“Ecocide” was coined in the 1970s through a proposal by Professor Arthur W. Galston, but has only recently gained popularity in legal circles.1
The proposed definition is: “[U]nlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”2
The work that the diverse Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (IEP) put in to release this definition in 2021 was astounding! The definition has gone as far as giving the definitions of the terms as they would be used in regard to ecocide, and, essentially, being ready for its addition to the
Rome Statute.3
It was considered in light of the environmental destruction which had taken place during the Vietnam War. Despite this, only fifteen countries consider ecocide a crime.4
However, in the current discourse, there is a proposal to include ecocide as the fifth crime under the
Rome Statute.
Vanuatu spearheaded the campaign to amend the
Rome Statute
by adding this definition of ecocide as the fifth crime by formally introducing it to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for consideration in 2024.5
Fellow Island states such as Fiji and Samoa gave their support to Vanuatu by endorsing this proposal. Thereafter, The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as the only African State extended its support by formally endorsing this proposal.6
The Island States’ rationale for the support of ecocide as an international crime is self-evident: rising ocean waters would cause the Island States to vanish off the face of the earth. That is not right. The people are connected to their land and to their culture, that kind of symbiosis cannot be found anywhere else, and ecocide would obliterate the indigenous peoples’ way of life.7
As for The
DRC, they have suffered under the hands of companies that are using toxic mining chemicals that seep into the soil, and affect the people working and living around the mines. This will be discussed further in this comment. Therefore, the indigenous people, who have deep roots literally and figuratively in nature and in the land and in the environment, are seeking support and help to save their way of life through this proposal to the
ICC. The hope is that this gathers momentum and garners great support from other countries to ensure that there is an amendment to the
Rome Statute.
Although this definition seems succinct, and it is, there are still some aspects of the amendment that would need further fine-tuning. There are a number of crimes that would fall under ecocide that are not necessarily perpetrated by individuals, as is expected under the
Rome Statute. These crimes are perpetrated by multinational corporations who act in concert with government officials that essentially grant them the “permission” required to dump nuclear waste and/or use harsh chemicals that are otherwise outlawed in their countries of origin. The result is that hundreds, if not thousands of people get sick, and/or die. The soil is also poisoned which also leads to long-lasting impacts to the environment and the people.
This comment shall explore the definition of ecocide being a well thought out definition. However, the amendments would need to be reworked to include corporations as perpetrators. Although that can be inferred, lawyers, or even members of the legal fraternity, do not welcome ambiguity in the definition of a “legal” term. Therefore, there would need to be a further analysis of the
Rome Statute’s
definition of personhood to expand and include legal persons. To examine this issue the comment shall focus on African countries. These countries are Kenya—the case of illegal dumping of Nuclear Waste in the North Eastern region. The
DRC
and Zambia—use of toxic mining chemicals. Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire—toxic waste dumping. These will give a varied idea of the ills that multi-national corporations are doing in countries on the African continent, and the health fall out from their actions. While focusing on these countries there will be a review of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal,8
adopted in 1989, in connection with the named actions. The Basel Convention then made way for the Bamako Convention,9
adopted in 1998, a treaty of African nations prohibiting the import into Africa of any hazardous (including radioactive) waste.
While exploring the topic, this comment is divided into different sections. In the section on
Neocolonialism, the discussion will focus on the long roots of colonialism. Colonialism never left and continues to ravage the indigenous communities. The
next section
will examine environmental racism and how it affects not just people in Africa, but also Black and Brown bodies in the West. In the
same section
health will also be a topic of exploration and how the environmental racism affects the people in many ways, and it is irreversible for some. In
Section IV, an aspect of ecocide is discussed as there to be a nexus with genocide. This is an interesting topic, demonstrating the thin line between the two.
Next, is the discussion on the expansion of the definition of personhood in the
Rome Statute.
This section
focuses on a discourse to further expand the definition of personhood to include corporations as legal persons. In the
next section
is a discussion on the
OTP’
recently released
Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage Through the
Rome Statute. This document discusses ecocide and the connection to the current
Rome Statute. The discussion in the
penultimate section
are the case studies mentioned previously. Then this comment
concludes.
II.
Neo-colonialism or Plain Colonialism?
Ecocide has strong roots in colonialism. There have been statements that colonialism ended when colonies gained their independence. However, neo-Colonialism is simply colonialism in a new trench coat with a moustache. This is to say that restricting colonialism to a single period in history is “a short sighted, naïve and politically convenient conception to enable the unchecked expansion of the colonial model[.]”10
Colonialism has been identified as having three primary characteristics:
The external domination of one people by another;
The imposition of colonial ‘culture and customs onto the colonised’; and
The exploitation of the colonised (slavery, natural resource extraction and ‘misappropriation of cultural property’ to name only a few).11
In evaluating these characteristics, it is possible to see how these are actions being executed across the continent of Africa, as well as other areas with developing countries. After all “more than 80% of the world’s population lives in over 100 developing countries.”12
Despite their cultural differences, Indigenous peoples from around the world share common problems related to the protection of their rights as distinct peoples. In the large part—and, as a result of colonisation—Indigenous peoples have been frequently dispossessed of their land, homes and, in many instances, their culture.13
This is especially noticeable through aid stipulations that are listed to the recipient country as obligations that need to be performed for them to be seen as worth the aid. As Dunlap puts it, it can be regarded as assertion. Assertion in that:
[T]here is only one, right way to use land, live, organise culture and/or develop a nation. Inherent is a sense of superiority that articulates itself not only through overt domination with the ‘right of conquest’, but also the good intentions that manifest in paternalism, charity, or as one critic has called it, ‘the white savior complex’ which can even take the form of ‘solidarity’.14
This is not different from the scenario of what happened during the initial time of colonisation, just more sophisticated. Through these actions, the rights of indigenous people are continuously violated, and their cultural ideal and experiences are affected to the point of erasure.15
When regarding the third characteristic, across developing countries, it can be observed, and in some instances seen with a keen eye, that there is always something that is being exchanged with either a donor country or a donor organisation. It really could be any of the elements listed.
III.
Environmental Racism and Health
There are numerous types of systemic racism. The form that applies to ecocide is environmental racism. Environmental racism is a hidden form of violence on Black and Brown bodies regardless of location.16
It can be seen in both the global south and the global north. It is defined as an action that is not just the intentional poisoning of communities of people of colour, it is also:
[P]art of structural racism and exploitation that arises from cultural ‘logics of domination.’ These naturalized ‘logics of domination’ allow those in power to explicitly or implicitly claim superiority over people of color, women, the poor, animals, and the land, and in so doing treat oppressed groups as less valuable.17
It is also evident in countries in the global north, especially in areas that have a high population of Black and Brown People.18
However, the reason it is identified as hidden is that the impact is not obvious to people who do not live nor experience it in the specific neighborhoods and/or the countries in the global south. The impact is noted and recognized as a part of systemic racism. The result is that it denies Black and Brown people “their chance to achieve untold levels of cognitive potential by quietly poisoning them” with the dumping of waste that contaminates the soil, the water, and even the air.19
This will all surely end up in and around the bodies of those that live in these contaminated areas and make them sick.
A.
The Western World
The dumping of toxic waste, or the choice to build factories within close proximity to poor neighborhoods with large Black and Brown populations, is a big part of the problem. These factories tend to have toxic waste runoff that contaminates the water or the soil.20
There is a large number of people who have been poisoned by the industrial waste runoff with poisons such as lead or even arsenic!21
The reason this is important to understand is that there are parallels with the manner that companies use hazardous materials while mining, or industrial runoff near running rivers or aquifers, or dumping hazardous waste that will eventually find its way to the people living in the communities around the land. The only difference is that when it is done in developing countries, it is done at a far larger scale than when it is done in neighborhoods in the global north with the aforementioned large poor Black and Brown populations.
B.
The African Continent
On the African continent, the places that historically have had hazardous waste dumped on their land have also had astronomical numbers of people suffering or dying from cancer. This is the consequence of companies dumping their hazardous waste without a second thought. The proposed definition of ecocide attempts to capture the behavior defined as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” There is full knowledge of the consequences of dumping hazardous waste and the impact it will have, not just on the environment, but also on the people in the surrounding areas. Soil is porous and water flows, with that, it means that the hazardous waste will move from where it is initially dumped to other areas. There is no way for the companies to claim ignorance. The risks are obvious.
C.
Commonalities
Another parallel between both communities is the land degradation, deforestation, or lack of trees, and water and air pollution.22
None of this is an element of a healthy supportive environment. It would definitely sustain an unhealthy environment, and thus keep the communities around the contaminated areas unhealthy and sick.
There is a strong correlation between environmental racism and health. The structural nature of systemic racism points to this issue. The disregard for the areas with populations of Black and Brown people, regardless of locale, would increase illnesses such as cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, and severe headaches, to name a few.23
This would ensure dwindling health and a dwindling population as well. That the companies who carelessly dump their hazardous waste are not attempting to stem these issues is a far bigger issue.
IV.
The Genocide-Ecocide Nexus
The Genocide-Ecocide nexus is important to understand because it explains that the destruction done by states and corporations intersect at a high level:
[T]hroughout the history of capitalism, with evidence that many contemporary genocide are driven by ecocide and efforts to expand raw material resource withdrawals.24
A further intersection could also be explained with the connection to colonialism, specifically the third characteristic
mentioned above. This then lends its hand to the inter-relationship between the two to demonstrate that genocide and ecocide occur concurrently in many cases.25
The inter-relationship can further be explained with the expansion of industry that was brought about through colonialism that destroyed a lot of the land, culture, and people that were forced to align with ideas that did not belong to them. Linking ecocide and genocide is expanding the basic understanding of genocide and expanding it to cover not just physical genocide, but cultural genocide as well.
It is interesting to note that with the mention of economic betterment comes the destruction of the land that indigenous people have relied upon for everything from food to their livelihood. However, due to the competition that comes from the work economy, and the low economy of African states, corruption and bribery have become a way of life for economic survival.26
Then the intersection of ecocide and genocide on the African Continent becoming a consequence of the political economic organisation of capitalism becomes a lot clearer.27
That being said, the genocide in the genocide-ecocide nexus is not an immediate result, it is a long-term result. Once the land is poisoned with the hazardous chemical contaminants that are dumped by companies, then that is where it starts. The sicknesses that follow are a result of it and include the death of the people, and the inability to continue the communities because of the previously mentioned birth defects and miscarriages. This should not stand! This is yet another reason that ecocide should be added to the
Rome Statute.
V.
Changing the Definition of Personhood
Article 25
of the
Rome Statute, where the definition of personhood is found, is the focus of this section.
Article 25(1)
states: “The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this
Statute.” This seems to mean that legal persons such as companies cannot be held liable for the crimes that they perpetrate. Corporations or state actors are explicitly excluded from the crimes listed in
Article 8
of the
Rome Statute. Most if not all of the chemicals or hazardous or toxic waste that are dumped are done by companies. It could be in conjunction with a government official, but the waste belongs to a company. It is interesting to note that, despite the fact that the waste comes from a developed country, it is ferried all the way to the developing world to be disposed of where a country that gains absolutely no benefit that bears all the consequences. Therefore, in expanding
Article 8
with the crime of ecocide needs to expand the definition of personhood.
Looking further at the definition of personhood the idea of expanding the definition will be discussed, and thereafter, the other debates surrounding the definition of personhood will follow.
A.
Implications of Holding Corporations Liable
Article 25
not only focuses on personhood, it focuses on individual criminal responsibility. That demonstrates the inflexibility surrounding this Article. A company cannot be charged as it does not fall under the current definition. Even if one of the c-suite executives is charged, they did not act of their own accord, but acted in “the best interests” of the company. In the end, this would not pass. This is the reason behind this call for an amendment, especially where ecocide is concerned. The Governments are also at fault in that they permit these companies to dispose of the hazardous waste, and yet they have no plan nor a safe space to dispose of the waste safely.
With the proposed expansion of the definition of personhood, it would include legal persons. The legal person would be represented by one of, or all of, the c-suite executives. This would be highly dependent on how the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) decides to charge the legal person. This would also make it easier to prosecute corporations within the jurisdiction of the
ICC.28
VI.
Deterrence Effect
One of the main aims of the
ICC
is deterrence. The fear of punishment deters far more than any convention ever will. Although, this only applies to those who are parties to the
Rome Statute. Out of the 193
U.N.
Members, only 123 have ratified the
Rome Statute. However, there is still the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but this only applies to states and not individuals. Furthermore, the
ICJ’s
2025 advisory on Climate Change29
does support the idea that ecocide should be recognised now more than ever. The implementation upon its recognition is what is under discussion.
There are two types of deterrence, despite them being separate they work best together. A Judicial institution is at its most powerful when both are working in tandem. The first is prosecutorial deterrence which is:
[A] direct consequence of legal punishment: it holds when potential perpetrators reduce or avoid law-breaking for fear of prosecution and official punishment.30
The second is social deterrence which is:
[A] consequence of the broader social milieu in which actors operate: it occurs when potential perpetrators calculate the informal consequences of law-breaking.31
Therefore, if the two are reinforced with the other crimes under the
Rome Statute,
and also if ecocide is added, there will be fewer issues surrounding climate change. Fewer people would deny the need to act because there is a consequence.
Where consequences are concerned, if the proposal for the expansion of the definition of personhood is also accepted, then the punishments that should follow should focus on the executives, especially the
CEO, to appear as the representative of the company. Thereafter, once found guilty and convicted of the crime, the punishment would follow the three proposed steps. First, the
CEO
would need to serve prison time. Second, there would need to be a substantial amount paid to the affected community sufficient for them to take care of themselves. Third, they would need to pay for the clean up and any of the health services the community would need. This would serve both prosecutorial and social deterrence.
VII.
OTP
Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage Through the
Rome Statute
The
OTP’s
Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage Through the
Rome Statute,32
claims that the
OTP
has the means to prosecute environmental crimes. However, without a succinct definition of ecocide and the gravity with which it is held, the deterrence value would not be at the necessary peak. The
Policy
further points out that if there is no generally accepted definition of “natural” environment, then how would such crimes be prosecuted? The focus on anthropogenic crimes and not environmental crimes are what makes the definition of ecocide necessary.
As is, the
Rome Statute
may touch on nature and the environment, however, it does not get to the meat and bone of the issues that are affected. The loss of culture and land nor the illnesses from the negligence and chemical fallout are not recognized as crimes under the
Rome Statute
as it currently stands.
The
Policy
is well thought out and does demonstrate what is possible under the current
Rome Statute,
but it is not enough.
VIII.
Other Proposals
Although the discussion on the expansion of the definition of personhood within the
Rome Statute
has been highly discussed, there are other proposals on how the world can deal with cases of ecocide. Another proposal is having an entirely separate court or tribunal that would specifically deal with ecocide as a crime.33
The suggestion is for there to be a separate mechanism for ecocide cases, something akin to the
U.N.
Security Council: an Environmental Security Council where all members get a vote.34
Alternatively, the mechanism could be a separate court within the
ICC.
IX.
Case Studies
The cases from the African continent span decades. There is a level of corruption on the African continent that is quite unnerving. When living in a country on the continent, a citizen is able to point out the issues surrounding corruption, however, when looking at the academic research regarding corruption, it almost seems like it does not exist. However, this is easily explained by a country’s actions. If a country does what is expected of it by the global north, then it is less likely to be called out.
Where ecocide is concerned, many if not all of the developing countries are currently being affected by some ecological or environmental issue. Yet, looking at their carbon footprints, they are very low in comparison to many countries in the global north. The bulk of the harm is being caused by the global north. However, the bulk of the consequences are borne by the global south.
If ecocide was included in the
Rome Statute,
it would be incredibly helpful for those living in the global south. Recognize that the companies that are using harsh chemicals in mining or disposing of hazardous waste come from the global north. Despite their knowledge of the effects that these chemicals will have on the populations surrounding the dumping site, or even on the people working with these chemicals, the companies continue to inflict harm. The companies would not take the same actions on their own populations at the same scale. The laws in place in their home countries would cause them to either pay fines, or suffer their executives to get convicted for their actions. However, in the global south, due to the fact that local industry has not reached the level of the global north, the laws have not yet caught up. This is the loophole that the companies are utilizing.
Looking at the concept of complementarity as supported by the
Rome Statute,
it is pertinent to point out that if there is an unwillingness of the domestic courts to pursue these cases, then the case would be right for the
ICC
once ecocide is added as a crime.
These case studies include several countries, span a period of time from the 1980s to 2025, and illustrate the extent to which companies play in ecocide and even go as far as the ecocide-genocide nexus. Different issues arise at different points in history. The case studies are horrifying, especially since the aforementioned
Basel Convention
came into force in 1989, and the
Bamako Convention
came into force in 1998.
A.
Nuclear Waste Dumped in the North-Eastern Region of Kenya
In Kenya, specifically the North-Eastern area, it has been alleged that there was untreated nuclear waste that was haphazardly disposed of in the 1980s.35
Although that area is generally a dry area, it does have aquifers that flow towards other areas of Kenya that were contaminated by this waste. Recently, a Parliamentary committee chose to get to the bottom of it and called the ex-rural development minister who was in office during the Moi-era government. This inquiry began because those who live in one specific county in the North Eastern region stated that they have seen very high rates of cancer. In 2023, the cancer centre was opened and they saw 440 cases, in 2024 there were 1347 cases, and in 2025 there were 640 in the first quarter of the year by the time this article was published. There have been studies done that have proven that close exposure to disposed nuclear waste causes people to develop cancer.36
Therefore, the carcinogen exposure from the nuclear waste that has seeped into the waters probably accounts for the vast increases in the cancer rates among these people.
The contaminated underground aquifer leads to Meru. Meru has been found to have the highest number of cancer cases in the whole of Kenya.37
The study did not find that there were any distinct differences between the cancer cases of women and men. The disposal of nuclear waste where people thought was a safe place has caused there to be horrible consequences over the last forty to forty-five years. People are suffering because of that one selfish choice.
Despite the government being aware of this issue, they have been attempting to push for nuclear power plant in Kenya, specifically in Kilifi county in the Coastal region.38
It is being vehemently opposed by the indigenous people of the area. It is also pertinent to note that the government’s push for a nuclear power plant is occurring without acknowledging, or having learned from, the health and environmental effects and consequences of the previous (alleged) instance of improper nuclear waste disposal. Moreover, the fact that this plant is located close to the sea means that any toxic runoff would affect the marine life that the Kenya Wildlife Services is working so hard to preserve. Furthermore, the indigenous people there rely on the sea for their livelihood and for their culture. Lastly, the tourists that the country of Kenya depends on would disappear. This is an example of how much bigger the effects of ecocide are. It is economic, it is social, and it is cultural.
B.
Toxic Waste Dumping in Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire
These two matters will be dealt with separately and in chronological order. In Nigeria, the toxic waste disposal case took place in an area known as The Niger Delta, in 1987—1988, whereas in Côte d’Ivoire waste disposal took place in the Abidjan in 2006. The reason behind dealing with them separately is that although they have the same subject matter, they have different factors affecting their actions surrounding these matters.
1.
Koko Incident—Niger Delta, Nigeria
The Koko incident took place in a fishing village of the same name near the aforementioned Niger Delta area in Nigeria. The disposal of the hazardous chemicals spanned a little over a year, the Nigerian authorities found two thousand drums filled with toxic waste disposed of in the small fishing village of Koko.39
As previously mentioned, this is dangerous as the poison from the hazardous materials can seep into the soil and the water and contaminate it. This puts the community in peril as they are a rural village that relies on not just the soil, but the water in the river to live, for their livelihood and for everything else.40
This was done by an Italian company that failed to comply with specific regulations that were in place in Italy just so that they could dispose of the chemicals cheaply.41
The company put its profits above the health and the lives of the Nigerian people that lived in this little fishing village. It was found that the aforementioned health issues plagued the people there for decades. Nineteen people also died.42
The Italian company did not comply with the regulations from their own country, even going as far as getting a ship to ferry the waste all the way to Nigeria. The company knew that the waste was dangerous and knowingly went ahead to endanger people’s lives, the society they lived in, the waterway that probably served more than just that village, and more. This is the kind of behavior that needs to be deterred by the proposed amendment. Corporations knowingly take a shortcut just for a bigger bottom line, disregarding the people that they affect. This is a clear sign of environmental racism, colonialism as has been defined by the characteristics.
2.
Abidjan—Côte d’Ivoire
This disposal took place in 2006. Both the Basel Convention and the Bamako Convention had come into force by 2006 governing the disposal of any sort of chemical waste. Additionally, Côte d’Ivoire had passed laws that provided up to twenty years imprisonment plus a
US$1.6 million fine for anybody caught dealing in the toxic waste trade.43
This is important because the company Trafigura decided that it did not want to pay a substantial sum to a Dutch company to dispose of its petroleum waste and, instead, much like the Niger Delta case, chose a bigger bottomline over caring for others. They chose to pay a smaller sum of
US$17,000 to the Government of Côte d’Ivoire to illegally dispose of their waste over the
US$620,000 quoted by the Dutch company.44
Once again, capitalism won this round, with complete disregard for conventions that were in place to protect vulnerable people. Bribery won out. The day after the disposal, in August 2006, the people of Abidjan woke up to appalling effects of the chemicals. The consequences were immediate. The Dutch police did an investigation on the disposal and fined Trafigura
US$100,000, and later one million euros after they were found guilty of the act of disposing of the chemicals illegally. However, there was a plot twist: the fine that was paid for the Ivorians never actually reached them. Even with the Amnesty International and Greenpeace report on the health issues that were amassed after this careless disposal, the money was stolen by unsavory characters and was never found.
From both these cases it is evident that companies are putting their bottomline ahead of the lives of the people of the global south. Companies are using bribery and corruption to get their way; they are aware they should not be acting in that way, but they are not deterred. This is another reason why the definition of legal personhood should be expanded, and why ecocide should be added to the
Rome Statute. Once the company Trafigura was hit in their pockets several times, they followed the necessary regulations. That is why the suggestion for punishment is for both a fine to be paid and for the executives to be imprisoned for some time. If conventions are in place and the companies are still undeterred, surely they should have more significant consequences.
C.
Toxic Mining Chemicals used in
DRC
and Zambia
Both of these cases are current issues. The Countries are both experiencing the same fallout, although
DRC’s
issues surpass those of Zambia. Although there are differences, the two countries shall be discussed simultaneously as both countries are on the Central African Copperbelt. Therefore, they have similar if not the same minerals.45
DRC, however, has been reported to have a lot more minerals than Zambia.
There are a lot of politics surrounding the mining in the two countries. The European Union and the United States are investing in the two countries to renew a railway line that is serving as pushback to China’s influence in the two countries.46
Once again, the characteristics of colonisation are rearing its head again. The need to control the extraction of the minerals while using labour of the indigenous people so as to send the minerals back to a place that will not benefit the indigenous people. Sure the people are earning some money, but it is not enough to make their lives better. They are just surviving and remain poor rural communities.47
The contaminants from the mines pollute the water, the soil, and the ambient air and it is affecting the growth of everyone, especially the children.48
Furthermore, the harshness of the chemicals used affects people’s bodies in a manner comparable to the pollutants that contaminated the water, soil, and air in Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire. Mining also shortens the lifespan of the people who work in the mines. The ecological harms that are also being perpetrated further causes stress to the indigenous people who rely on the land. The people who live adjacent to the mines complain that they cannot even grow crops because the soil, water, and air are all contaminated. This leaves people to further suffer even to the point of malnutrition.49
Another issue is that children start mining very early and do not go to school which further stunts their mental growth even more than the contamination from all the chemicals.50
This is a sad state of affairs. Not only are people trying to ensure that they have some economic independence, but they are endangering their lives as they do not work with protective gear and are thus getting sick more. The earth is being poisoned by the harmful chemicals. This is no way to help a people move further in life. Traditions are ending, customs are dying, and all people are doing are going to the mines to help companies fatten up their bottom line.
X.
Conclusion
This comment set out to prove that there is a dire need for the amendment of the
Rome Statute
to not only accept the proposal of the the definition of ecocide, but to also expand the definition of personhood to include legal persons. The greatest tragedy to the environment has been capitalism and colonialism. The lack of understanding or even the willful refusal to understand what the earth means to indigenous cultures and their people has reached a point where companies have no qualms about poisoning the earth. This is the very reason why climate change has reached this abysmal point. If, as humans, we want to try and reverse some of the harm that has been visited upon by the earth, we need to slow down on industry and pollution. We need to find new ways to take care of each other and focus on our communities. The bottom line is not as important as the people. The
COVID-19 lock downs showed us how easy it is to start this reversal. However, until we get to the point where we, as a people, are willing to forego capitalism at the level it has reached, then we need to find ways to deter companies from continuing to push those levels further. The harm is not just affecting the vulnerable, it will eventually affect every single person through the rising cancer rates, the rising cost of living, and the rising cost of food. This comment has shown that adopting the crime of ecocide would aid in respecting the earth some more. The threat of losing money is a far bigger threat than climate change in the current economy. Hit them where it hurts.
Endnotes
— (click the footnote reference number, or ↩ symbol, to return to location in text).
Anja Habersang,
Tackling Terricide, Not (Only) Ecocide: Further Exploring the Nexus Between Social-Ecological Destruction,
22
Globalizations
323 (2025),
available
online,
doi.
↩
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
Adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court,
Jul. 17, 1998,
U.N.
Doc. A/CONF.183/9,
as amended
[hereinafter
Rome Statute],
available
online..
↩
(The countries are Vietnam, Uzbekistan, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Georgia, Tajikistan, Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, Chile, European Union, Belgium, and Chile).
↩
Simon Prideaux,
Mustapha Sheikh
& Adam Fomby
eds.,
Crime, Criminality and Injustice: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Revelations, Part One
(Nov. 2023),
paywall.
↩
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
(adopted
Mar. 22, 1989,
entered into force
May 5, 1992), 1673
U.N.T.S.
57,
available
online,
archived.
↩
Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa
(adopted
Jan. 30, 1991,
entered into force
Apr. 22, 1998),
OAU,
available
online,
archived.
↩
Alexander Dunlap,
The “Solution” Is Now the “Problem:” Wind Energy, Colonisation and the “Genocide-Ecocide Nexus” in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca,
Int’l J. of Hum. Rts.
(2017),
available
online,
doi.
↩
Melaku Geboye Desta
& Moshe Hirsch,
African Countries in the World Trading System: International Trade, Domestic Institutions and the Role of the International Law,
61
ICLQ
127 (Jan. 2012),
paywall,
doi.
↩
Chomba Kalunga,
The Effects of Mining on Health: Evidence from Copper Mining in Zambia,
ASSA/AEA
Conference (Dec. 31, 2020),
download,
download slide deck available
online,
earlier version available
online.
↩
Michael J. Lynch,
Averi Fegadel
& Michael A. Long,
Green Criminology and State-Corporate Crimes: The Ecocide-Genocide Nexus with Examples from Nigeria,
23
J. Genocide Research
236 (2021),
paywall,
doi.
↩
Hyeran Jo
& Beth A. Simmons,
Can the International Criminal Court Deter Atrocity?,
70
Int’l Org.
443 (Mar. 8, 2016),
paywall,
doi,
earlier version (Dec. 2014) available
online.
↩
Maya Brownstein,
Living Near St. Louis-Area Coldwater Creek During Childhood Linked With Higher Risk of Cancer From Radiation,
HSPH
(Jul. 16, 2025),
available
online.
↩
Francis Kobia,
Jesse Gitaka,
Francis Makokha
et al.,
The State of Cancer in Meru, Kenya: A Retrospective Study,
Open Research Afr.
(Dec. 3, 2019),
available
online,
doi.
↩
Claudio De Majo,
Italy’s Poison Ships: How an International Trade of Hazardous Waste Sparked a Grassroots Struggle for Environmental Justice,
43
Arcadia
(2020),
available
online,
doi.
↩
A. Muimba-Kankolongo,
C. Banza Lubaba Nkulu,
J. Mwitwa,
F. M. Kampemba
& M. Mulele Nabuyanda,
Impacts of Trace Metals Pollution of Water, Food Crops, and Ambient Air on Population Health in Zambia and the
DR
Congo,
J. Environ. Public Health
(Jul. 5, 2022),
available
online,
doi.
↩
Rita Kesselring,
Extraction, Global Commodity Trade, and Urban Development in Zambia’s Northwestern Province: An Ethnography of Inequality and Interdependence
(Zed Books,
Mar. 6, 2025),
paywall.
↩
park2026:
Criminalizing Ecocide: Will Corporations Change?
Introduction
As climate change accelerates and ecosystems face unprecedented destruction, existing legal frameworks have proven inadequate to prevent or meaningfully deter large-scale environmental harm. Corporations, especially transnational corporations operating across jurisdictions, play a central role in driving deforestation, pollution, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions, often...(more)
Wangu Gatonye:
I.
Introduction
“Ecocide” was coined in the 1970s through a proposal by Professor Arthur W. Galston, but has only recently gained popularity in legal circles.1
The proposed definition is: “[U]nlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”2
The work that the diverse Independent...(more)
Talia Boyadjian:
Why the
IEPs
Draft Definition of Ecocide Cannot Work as a Core Crime
The concept of
ecocide
has circulated long before current efforts to amend the
Rome Statute,
with domestic and international circles debating it as a proposed legal tool to address human-caused extreme environmental destruction.1
Early formulations data back to the Vietnam War in response to large-scale wartime...(more)
Comment on the Ecocide Question: “Should the crime of “ecocide” be added to the Rome Statute?”
I. Introduction
“Ecocide” was coined in the 1970s through a proposal by Professor Arthur W. Galston, but has only recently gained popularity in legal circles.1 The proposed definition is: “[U]nlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”2 The work that the diverse Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (IEP) put in to release this definition in 2021 was astounding! The definition has gone as far as giving the definitions of the terms as they would be used in regard to ecocide, and, essentially, being ready for its addition to the Rome Statute.3 It was considered in light of the environmental destruction which had taken place during the Vietnam War. Despite this, only fifteen countries consider ecocide a crime.4 However, in the current discourse, there is a proposal to include ecocide as the fifth crime under the Rome Statute.
Vanuatu spearheaded the campaign to amend the Rome Statute by adding this definition of ecocide as the fifth crime by formally introducing it to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for consideration in 2024.5 Fellow Island states such as Fiji and Samoa gave their support to Vanuatu by endorsing this proposal. Thereafter, The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as the only African State extended its support by formally endorsing this proposal.6 The Island States’ rationale for the support of ecocide as an international crime is self-evident: rising ocean waters would cause the Island States to vanish off the face of the earth. That is not right. The people are connected to their land and to their culture, that kind of symbiosis cannot be found anywhere else, and ecocide would obliterate the indigenous peoples’ way of life.7 As for The DRC, they have suffered under the hands of companies that are using toxic mining chemicals that seep into the soil, and affect the people working and living around the mines. This will be discussed further in this comment. Therefore, the indigenous people, who have deep roots literally and figuratively in nature and in the land and in the environment, are seeking support and help to save their way of life through this proposal to the ICC. The hope is that this gathers momentum and garners great support from other countries to ensure that there is an amendment to the Rome Statute.
Although this definition seems succinct, and it is, there are still some aspects of the amendment that would need further fine-tuning. There are a number of crimes that would fall under ecocide that are not necessarily perpetrated by individuals, as is expected under the Rome Statute. These crimes are perpetrated by multinational corporations who act in concert with government officials that essentially grant them the “permission” required to dump nuclear waste and/or use harsh chemicals that are otherwise outlawed in their countries of origin. The result is that hundreds, if not thousands of people get sick, and/or die. The soil is also poisoned which also leads to long-lasting impacts to the environment and the people.
This comment shall explore the definition of ecocide being a well thought out definition. However, the amendments would need to be reworked to include corporations as perpetrators. Although that can be inferred, lawyers, or even members of the legal fraternity, do not welcome ambiguity in the definition of a “legal” term. Therefore, there would need to be a further analysis of the Rome Statute’s definition of personhood to expand and include legal persons. To examine this issue the comment shall focus on African countries. These countries are Kenya—the case of illegal dumping of Nuclear Waste in the North Eastern region. The DRC and Zambia—use of toxic mining chemicals. Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire—toxic waste dumping. These will give a varied idea of the ills that multi-national corporations are doing in countries on the African continent, and the health fall out from their actions. While focusing on these countries there will be a review of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal,8 adopted in 1989, in connection with the named actions. The Basel Convention then made way for the Bamako Convention,9 adopted in 1998, a treaty of African nations prohibiting the import into Africa of any hazardous (including radioactive) waste.
While exploring the topic, this comment is divided into different sections. In the section on Neocolonialism, the discussion will focus on the long roots of colonialism. Colonialism never left and continues to ravage the indigenous communities. The next section will examine environmental racism and how it affects not just people in Africa, but also Black and Brown bodies in the West. In the same section health will also be a topic of exploration and how the environmental racism affects the people in many ways, and it is irreversible for some. In Section IV, an aspect of ecocide is discussed as there to be a nexus with genocide. This is an interesting topic, demonstrating the thin line between the two. Next, is the discussion on the expansion of the definition of personhood in the Rome Statute. This section focuses on a discourse to further expand the definition of personhood to include corporations as legal persons. In the next section is a discussion on the OTP’ recently released Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage Through the Rome Statute. This document discusses ecocide and the connection to the current Rome Statute. The discussion in the penultimate section are the case studies mentioned previously. Then this comment concludes.
II. Neo-colonialism or Plain Colonialism?
Ecocide has strong roots in colonialism. There have been statements that colonialism ended when colonies gained their independence. However, neo-Colonialism is simply colonialism in a new trench coat with a moustache. This is to say that restricting colonialism to a single period in history is “a short sighted, naïve and politically convenient conception to enable the unchecked expansion of the colonial model[.]”10 Colonialism has been identified as having three primary characteristics:
In evaluating these characteristics, it is possible to see how these are actions being executed across the continent of Africa, as well as other areas with developing countries. After all “more than 80% of the world’s population lives in over 100 developing countries.”12
This is especially noticeable through aid stipulations that are listed to the recipient country as obligations that need to be performed for them to be seen as worth the aid. As Dunlap puts it, it can be regarded as assertion. Assertion in that:
This is not different from the scenario of what happened during the initial time of colonisation, just more sophisticated. Through these actions, the rights of indigenous people are continuously violated, and their cultural ideal and experiences are affected to the point of erasure.15 When regarding the third characteristic, across developing countries, it can be observed, and in some instances seen with a keen eye, that there is always something that is being exchanged with either a donor country or a donor organisation. It really could be any of the elements listed.
III. Environmental Racism and Health
There are numerous types of systemic racism. The form that applies to ecocide is environmental racism. Environmental racism is a hidden form of violence on Black and Brown bodies regardless of location.16 It can be seen in both the global south and the global north. It is defined as an action that is not just the intentional poisoning of communities of people of colour, it is also:
It is also evident in countries in the global north, especially in areas that have a high population of Black and Brown People.18 However, the reason it is identified as hidden is that the impact is not obvious to people who do not live nor experience it in the specific neighborhoods and/or the countries in the global south. The impact is noted and recognized as a part of systemic racism. The result is that it denies Black and Brown people “their chance to achieve untold levels of cognitive potential by quietly poisoning them” with the dumping of waste that contaminates the soil, the water, and even the air.19 This will all surely end up in and around the bodies of those that live in these contaminated areas and make them sick.
A. The Western World
The dumping of toxic waste, or the choice to build factories within close proximity to poor neighborhoods with large Black and Brown populations, is a big part of the problem. These factories tend to have toxic waste runoff that contaminates the water or the soil.20 There is a large number of people who have been poisoned by the industrial waste runoff with poisons such as lead or even arsenic!21
The reason this is important to understand is that there are parallels with the manner that companies use hazardous materials while mining, or industrial runoff near running rivers or aquifers, or dumping hazardous waste that will eventually find its way to the people living in the communities around the land. The only difference is that when it is done in developing countries, it is done at a far larger scale than when it is done in neighborhoods in the global north with the aforementioned large poor Black and Brown populations.
B. The African Continent
On the African continent, the places that historically have had hazardous waste dumped on their land have also had astronomical numbers of people suffering or dying from cancer. This is the consequence of companies dumping their hazardous waste without a second thought. The proposed definition of ecocide attempts to capture the behavior defined as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” There is full knowledge of the consequences of dumping hazardous waste and the impact it will have, not just on the environment, but also on the people in the surrounding areas. Soil is porous and water flows, with that, it means that the hazardous waste will move from where it is initially dumped to other areas. There is no way for the companies to claim ignorance. The risks are obvious.
C. Commonalities
Another parallel between both communities is the land degradation, deforestation, or lack of trees, and water and air pollution.22 None of this is an element of a healthy supportive environment. It would definitely sustain an unhealthy environment, and thus keep the communities around the contaminated areas unhealthy and sick.
There is a strong correlation between environmental racism and health. The structural nature of systemic racism points to this issue. The disregard for the areas with populations of Black and Brown people, regardless of locale, would increase illnesses such as cancer, miscarriages, birth defects, and severe headaches, to name a few.23 This would ensure dwindling health and a dwindling population as well. That the companies who carelessly dump their hazardous waste are not attempting to stem these issues is a far bigger issue.
IV. The Genocide-Ecocide Nexus
The Genocide-Ecocide nexus is important to understand because it explains that the destruction done by states and corporations intersect at a high level:
A further intersection could also be explained with the connection to colonialism, specifically the third characteristic mentioned above. This then lends its hand to the inter-relationship between the two to demonstrate that genocide and ecocide occur concurrently in many cases.25 The inter-relationship can further be explained with the expansion of industry that was brought about through colonialism that destroyed a lot of the land, culture, and people that were forced to align with ideas that did not belong to them. Linking ecocide and genocide is expanding the basic understanding of genocide and expanding it to cover not just physical genocide, but cultural genocide as well.
It is interesting to note that with the mention of economic betterment comes the destruction of the land that indigenous people have relied upon for everything from food to their livelihood. However, due to the competition that comes from the work economy, and the low economy of African states, corruption and bribery have become a way of life for economic survival.26 Then the intersection of ecocide and genocide on the African Continent becoming a consequence of the political economic organisation of capitalism becomes a lot clearer.27 That being said, the genocide in the genocide-ecocide nexus is not an immediate result, it is a long-term result. Once the land is poisoned with the hazardous chemical contaminants that are dumped by companies, then that is where it starts. The sicknesses that follow are a result of it and include the death of the people, and the inability to continue the communities because of the previously mentioned birth defects and miscarriages. This should not stand! This is yet another reason that ecocide should be added to the Rome Statute.
V. Changing the Definition of Personhood
Article 25 of the Rome Statute, where the definition of personhood is found, is the focus of this section. Article 25(1) states: “The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.” This seems to mean that legal persons such as companies cannot be held liable for the crimes that they perpetrate. Corporations or state actors are explicitly excluded from the crimes listed in Article 8 of the Rome Statute. Most if not all of the chemicals or hazardous or toxic waste that are dumped are done by companies. It could be in conjunction with a government official, but the waste belongs to a company. It is interesting to note that, despite the fact that the waste comes from a developed country, it is ferried all the way to the developing world to be disposed of where a country that gains absolutely no benefit that bears all the consequences. Therefore, in expanding Article 8 with the crime of ecocide needs to expand the definition of personhood.
Looking further at the definition of personhood the idea of expanding the definition will be discussed, and thereafter, the other debates surrounding the definition of personhood will follow.
A. Implications of Holding Corporations Liable
Article 25 not only focuses on personhood, it focuses on individual criminal responsibility. That demonstrates the inflexibility surrounding this Article. A company cannot be charged as it does not fall under the current definition. Even if one of the c-suite executives is charged, they did not act of their own accord, but acted in “the best interests” of the company. In the end, this would not pass. This is the reason behind this call for an amendment, especially where ecocide is concerned. The Governments are also at fault in that they permit these companies to dispose of the hazardous waste, and yet they have no plan nor a safe space to dispose of the waste safely.
With the proposed expansion of the definition of personhood, it would include legal persons. The legal person would be represented by one of, or all of, the c-suite executives. This would be highly dependent on how the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) decides to charge the legal person. This would also make it easier to prosecute corporations within the jurisdiction of the ICC.28
VI. Deterrence Effect
One of the main aims of the ICC is deterrence. The fear of punishment deters far more than any convention ever will. Although, this only applies to those who are parties to the Rome Statute. Out of the 193 U.N. Members, only 123 have ratified the Rome Statute. However, there is still the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but this only applies to states and not individuals. Furthermore, the ICJ’s 2025 advisory on Climate Change29 does support the idea that ecocide should be recognised now more than ever. The implementation upon its recognition is what is under discussion.
There are two types of deterrence, despite them being separate they work best together. A Judicial institution is at its most powerful when both are working in tandem. The first is prosecutorial deterrence which is:
The second is social deterrence which is:
Therefore, if the two are reinforced with the other crimes under the Rome Statute, and also if ecocide is added, there will be fewer issues surrounding climate change. Fewer people would deny the need to act because there is a consequence.
Where consequences are concerned, if the proposal for the expansion of the definition of personhood is also accepted, then the punishments that should follow should focus on the executives, especially the CEO, to appear as the representative of the company. Thereafter, once found guilty and convicted of the crime, the punishment would follow the three proposed steps. First, the CEO would need to serve prison time. Second, there would need to be a substantial amount paid to the affected community sufficient for them to take care of themselves. Third, they would need to pay for the clean up and any of the health services the community would need. This would serve both prosecutorial and social deterrence.
VII. OTP Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage Through the Rome Statute
The OTP’s Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage Through the Rome Statute,32 claims that the OTP has the means to prosecute environmental crimes. However, without a succinct definition of ecocide and the gravity with which it is held, the deterrence value would not be at the necessary peak. The Policy further points out that if there is no generally accepted definition of “natural” environment, then how would such crimes be prosecuted? The focus on anthropogenic crimes and not environmental crimes are what makes the definition of ecocide necessary.
As is, the Rome Statute may touch on nature and the environment, however, it does not get to the meat and bone of the issues that are affected. The loss of culture and land nor the illnesses from the negligence and chemical fallout are not recognized as crimes under the Rome Statute as it currently stands.
The Policy is well thought out and does demonstrate what is possible under the current Rome Statute, but it is not enough.
VIII. Other Proposals
Although the discussion on the expansion of the definition of personhood within the Rome Statute has been highly discussed, there are other proposals on how the world can deal with cases of ecocide. Another proposal is having an entirely separate court or tribunal that would specifically deal with ecocide as a crime.33 The suggestion is for there to be a separate mechanism for ecocide cases, something akin to the U.N. Security Council: an Environmental Security Council where all members get a vote.34 Alternatively, the mechanism could be a separate court within the ICC.
IX. Case Studies
The cases from the African continent span decades. There is a level of corruption on the African continent that is quite unnerving. When living in a country on the continent, a citizen is able to point out the issues surrounding corruption, however, when looking at the academic research regarding corruption, it almost seems like it does not exist. However, this is easily explained by a country’s actions. If a country does what is expected of it by the global north, then it is less likely to be called out.
Where ecocide is concerned, many if not all of the developing countries are currently being affected by some ecological or environmental issue. Yet, looking at their carbon footprints, they are very low in comparison to many countries in the global north. The bulk of the harm is being caused by the global north. However, the bulk of the consequences are borne by the global south.
If ecocide was included in the Rome Statute, it would be incredibly helpful for those living in the global south. Recognize that the companies that are using harsh chemicals in mining or disposing of hazardous waste come from the global north. Despite their knowledge of the effects that these chemicals will have on the populations surrounding the dumping site, or even on the people working with these chemicals, the companies continue to inflict harm. The companies would not take the same actions on their own populations at the same scale. The laws in place in their home countries would cause them to either pay fines, or suffer their executives to get convicted for their actions. However, in the global south, due to the fact that local industry has not reached the level of the global north, the laws have not yet caught up. This is the loophole that the companies are utilizing.
Looking at the concept of complementarity as supported by the Rome Statute, it is pertinent to point out that if there is an unwillingness of the domestic courts to pursue these cases, then the case would be right for the ICC once ecocide is added as a crime.
These case studies include several countries, span a period of time from the 1980s to 2025, and illustrate the extent to which companies play in ecocide and even go as far as the ecocide-genocide nexus. Different issues arise at different points in history. The case studies are horrifying, especially since the aforementioned Basel Convention came into force in 1989, and the Bamako Convention came into force in 1998.
A. Nuclear Waste Dumped in the North-Eastern Region of Kenya
In Kenya, specifically the North-Eastern area, it has been alleged that there was untreated nuclear waste that was haphazardly disposed of in the 1980s.35 Although that area is generally a dry area, it does have aquifers that flow towards other areas of Kenya that were contaminated by this waste. Recently, a Parliamentary committee chose to get to the bottom of it and called the ex-rural development minister who was in office during the Moi-era government. This inquiry began because those who live in one specific county in the North Eastern region stated that they have seen very high rates of cancer. In 2023, the cancer centre was opened and they saw 440 cases, in 2024 there were 1347 cases, and in 2025 there were 640 in the first quarter of the year by the time this article was published. There have been studies done that have proven that close exposure to disposed nuclear waste causes people to develop cancer.36 Therefore, the carcinogen exposure from the nuclear waste that has seeped into the waters probably accounts for the vast increases in the cancer rates among these people.
The contaminated underground aquifer leads to Meru. Meru has been found to have the highest number of cancer cases in the whole of Kenya.37 The study did not find that there were any distinct differences between the cancer cases of women and men. The disposal of nuclear waste where people thought was a safe place has caused there to be horrible consequences over the last forty to forty-five years. People are suffering because of that one selfish choice.
Despite the government being aware of this issue, they have been attempting to push for nuclear power plant in Kenya, specifically in Kilifi county in the Coastal region.38 It is being vehemently opposed by the indigenous people of the area. It is also pertinent to note that the government’s push for a nuclear power plant is occurring without acknowledging, or having learned from, the health and environmental effects and consequences of the previous (alleged) instance of improper nuclear waste disposal. Moreover, the fact that this plant is located close to the sea means that any toxic runoff would affect the marine life that the Kenya Wildlife Services is working so hard to preserve. Furthermore, the indigenous people there rely on the sea for their livelihood and for their culture. Lastly, the tourists that the country of Kenya depends on would disappear. This is an example of how much bigger the effects of ecocide are. It is economic, it is social, and it is cultural.
B. Toxic Waste Dumping in Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire
These two matters will be dealt with separately and in chronological order. In Nigeria, the toxic waste disposal case took place in an area known as The Niger Delta, in 1987—1988, whereas in Côte d’Ivoire waste disposal took place in the Abidjan in 2006. The reason behind dealing with them separately is that although they have the same subject matter, they have different factors affecting their actions surrounding these matters.
1. Koko Incident—Niger Delta, Nigeria
The Koko incident took place in a fishing village of the same name near the aforementioned Niger Delta area in Nigeria. The disposal of the hazardous chemicals spanned a little over a year, the Nigerian authorities found two thousand drums filled with toxic waste disposed of in the small fishing village of Koko.39 As previously mentioned, this is dangerous as the poison from the hazardous materials can seep into the soil and the water and contaminate it. This puts the community in peril as they are a rural village that relies on not just the soil, but the water in the river to live, for their livelihood and for everything else.40 This was done by an Italian company that failed to comply with specific regulations that were in place in Italy just so that they could dispose of the chemicals cheaply.41 The company put its profits above the health and the lives of the Nigerian people that lived in this little fishing village. It was found that the aforementioned health issues plagued the people there for decades. Nineteen people also died.42 The Italian company did not comply with the regulations from their own country, even going as far as getting a ship to ferry the waste all the way to Nigeria. The company knew that the waste was dangerous and knowingly went ahead to endanger people’s lives, the society they lived in, the waterway that probably served more than just that village, and more. This is the kind of behavior that needs to be deterred by the proposed amendment. Corporations knowingly take a shortcut just for a bigger bottom line, disregarding the people that they affect. This is a clear sign of environmental racism, colonialism as has been defined by the characteristics.
2. Abidjan—Côte d’Ivoire
This disposal took place in 2006. Both the Basel Convention and the Bamako Convention had come into force by 2006 governing the disposal of any sort of chemical waste. Additionally, Côte d’Ivoire had passed laws that provided up to twenty years imprisonment plus a US$1.6 million fine for anybody caught dealing in the toxic waste trade.43 This is important because the company Trafigura decided that it did not want to pay a substantial sum to a Dutch company to dispose of its petroleum waste and, instead, much like the Niger Delta case, chose a bigger bottomline over caring for others. They chose to pay a smaller sum of US$17,000 to the Government of Côte d’Ivoire to illegally dispose of their waste over the US$620,000 quoted by the Dutch company.44 Once again, capitalism won this round, with complete disregard for conventions that were in place to protect vulnerable people. Bribery won out. The day after the disposal, in August 2006, the people of Abidjan woke up to appalling effects of the chemicals. The consequences were immediate. The Dutch police did an investigation on the disposal and fined Trafigura US$100,000, and later one million euros after they were found guilty of the act of disposing of the chemicals illegally. However, there was a plot twist: the fine that was paid for the Ivorians never actually reached them. Even with the Amnesty International and Greenpeace report on the health issues that were amassed after this careless disposal, the money was stolen by unsavory characters and was never found.
From both these cases it is evident that companies are putting their bottomline ahead of the lives of the people of the global south. Companies are using bribery and corruption to get their way; they are aware they should not be acting in that way, but they are not deterred. This is another reason why the definition of legal personhood should be expanded, and why ecocide should be added to the Rome Statute. Once the company Trafigura was hit in their pockets several times, they followed the necessary regulations. That is why the suggestion for punishment is for both a fine to be paid and for the executives to be imprisoned for some time. If conventions are in place and the companies are still undeterred, surely they should have more significant consequences.
C. Toxic Mining Chemicals used in DRC and Zambia
Both of these cases are current issues. The Countries are both experiencing the same fallout, although DRC’s issues surpass those of Zambia. Although there are differences, the two countries shall be discussed simultaneously as both countries are on the Central African Copperbelt. Therefore, they have similar if not the same minerals.45 DRC, however, has been reported to have a lot more minerals than Zambia.
There are a lot of politics surrounding the mining in the two countries. The European Union and the United States are investing in the two countries to renew a railway line that is serving as pushback to China’s influence in the two countries.46 Once again, the characteristics of colonisation are rearing its head again. The need to control the extraction of the minerals while using labour of the indigenous people so as to send the minerals back to a place that will not benefit the indigenous people. Sure the people are earning some money, but it is not enough to make their lives better. They are just surviving and remain poor rural communities.47 The contaminants from the mines pollute the water, the soil, and the ambient air and it is affecting the growth of everyone, especially the children.48 Furthermore, the harshness of the chemicals used affects people’s bodies in a manner comparable to the pollutants that contaminated the water, soil, and air in Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire. Mining also shortens the lifespan of the people who work in the mines. The ecological harms that are also being perpetrated further causes stress to the indigenous people who rely on the land. The people who live adjacent to the mines complain that they cannot even grow crops because the soil, water, and air are all contaminated. This leaves people to further suffer even to the point of malnutrition.49 Another issue is that children start mining very early and do not go to school which further stunts their mental growth even more than the contamination from all the chemicals.50
This is a sad state of affairs. Not only are people trying to ensure that they have some economic independence, but they are endangering their lives as they do not work with protective gear and are thus getting sick more. The earth is being poisoned by the harmful chemicals. This is no way to help a people move further in life. Traditions are ending, customs are dying, and all people are doing are going to the mines to help companies fatten up their bottom line.
X. Conclusion
This comment set out to prove that there is a dire need for the amendment of the Rome Statute to not only accept the proposal of the the definition of ecocide, but to also expand the definition of personhood to include legal persons. The greatest tragedy to the environment has been capitalism and colonialism. The lack of understanding or even the willful refusal to understand what the earth means to indigenous cultures and their people has reached a point where companies have no qualms about poisoning the earth. This is the very reason why climate change has reached this abysmal point. If, as humans, we want to try and reverse some of the harm that has been visited upon by the earth, we need to slow down on industry and pollution. We need to find new ways to take care of each other and focus on our communities. The bottom line is not as important as the people. The COVID-19 lock downs showed us how easy it is to start this reversal. However, until we get to the point where we, as a people, are willing to forego capitalism at the level it has reached, then we need to find ways to deter companies from continuing to push those levels further. The harm is not just affecting the vulnerable, it will eventually affect every single person through the rising cancer rates, the rising cost of living, and the rising cost of food. This comment has shown that adopting the crime of ecocide would aid in respecting the earth some more. The threat of losing money is a far bigger threat than climate change in the current economy. Hit them where it hurts.
Endnotes — (click the footnote reference number, or ↩ symbol, to return to location in text).
Anja Habersang, Tackling Terricide, Not (Only) Ecocide: Further Exploring the Nexus Between Social-Ecological Destruction, 22 Globalizations 323 (2025), available online, doi. ↩
Legal Definition, Stop Ecocide International, available online (last visited Jan. 10, 2026). ↩
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Jul. 17, 1998, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, as amended [hereinafter Rome Statute], available online.. ↩
Existing & Proposed Ecocide Laws, Ecocide Law, available online (last visited Jan. 9, 2026).
(The countries are Vietnam, Uzbekistan, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Georgia, Tajikistan, Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, Chile, European Union, Belgium, and Chile). ↩
Criminalising Ecocide, Climate Diplomacy, available online (last visited Jan. 9, 2026). ↩
History, Ecocide Law, available online (last visited Jan. 9, 2026). ↩
Simon Prideaux, Mustapha Sheikh & Adam Fomby eds., Crime, Criminality and Injustice: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Revelations, Part One (Nov. 2023), paywall. ↩
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (adopted Mar. 22, 1989, entered into force May 5, 1992), 1673 U.N.T.S. 57, available online, archived. ↩
Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa (adopted Jan. 30, 1991, entered into force Apr. 22, 1998), OAU, available online, archived. ↩
Alexander Dunlap, The “Solution” Is Now the “Problem:” Wind Energy, Colonisation and the “Genocide-Ecocide Nexus” in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, Int’l J. of Hum. Rts. (2017), available online, doi. ↩
Id. ↩
Melaku Geboye Desta & Moshe Hirsch, African Countries in the World Trading System: International Trade, Domestic Institutions and the Role of the International Law, 61 ICLQ 127 (Jan. 2012), paywall, doi. ↩
Prideaux, Sheikh & Fomby, supra note 7. ↩
Dunlap, supra note 10. ↩
Prideaux, Sheikh & Fomby, supra note 7. ↩
Rita Turner, The Slow Poisoning of Black Bodies: A Lesson in Environmental Racism and Hidden Violence, 15 Meridians 189 (2016), paywall, doi. ↩
Id. ↩
Id. ↩
S.O. Atteh, The Political Economy of Environmental Degradation: The Dumping of Toxic Wastes in West Africa, 20 Afr. Rev. 19 (1993), paywall. ↩
Ruben Vives, Jet Fuel Dump on Schools Raises Heat at Cudahy Town Hall Meeting, L.A. Times, Jan. 18, 2020, available online. ↩
Turner, supra note 16. ↩
Chomba Kalunga, The Effects of Mining on Health: Evidence from Copper Mining in Zambia, ASSA/AEA Conference (Dec. 31, 2020), download, download slide deck available online, earlier version available online. ↩
Atteh, supra note 19. ↩
Michael J. Lynch, Averi Fegadel & Michael A. Long, Green Criminology and State-Corporate Crimes: The Ecocide-Genocide Nexus with Examples from Nigeria, 23 J. Genocide Research 236 (2021), paywall, doi. ↩
Id. ↩
Atteh, supra note 19. ↩
Lynch, Fegadel & Long, supra note 24. ↩
Habersang, supra note 1. ↩
Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion, 2025 I.C.J. (forthcoming) (Jul. 23, 2025), available online. ↩
Hyeran Jo & Beth A. Simmons, Can the International Criminal Court Deter Atrocity?, 70 Int’l Org. 443 (Mar. 8, 2016), paywall, doi, earlier version (Dec. 2014) available online. ↩
Id. ↩
Office of the Prosecutor, ICC, Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage Through the Rome Statute (Dec. 4, 2025), available online. ↩
S. Faizi, Ecocides: On the Need for an Environmental Security Council, 32 CNS 36 (2021), paywall, doi. ↩
Id. ↩
Samwel Owino, Why MPs Want Cyrus Jirongo Over Probe Into Nuclear Waste Dumping in North Eastern, Daily Nation, Jun. 24, 2025, paywall. ↩
Maya Brownstein, Living Near St. Louis-Area Coldwater Creek During Childhood Linked With Higher Risk of Cancer From Radiation, HSPH (Jul. 16, 2025), available online. ↩
Francis Kobia, Jesse Gitaka, Francis Makokha et al., The State of Cancer in Meru, Kenya: A Retrospective Study, Open Research Afr. (Dec. 3, 2019), available online, doi. ↩
Alan Kasujja, Why are Nuclear Power Plans Proving Controversial in Africa?, BBC Afr. Daily, Jul. 4, 2024, audio available online. ↩
Claudio De Majo, Italy’s Poison Ships: How an International Trade of Hazardous Waste Sparked a Grassroots Struggle for Environmental Justice, 43 Arcadia (2020), available online, doi. ↩
Atteh, supra note 19. ↩
De Majo, supra note 39. ↩
Atteh, supra note 19. ↩
Id. ↩
Amnesty International, Trafigura: A Toxic Journey (Apr. 11, 2016), available online. ↩
A. Muimba-Kankolongo, C. Banza Lubaba Nkulu, J. Mwitwa, F. M. Kampemba & M. Mulele Nabuyanda, Impacts of Trace Metals Pollution of Water, Food Crops, and Ambient Air on Population Health in Zambia and the DR Congo, J. Environ. Public Health (Jul. 5, 2022), available online, doi. ↩
Rita Kesselring, Extraction, Global Commodity Trade, and Urban Development in Zambia’s Northwestern Province: An Ethnography of Inequality and Interdependence (Zed Books, Mar. 6, 2025), paywall. ↩
Muimba-Kankolongo et al., supra note 45. ↩
Id. ↩
Id. ↩
Turner, supra note 16. ↩