The fifth international crime?

Testimonies of ecocide from Ukraine and Tuvalu

Abstract

Ecocide, defined as the destruction of ecosystems with knowledge of its enduring effects, lacks recognition as an autonomous offence in international criminal law. The Rome Statute limits liability under Article 8(2)(b)(iv) to wartime conduct causing environmental damage that is widespread, long-term, and severe relative to anticipated military advantage. This schema excludes slow-onset harm, such as anthropogenic climate change. Using case studies of Ukraine and Tuvalu, this article juxtaposes two divergent yet equally poignant scenarios: the wartime devastation of habitats and the prospective risk of statehood impairment through sea-level rise. First-person accounts from the countries highlight Radbruch’s contention that law forfeits validity when it no longer guarantees the minimum conditions of life, and Alexy’s thesis that principles lose normative force when proportionality cannot justify ensuing harm. This article argues that a self-standing Ecocide Convention, equipped with universal jurisdiction, would not merely supplement the Rome Statute but offer the necessary framework to translate ecocide into enforceable criminal responsibility.