The fifth international crime

Testimonies of ecocide from Ukraine and Tuvalu

Datos Bibliográficos

ID17820274
AutoresFabio Calzolari (0000-0003-2280-4176, Mae Fah Luang University Hospital, autor de correspondencia)
Año2026
Fecha de publicación2026-02-19
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaOñati Socio-legal Series (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2079-5971 • E-ISSN: 2079-5971
EditorialOnati International Institute for the Sociology of Law (PUBLISHER • ES)
DOI10.35295/osls.iisl.2489
OpenAlexW7130509255
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas42

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

Criminal law · Criminal liability · Human rights · Liability · Normative · Proportionality (law) · Schema (genetic algorithms) · Statute · Environmental and Biological Research in Conflict Zones · Environmental law and policy · Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses