Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized as an International Crime | Hacker News Reader

Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized as an International Crime

climateliabilitynews.org

162 pointsciconia46 comments

Here's the definition they're working with[0]:

>Ecocide is loss, damage or destruction of ecosystem(s) of a given territory(ies)… such that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants has been or will be severely diminished

– definition submitted by Polly Higgins to the UN Law Commission in 2010

0. https://ecocidelaw.com/ecocide-law-2/

Thanks. I think it's pretty crazy to make something internationally illegal that most people don't even know the definition of.

You get the general idea from the name anyway.

It would seem that development of natural resources as well as population growth could result in “ecocide”. Whom do they sue?

Whoever has deep pockets but is politically weak enough.

Norway and their oil fund is my guess for the first target.

It seems like the sort of thing that should already be covered under existing property laws then.

I'm not really sure what the need is to create an entirely new concept called "ecocide" when you could just consider it destruction of property/theft/vandalism/whatever

The problem is that property laws are local or national, because it's assumed that I need physical access to your property to do anything. If I fire a rocket at your property from some other country, I would be violating all kinds of air space regulations or maybe even international treaties on weapons.

We now have a better understanding of the unintended, global consequences of small, national actions.

Then it seems like the real need is for a better international enforcement mechanism. As cancerous as it is, maybe international copyright law could be an inspiration? I'm just highly skeptical of creating a whole new category of offense when our existing legal framework should already have ways of dealing with this kind of externality

The key is finding pragmatic ways to react to a finding of harm that will result in positive change.

After WWI, the League of Nations was formed, in large part to mitigate the risk of war. Unfortunately, the primary known way to punish a warring nation is with a war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

The primary means is sanctions. War is a often a last resort.

That hasn't worked out well as one might have hoped in Eastern Ukraine/Crimea nor South Ossetia.

That's because you can't expect every country to submit. Russia will not, China will not.

The same way the US would not stop bombing the middle east and Africa or overthrow legitimate governments in Latin America if them, China and Russia decided to sanction America.

Exactly -- and the trick is finding a viable way to get even large countries to hold themselves to account for their share in ecological catastrophes.

No worries. It worked so well in Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada, etc. etc.

I think this should start with a simple question:

How many square miles (or square meters) of territory have they lost due to sea level rising? This should probably exclude erosion but could be an interesting additional point/counter.

That would establish a) that they've suffered damages and b) the scope of said damages. Identifying the guilty parties would be the next challenge but it's a starting point.

Also, will they pay us if it turns out they actually gained territory?

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

This question already quite complicated. Under your definition, is a territory lost if it's still above sea level, but is not arable anymore e.g. because of desertification? What if it's still arable, but the region's traditional crops produce less yield because of a temperature rise?

Guilt would seem to depend on per capita emissions, not total emissions. I don't see why the size of the nation would permit its citizens to pollute more per capita.

If so, many vulnerable nations would probably be guilty, which is probably how the law should work, but might not be how they expect. Many small, vulnerable nations emit more per capita than IPCC recommendations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous....

Eventually, nations will probably make laws against people polluting like they have now against littering. One of the purposes of laws is to regulate behavior that affects others.

A lot of it is out of their control as well as there being a scale issue - for instance if you're a country like Niue which has a population of 1,000 and a total GDP of $10 million and you're thousands of kilometres from the nearest country that gives aid rather than relies on it, then you have limited options with what you can do. Getting goods to the country means it has to come from NZ which is almost 3,000 killometres away, that's a lot of oil for the ships. There's limited ability to use green power as it has a high up front cost and isn't going to be able to provide consistent enough power (relying on wind, or tides, or daylight). It's not economic to ship trash off shore to recycle so it's burnt.

Things will change as the west advances, for instance a single wind turbine and batteries could power a country like Niue completely renewably, couple that with solar powered shipping and you start to see a change.

But, these countries have very limited natural resources, technical expertise, and are constantly at the mercy of the elements. Any change to make them greener will have to be paid for and be driven from wealthier countries and it makes more sense, environmentally, to spend that money on those wealthier countries where it can go further to reduce more emissions.

Guilt should be based on total emissions if the entire country is being considered because that’s what matters to the planet.

Kuwait leads the world in per capita emissions but has a population of 4.5 million. No problem?

So someone who pollutes a lot can change nationality and pollute more?

Zoom in on any place on earth where agriculture is happening, like here https://www.google.com/maps/place/Narrogin+WA+6312/@-33.4993...

and tell me that is not grand scale ecocide.

This is an idea whose time is just around the corner.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com