3 ms·

Here's the definition they're working with[0]: >Ecocide is loss, damage or destruction of ecosystem(s) of a given territory(ies)… such that peaceful enjoyment

• mlindner 7y ago
  Thanks. I think it's pretty crazy to make something internationally illegal that most people don't even know the definition of.
  • baroffoos 7y ago
    You get the general idea from the name anyway.
• mc32 7y ago
  It would seem that development of natural resources as well as population growth could result in “ecocide”. Whom do they sue?
  • larnmar 7y ago
    Whoever has deep pockets but is politically weak enough.
    • outside1234 7y ago
      Norway and their oil fund is my guess for the first target.
• voldacar 7y ago
  It seems like the sort of thing that should already be covered under existing property laws then. I'm not really sure what the need is to create an entirely new concept called "ecocide" when you could just consider it destruction of property/theft/vandalism/whatever
  • pimmen 7y ago
    The problem is that property laws are local or national, because it's assumed that I need physical access to your property to do anything. If I fire a rocket at your property from some other country, I would be violating all kinds of air space regulations or maybe even international treaties on weapons. We now have a better understanding of the unintended, global consequences of small, national actions.
    • voldacar 7y ago
      Then it seems like the real need is for a better international enforcement mechanism. As cancerous as it is, maybe international copyright law could be an inspiration? I'm just highly skeptical of creating a whole new category of offense when our existing legal framework should already have ways of dealing with this kind of externality