[THS] British campaigner urges UN to accept 'ecocide' as international crime

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

British campaigner urges UN to accept ecocide as international crime


static.guim.co.uk/41E2C3D6.jpg
Queensland, Australia: A huge oil slick on Warana beach on Queensland's Sunshine
Coast. Photograph: Dave Hunt/EPA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/09/ecocide-crime-genocide-un-environmental-damage


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."