In times of war, laws are silent.
This is a common saying in the legal field. Yet, for now, the notion of ecocide is only mentioned in the Rome Statute of the ICC in case of conflicts.
How does that make sense when current conflicts tend to demonstrate that international laws are ignored? Even human rights.
Is pushing for the extension and adoption of this notion during peace time even realistic when the context is showing a cruel lack of considerations for basic human rights?
Please let me know what you think
Dear Phil,
An independent international panel defined it, in 2021, as: "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 being caused by those acts.”
They defined it without the condition of conflict.
I agree with you on the meaningless consideration given to the environment during a conflict, thus I wonder why even bother with this condition and not transfer this notion in a broader and more general context.
Love to see the composition of the independent panel the produced this, to my perspective, overwrought fatuous definition.
Unlawful - in what legal context? Wanton - unprovoked, gratuitous maliciousness; capricious and unjust - so to no purpose just to cnause damage. Knowledge of .., who would know? "damage" - too subjective. And ignored the potential of remediation.
Ecology exists whatever the change - ecocide is a reactionary term that would impeach all essential practices from farming to cities.
Recall also there is no "international law" per se. Seeing this definition, I'm happy to say US does not recognize ICC.
Each notion is defined in the report of the panel. This is just the definition of ecocide itself.
As for the international law, in my opinion there is one only when it is to the benefit of a party, but it is precisely because there is no court to enforce it that no one takes it seriously. Many governments just use international law to blame other governments even when they are themselves not committed to respect it.
Mentioning 'ecocide' solely in the context of conflicts seems rather pointless. Since all consideration. for human rights is abrogated in practice in armed conflict the whole notion seems futile.
Ecocide as a concept seems a trifle morally pretentious where human life is under direct threat. All armed conflicts damage the environment and this is even prohibited in the Old Testament of the Bible.
“When you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you? Only the trees that you know are not trees for food you may destroy and cut down, that you may build siege-works against the city that makes war with you, until it falls”
Deuteronomy 20:19–20
I have attached one of my old lectures for reference.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning