Creating a Framework for the Prosecution of Environmental Crimes in International Criminal Law

At meantime the era of human rights succeeding the end of World War Ⅱ, the institution and order of international society underwent dramatic transformation that obviously featured in the expansion, specialization and systemization of international organizations, for example, the United Nations and its sub-organizations such as the unification of the European Union and American and African regional organizations. In addition, the order of international laws has changed radically. Besides the interacting development among the independent systems of international environmental law, international criminal law, international economic law, that has delicately constituted both the procedural and essential rules of international law, the relation between international laws and sovereign nations has also been re-defined. Through the introduction to the concept of ”complete value of international society”, the connection between sovereignty and international law has been re-interpreted. The most innovative breakthrough was nothing but the concepts of Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, as well as the acceptance of the philosophical reasoning behind the concepts. Thus international law has gradually diversified its appearance and, by further development of the above concepts that jointed the different fields of international law, the institution of international law has been overturned. From the aspect of substantial norm, the continuing restriction of applying the opposition rule, development of treaty reservation, succession and admission of nation, ruling of extradition treaties, restriction on national exemption, defining the serious jeopardizing act of international crime, the gradual change of the status of international soft law and the transforming of the national liability system, have attributed to revolution of the content of international law. From the aspect of the procedural norm, the expansion of common jurisdiction and the change of international/domestic lawsuit initiation, have shown great influence that closely connected international criminal law. Therefore, Jus Cogens ought to be the most important medium of the recent development of international law that revealing the combination of Jus Cogens and state responsibility law system, also further led international law to the equivalence of rights and obligations. Frankly, the Vienna Treaty Law Convention signed in 1969, was the milestone of the international law development, which positioned the Jus Cogens in the statute law. If ”power-oriented” is the characteristic of international law in 19th century, then international law after 1950s has gradually dispensed primitiveness and become ”rule-oriented”. Although 1969 could be the beginning of Jus Cognes, suspicion on carrying out this concept in international law still remains. International law scholar, Ian Sinclair, concluded opinions toward Jus Cogens that further confirmed ”Jus Cogens is still a mystery”. Some scholars even express directly that nevertheless adopting Jus Cogens has essentially attributed to the transformation of international law, yet there is worry about the application of Jus Cognes could be contradictive, and even opening the gate for some certain countries to import particular international law systems matching their ideology, thus becoming denial to a diversified international society. Even though contrary opinions toward Jus Cogens remain, from 1968 the concept has been accepted by sovereign countries and also adopted to judgments that further expand Jus Cogens, making this theory combine with other institutions of the international law rather than be confined within treaty law field. Hence, focusing on Jus Cogens and the connection as well as the change of Jus Cogens in the late 40 years, this thesis analyzes the elaboration on Jus Cogens from national practice, international justice and scholars. However, this thesis could only be able to introduce this theory briefly due to the limited length. Therefore, this thesis mainly discuss the following particular sectors of the theory of Jus Cogens: (1) the definition and development of Jus Cogens. (2) the objects regulated by Jus Cogens and the effect. (3) connections between Jus Cogens and other international law concepts newly developing trend. (4) At last, examining and looking back to dialogues made between Jus Cogens and international law.

The publication of a Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritization (the “Policy Paper”) by the Office of the Prosecutor (“OTP”) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) in September 2016 has reignited the longstanding discussion about the status of environmental crimes under international law. The Policy Paper expressed the intention of the OTP to consider, in the selection of crimes to be submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICC, those committed through, or resulting in, “the destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land.” Such wording soon gained widespread attention, prompting many news outlets to declare that, from now on, the ICC would focus on prosecuting “environmental crimes.” The news sources’ enthusiasm, however, appears misplaced for several reasons. The first and foremost objection comes from a consideration of the ICC’s limited jurisdiction. In fact, this is strictly confined by the Rome Statute to the prosecution of “the most serious crimes of [international] concern,” currently identified as the genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. The only reference to the environment that appears in the Rome Statute is included in Article 8.2(b)(iv), which lists among the activities constituting a war crime the act of, “[i]ntentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause . . . widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” Given the limited attention to the environment, it would be difficult to maintain that the ICC has jurisdiction over “environmental crimes,” unless it could be shown that such jurisdiction either (i) may be derived implicitly from the current description under the Rome Statute of the crime of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, or (ii) has been extended by virtue of the creation of a new rule of international law, either customary or treaty-based. Most importantly, though, the possibility for the ICC to prosecute “environmental crimes” seems prevented by the failure to find a satisfactory definition for this notion. In the legal practice, this expression doesn’t have any authoritative meaning, as international treaties remain completely silent on the issue. And while several attempts at a definition have been made, as will be examined in more detail below, each of them raises several doubts and concerns. Many of the suggested definitions are, in fact, characterized by the lack of clarity with respect to the different sources from which the liability for “environmental crimes” arises and the specific consequences attached thereto. Indeed, such definitions indiscriminately consider: (i) the criminal liability of an individual arising from the breach of a rule of national environmental law; (ii) the criminal liability of an individual arising from the breach of a rule of international environmental law; and (iii) the liability of the State arising from the breach of a rule of international environmental law, whether customary or treaty-based. Of these three options, only the second would seem viable to serve as a foundation of the ICC’s jurisdiction over environmental crimes. The picture that emerges from the above-mentioned remarks shows that there is still widespread confusion on the consideration to be attributed to environmental crimes under international law, as well as the possibility of seeking prosecution for these crimes before an international tribunal. The purpose of this Note is to address such confusion and shed some light on the treatment that environmental crimes receive under international law. To do so, Part II provides a brief and general overview of the principles of international criminal law, with particular respect to: (i) its definition and the features distinguishing it from other overlapping branches of international law; (ii) the crimes that can be considered as belonging to its realm; and (iii) its sources and the possibility for it to evolve over time. Part III discusses what the term “environmental crime” means and which specific offenses, if any, may be punishable under international criminal law. In doing so, this Part will focus on the fundamental difference between “crimes under international law” and “transnational crimes” and the differences in the regimes applicable to each category. Lastly, Part IV discusses the current limits of the ICC’s jurisdiction and, in particular, the possibility of extending it to the prosecution of crimes, including environmental crimes not currently captured by the Rome Statute. Accordingly, this Part examines the potential impact of the Policy Paper in changing the scope of the ICC’s jurisdiction, as well as the relevance of other proposals advanced by academics and scholars to extend the ICC’s jurisdiction to environmental crimes. In this context, relevance will be given to the introduction of a crime of “ecocide” as a fifth crime against peace, and to the amendment of the description of the crimes provided under the Rome Statute through customary international law.

The issue of environment protection during armed conflicts is considered a very important issue in the international law, particularly for the environment destruction due to wars and armed conflicts which affects the land ,water and air. However, these conflicts use various types of weapons such as traditional , mass destruction, nuclear and overall chemical or germ weapons. The reality shows wars that have been happening in the world have led to the violation of the fundamental of human rights, the human right to live in a peaceful , healthy and clean environment.Internationally and before the establishment of the United Nations, there are a quite number of international agreements in the field of environmental protection during the armed conflicts, but these international agreements lacked effective tools to compel parties of the conflict to abide by and comply with the these approved agreements between the conflicting parties during the armed conflicts.These international agreements and mechanisms need to be continuously developed and reformed in order to activate them, and bringing them to the main goal, which is to strengthen the protection of the human right to live in a healthy and clean environment, not only at the time of peace but also during war time.In recent decades, many armed conflicts have been associated with a variety of threats to the environment, and among these threats include: chemical pollution in the long term for the land, water, atmosphere and other elements that formed on the surface of the earth as well as the incapability of using the earth's resources because of mines and other hazardous substances exist; a threat of water supplies and other essential materials to ensure life.These threats do not only affect the conflicting countries, but also affect the civilians and neutral countries, and these effects often remain for a long time after the end of the armed conflict. Perhaps the conditions of the world today, including armed conflicts, and no considerations relating to the need of protecting the environment encourage legal systems to develop and protect the environment issues among the priorities and concerns.As the international environment law is only interested in the issues of the environment during a period of peace, so it is necessary to look for other laws related to the period of armed conflict, which is the international humanitarian law. Hence, this research studies and analyzes the international conventions in this field, and explaining the international humanitarian law on the protection of the environment during armed conflicts through:A) Studying the environmental crime of Ecocide which is considered the most serious international crimes recently because there is a clear increase in the recognition by the scientific community in international law that the crime of ecocide is considered an international crime.B) Studying the international responsibility of countries and international criminal responsibility of individuals for the damage to the environment during the armed conflict, and how to carry out this responsibility.Finally, it should be emphasized that the prosecution of countries and individuals for the violation of both international humanitarian law and to protect the environment in times of armed conflict, in particular, are extremely rare, in addition to mechanisms of international humanitarian law in its current state has not ensured the natural environment protection during the period of armed conflicts. Moreover, there are shortages and deficiencies in these mechanisms, which should fill this legal vacuum.

This study is born out of the conviction drawn from Tadic case (ICTY,IT-94-1-A, 15July 1999), that legitimate judicial activity proceeds on the basis of the identification of the gap or ambiguity in the law that must be resolved in the interests of justice. Terrorism has come to stay. But be it as it may, controversies exist within both domestic borders and international fora about its definition and the best strategies to effectively combat it. At every corner, embers are being fanned to dissuade, deescalate and prevent its occurrence and impact or threat to international peace and security. International law leans heavily on domestic law enforcement for the purpose of bringing to justice those accused of terrorism at both domestic and or transnational spheres. This work adopts a critical and contextual analysis of extant body of international criminal law and argues that the focus needs to shift from terrorism as a criminal event to individual acts that make an event a crime of terrorism. The essence of this is to move away from the more complex question of what constitutes terrorism, a result of which the ICC was denied jurisdiction. The trajectory resulting from this approach enables the International Criminal Court (ICC) with its extant law, the Rome Statute assume jurisdiction to prosecute these terrorist acts such as murder, mass executions, genocide, violent sexual crimes, imprisonment and torture which are within the threshold of international crimes provided in the International criminal law. Key words: Terrorism, international criminal court, criminal law, United Nations, security council, crime, rome statute.

An emerging consensus regards domestic amnesties for international crimes as generally inconsistent with international law. This legal consensus rests on a norm against impunity: the chief role of international criminal law, and of the fledgling International Criminal Court (ICC), is to end impunity for violators of the worst of criminal acts. But the anti-impunity norm, and the anti-amnesty consensus that has arisen from it, now face serious difficulties. The ICC's role in the ongoing conflict in Northern Uganda illustrates the deadlock that has now emerged between countries wishing to retain the power to use domestic politics and criminal law as tools for negotiation with current or outgoing perpetrators, on the one side, and the ICC's determination to apply a consistent international anti-impunity norm, on the other. The paper argues that the anti-impunity norm itself is based on a narrowly retributivist conception of criminal justice. A broader norm for democratic accountability, by contrast, would continue to prefer prosecutions over amnesties in international law, less for the opportunity for deserved retribution for perpetrators than for the public enactment of the deliberative procedures associated with the rule of law. Keywords: amnesty; impunity; international law; international criminal court Citation: Ethics & Global Politics 2008. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v1i1.1816

This study undertakes a philosophical examination of the intersection of international criminal law and human rights law, revealing the paradoxical tensions between the pursuit of justice and the protection of human rights. Through a critical analysis of the normative foundations of these two fields, this research discloses the differing ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying international criminal law and human rights law. Employing a qualitative research methodology, this study conducts an in-depth examination of the major international criminal law and human rights law instruments, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Additionally, this research undertakes a critical discourse analysis of the jurisprudence of international criminal law and human rights law institutions, including the International Criminal Court and the European Court of Human Rights. This study argues that the paradox of justice at the intersection of international criminal law and human rights law stems from the differing conceptions of justice and human rights that underlie these two fields. While international criminal law prioritizes retributive justice and the punishment of perpetrators, human rights law emphasizes restorative justice and the protection of human dignity. To reconcile this paradox, this research proposes a philosophical framework that integrates the insights of both fields. Drawing on the concepts of "justice as recognition" and "human rights as capabilities," this study develops a novel approach to understanding the intersection of international criminal law and human rights law. The findings of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex relationships between justice, human rights, and international law. This research informs strategies for enhanced cooperation and accountability between international criminal law and human rights law institutions, ultimately promoting a more just and equitable international legal order. This study employs a qualitative research methodology, including critical discourse analysis and philosophical inquiry. The research questions guiding this study include: What are the differing ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying international criminal law and human rights law? How do these differing assumptions give rise to the paradox of justice at the intersection of international criminal law and human rights law? How can a philosophical framework that integrates the insights of both fields reconcile this paradox?. The study's findings suggest that a philosophical framework that integrates the insights of both fields is necessary to reconcile the paradox of justice. The research also highlights the importance of enhanced cooperation and accountability between international criminal law and human rights law institutions in promoting a more just and equitable international legal order. The key lessons from this study include the importance of understanding the complex relationships between justice, human rights, and international law, and the need for a philosophical framework that integrates the insights of both fields. The study also emphasizes the importance of enhanced cooperation and accountability between international criminal law and human rights law institutions.

This book fills a major gap in the scholarly literature concerning international criminal law, comparative criminal law, and human rights law. The principle of legality (non-retroactivity of crimes and punishments and related doctrines) is fundamental to criminal law and human rights law. Yet this was the first book-length study of the status of legality in international law - in international criminal law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law. This was also the first book to survey legality/non-retroactivity in all national constitutions, developing the patterns of implementation of legality in the various legal systems such as Common Law, Civil Law, Islamic Law, and Asian Law around the world. This is a necessary book for any scholar, practitioner, and library in the area of international, criminal, comparative, human rights, or international humanitarian law.

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter: ICC) is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the entire international community that threaten security, peace, and well-being of the world. This article argues that serious (transitional) economic offences should belong in this group. Ignoring these crimes, which often represent economic violence characteristic of transitional and post-conflict countries, can lead to another cycle of armed conflict and/or physical violence as well as to internal and external insecurity. Responses to globalization are having a significant effect on international law and institutions with a view to protecting economic and social human rights, human security, and human dignity. Sometimes, as in the case of Croatia, national states are not able to and/or unwilling to prosecute serious and systemic economic crimes, which in turn undermines individual and collective security. The same could be said for international criminal law. By ignoring these crimes and violations – unlike what international human rights law, supranational criminology, and transitional justice does – the core international criminal law no longer responds to the needs of societies and individuals. The Rechtsgut in need of protection by prosecuting serious economic crimes that fulfill the threshold of core crimes on an international level is comprised of the “security, peace and well-being of the world.” Therefore, one could argue that the International Criminal Court’s possible involvement in economic violence does have a legal base, without needing to amend the ICC’s Statute (hereinafter: ICCSt). Since one must be aware of the diversity that exists as to the criteria for international criminalization, this article is based on broader grounds in order to argue in favor of international criminalization of these economic crimes. The article therefore emphasizes the importance of connecting narratives of international criminal law, with discourses on international human rights law (based on Art. 21 of the ICCSt), human security, (supranational) criminology, transitional justice, and (economic) criminal law. In the line of (human) security discourse, this approach seeks to find arguments as to whether or not it is necessary to begin prosecuting serious (transitional) economic offences as crimes under international law. First, this article gives a brief overview of the failed experiment in Croatia concerning the prosecution of transitional economic crimes that served as incentive, based on the ICC’s complementarity principle.

The article examines the norms of current international criminal law, from the standpoint of the lack of a conceptual definition of the concept of "war crimes", which, in turn, is a gap in international law. Considering war crimes from the current point of view, given the accumulated positive scientific achievements and law enforcement practice, it is reasonable to define them as gross violations of international humanitarian law committed during armed conflicts (international and non-international), entailing individual criminal responsibility for international right. It is clarified that war crimes are a type of crime against the peace and security of mankind, in connection with which they have common features for these crimes: increased degree of public danger; the orientation of such criminal acts on the interests protected by international law; their criminalization and punishment are carried out in accordance with international law. It is proved that war crimes are characterized by special (peculiar only to them) features: it can be committed only during an armed conflict; the object of encroachment is the procedure of armed conflict established by international law and the security interests of persons (individuals) protected by international law; gross nature of the violation; the consequences for the rights and interests protected by international humanitarian law; peculiarities of the subjective side - along with the features inherent in all crimes against peace and security of mankind, it is necessary for the perpetrator to be aware of the fact of armed conflict; the perpetrator of a war crime must be aware of the factual circumstances that indicate the protected status of persons - victims of the crime. Given these special features of war crimes, their detailed definition is proposed: socially dangerous, criminal acts committed during armed conflicts (international or non-international) that encroach on the established by international humanitarian law, the interests and security of defenders, and entail individual criminal liability in accordance with the rules of international criminal law.

UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity sees cultural diversity as a source of creativity and progress. International criminal law can protect cultural diversity. However, the relationship between cultural diversity and international criminal law seems based on a paradox: everyone must respect cultural diversity, but no one may invoke it to violate international criminal law. On occasions, this paradox has been exposed to daylight in the practice of international criminal courts. For example, the Special Court for Sierra Leone held with regard to the practice of enlistment of child soldiers that it could not accept any cultural considerations as excuses for criminal conduct. Here we should note (i) that the prohibition of crimes under international law (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression) is generally accepted as belonging to the realm of jus cogens norms, i.e. norms from which no derogation is permitted, and (ii) UNESCO's Declaration aims at universality and not at uniformity.As international criminal law is intended to apply universally, it is vital that it takes cultural considerations on board. In this article the author reviews the literature available in the field, identifies some of the areas of international criminal law and procedure where problems with cultural diversity have been most conspicuous, and concludes that further research on the relationship between cultural diversity and international criminal law is needed.

International criminal law is a relatively young discipline and draws on both international law and criminal law theories. Arguably, the absence of a Dogmatik may prevent the formation of an authentic system of international criminal law. However, the author shows there is room to build a proper theory of criminal liability in international criminal law. He illustrates, through examples and analogies drawn from his own experience, how practice can be usefully guided and interpreted through the lens of legal scholarship. In paying tribute to Antonio Cassese, he argues in favour of a role for scholars and emphasizes the contribution of ‘good’ teaching and open minded research in constructing a system of international criminal law.

Not only inflicted human casualities, the war between Russia and Ukraine, also injured the environment. Russia's discriminating attacks on essential objects such as gas, energy, oil, and mining infrastructure become the most significant root cause. UNEP affirmed that the attacks resulted in widespread water, soil and air pollution, as well as a significant deterioration in Ukraine's ecosystem stability. Accordingly, the study intends to examine the framework of international humanitarian and criminal law, specifically in terms of enviromental protection, as well as to analyze accountability before the International Criminal Court. The study employed doctrinal method involving a statutory and conceptual approach. In this case, relevant legal instruments such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as the Rome Statute, were being examined. Furthermore, the study is also certified by the evolution of legal doctrines in books, jounals, and other credible sources. According to the findings, humanitarian law, which is underpinned by customary international law, protects the environment slightly better than international criminal law. In short, the state bears multiple duties for environmental damage caused by the outbreak of war. Individual accountability before the ICC, on the other hand, is being overlooked. It is due to the Rome Statute's flaws, which include vagueness in the formulation of the articles, stringent standards for proof of environmental damage, and bias in proving mens rea. As a result, improvements in the enforcement of international crimes (war crimes and related types) that cause environmental damage are urgently required.

Not only inflicted human casualities, the war between Russia and Ukraine, also injured the environment. Russia's discriminating attacks on essential objects such as gas, energy, oil, and mining infrastructure become the most significant root cause. UNEP affirmed that the attacks resulted in widespread water, soil and air pollution, as well as a significant deterioration in Ukraine's ecosystem stability. Accordingly, the study intends to examine the framework of international humanitarian and criminal law, specifically in terms of enviromental protection, as well as to analyze accountability before the International Criminal Court. The study employed doctrinal method involving a statutory and conceptual approach. In this case, relevant legal instruments such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as the Rome Statute, were being examined. Furthermore, the study is also certified by the evolution of legal doctrines in books, jounals, and other credible sources. According to the findings, humanitarian law, which is underpinned by customary international law, protects the environment slightly better than international criminal law. In short, the state bears multiple duties for environmental damage caused by the outbreak of war. Individual accountability before the ICC, on the other hand, is being overlooked. It is due to the Rome Statute's flaws, which include vagueness in the formulation of the articles, stringent standards for proof of environmental damage, and bias in proving mens rea. As a result, improvements in the enforcement of international crimes (war crimes and related types) that cause environmental damage are urgently required

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing poses a significant threat to global marine ecosystems, economic sustainability, and maritime security. The case of the MV Nika, a vessel implicated in transnational illegal fishing activities, highlights the complex legal and jurisdictional challenges faced in addressing maritime crimes under international law. This paper analyzes the MV Nika case from the perspective of international criminal law, exploring the extent to which such activities can be framed within existing legal instruments and accountability mechanisms. While traditionally treated as a regulatory or administrative offense, illegal fishing increasingly overlaps with organized transnational crime, involving document fraud, labor exploitation, and environmental harm. The analysis considers whether IUU fishing, in cases like MV Nika, meets the threshold of crimes under international law or can be prosecuted under frameworks addressing transnational organized crime, such as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC). It also explores the applicability of maritime conventions including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the role of flag states and port states in enforcing legal norms. This study argues for a broader interpretation of international criminal law to incorporate serious environmental crimes, particularly when they are systemic and transnational in nature. The MV Nika case serves as a critical example of the legal and enforcement gaps that persist. Strengthening international cooperation, closing jurisdictional loopholes, and integrating environmental crimes into the international criminal law agenda are essential steps toward ensuring accountability and protecting global marine resources.

In international law doctrine carried on extensive talking and still it is a actual subject, if the individual is liable of responsability and, implied, of sanction for international crimes. Before to reveal some aspects of natural persons responsability for international crimes a couple of clarifications is required. Thus, we recall that the first author which use the term international criminal law was Jeremy Bentham, who distinguished between the criminal law of the community of states and the criminal law of a state. Over time, legal doctrine has extrapolated the concept of legal relationships with an international element, making the distinction between public international law and private international law. If criminal law is a branch of public law, then international criminal law becomes a sub-branch of international law, regulating criminal legal relationships with an international element. In other words, referring to private international law, we specify that it represents the totality of legal norms that resolve conflicts of laws or conflicts of jurisdiction and those regarding the legal status of the foreign national. In this context, the international element appears as a factual circumstance related to a legal relationship due to which this relationship is related to several legal systems (or laws belonging to different countries). With regard to international criminal law, we specify that this is a branch of public international law and designates the set of legal norms stipulated in various conventions and treaties by which states, in their capacity as subjects of law, order the repression of illicit acts that infringe fundamental rights of the international community. In other words, international criminal law consists of rules of general international law that govern the criminal liability of natural persons, individuals, for acts that harm international public order and constitute crimes against humanity.