Ecocide Law and the Rise of Ecocentric Legal Systems
This guest blog is authored by Paola Vitale, a law graduate from the University of Bologna, who is now committed to environmental and climate law advocacy.
It often seems we have forgotten how closely we are intertwined with nature – that we are just one animal species amongst many. This reflects a long historical trend of placing ourselves at the apex of a pyramid, with other living species and ecosystems beneath us. This worldview is known as anthropocentrism.
Given that the law always reflects what we as a society deem valuable and worthy of protection, our failure to value the natural world has become reflected in our international legal system. Understanding the anthropocentric origins of the law is essential to assessing its ongoing influence on our legal system, and finding a way to build a more ecocentric legal system. Luckily, ecocentric legal frameworks are gathering momentum.
The pervasiveness of anthropocentrism
Four-plane defoliant run, part of Operation Ranch Hand. Credit: Wikimedia.
It is a testament to the pervasiveness of anthropocentrism in our society, that even among those who have fought for environmental protection, elements of this hierarchical worldview have been apparent. Arthur Galston and the scientists who opposed the large-scale spraying of herbicides in Vietnam in a military operation known as Operation Ranch Hand, for example, deliberately distanced themselves from mid-20th-century environmentalism, which was often perceived as extreme or fanatical¹. As Galston notably remarked, ‘to say something is natural does not mean that it's good. Those two [terms] are not equitable.’
For many scientists critical of Operation Ranch Hand, it was not environmental harm in itself that was at issue, but rather the consequences that the destruction of land and vegetation had on human beings, absent any economic or social benefit. As David Zierler emphasises: "If Ranch Hand was an operation of resource extraction, it would not be ecocide".²
Notably, the dominance of anthropocentrism persists in international law (see here, here, and here). For example, Article 23 of the Hague Regulations prohibits acts that ‘destroy or seize the enemy’s property, unless imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.’ Thus, protection applies exclusively to enemy property, leaving unregulated any unclaimed lands. Similarly, Article 53 of the Geneva Convention restricts its protection solely to property held by private individuals or the state, permitting the occupying power to act freely on unclaimed lands.
Historically, laws that protect the environment have not protected it as an end in itself, focusing instead on the protection of human property.
The ecocentric shift
Let's delve deeper. Green criminology defines the relationship between humans, the natural environment, and non-human animals through three main theories: anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism. As we have seen, anthropocentrism is a human-centred perspective, based on the perceived biological, mental, and moral superiority of humans over other beings. Humans are considered separate rather than integral to ecosystems, justifying any human need or desire, such as territorial expansion or technological advancement, above ecosystem considerations.
Biocentrism, meanwhile, positions humans as just ‘another species’, attributing intrinsic value and dignity to all living things, and moving beyond the notion of human superiority.
In my opinion, however, the most compelling concept is ecocentrism. This theory posits moral and value-based equality between humans and non-human entities within ecosystems. Humans are seen as responsible stewards because they possess unique capabilities and have historically enabled societal advancement compared to other species. Consequently, human economic activities and resource exploitation should reflect this protective role toward the surrounding environment.
An example of ecocentric law: the Whanganui River, New Zealand was granted legal personhood in 2017.
Credit: Newzealand.com.
Despite the anthropocentric origins of most legal systems, paradigm shifts toward ecocentrism are evident globally, with jurisdictions increasingly recognising the environment as an entity worthy of protection in its own right. Examples include Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution acknowledging Pachamama (Mother Earth) rights, Bolivia’s 2010 ‘Law of the Rights of Mother Earth’, and New Zealand’s 2017 recognition of the Whanganui River as a living entity. Other, more ecocentric-oriented approaches appear in the ENMOD Convention and Protocol I of the Geneva Convention. These important decisions reflect ideological, political, and value-based shifts influencing laws and regulations. While historically secondary to human needs, today the environment's intrinsic value merits independent protection.
How Ecocide Law Helps Build a More Ecocentric Perspective
Another key ecocentric shift can be seen in the development of ecocide law globally. The definition of ecocide proposed by the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) in 2021 represents a significant shift toward an ecocentric perspective in international law. This definition has formed the basis of an increasing number of domestic legislative initiatives, as well as the proposal for a fifth crime of ecocide put forward at the International Criminal Court by the Pacific Island states of Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa in September 2024.
This proposal at the level of the International Criminal Court is particularly relevant given the serious limitations of the Rome Statute’s existing provision on environmental protection, which outlaws extensive environmental harm only during conflict and only insofar as it is not excessive in comparison to the expected military advantage.
The IEP definition is unlike traditional environmental provisions, such as Article 23 of the Hague Regulations or Article 53 of the Geneva Convention, which safeguard the environment primarily insofar as its degradation affects human interests. Instead, this definition of ecocide places intrinsic value on the environment itself.
By framing severe and widespread, or severe and long-term damage to ecosystems as an international crime, independent of direct harm to humans, this approach recognises the environment as a subject worthy of protection in its own right. Such a perspective strengthens the legal framework by addressing harms that might otherwise fall outside anthropocentric thresholds. In doing so, ecocide law offers a more complete and effective protection of the environment, capable of confronting the multifaceted ecological crises of our time.
1. Zierler, D., The Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the Scientist Who Changed the Way We Think About the Environment, Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 2011, p. 18.
2. Zierler, D., The Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the Scientist Who Changed the Way We Think About the Environment, Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 2011, p. 18.
REFERENCES:
Greene, A., "Symposium Exploring the Crime of Ecocide: Rights of Nature and Ecocide", OpinioJuris, (2020).
Zierler, D., The Invention of Ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the Scientist Who Changed the Way We Think About the Environment. Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 2011, pp. 1-245.
Brisman, A., and South, N., "Green Criminology and Environmental Crimes and Harms", Sociology Compass 13 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12650.
Lawrence, J., and Heller, K.J., "The Limits of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute, the First Ecocentric Environmental War Crime", Georgetown International Environmental Law Review (2007), p. 4.
Jaffal, Z.M., et al., "Preventing Environmental Damage During Armed Conflict", BRICS Law Journal 5, no. 2 (2018), p. 4.