Ecocide

Q: Who was Arthur Galston?

Arthur Galston was a plant biologist credited with introducing the term ecocide , which he defined as “the willful destruction of the environment.” His early research on the flowering process of soybean plants inadvertently contributed to the development of herbicides, and his later work brought attention to the severe environmental and human damage caused by Agent Orange , a toxic defoliant deployed by American forces from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War . At the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington, D.C., in February 1970, Galston proposed an international agreement to ban ecocide.

Q: What are some of the challenges in making ecocide a fifth crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court?

Making ecocide a fifth crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court presents challenges involving the court’s jurisdiction limits and the difficulty of defining the concept of ecocide consistently and in a measurable way. Another problem is that severe, long-term harm to people, other species, and natural resources may take years to become fully visible and is difficult to prove, given that the threshold of such harm is very high. Accusations of ecocide committed by Russia during the Russia-Ukraine War also demonstrated possible enforcement complexities at an international level, even as more countries consider domestic laws against ecocide or environmental harm.

environment

Written by

Meg Matthias

Fact-checked by

Britannica Editors

Last updated

Nov. 12, 2026 •History

What is ecocide?

Who was Arthur Galston?

What are some of the challenges in making ecocide a fifth crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court?

Ecocide, broadly, a term used to describe severe or large-scale destruction of the natural environment as a consequence of human activity. Although a consistent, widely agreed-on definition of what constitutes ecocide has not yet been arrived at, it may be used to describe irreversible environmental damage due to war as well as deforestation, oil spills, air pollution, nuclear and chemical disasters, and the destruction of endangered species or habitats. Some scholars have even linked ecocide with genocide, arguing that the two can co-occur during capitalist expansions by imperial powers, which can commit genocide against Indigenous communities in their colonies indirectly through ecocide. The two concepts, however, have traditionally been examined independently in crime-related literature.

Origin and key developments

Ecocide is a concept that has been in use since the 1970s. The term’s origin is attributed to Arthur Galston, a plant biologist whose research inadvertently helped in the development of herbicides and whose work later brought to light the severe environmental and human damage caused by Agent Orange, a toxic defoliant deployed by American forces from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War. At the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington, D.C., in February 1970, Galston proposed an international agreement to ban ecocide, defined as “the willful destruction of the environment.”

Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme built on Galston’s ideas at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, warning of industrialization’s negative impact on the world’s natural resources. This conference was one of the first to draw the international community’s attention toward environmental issues, highlighting the fact that pollution affects regions far beyond its point of origin, irrespective of geographical boundaries. Though not initially successful, Galston’s and Palme’s pleas, along with the work of several other individuals and organizations, set the groundwork for future consideration of ecocide as a crime against nature. Experts debated establishing ecocide as an international offense under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)—which includes powers to try cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression—but ultimately dropped it from the list by the time of the court’s formal foundation in 1998.

Alongside the UN Conference on the Human Environment, other groups and individuals also discussed the possibility of criminalizing ecocide. A Convention on Ecocidal War was held in Stockholm, in which, among other experts, law and war crimes specialist Richard Falk participated. In the draft International Convention on the Crime of Ecocide (1973) he prepared, Falk argued that the Genocide Convention was inadequate and pushed for another international law to address ecological crimes. His proposal, considered one of the first legal articles on ecocide, fueled debate around whether intent is necessary for ecocide to be considered a crime, but critics argued that it focused on wartime offenses and fell short of truly addressing ecological offenses committed during peacetime. Efforts to proscribe ecocide continued, and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities proposed the addition of ecocide to the Genocide Convention in a study submitted to the UN Human Rights Commission in 1978.

Although repeated United Nations and ICC considerations to recognize ecocide as a crime at the international level during wartime as well as peacetime failed to bear fruit, Vietnam became the first country to include the crime of ecocide in its domestic law. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, new states—Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, and Ukraine—also included ecocide as a crime against peace in their domestic law.

Current status

In 2021 an independent expert panel convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation, a Netherlands-based action group, proposed a new legal definition for ecocide: “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.” The definition was written in hopes of establishing ecocide as an international crime under the ICC and could potentially extend legal accountability beyond wartime destruction of the environment to events such as oil spills, deforestation, and air pollution. It would also serve to acknowledge environmental destruction as a serious crime at the international level. Critics of this definition, however, have pushed for a more measurable definition, arguing that, among other drawbacks, the expert panel’s description focuses on “severe and either widespread or long-term damage”—a potentially vague, high threshold that could be difficult to quantify and prove. Additionally, the use of the word wanton is seen as introducing an element of subjectivity and anthropocentrism, considered undesirable by many.

In 2024 Fiji, Samoa, and Vanuatu—Pacific islands especially vulnerable to effects of climate change in the form of rising sea levels and intense tropical storms—formally petitioned the ICC to consider ecocide an international crime. In recent years many countries—including Belgium, Brazil, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Scotland, and Spain—have either established or considered laws criminalizing ecocide or other environmental harm. In addition to strengthening legislation at the national level, the European Union, in its revised EU Environmental Crime Directive (2024), has increased penalties for offenses that “lead to serious widespread and substantial (i.e., irreversible or long-lasting) damage or destruction of the environment.” At the same time potential complexities in the enforcement of environmental laws are highlighted by events such as the alleged ecocide committed by Russia during the Russia-Ukraine War. So, while there is growing momentum to criminalize ecocide, there are some serious challenges in the path of adding it to the ICC’s Rome Statute. These include complexities around jurisdiction limits, enforcement, and the fact that severe negative effects on human beings, other species, and natural resources can take years to be fully visible.