International Criminal Law – a promising pathway to promoting global environmental protection?
BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Format
International Criminal Law – a promising pathway to promoting global environmental protection?
(2025)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
About The Author
Sina Alica Jung studierte Rechtswissenschaften in Kombination mit einer fachspezifischen Fremdsprachenausbildung in Würzburg und Erlangen. Nachdem sie 2021 das erste Staatsexamen mit einem Schwerpunkt im internationalen Strafrecht abschloss, promovierte sie am Lehrstuhl für Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht, Internationales Strafrecht und Völkerrecht von Prof. Dr. Christoph Safferling, LL.M. (LSE) an der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Von 2023 bis 2025 absolvierte sie ihr Rechtsreferendariat am Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg, u.a. mit Stationen in einer internationalen Wirtschaftskanzlei in München und New York.Abstract
This thesis examines whether international criminal law is a suitable means to promote global environmental protection. In essence, the work explores whether the current regulatory lacunae, which significantly hamper environmental protection at the international level, could be remedied through the incorporation of a fifth crime of ecocide into the Rome Statute. The paper argues against the inclusion of a fifth core crime into the Rome Statute due to considerable impediments to the enforcement of such a crime. These obstacles particularly stem from the nature of international criminal law and the structure of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Instead, the establishment of an International Environmental Court is favoured due to its flexible embedding in the international legal system. An International Environmental Court is detached from core principles in international criminal law, and is thus better suited to prosecute an international crime against the environment.This thesis examines whether international criminal law is a suitable means to promote global environmental protection. In essence, the work explores whether the current regulatory lacunae, which significantly hamper environmental protection at the international level, could be remedied through the incorporation of a fifth crime of ecocide into the Rome Statute. The paper argues against the inclusion of a fifth core crime into the Rome Statute due to considerable impediments to the enforcement of such a crime. These obstacles particularly stem from the nature of international criminal law and the structure of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Instead, the establishment of an International Environmental Court is favoured due to its flexible embedding in the international legal system. An International Environmental Court is detached from core principles in international criminal law, and is thus better suited to prosecute an international crime against the environment.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acknowledgements | 7 | ||
| Inhaltsverzeichnis | 9 | ||
| A. Introduction | 13 | ||
| B. Legal lacunae in current global environmental protection | 15 | ||
| I. International environmental law | 15 | ||
| 1. History of international environmental law | 15 | ||
| 2. Legal lacunae in international environmental law | 19 | ||
| a) Normative fragmentation | 19 | ||
| b) Inadequate domestic implementation and compliance | 19 | ||
| c) Lack of liability for environmental damage | 20 | ||
| d) Institutional fragmentation and lack of an international environmental court | 21 | ||
| aa) Court of Justice of the European Union | 22 | ||
| bb) International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea | 23 | ||
| cc) WTO Dispute Settlement Body | 23 | ||
| dd) International Court of Justice | 24 | ||
| ee) Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) | 27 | ||
| ff) Conclusion | 29 | ||
| 3. Research findings | 30 | ||
| II. International humanitarian law | 30 | ||
| III. International human rights law | 33 | ||
| IV. International Criminal Law | 35 | ||
| 1. International Criminal Law vs. Transnational Criminal Law | 36 | ||
| 2. Environmental protection under Transnational Criminal Law | 39 | ||
| 3. Environmental protection under the current Rome Statute | 41 | ||
| a) Environmental war crime, Article 8 (2) (b) (iv) Rome Statute | 42 | ||
| aa) Limitations | 44 | ||
| (1) International armed conflicts | 44 | ||
| (2) ‘Widespread, long-term and severe’ environmental damage | 46 | ||
| (3) Proportionality test | 49 | ||
| (4) Knowledge and intent | 50 | ||
| bb) Conclusion | 54 | ||
| b) Genocide | 55 | ||
| c) Crimes against Humanity | 58 | ||
| aa) Environmental degradation as a crime against humanity | 58 | ||
| bb) Limitations | 62 | ||
| (1) Contextual element | 62 | ||
| (2) Inherently anthropocentric perspective | 67 | ||
| (3) Conclusion | 67 | ||
| V. Research findings | 69 | ||
| C. Incorporation of a fifth crime of ecocide into the Rome Statute | 72 | ||
| I. The term ecocide | 73 | ||
| II. History of ecocide | 76 | ||
| 1. Origin of ‘ecocide’ – Vietnam War | 76 | ||
| 2. 1970s-1980s: Draft Ecocide Convention and proposals to revise the Genocide Convention | 77 | ||
| 3. 1980s-2000s: Early drafts of the Rome Statute including ecocide | 79 | ||
| 4. Since 2010: Polly Higgins’ legacy to include a fifth crime of ecocide into the Rome Statute | 83 | ||
| III. Potentials of establishing a fifth crime of ecocide | 86 | ||
| 1. Retribution and deterrence | 88 | ||
| 2. Positive general prevention (expressivism) | 93 | ||
| 3. The discovery of truth | 96 | ||
| 4. Conclusion | 96 | ||
| IV. Characteristics of crimes under international law | 97 | ||
| 1. Abstract criteria | 98 | ||
| a) Violation of a rule of international (customary) law | 99 | ||
| b) Serious infringement of universal values of the international community | 103 | ||
| c) Individual criminal responsibility under international law | 104 | ||
| d) Conclusion | 105 | ||
| 2. Seriousness | 106 | ||
| 3. Impunity in domestic jurisdiction | 109 | ||
| 4. Values protected by international criminal law | 110 | ||
| 5. Conclusion | 111 | ||
| V. The definition of a crime of ecocide | 112 | ||
| 1. The material elements of the crime | 112 | ||
| a) The criminalised conduct | 113 | ||
| b) The consequences | 115 | ||
| aa) The gravity threshold | 116 | ||
| bb) Endangerment liability | 119 | ||
| 2. The mental elements of the crime | 120 | ||
| a) Crime of strict liability | 122 | ||
| b) Dolus eventualis | 123 | ||
| c) Negligence | 128 | ||
| 3. Evaluation of the newly proposed definition | 131 | ||
| a) Material Elements | 133 | ||
| aa) The criminalised conduct | 133 | ||
| bb) The consequences | 137 | ||
| (1) Endangerment liability | 137 | ||
| (2) Gravity threshold | 138 | ||
| b) Mental Elements | 141 | ||
| aa) Knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment | 141 | ||
| bb) Wanton | 143 | ||
| 4. Own proposal | 145 | ||
| VI. Amendment to the Rome Statute | 146 | ||
| VII. Impediments to the enforcement of a fifth crime of ecocide | 147 | ||
| 1. Jurisdictional issues | 148 | ||
| a) Ratione temporis and the principle of non-retroactivity | 148 | ||
| b) Ratione personae and the lack of state and corporate liability | 150 | ||
| aa) Exclusion of state liability | 150 | ||
| bb) Exclusion of corporate criminal liability | 151 | ||
| (1) Individual criminal liability of business leaders | 153 | ||
| (a) Joint criminal enterprise | 154 | ||
| (b) Co-perpetration, Article 25 (3) (a) second alternative Rome Statute | 155 | ||
| (c) Assistance, Article 25 (3) (c) Rome Statute | 157 | ||
| (d) Contribution to a group crime, Article 25 (3) (d) Rome Statute | 160 | ||
| (e) Superior responsibility, Article 28 (b) Rome Statute | 163 | ||
| (f) Impediments concerning the individual criminal liability of business leaders | 168 | ||
| (2) Inclusion of corporate criminal liability into the Rome Statute | 169 | ||
| (a) Arguments in favour of the inclusion of corporate criminal liability | 171 | ||
| (b) Arguments against the inclusion of corporate criminal liability | 172 | ||
| (aa) Doctrinal challenges: Principle of individual criminal guilt | 173 | ||
| (bb) Practical challenges of conceptualising corporate criminal liability | 178 | ||
| (cc) Lack of appropriate sanctions | 180 | ||
| (3) Conclusion | 185 | ||
| c) Lack of universal jurisdiction | 187 | ||
| d) Principle of complementarity | 190 | ||
| 2. Lack of restorative and injunctive sanctions | 192 | ||
| 3. Lack of an effective international enforcement regime | 194 | ||
| 4. Conclusion | 195 | ||
| D. Establishment of an International Environmental Convention | 198 | ||
| I. Indirect enforcement through national courts | 198 | ||
| II. Direct enforcement through an International Environmental Court | 200 | ||
| 1. Establishing an International Environmental Court | 202 | ||
| 2. International Environmental Court vs. International Criminal Court | 204 | ||
| a) Advantages of an International Environmental Court | 205 | ||
| b) Disadvantages of an International Environmental Court | 210 | ||
| aa) Lack of jurisdiction over non-signatory Parties | 210 | ||
| bb) Institutional fragmentation and ‘forum-shopping’ | 215 | ||
| c) Conclusion | 217 | ||
| E. Final considerations | 220 | ||
| Bibliography | 222 | ||
| Index | 237 |