Making the case for ‘ecocide’
8 September 2025
Bea Perks explores the latest efforts to have the destruction of nature recognised as a crime against peace by the International Criminal Court
The UNESCO-protected biosphere reserve of Askania-Nova, situated just north of Crimea in Ukraine’s Kherson province, has been profoundly impacted by war, despite not being the site of direct fighting¹. The reserve, covering an area of 33,000 hectares, including 11,000 hectares of untouched steppe landscape, was occupied within days of the Russian invasion, and reports of animal deaths due to disease, injury and poaching soon followed as the system supporting the reserve fell into disarray.
Listed in UNESCO’s network of biosphere reserves since 1984, Askania-Nova supports at least 69 species listed in the Red Book of Ukraine, 295 species protected by the Berne Convention, 104 further species protected by the Bonn Convention and 12 listed in the European Red List. It is perhaps best known as the location of the world’s largest captive breeding programme for Przewalski’s horses – or was, before the war began².
A couple of months after Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, The Biologist ran a feature exploring the potential for environmental disaster in territory east of Ukraine’s biggest river, the Dnipro³. The following year, in June 2023, a section of the Kakhovka Dam on the Dnipro was destroyed, causing floods that left an estimated 600 square kilometres of land underwater. The floodwaters extended beyond the Dnipro delta, discharging sediments and debris into the Black Sea and along its northern coastline, causing plankton blooms 100–150 times larger than normal⁴. The destruction of the dam has – and will continue to have – a significant impact on the provision of drinking water, groundwater supply and quality, wastewater treatment, recreation, renewable energy provision and aquaculture.
Upstream, the disruption of irrigation systems threatens to turn hundreds of thousands of acres of southern Ukraine into desert, according to the country’s agriculture ministry, and will have long-term consequences even if the Kakhovka Dam is refilled. Directly above the dam 1,870 square kilometres of former lakebed are now exposed, revealing heavy metal deposits that international researchers warn are a long-term threat to freshwater, estuarine and marine ecosystems⁵.
The neglect of Askania-Nova, and the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, are just two of many environmental disasters to have hit Ukraine since 2022⁶. There are also reports of tens of thousands of dolphins dying in the Black Sea since the invasion, with one study suggesting cetacean deaths around the Ukrainian coast are as much as 14 times higher than they were pre-invasion⁷.
In June 2023, a section of the Kakhovka Dam on Ukraine's biggest river, the Dnipro, was destroyed, leaving around 600 square kilometres of land underwater
A new case for ecocide
As missiles and weaponised drones continue to rain down on the Ukrainian people, the startling environmental situation in the country may not be making headlines. But it has reignited a global campaign to have the crime of ‘ecocide’ recognised by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and for the stronger application of existing law.
The term ‘ecocide’ was first used to describe the environmental impact of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, but the destruction of wildlife or important ecosystems has been a feature of war throughout history – from the 6th century Scythians using scorched-earth tactics against the Persian Empire, to Roman troops burning fields to destroy their enemy’s food supply. It is not even new for the embattled Askania-Nova reserve: during the Second World War an extremely valuable breeding group of Przewalski’s horses was reportedly shot by German occupying forces.
Ecocide is already recognised as a national crime in several countries⁸, including both Ukraine and Russia (ecocide on Russian soil carries a potential sentence of up to 20 years). The UK, meanwhile, does not recognise the crime of ecocide, although an Ecocide (Prevention) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 29 May 2025 and is expected to be voted on later in the year⁹.
Legal campaigners originally proposed ecocide be added as a fifth “crime against peace”, recognised by the ICC, in 2011, to go alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. In September 2024 Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa made history by officially submitting a ground-breaking proposal to add ecocide to the list of outlawed atrocities, albeit with a focus on protecting their island nations from climate change.
Adding ecocide to the ICC’s list would, according to campaigners, ensure that the most serious forms of environmental destruction would be criminalised at the highest level, acting as a global deterrent for would-be perpetrators in the most senior positions of decision-making power¹⁰.
On 14 May this year, the Council of Europe adopted a legal framework to help states prosecute conduct resulting in environmental disasters “tantamount to ecocide”, including those occurring across borders or that have traditionally gone unpunished¹¹. If ratified by member states, it would become the first legally binding international treaty to criminalise severe and large-scale environmental destruction.
The treaty marks a historic moment in environmental law, says Jojo Mehta, CEO of the pressure group Stop Ecocide International, who recently met with heads of state and legal advisers in Lviv, Ukraine, to discuss legal and fair accountability mechanisms for international crimes being committed by Russia in Ukraine.
Campaigners believe that adding ecocide to the ICC’s list would mean the most serious forms of environmental destruction would be criminalised at the highest level
Existing ecocide law
Cases of severe environmental destruction during war are, in fact, already covered in a subclause of article 8 of the Rome Statute¹², the founding treaty of the ICC. The office of the prosecutor at the ICC is looking to intensify its work on this aspect of existing law, which currently includes the line:
“Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.”
While amending the statute to include ecocide as a new crime would be significant, Solomiya Baran, legal adviser to Ukrainian pressure group Environment People Law (EPL), says there is an urgent need to apply these existing provisions of international criminal law¹³. Any new ICC law cannot be applied retroactively, so existing laws are the only international mechanism available to hold states to account for recent environmental destruction.
Recording and restoring
Comprehensive environmental assessments are essential for recording war-related damage and informing restoration efforts. Since the beginning of the war, biologists with the EPL have been inspecting crime scenes, taking soil samples, analysing satellite imagery and taking photos and videos.
In May 2023 the Council of Europe, an official United Nations observer, launched the Register of Damage for Ukraine, which enables Ukrainian individuals, businesses, and state and municipal entities to seek compensation for damages from the Russian invasion, but also marks an important step toward securing reparations for environmental harm, says Baran.
Oleksandr Khodosovtsev, professor of botany at Kherson State University, has been working with fellow scientists and lawyers to develop clear criteria for defining ecocide from the perspective of a biotope – a specific, delimited area characterised by uniform environmental conditions that supportsa particular group of plants and animals. Clearly defined criteria will provide much-needed recommendations and grounds for classifying cases of ecocide, enabling law enforcement agencies to identify, register and investigate such violations.
Collection and analysis of data has been ongoing since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, but a full evaluation of the environmental consequences cannot be completed until the conflict is over. In addition to the damage to habitats and loss of wildlife that follows military activity, the rapid advance of invasive plant and animal species has been well documented¹⁴,¹⁵. It is feared that this invasion, rather than destruction alone, might cause more complex and irreversible transformation of affected habitats.
In September 2024 Vanuatu (pictured), along with Fiji and Samoa, made history by submitting a ground-breaking proposal to add ecocide to the list of outlawed atrocitiesCampaigners and young people are increasingly using local or regional courts to try to force action on global issues such as climate change.
In 2023 a group of youths in Montana, US, won a landmark case arguing that their state government’s fossil fuel and climate policies violated their right to a clean and healthful environment.
A European Court recently ruled that Switzerland’s inaction on climate change had violated a group of Swiss women’s human rights. Similar cases have been bought in Lahore, Hawaii and the Caribbean Island of Bonaire.
Meanwhile, a county in Oregon, US, is suing a group of international fossil fuel companies for damages caused by the 2021 ‘heatdome’ that settled over the northwest of the country.
The weight of the law
The likelihood that ecocide will become the fifth international crime under the Rome Statute remains far from clear. Several countries and international organisations have expressed their backing, and advocacy efforts – such as those led by the EPL – are helping to build legal frameworks and political will. However, progress depends on political dynamics, including the positions of key states. While the US is not a member of the ICC, its stance on international law and environmental issues has significant geopolitical weight, and its recent shift away from climate and environmental action might slow progress.
Even if ecocide is recognised as a crime by the ICC, would it make any difference? “It’s really difficult to tell,” says Daniel Bertram, a lawyer at the European University Institute currently working on a PhD entitled ‘Constructing ecocide: the making of an international crime’. Much will depend on how many countries ratify the ecocide amendment and how many honour their obligations in earnest. And, of course, states at war do often ignore or refuse to recognise international law, he adds.
Bertram doubts that international criminal law features high on the minds of leaders or generals during illegal invasions and bloody battles. But if ecocide were to be recognised and widely ratified, he believes it would certainly have some effect, both symbolic and practical. The exact extent of that effect will depend on the definition of ecocide that is eventually adopted. “All else being equal,” says Bertram, “I would like to think that a world with a codified crime of ecocide is less hospitable to environmental wrongdoers than the current situation.”
The EPL believes the recognition of ecocide by the ICC would elevate environmental protection to the level of a core international concern, alongside the protection of citizens from the horrors of war. It would reinforce the principle that nature has intrinsic value and that its large-scale destruction is not only an environmental issue, but also a crime against peace and humanity.
And it could have a bigger impact beyond war. With nations such as Samoa and Fiji leading the campaign to recognise ecocide, there will be a focus on the multinational companies and governments that have consistently failed to prevent the changes in climate that threaten their island homes.
Despite the stark differences between Pacific islanders and Ukrainians, both in their cultures and the mechanisms of environmental destruction that they face, they are united by a profound sorrow for the devastation that surrounds them, and an understanding of the formidable task of ecological protection and restoration ahead.
1) Petrovych, O. & Yamelynets, T. The Future of Protected Areas in Ukraine (WWF, 2024).
2) Musial, A. et al. Characteristic of Przewalski horses population from Askania-Nova reserve based on genetic markers. Mol. Biol. Rep. 50, 7121–7126 (2023).
3) Ireland, T. War on nature. The Biologist 69(2) 28–33 (2022).
4) Downstream impact: analysing the environmental consequences of the Kakhovka Dam collapse (2023).
5) Shumilova, O. et al. Environmental effects of the Kakhovka Dam destruction by warfare in Ukraine. Science 387, 1181–1186 (2025).
6) Lukic, R. & Martineau, S. Ecocide is being used as a weapon of war in Ukraine. It should be one of the crimes tried in the International Criminal Court (published 7 October 2024).
7) Ewa, W. et al. The use of social media in assessing the impact of war on cetaceans. Biol. Lett. 1920220562 (2023).
8) Ecocide Law. Serious environmental crimes in national jurisdictions.
9) Ecocide (Scotland) Bill (2025).
10)Stop Ecocide International. Experts call for international criminal court to introduce new crime of ‘ecocide’ (2024).
11) Council of Europe Newsroom: Council of Europe steps up on the environmental front (2025).
12) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998).
15) Khan, M. The environmental impacts of war and conflict. K4D Helpdesk Report. Institute of Development Studies (2022).
Bea Perks has a PhD in clinical pharmacology and has worked as a journalist specialising in life science for over 15 years
