SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"This is a moment of generational change, one that is needed to safeguard our environment and signal to coming generations that the world is truly serious about doing so," said one legal expert on ecocide.
Campaigners against ecocide, the destruction of nature, applauded what one leader called a "key moment" in the fight to protect the natural world and communities that are most vulnerable to climate damage on Monday as three Pacific island nations proposed that the International Criminal Court formally recognize the crime.
Vanuatu, which first made a similar proposal in 2019, was joined by Samoa and Fiji in submitting the proposal to the ICC, which was established in 2002 to prosecute cases regarding genocide and crimes against humanity.
"Vanuatu considers it imperative that the international community takes this conversation seriously, and we warmly invite all member states to engage," said Ralph Regenvanu, special envoy for climate change and environment for Vanuatu, in a statement. "Legal recognition of severe and widespread environmental harm holds significant potential to ensure justice and, crucially, to deter further destruction."
The recognition of environmental and ecosystem destruction as a crime could allow the court to prosecute individuals accused of ecocide, such executives of pollution-causing companies whose activities are linked to planetary heating and the sea-level rise and intense storms small island nations increasingly face and officials of governments that continue to emit high levels of greenhouse gases.
Philippe Sands, a law professor at University College London and co-chair of an expert panel on the legal definition of ecocide, said that as drafted, the Rome Statute, which established the ICC, "cannot adequately address environmental harms" and must be changed to reflect "a growing recognition that severe environmental destruction deserves the same legal accountability as other grave international crimes that focus on the human."
"People clearly understand that the most severe forms of environmental destruction harm all of us, and that there is real deterrent potential in creating personal criminal liability for top decision-makers."
“There is a manifest gap in the statute of the ICC, and ecocide is now firmly on the agenda, a vital and necessary moment for an effective international law," said Sands. "This is a moment of generational change, one that is needed to safeguard our environment and signal to coming generations that the world is truly serious about doing so."
Sands told The Guardian that he is "100% certain" that ecocide will ultimately be recognized as an international crime, but with the matter tabled for a full discussion by the ICC at a later date, a long deliberation process is expected.
The Pacific nations introduced the proposal at the ICC days after the Global Commons Survey, conducted by Ipsos UK, found that 72% of people in G20 countries believe ecocide should be recognized as a crime.
Jojo Mehta, co-founder and CEO of Stop Ecocide International, said last week that "widespread civil society demand" has driven the European Union to recognize "conduct comparable to ecocide" as a "qualified" offense, and Belgium to adopt ecocide as a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison and fines as high as $1.8 million.
"We're seeing significant policy shifts in favor of ecocide legislation at the domestic, regional, and international levels," said Mehta. "People clearly understand that the most severe forms of environmental destruction harm all of us, and that there is real deterrent potential in creating personal criminal liability for top decision-makers. Damage prevention is always the best policy, which is precisely what ecocide law is about."
Some of the world's biggest polluters, including the United States, China, and Russia, are not member states of the ICC, and could challenge the court's jurisdiction if accused of ecocide—but Mehta said Monday that "by establishing legal consequences, we create a guardrail that compels decision-makers to prioritize safety for people and planet, fundamentally altering how they approach their obligations."
"We also create a route to justice for the worst harms," she said, "whether they occur in times of conflict or in times of peace."
Regenvanu said Vanuatu has prioritized the recognition of ecocide as a crime after suffering significant climate damage for years, with the government already having relocated six towns due to irreversible sea level rise.
"Environmental and climate loss and damage in Vanuatu is devastating our island economy, submerging our territory, and threatening livelihoods. This tragedy is not unique to Vanuatu but is shared by many small island nations that, despite bearing the least responsibility for the crisis, suffer most from its impacts," said Regenvanu. "We urge ICC member states to take note of the very substantial civil society support for this initiative around the world as it moves forward in this crucial discussion."
One analyst argued that opponents of Israel's occupation "demolished" the arguments of its few supporters.
In what one policy expert said was a "stunning" display of Israel and its allies' isolation on the world stage, six days of International Court of Justice hearings on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories wrapped up on Monday with just four countries defending Israel's practices in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem over the past 57 years.
The United States—the world's biggest funder of Israel's government and military—was joined by the United Kingdom, Hungary, and Fiji in speaking in favor of Israel's illegal occupation, while 45 countries and three organizations testified against the Israeli government.
The hearings took place against the backdrop of Israel's relentless bombardment of Gaza, which has killed at least 29,878 Palestinians, and an announcement by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich that the country plans to build 3,300 new homes in settlements in the West Bank.
While U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last week that the settlement expansion is "inconsistent with international law," reversing a Trump-era policy, human rights attorney Noura Erakat noted that in the ICJ hearing, the U.S. "framed compliance with international law as an impediment to [the] political process."
Richard Visek, the State Department's acting legal adviser, invoked the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on October 7 as he argued before the court that it "should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory."
"Any movement towards Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel's very real security needs," said Visek. "We were all reminded of those security needs on October 7, and they persist."
But the vast majority of states present for the hearings rebuked Visek's claim, with Turkey's deputy minister of foreign affairs, Ahmet Yildiz, arguing that "the real obstacle to peace is obvious—the deepening occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and failure to implement the two-state vision, Israel and Palestine living side by side."
Representing the African Union, Ohio State University law professor Mohamed Helal provided the court with an overview of the Palestinian territories' history of occupation to answer the question, "Does Israel have title over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem?"
"The answer is unequivocally no," said Helal. "Since 1967, Israel has exercised belligerent occupation over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The African Union also submits that Israel's 57-year occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful and must be brought to an end."
Legal experts including Helal spent six days testifying on the occupation Israel has maintained over the territories since the Six-Day War in 1967, including its construction of settlements inhabited by 700,000 settlers in the West Bank, its annexation of East Jerusalem, its blockade of goods in Gaza, and its restriction of Palestinians' movement.
Speaking for the League of Arab States on the closing day of the hearings on Monday, international law expert Ralph Wilde of University College London delivered what observers called "a legal masterpiece," explaining to the ICJ the illegality of Israel's occupation.
According to Israel and its allies, said Wilde, the desire for Israel to protect its security "somehow supersedes the rules of international law determining whether the occupation is existentially lawful. Instead, we have a new rule justifying the occupation until there is a peace agreement meeting Israeli security needs."
"This is the law as these states would like it to be, not not the law as it is," he continued, saying the occupation has no basis in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which called on Israel to withdraw its troops from the occupied territories in 1967, or the 1993 Oslo Accords.
"Actually," he told the court, "you are being invited to do away with the very operation of some of the fundamental... laws of international law itself."
Al Jazeera political analyst Marwan Bishara said the evidence presented by opponents of the occupation "demolished British and American arguments" in the hearings.
"I'm going to say something I will regret, but I'll say it anyway—I feel sorry for the United States and the United Kingdom," said Bishara after watching the proceedings. In the first days of the hearing, he said, "it was clear to someone like me, a student of this issue, that the Americans and the British wanted to sound clever... That they were disingenuous and selective, and rather, to my mind, illogical."
The U.S. and U.K. led Israel's supporters at the hearing in falsely claiming that the conflict in Israel and Palestine is merely a "dispute," said Bishara, that should be left up to the two sides, despite the fact that the two countries provide Israel with aid.
"This is an aggression," he said. "As the African Union, as the Arab League, as well as the Islamic conference have argued, this has been going on for 75 years. There is a process, there is a pattern by Israel to annex, to occupy, to settle, and to take over Palestinian territory, denying the Palestinians the right of self-determination."
We are signing a death sentence if we continue to rely on fossil fuels.
Pacific nations have a reputation for being climate champions.
The resilience and commitment of Pacific negotiators and communities are to thank for the many landmark outcomes from previous UN climate talks, known as the Convention of the Parties or COP, including the Paris Agreement commitment to stay below 1.5 degrees of global heating, as well as the Loss and Damage fund.
COP28 in Dubai was no different: the Pacific showed up, as always, fighting for solutions. Now, a few hours until the close of the summit, the big questions still remain, but not on our shoulders: are we going back home to our communities feeling supported by world leaders and with hope that our heritage and land will survive the climate crisis?
Once again, the rich in the Global North have callously undermined the momentum in the Global South.
This was the largest COP in history, with record numbers of delegates and the largest presence of fossil fuel lobbyists on record: 2,456 industry lobbyists in all which is more than the total delegates from the 10 most climate-vulnerable countries combined. It's not a surprise that private interests have influenced decision-makers. Conference negotiators have allowed the perpetrators of the crisis to rewrite the rules by allowing them to sit at the negotiating table. How could this not have a catastrophic outcome?
Yesterday, a disappointing draft of this year's Global Stocktake review and agreement for the years to come failed to mention the phase-out of fossil energy sources. The science is clear, no matter how much the fossil fuel industry pushes for unproven technologies, like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), they are still very far from real scalability and economic feasibility. We are signing a death sentence if we continue to rely on fossil fuels.
Actually, let me rephrase it: countries like mine will be signing a death sentence, as we are often the ones at the forefront of climate chaos, while those that have the biggest responsibilities in polluting the world hide behind their profits. And when I say hide behind their profits, I mean it. It is not news that the global energy and financial systems carry a heritage of colonialism, extractivism, and bias against the world's poorest communities. Not only did the draft text fail to demand a fossil fuel phaseout, it also made virtually no commitments on mitigation, adaptation, and financial support for renewable energy in the Global South.
Facing the catastrophic effects of extreme weather at home and watching the slow progress of the negotiations, it was hard not to be pessimistic before we even arrived at COP28.
Once again, the rich in the Global North have callously undermined the momentum in the Global South.
Every year, we travel across oceans to come to these negotiations and we continue to get only drops of ambition. Facing the catastrophic effects of extreme weather at home and watching the slow progress of the negotiations, it was hard not to be pessimistic before we even arrived at COP28. But the point is that we can't afford not to be here, we can't afford to stop fighting because what's at stake is our very survival.
So we will return home, and continue to build up resilience in our communities, adapt and transition our energy systems, and rely on the strength of the people at the forefront of climate change. But it is now evident that we will do so without the support of global political leaders.