The significance of the definition lies in its focus on consequences.
While environmental regulations today are often very specific in their prescriptions, tempting companies to ‘game the system,’ the definition of ecocide focuses on the result of a company’s actions.
It does not matter what you did or how you did it. The issue is how much harm it creates.
“The definition provokes a new type of question, such as ‘What are we doing, and is it likely to create that level of harm?’ That is a completely different attitude and one that is sorely missing,” says Mehta.
Moral stigma
Mehta highlights that there is no particular moral stigma attached to breaching environmental regulations today.
Companies may begin to weigh compensation costs against profit and find it worthwhile, for example.
Breaching an international law, however, carries a stronger moral stigma and punishment.
“Criminal law has a very particular use in this context because it is the one systemic element of our global structures that directly accesses that moral sense of right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable,” says Mehta.
If ecocide were to be made an international law, it would place severe crimes against the environment alongside serious crimes against humanity, such as genocide and war crimes.