DefinePK

Abstract

This study asks whether adding “ecocide” to Article 5 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) would supply the missing hard-law trigger. Drawing on more than seventy empirical and doctrinal sources, it identifies three systemic effects. First, aligning the draft ecocide definition with the Statute’s complementarity provisions in Articles 17–19 would transform the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 48/13 on the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and Articles 2 (1) and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) into an immediately justiciable duty of prevention. Second, by using Articles 25 (3)(c)–(d), 28 and the “general principles of law” clause in Article 21 (1)(c), the ICC could pierce corporate veils and prosecute directors who knowingly disregard a “substantial likelihood” of catastrophic harm. Third, Articles 53 (3)(b) and 75 would empower victims to trigger investigations and secure ecosystem-focused reparations, which regional courts could enforce through issue-preclusion doctrines. While acknowledging resource and selectivity constraints, the article concludes that an ecocide amendment offers a practicable architecture for aligning state duties, corporate incentives and victim remedies, and proposes indicators—prosecution rates, legislative reforms and restoration funding—to evaluate post-amendment effectiveness.