Peace and security are no longer concepts confined to the cessation or prevention of armed conflicts between states. True and sustainable peace can only be achieved where individuals have effective access to fundamental rights and freedoms, human dignity is respected, justice is upheld, and living conditions meet humane standards. In today’s world, the concept of security has evolved into a multidimensional phenomenon. Since the late 20th century, growing environmental threats have made it clear that security cannot be limited to military concerns. Issues such as the depletion of natural resources, climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, ocean pollution, and other ecological crises are not only environmental problems—they also present significant security challenges. These phenomena undermine access to basic needs, such as clean water and food, disrupt livelihoods, intensify climate-induced migration, and increase the frequency of natural disasters. As a result, they pose threats to social stability, economic resilience, and even the survival of states. Environmental degradation contributes to conflict risks and cross-border instability, especially through forced migration triggered by droughts, famine, and extreme weather events. Given that many environmental problems are human-induced and preventable, they must also be addressed through frameworks of criminal accountability. This study examines how international criminal law, particularly within the framework of the International Criminal Court, currently addresses environmental harm. It evaluates whether existing crime categories can accommodate serious environmental damage and identifies the legal and institutional shortcomings of the current system. Ultimately, the study argues for stronger accountability mechanisms to ensure environmental destruction is treated not only as an ecological issue, but as a matter of international criminal and humanitarian concern—essential to sustaining global peace and security.
genocide crimes against humanity war crimes crime of aggression ecocide
Contemporary discussions on peace and security increasingly emphasize that these concepts cannot be confined merely to the absence or cessation of armed conflicts between states. True and sustainable peace requires a broader framework, including the effective guarantee of fundamental human rights, respect for human dignity, access to justice, and living conditions above minimal human standards. In this sense, security has evolved into a multidimensional concept that extends far beyond traditional military threats. Among the most pressing new challenges is environmental degradation, which has emerged as a significant threat to global security, human welfare, and societal stability.
Issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, water scarcity, and pollution are no longer only ecological concerns; they directly and indirectly affect the well-being of individuals and communities by threatening access to basic human needs such as food and water. Moreover, these environmental harms disrupt social and economic stability, leading to increased migration, resource conflicts, and even the risk of armed confrontations. Forced migration due to droughts, famine, and extreme climatic events underscores the link between environmental damage and broader security threats, including cross-border instability.
Recognizing that many of these environmental problems are caused by human actions and largely preventable, it is crucial to explore mechanisms for criminal accountability. This study examines how international criminal law, particularly the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), addresses environmental destruction. The central question is whether the current categories of international crimes — war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, crime of aggression — can adequately cover serious environmental harm and hold perpetrators accountable.
Starting with war crimes, the Rome Statute explicitly prohibits attacks on the natural environment during armed conflict under Article 8(2)(b)(iv), but these provisions are narrowly defined and subject to strict criteria such as intentionality, military necessity, proportionality, and a direct connection to armed conflict. This restricts their application largely to wartime scenarios, leaving peacetime environmental harm largely unaddressed.
Crimes against humanity offer a broader scope since they concern widespread or systematic attacks on civilian populations. Legal scholarship has explored framing severe environmental destruction as a crime against humanity if it is part of such an attack. However, the practical challenges in proving the required intent and establishing the causal link between environmental harm and the attack on civilians have limited this approach in practice.
Genocide, requiring the specific intent to destroy a protected group, is the most limited category concerning environmental crimes. While environmental harm may indirectly threaten group survival, the stringent criteria for genocide make it an unlikely tool for prosecuting ecological destruction.
The crime of aggression, which is an integral part of this analysis, involves the use of force in violation of international law and can cause great environmental damage. Among the actions that can cause environmental damage are the bombing of a state’s territory or the use of any weapon against its territory.
In light of these limitations, the study investigates the potential for the ICC’s jurisdiction and interpretive frameworks to adapt to emerging ecological threats. Recent doctrinal developments suggest a growing willingness to interpret existing crimes, particularly war crimes and crimes against humanity, more flexibly to encompass environmental destruction that causes severe human suffering or displacement.
Following this, the study briefly explores the concept of ecocide—the large-scale destruction of the environment—as a potential fifth core international crime. Although not the primary focus, ecocide is increasingly seen as a necessary legal innovation to fill existing gaps in international criminal law. The study reviews recent proposals defining ecocide, considers the legal and practical challenges of codifying it, and discusses how it could integrate with the current framework.
Ultimately, the study argues that while recognizing and codifying ecocide would represent a significant advancement, it remains critical to utilize and potentially expand existing legal instruments under the Rome Statute to prevent impunity for environmental harm. Ensuring accountability under current mechanisms, even if imperfect, is vital for justice, deterrence, and environmental protection. Addressing environmental destruction as both a criminal and humanitarian issue is essential to safeguarding sustainable peace and security in today’s interconnected world facing unprecedented ecological crises.