No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
MASS DEFORESTATION AS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2023
Abstract
This article examines whether mass deforestation could be prosecuted as a crime against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. It does so in respect of the situation in the Brazilian Legal Amazon in 2019–2021, where the unbridled exploitation and destruction of the rainforest had a disastrous impact at local, regional and global levels. The article covers three main aspects. First, it explores the existing limits of international criminal law for prosecuting mass deforestation as a crime against humanity, and the contours within which criminalization would be possible. Secondly, it discusses the challenges inherent in the anthropocentric nature of the chapeau requirement of Article 7 for the criminalization of mass deforestation under that provision. Thirdly, it analyses the extent to which mass deforestation could qualify as persecution and/or an ‘other inhumane act’ under Articles 7(1)(h) and (k) of the Rome Statute.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of British Institute of International and Comparative Law
Footnotes
The authors thank Nigel Povoas for his support, as well as International and Comparative Law Quarterly reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
References
1 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (signed 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3.
2 All Rise, ‘Communication under Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court regarding the Commission of Crimes against Humanity against Environmental Dependents and Defenders in the Brazilian Legal Amazon from January 2019 to Present, Perpetrated by Brazilian President Jair Messias Bolsonaro and Principal Actors of His Former or Current Administration’ (12 October 2021) <https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2021/20211012_14633_na.pdf>.
3 M Sarliève et al, ‘Communication under Article 15 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court regarding the Commission of Crimes against Humanity against Environmental Dependents and Defenders in the Brazilian Legal Amazon from January 2019 to Present’ (October 2021) <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365201912_Legal_Experts'_Report_to_the_Office_of_the_Prosecutor_of_the_International_Criminal_Court> (Legal Report).
4 RF Stuart-Smith et al, ‘Global Climate Change Impacts Attributable to Deforestation Driven by the Bolsonaro Administration: Expert Report for Submission to the International Criminal Court’ (August 2021) <https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/ICC_report_final-sept-2021.pdf> (Climate Report).
5 Sarliève, M, ‘Ecocide: Past, Present, and Future Challenges’ in Filho, L et al (eds), Life on Land. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Springer 2021)Google Scholar.
6 See, eg, ‘ICE Coalition, ‘ICE Coalition: Creating the International Court for the Environment’ <http://www.icecoalition.org/>.
7 For a discussion on the inherent difficulties of Article 8 of the Rome Statute to allow for the prosecution of mass deforestation practices committed in the context of an internal armed conflict, see Martini, P and Sarliève, M, ‘Fighting Deforestation in Non-International Armed Conflicts: The Relevance of the Rome Statute for Rosewood Trafficking in Senegal’ (2022) 11(1) TEL 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 For developments on the alleged commission of genocide in the Brazilian Legal Amazon, see the Article 15 Communication filed by two Brazilian non-governmental organizations: Comissão de Defesa dos Direitos Humanos Dom Paulo Evaristo ARNS and Colectivo de Advocacia em Direitos Humanos, ‘Informative Note to the Prosecutor: International Criminal Court pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute Requesting a Preliminary Examination into Incitement to Genocide and Widespread Systematic Attacks against Indigenous Peoples by President Jair Messias Bolsonaro in Brazil’ (November 2019) <https://apublica.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/e-muito-triste-levar-um-brasileiro-para-o-tribunal-penal-internacional-diz-co-autora-da-peticao.pdf>.
9 M Gillett, Prosecuting Environmental Harm before the International Criminal Court (CUP 2022) 44–9.
10 T Caroccia, ‘Rescuing the International Criminal Court: Crimes against Humanity and Environmental Destruction’ (2018) 70 RutgersULRev 1167, 1189–92.
11 European Parliament, Rapporteur Antonius Manders, ‘Report on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law and replacing Directive 2008/99/EC (COM(2021)0851 – C9-0466/2021 – 2021/0422(COD)) Committee on Legal Affairs (28 March 2023) A9-0087/2023.
12 Council of Europe, ‘Negotiations Start in Strasbourg on a New Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law’ (Council of Europe Portal, 3 April 2023) <https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/-/negotiations-start-in-strasbourg-on-a-new-convention-on-the-protection-of-the-environment-through-criminal-law-2>.
13 See Section IV.
14 See L Neyret, ‘Réveiller l’écocide’ (2022) 4 RSC 767. See also his work on ecocide in L Neyret, ‘From Ecocrimes to Ecocide. Protecting the Environment through Criminal Law, C-EENRG Report 002’ (C-EENRG 2017) <https://www.ceenrg.landecon.cam.ac.uk/report-files/report-002>.
15 Please note that the terms ‘impacts’, ‘effects’, ‘consequences’ and ‘harms’ are used interchangeably.
16 L Prosperi and J Terrosi, ‘Embracing the “Human Factor”. Is There New Impetus at the ICC for Conceiving and Prioritizing Intentional Environmental Harms as Crimes against Humanity?’ (2017) 15(3) JICJ 509, 517.
17 Legal Report (n 3) paras 123–207.
18 ibid, paras 208–220; Climate Report (n 4) 63–9.
19 Climate Report ibid 26–61.
20 See Gillett (n 9) 161–201.
21 Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Decision pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo) ICC-01/05-01/08 (15 June 2009) para 132.
22 Climate Report (n 4) 14–15. As discussed in detail in the Legal Report (n 3), mass deforestation and other harmful environmental practices increased dramatically during Bolsonaro's term in office.
23 ibid 13–23.
24 See ICC, Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2013) Rule 85(a); Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Annex A to Judgment on the Appeals against the ‘Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparations’ of 7 August 2012 Order for Reparations (amended)) ICC-01/04-01/06-31-AnxA (7 August 2012) para 59. See also Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Corrected Version of the ‘Decision Setting the Size of the Reparations Award for which Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is Liable’) ICC-01/04-01/06 (21 December 2017) para 42; Prosecutor v Germain Katanga (Order for Reparations pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/07 (24 March 2017) para 162; N Milaninia, ‘Conceptualizing Victimization at the International Criminal Court: Understanding the Causal Relationship between Crime and Harm’ (2019) 50(2) ColumHumRtsLR 116, 129.
25 Rome Statute (n 1) arts 30(2)(b), 30(3).
26 Prosecutor v Germain Katanga (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/07 (7 March 2014) paras 775–776 (Katanga Judgment).
27 ibid, para 777.
28 Rome Statute (n 1) arts 53(1)(b), 17(1)(d).
29 Situation in the Republic of Kenya (Decision pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya) ICC-01/09-19-Corr (31 March 2010) para 48.
30 Rome Statute (n 1) art 53(1)(c).
31 OTP, Situation on Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, the Hellenic Republic, and the Kingdom of Cambodia (Final decision of the Prosecutor concerning the ‘Article 53(1) Report’) ICC-01/13-6-AnxA (6 November 2014), as revised and refiled in accordance with the Pre-Trial Chamber's request of 15 November 2018 and the Appeals Chamber's judgment of 2 September 2019.
32 OTP, ‘Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations’ (November 2013) paras 62–65.
33 Prosecutor v Charles Blé Goudé (Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Admissibility of the Case against Charles Blé Goudé for Insufficient Gravity) ICC-02/22-02/11 (12 November 2014) para 20.
34 Gillett (n 9) 69–70.
35 Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, ‘Arguments for Prosecution at Confirmation Hearing in case of Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi’) ICC-01/12–01/15 (1 March 2016).
36 Gillett (n 9) 71.
37 Legal Report (n 3) paras 282–417, esp 352–400.
38 Rome Statute (n 1) art 21(3).
39 Legal Report (n 3) paras 460–468.
40 Gillett (n 9) 79.
41 UNGA, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Michel Forst’ (3 August 2016) UN Doc A/71/281, para 7.
42 Neyret (n 14).
43 See Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) ICC-02/17 (12 April 2019) para 64.
44 Katanga Judgment (n 26) paras 1097–1099.
45 Rome Statute (n 1) arts 7(1), 7(2).
46 Katanga Judgment (n 26) para 1098.
47 ibid, para 1124.
48 ibid, para 1125.
49 ibid. See also Prosecutor v Laurent Gbagbo (Decision on the Confirmation of Charges against Laurent Gbagbo) ICC-02/11-01/11 (12 June 2014) para 214; Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) ICC-01/05-01/08 (21 March 2016) para 167.
50 Rome Statute (n 1) art 7(2).
51 C Lambert, ‘Environmental Destruction in Ecuador: Crimes against Humanity under the Rome Statute’ (2017) 30 LJIL 707, 721.
52 Legal Report (n 3) esp paras 67–80; Climate Report (n 4) 5–6.
53 Katanga Judgment (n 26) para 1104 (emphasis added).
54 Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda (Judgment on the Appeals of Mr Bosco Ntaganda and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber VI of 8 July 2019 Entitled ‘Judgment’) ICC-01/04-02/06 A A2 (30 March 2021) para 418.
55 Climate Report (n 4).
56 Lambert (n 51) 725.
57 See K Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law, vol 1: Foundations and General Part (OUP 2013) 280; G-JA Knoops, Mens Rea at the International Criminal Court (Brill 2016) 122.
58 C Eboe-Osuji, ‘Crimes against Humanity: Directing Attacks against a Civilian Population’ (2008) 2 AfrJLegalStud 118, 122.
59 Legal Report (n 3) paras 282–293 (local communities in general) and 161–168 (Indigenous communities in particular). In a case concerning the Ogiek Community in Kenya, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has recently ruled that ‘the protection of rights to land and natural resources remains fundamental for the survival of indigenous peoples. As confirmed, the right to property includes not only the right to have access to one's property and not to have one's property invaded or encroached upon but also the right to undisturbed possession, use and control of such property however the owner(s) deem fit.’ African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya App No 006/2012 (African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 23 June 2022) paras 109ff.
60 See Legal Report (n 3).
61 Brady, H and Re, D, ‘Environmental and Cultural Heritage Crimes: The Possibilities under the Rome Statute’ in Böse, M et al, Justice without Borders: Essays in the Honour of Wolfgang Schomburg (Brill 2018) 131–3Google Scholar.
62 These communities include the Quilombolas (the descendants of Afro-Brazilian slaves who escaped from slave plantations that existed in Brazil until abolition in 1888), Ribeirinhos (self-dependent communities who live along the riverbanks), Extrativistas or Seringueiros (‘rubber tappers’, communities who remove non-timber forest products without felling the trees) and landless rural workers and their families, who have been marginalized by the intense mechanization of agriculture and are often resettled on the fringes of the forest and prevented by the weak system of land governance from owning the land they farm.
63 In respect of the crime of persecution in the context of environmental harm generally, see Gillett (n 9) 83–6.
64 ICC, Elements of Crimes (2011) <https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf> (Elements of Crimes).
65 See, eg, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: UNGA Res 61/295 (13 September 2007) UN Doc A/Res/61/295, art 2.
66 Legal Report (n 3) paras 58–64.
67 See, eg, A Boyle, ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 23(3) EJIL 613, 617, 628; UN Human Rights Council, ‘Issue of Human Rights Obligations relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment: Report of the Special Rapporteur’ (8 January 2019) UN Doc A/HRC/40/55, para 17.
68 See, eg, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 on State Obligations in Relation to the Environment in the Context of the Protection and Guarantee of the Rights to Life and to Personal Integrity: Interpretation and Scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) in Relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 15 November 2017); The Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association v Argentina, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 6 February 2020); Turgut and others v Turkey App No 1411/03 (European Court of Human Rights, 8 July 2008) para 90; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya (n 59) paras 109ff.
69 Situación Territorial en la Región del Norte del Cauca y del Sur del Valle del Cauca (Auto de Determinación de Hechos y Conductas dentro del Caso No. 05 (Situación Territorial en la Región del Norte del Cauca y del Sur del Valle del Cauca) frente al Primer Grupo de Comparecientes de las CM Jacobo Arenas y Gabriel Galvis) (Special Jurisdiction for Peace of Colombia, 1 February 2023) Auto No 01 de 2023, 9002794-97.2018.0.00.0001, para G.1.3.4.
70 Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda (Judgment) ICC-01/04-02/06 (8 July 2019) para 991. See also Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen (Trial Judgment) ICC-02/04-01/15 (4 February 2021) para 2733.
71 UN Human Rights Council, ‘The Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment’ (18 October 2021) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/48/13.
72 UNGA Res A/76/L.75 (28 July 2022) UN Doc A/76/L.75.
73 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (n 65) art 29.
74 American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (OAS, 15 June 2016) AG/RES.2888 (XLVI-O/16) art XIX.
75 ibid, art XIX(3).
76 The First Principle of the Stockholm Declaration provides, inter alia, that ‘[m]an has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being’ (United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972); see UN Conference on the Human Environment (15 December 1972) UN Docs 2994/XXVII, 2995/UVII, 2996/XXII.
77 See, eg, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986) 21 ILM 58, art 24; UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and League of Arab States, ‘Arab Charter on Human Rights’ (2004) UN Doc [ST/HR/]CHR/NONE/2004/40/Rev.1, art 38; OAS, Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Protocol of San Salvador (17 November 1988) art 11; Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) (signed 25 June 1998, entered into force 30 October 2001) 2161 UNTS 447, preamble. The European Parliament, in its June 2021 resolution on the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, considered that the right to a healthy environment should be recognized in the EU Charter and that the EU should take the lead on the international recognition of such a right. European Parliament, ‘Resolution of 9 June 2021 on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing Nature Back into our Lives’ (2021) P9_TA(2021)0277, para 143.
78 Ntaganda (n 70) para 1024.
79 ibid, para 989.
80 This is not to say that a finding of persecution could not be made in connection with such acts; as the Ntaganda (n 70) judgment makes clear, a defendant may be convicted for persecution as a direct perpetrator for the killing of one man (paras 745–752). Similarly, in Kupreškić, the Trial Chamber refused to exclude the possibility that a single act can constitute persecution, provided this act occurred within the necessary context. See Prosecutor v Kupreškić et al (Judgment) IT-95-16-T (14 January 2000) paras 550, 624. The problem, however, is that the need to link the persecution to another offence in this way would give rise to very few potential instances of persecution relative to the extent of the deprivation of the right to a healthy environment.
81 In respect of the crime of other inhumane acts in the context of environmental harm generally, see Gillett (n 9) 87–8.
82 Lambert (n 51) 728–9. See also Wattad, M Saif-Alden, ‘The Rome Statute & Captain Planet: What Lies between “Crimes against Humanity” and the “Natural Environment”?’ (2009) 19(2) FordhamEnvtlLRev 265, 273–5Google Scholar, 282.
83 Prosecutor v Muthaura, Kenyatta and Ali (Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute) ICC-01/09-02/11 (23 January 2012) para 279.
84 Kupreškić (n 80) para 563.
85 Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjola (Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/07-717 (30 September 2008) para 450.
86 Muthaura (n 83) para 269.
87 Prosecutor v Brima et al (Appeals Judgment) SCSL-2004-16-A (22 February 2008) para 185.
88 Prosecutor v Milomir Stakić (Judgment) IT-97-24-A (22 March 2006).
89 Prosecutor v Charles Blé Goudé (Decision on the Confirmation of Charges against Charles Blé Goudé) ICC-02/11-02/11-186 (11 December 2014) para 120.
90 See US Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Health Effects of Exposures to Mercury’ <www.epa.gov/mercury/health-effects-exposures-mercury>.
91 Such an approach would also meet the defence objection that the acts giving rise to the pollution and contamination are not ‘inhumane’, as is required for art 7(1)(k). This aspect of the offence is considered in further detail below.
92 Prosecutor v Omar Al Bashir (Second Warrant of Arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir) ICC-02/05-01/09-95 (12 July 2010).
93 Muthaura (n 83), discussed below.
94 Prosecutor v Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Judgment and Sentence) ICC-01/12-01/15-171 (27 September 2016).
95 See Inter-American Court of Human Rights, ‘Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources’ (2009) <https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/indigenous/docs/pdf/ancestrallands.pdf>.
96 Muthaura (n 83).
97 ibid, paras 267–268.
98 ibid, para 279.
99 By comparison, the Court has been much more ready to infer that acts of serious physical violence (eg mutilation) against a person's family members will cause great suffering to the person watching the act (see below).
100 Al Mahdi (n 94).
101 ibid, para 34.
102 ibid, para 78.
103 ibid, para 79.
104 It is worth noting that the Central Amazon Conservation Complex (Jaù National Park) in Brazil is on UNESCO's World Heritage list of protected sites. See UNESCO, ‘Central Amazon Conservation Complex’ <https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/998>.
105 Al Mahdi (n 94) para 46.
106 ibid, para 80.
107 ibid, para 82.
108 See, eg, Prosecutor v Kayishema and Ruzindana (Judgment) ICTR-95-1-T (21 May 1999) para 153; Prosecutor v Elikzer Niyitegeka (Judgment) ICTR-96-14-T (16 May 2003) paras 462–465; Prosecutor v Kajelijeli (Judgment and Sentence) ICTR-98-44A-T (1 December 2003) paras 934–936; Muthaura (n 83) para 280. For example, in Kayishema and Ruzindana, the Trial Chamber of the ICTR stated there was ‘no doubt that a third party could suffer serious mental harm by witnessing acts committed against others, particularly against family or friends’. In Kajelijeli, the Trial Chamber held that the perpetration of gross acts of sexual violence upon a dead woman's body ‘would clearly cause great mental suffering to any members of the Tutsi community who observed them’.
109 Situación Territorial en la Región del Norte del Cauca y del Sur del Valle del Cauca (n 69) para G.1.3.5.
110 Elements of Crimes (n 64) art 7(1)(k), Element 1.
111 Elements of Crimes ibid, art 7(1)(k), Element 2. Pursuant to footnote 30 of the Elements of Crimes, it is understood that character ‘refers to the nature and gravity of the act’.
112 See, eg, Stakić (n 88) para 317.
113 Kajelijeli (n 108) para 936; Niyitegeka (n 108) para 465.
114 Prosecutor v Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (2 September 1998) para 697.
115 ibid, para 697.
116 Prosecutor v Kvočka (Judgment) IT-98-30/1-T (2 November 2001) paras 206–209.
117 Ongwen (n 70) para 2752; Prosecutors v Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan (Judgment) 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/TC (16 November 2018) paras 740–749; Prosecutor v Alex Tamba Brima et al (Judgment) SCSL-2004-16-A (22 February 2008) paras 197–201.
118 Al Bashir (n 92).
119 Al Mahdi (n 94).
120 Muthaura (n 83).
121 Situación Territorial en la Región del Norte del Cauca y del Sur del Valle del Cauca (n 69) para 756.
122 OTP, ‘Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation’ (15 September 2016) para 41.
123 See Caroccia (n 10) 1181; Gillett (n 9) 309–48.
124 See Cusato, ET, ‘Beyond Symbolism: Problems and Prospects with Prosecuting Environmental Destruction before the ICC’ (2017) 15(3) JICJ 491Google Scholar.