps to criminalise ecocide at the national level, and the European Union recently passed a directive that, while not using the word ‘ecocide’ explicitly, requires member states to strengthen their environmental protections.
What’s standing in the way?
The biggest obstacle, according to campaigners, is public understanding.
While few governments want to be seen publicly opposing ecocide laws—no one wants to look like they’re pro-environmental destruction—some may try to water down the proposals or argue that existing laws are sufficient.
Support is strongest among countries on the front lines of environmental disaster: Ukraine, Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have all spoken out in favour.
These nations know firsthand the cost of unchecked environmental harm, whether from war, rising sea levels, or biodiversity loss.
What could this mean for Australians—and for you?
Australia is no stranger to environmental challenges, from bushfires and coral bleaching to mining and deforestation. While we’re not yet leading the charge on ecocide laws, the global conversation is growing louder.
If ecocide becomes an international crime, it could reshape how governments, corporations, and individuals think about their responsibilities to the planet.
Imagine a world where those who destroy the environment on a massive scale—whether through war, pollution, or reckless development—can be held to account in the highest court in the world. It’s a bold vision, but one that’s gaining traction.
Have your say
As global conversations around environmental protection continue to evolve, the proposal to recognise ecocide as an international crime is gaining renewed attention.
While opinions differ on its feasibility and potential impact, it raises important questions about how societies and institutions respond to large-scale environmental harm.
What do you think? Should ecocide be recognised as an international crime? Would it make a difference here in Australia, or is it just another layer of bureaucracy? Have you witnessed environmental destruction in your own community? We’d love to hear your thoughts and stories—share them in the comments below.
Also read: Shocking discovery in stagnant drain exposes huge environmental concern
