International Criminal Law and Environmental Protection: Towards Recognition of Ecocide Before the International Criminal Court

International Criminal Law and Environmental Protection: Towards Recognition of Ecocide Before the International Criminal Court القانون الدولي الجنائي وحماية البيئة: نحو االعتراف با لبادة البيئية أمام المحكمة الجنائية الدولية BOUROUBA Samia* University of Algiers 1 Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Laboratory [email protected] Date of Submission 09-04-2026 Date of Final Acceptance 10-08-2026 Date of Publication September 2026 Abstract: The development of new offenses that harm the environment, triggered by the use of pesticides during the Vietnam War, paved the way for the emergence of the concept of ecocide, considered by its serious and massive nature as an international crime. This notion, which appeared in the scientific world, has been transposed into the legal field, through proposals for codification in the statute of the International Criminal Court, but several obstacles hinder this quest as we will discuss in this article. It appears necessary to establish a definition of ecocide and to define which jurisdiction would ensure effective prosecution. Keywords: Ecocide; Rome Statute; Environmental Damage; International Law Commission; Monsanto Court. ملخص: أدى اس جرائ جايد رضر الج تيجة است دام س اس حراي اخةمرار افيتج س ج ما يي ت ل إلى ظهور مفهوي الإتيد اجةمةمست اج ي عب ن داجا فوروراط قدرياط اجواس ج س دقجمست قار اد د ا ا اخفهوي اج ي ظهج في الأقسي اجبا مس إلى انوي اج يدول ت مر م نن ير ج ط في اج ايي الأسي رم قرةض تس جي خا يف اي س ي ى سخا ا ااجبذ رية ق رق أ عإ تسمجقرجا سميي وفا س كج اج اجلجقري قض ذبج ف جإلتيد اجةمةمس قاجرضر مي هي افوهس اج لييمس اجت مر شأنهي ض ي مبياةس بيجس. الكلمات المفتاحية: الإتيد اجةمةمس؛ دايي رقمي الأسي ؛ اجلجر اجةمئ ؛ فو س اج يدو اجرقلي؛ مجك س مولسيد و. * Corresponding Author: BOUROUBA Samia

The concept of international crime continues to generate doctrinal and jurisprudential debates that lie at the crossroads of international criminal law and international environmental law. While the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC) seems to have defined this crime in Article 5, listing four crimes falling within the Court's jurisdiction, namely: genocide (Article 6 of the Statute), crimes against humanity (Article 7), war crimes (Article 8), and the crime of aggression (Article 8 bis)¹, it is necessary to revisit the numerous debates held within the International Law Commission (hereinafter ILC) in the context of drafting an important document reflected in the Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind. These debates demonstrate that the idea of codifying the crime of ecocide was present from the beginning of the work related to the aforementioned Code, but without success. Other attempts from legal scholarship and actors of international civil society are emerging to include this violation in the category of international crimes, going so far as to propose amending the Rome Statute to extend the Court's material jurisdiction to this crime. The fundamental argument advanced in these proposals lies in the ecological decay² that could affect the planet, the negative consequences of which will affect all of humanity. Serious harm to the environment has already been committed on several occasions. We can thus cite Operation Ranch Hand in Vietnam, and the events known as the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, which revealed the extent of environmental damage, thereby calling for global mobilization. A complaint was filed with the ICC on July 26, 2020, by a coalition including several unions and organizations against Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, the purpose of which is to challenge his handling of the health crisis, deemed disastrous³. This was followed, on January 22, 2021, by the submission of documents to the ICC Prosecutor concerning "crimes against humanity" allegedly suffered by indigenous peoples of the Amazon, the perpetrators of which would be the President and ministers. This process, initiated by NGOs, is the result of the exponential development of violations of what legal scholars term "green criminality"4, and constitutes an alert mechanism for the international community to bring it to measure the extent of environmental damage and assume its responsibilities in this regard. It appears clearly that the establishment of a new international criminal order in environmental matters is more than necessary. Disparate efforts are proving ineffective, and the few repressive laws demonstrate their limitations. The environmental crisis, exacerbated by the absence of international repression, aggravates the damage and calls for the more than urgent introduction of this crime into the sphere of international criminal law, notably by inserting this crime within the ratione materiae jurisdiction of the ICC, as was previously the case in the ILC draft. This seemingly most effective solution is, however contested by several States that advocate for maintaining the ICC's material jurisdiction over the originally foreseen crimes. Other proposals have emerged to bring this offense into the sphere of international crimes, requiring criminalization in a specific text also calling for the creation of a specialized repressive jurisdiction. Ecocide requires specifying several of its aspects, notably how current international criminal law would address it, but also what obstacles this introduction would pose regarding the principles of international criminal justice. In light of the scale and systematic nature of environmental damage, it seems necessary to consider the need to establish a suitable legal framework to address this offense and ensure its transfer to the legal sphere, thereby guaranteeing its status as an international crime and defining the competent jurisdiction.

The analysis of ecocide will be conducted through the study of various international instruments at the universal and regional levels, those originating from States and civil society, as well as certain domestic laws. A review of existing case law on the subject will also be undertaken to support the development of this rapidly evolving concept. The approach that seems most suitable for carrying out this study is the one that will combine the historical method, tracing the evolution of ecocide and its mutation, the comparison between the different doctrinal and normative approaches as well as the analysis of the different options aimed at criminalizing and ensuring effective repression of this crime. The study will first focus on the legal basis of ecocide in international law (Section I), in order to subsequently determine the jurisdiction that would ensure the repression of this crime (Section II).

The emergence of the concept of ecocide in doctrinal, diplomatic, and jurisprudential debates in recent years demonstrates the extent of the damage caused to the ecosystem and the environment, the harmful effects of which continue to spread and harm both humans and nature. However, its appearance dates back several decades (A), and since then, several institutions have developed proposals to codify it concretely (B). A) The Origins of Ecocide One of the specificities characterizing several concepts of international environmental law is that they originate from the scientific world, ecocide being an illustrious example of an undisputed introduction into the legal sphere (1), with the growing number of environmental violations constituting a proven support for its integration into international criminal law (2).

mobilization that led to the concretization of the concept in a specialized international text relating to a draft convention, which we will develop further. A draft international convention on the crime of ecocide was initiated in 1973, during a review quest of the 1948 Genocide Convention, originating from an academic text by American jurist Richard Falk9, a professor of international law at Princeton University, reacting following the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, evoking in this regard "an Auschwitz for environmental values". This jurist reminds us the colossal work of another no less famous jurist, Raphaël Lemkin, who edited a book on genocide in 1944 entitled "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe", which led, after the Second World War, to the adoption by the United Nations on December 9, 1948, of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Professor observes the urgent need to create a new legislation taking into account the acts committed in Vietnam and anticipating future environmental damage in times of war, and proposed a first definition linking it to genocide, thus developing the idea that this crime can be compared to counter-insurgency warfare that tends towards genocide against the people, as it tends to constitute ecocide regarding the environment. He proposed, in this context, a definition in his draft international convention on the crime of ecocide which rests on a set of acts committed with the intention of disrupting or destroying entirely or partially a human ecosystem10. Legal scholars developed a series of studies aimed at deepening this concept and proposed a series of definitions to define it¹¹. English-speaking and Romano-Germanic tradition jurists thus combined their efforts to provide elements of definition, and several of them served as a source of inspiration for the draft convention on ecocide, as we will discuss later.

the appropriate means to curb this danger; the action brought against the Brazilian president accelerating the process of criminalizing this environmental offense. The rights of indigenous peoples, closely linked to massive environmental harm, must be taken into consideration. In this perspective, Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples14 grants these groups the right to the preservation and protection of their environment and the productive capacity of their lands, territories, and resources. States have an obligation towards these populations to establish and implement assistance programs without any discrimination. The Declaration lists other obligations incumbent upon States to mitigate negative environmental impacts, notably by establishing a set of mechanisms ensuring fair and equitable reparation and taking adequate measures aimed at reducing multiple harmful effects of an environmental, economic, social, cultural, or even spiritual nature. Indigenous peoples rely considerably on the raw materials of their environment that safeguard their means of subsistence, and they depend on a clean and healthy environment. Furthermore, these populations rely on the raw materials found in their environment to ensure their subsistence. Despite the measures and obligations provided for by this declaration, it is given very little consideration upstream, within the framework of actions to prevent damage caused to these communities. This demonstrates the urgency of establishing the crime of ecocide, which would help protect and strengthen their rights. Water contamination, for its part, constitutes another problem of environmental harm. Huge oil spills like the Deepwater Horizon one on April 20, 2010, pose major problems; the explosion of the oil platform leased by the British oil company BP; to drill in the Gulf of Mexico caused an unprecedented ecological disaster in the United States15. Several disasters occurring across the planet, regarding plastic pollution of oceans and water contamination in rural and urban areas, as is the case of rivers in Goa, India, are the reflected image of a real threat to the environment, whether for ocean flora and fauna, or people's livelihoods and health due to the toxins present. The protection of the rights of non-human species could also be a significant argument, as they are part of our planet and have rights to be protected, since large-scale environmental damage harms several animal species, often leading to their extinction. Reference international texts, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 199216, unfortunately do not guarantee effective protection. Finally, this criminalization would help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by repressing massive environmental harm, the results of which will materialize in the preservation of the environment, its resources, and its non-human inhabitants. B) Attempts to Codify Ecocide. Multidisciplinary efforts for the elimination of ecocide have provided food for thought for jurists, taking several forms in international law, including a draft special convention and work adopted by UN institutions (1), but several States have also managed to integrate this offense into their criminal legislation (2).

this crime between proponents of its transnational character and its quality as a supranational crime, as we will develop below. The first attempt, dating from 1973, is a draft International Convention on the Crime of Ecocide initiated by the UN organization, presented during a review process of the 1948 Genocide Convention. This unsuccessful draft, based on the doctrinal foundation of American jurist Richard Falk, aimed to broaden the definition concerning the element of the target of the genocidal acts, as it envisaged introducing, alongside the destruction of specific human groups, the destruction of the environment. It is necessary to highlight one of the main causes of the failure of this initiative, relating to the controversy over the question of the mental element represented by special intent (dolus specialis), which constitutes the second element of this offense alongside the actus reus. Doctrine supporting the codification option through the adoption of a specialized convention instead of integrating it into the Rome Statute advances several arguments. The first relates to the genesis of the crimes recognized in the Rome Statute, which were first established in other international instruments before being incorporated into the ICC Statute, excluding from this observation crimes against humanity, which followed a path incomparable to other crimes18. In 2015, a team of 16 jurists, under the direction of Laurent Neyret, published two draft international conventions: the first on "écorcimes" and the second on ecocide. The authors of these two drafts distinguish through this classification between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" environmental criminality. This reasoning appears clearly in the terminology of Article 1 of the draft Ecocide Convention, which encompasses environmental offenses that have reached a degree of gravity, perpetrated during ordinary situations as well as during war, and which impact the security of all humanity19. This draft Convention is ambitious, as it provides in its Article 4 for the imprescriptibility of the offense and attributes criminal liability to legal entities20, given that it requires any State Party to adopt internal legislative measures to ensure that these entities can be can be prosecuted criminally in the case of involvement of persons directing the entity, acting individually or as a governing body on its behalf. A range of sanctions is provided against the entities and natural persons to repair damages and compensate victims. Sanctions envisaged with regard to legal persons are both pecuniary and administrative. Those applied to natural persons are more severe, as they involve custodial sentences, without excluding pecuniary penalties. This draft convention innovates institutionally regarding the repressive mechanism, as it provides for the creation of a specialized international jurisdiction, which we will discuss in the second part of this study. Another initiative comes from the International Law Commission (ILC), the body created by the body created by the United Nations General Assembly to create and develop international law norms, to crystallize customary rules in this area²¹, which worked on building the concept of ecocide during the decade preceding the end of the Cold War, in the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind. Nevertheless, Article 26 of the draft, providing for the criminalization of serious environmental damage, was ultimately withdrawn, constituting a reversal regarding the incorporation of ecocide alongside crimes constituting an attack against the peace and security of humanity, States having expressed reluctance regarding the introduction of this controversial crime into the list of already well-established crimes in international criminal law. More recently, civil society and other actors have become involved in the process of establishing ecocide. Environmental activist lawyer Polly Higgins proposes not only amending the Rome Statute establishing the ICC by adding a 5th crime, which is ecocide, but also proposes a

definition containing precise elements²². Extending the scope of crimes covered by the ICC through the introduction of ecocide is not without legal problems, since it involves an eco-centric criminalization in an essentially anthropocentric text²³. Furthermore, in 2012, an international movement advocated for launching a European public opinion action, aiming to introduce this serious environmental offense into Community law24. Doctrine is also divided on the nature of this international offense. Some authors consider ecocide to be a transnational crime, whose particularity is being a national offense, its prevention and repression governed by international law, most often through treaties, to increase interstate penal cooperation for an offense punished by national laws25. This qualification is supported at the regional level within the European Union, as the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon allows for strengthening a derived Community law text aimed at protecting the environment, by increasing the harmonization potential of the concept of environmental crimes and corresponding penalties, which could materialize in a revision of the 2008 directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. Another approach considers it rather a supranational crime, resulting from the criminalization process of public international law; who would be likely to be prosecuted independently of internal law provisions. Thus, alongside crimes against humanity, which implicitly enshrine the principle of human dignity and aim to sanction political violence, the aim would be to establish the crime of ecocide as a guarantee of the principle of planetary security and whose purpose would be to sanction ecological violence26. Initiatives aimed at establishing ecocide as being the 5th crime are the translation of this movement aimed at elevating this offense to the rank of crimes against international peace and security. Pending the materialization of these various proposals, some States have modified their internal legislation to make room for ecocide, as we will discuss below.

"the act of committing, in an organized manner, one or more offenses [...] causing serious and lasting environmental damage, and knowingly exposing others to a risk of a serious nature to their health". The main difficulty encountered in this country is that the crime of ecocide is included in a "general reference to the environment", whose special intent is undermined by the cumulative condition of "organized" commission, which is not required in other universal or national texts³². The European Union has also made a significant contribution to the development of the concept of ecocide, in particular through the 2008/99/EC directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, which establishes criminalization of a list of acts that constitute a serious threat to the environment, imposing on Member States the obligation to incriminate them³³. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see how existing ecocide crimes are applied by judges at the national level. To date, global prosecution has not been successful. In 2012, a crime of ecocide was investigated in the Kyrgyz Republic, but the case was closed due to lack of evidence. A few years later, in 2015, a massive palm oil spill in Guatemala caused a sensation as the substance was toxic, and the responsible company was accused of ecocide. Although successfully indicted, no real justice was served as the palm oil industry reopened again34. Even if the prosecution process remains limited, the principle is nevertheless established, and it will be engaged following internal and external pressures and the growing attention paid to environmental issues. This multitude of viewpoints regarding the criminalization of ecocide in international criminal law is revisited when determining the competent jurisdiction to repress this international offense, as we will demonstrate in the second part. Section II: Repression of Ecocide and the Multiplication of International Jurisdictions: In Search of an Effective Jurisdiction The question of the competent jurisdiction to repress the crime of ecocide raises a great debate, involving States, legal scholars, and civil society, thus inscribing itself in the acceleration of the phenomenon of multiplying international jurisdictions, which accentuates the fragmentation of international law. While a large part sees the permanent international criminal jurisdiction as the ideal solution, even if its jurisdiction is limited by several factors (A), other actors propose other jurisdictions based on various arguments (B). A) The International Criminal Jurisdiction: Opportunity and Limits The question of environmental harm has for some time already sparked the interest of international jurisdictions. On July 19, 1993, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations announced the constitution of a special chamber for environmental issues, the creation of which responds to the question of the role it could play in the settlement of disputes concerning the environment and sustainable development. Nevertheless, the criminal aspect being outside the jurisdiction of the principal UN court, the crime of ecocide is already foreign to its field of action, even through this special chamber. The ICC, operational for two decades, constitutes for many States the competent jurisdiction for the purpose of prosecuting the crime of ecocide; its Statute must be amended to recognize this crime (1), whereas the specificity of the crime calls for the creation of a specialized international jurisdiction (2).

the question of providing an article specifying the constituent elements of the crime, particularly the intentional element; and finally, revising the Rome Statute35, a delicate step that requires a two-thirds majority vote of the Assembly of States Parties36. This idea, supported by several States, however faces limits. In addition to those relating to the required quorum as specified above, it appears clearly from the jurisprudential practice of the Court that the latter shows very little interest in environmental criminality. However, a beginning of a change of direction can be observed. The Office of the Prosecutor has indicated that it "will pay particular attention to crimes provided for in the Rome Statute involving or resulting in, inter alia, ecological devastation, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal expropriation of land"37, considering an extension of crimes against humanity. This position follows the referral to the ICC in 2014 of the situation in Cambodia, a country experiencing a series of land expropriations due to agricultural and real estate development projects, causing the destruction of the area's ecosystems. Reference should also be made to the concept of war crimes, which encompasses damage caused to the environment in Article 8/1/b/iv) as follows: "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that it 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", a definition that approximates the definition of ecocide38. The justification for the ICC's complementary jurisdiction for this environmental criminality is based on the need to face the impunity of acts threatening the public order of universal human society39. This proposal is in line with the proponents of extending the ICC's jurisdiction by adopting a flexible solution40.

B)In Search of Other Competent Jurisdictions: Actors advocating for the establishment of ecocide suggest several alternatives to the ICC and a specialized Criminal Court for the repression of this criminality, proposing a moral tribunal (1) or seeking potential jurisdiction of regional human rights protection bodies (2). 1- The Contribution of Opinion Tribunals: The Monsanto International Tribunal International law has seen the use of new forms of jurisdictions qualified as opinion tribunals or moral tribunals. These examine, according to the judicial method, the rules of law applicable to highly problematic events or situations that concern and directly affect individuals or groups of people, as well as society as a whole42. They constitute a form of justice administered "by and for" the people. Although non-binding, they serve to challenge States and companies regarding their failures. These tribunals have multiplied since the first opinion tribunal, the Russell Tribunal, founded in

The Strasbourg Court, under an increasingly developed jurisprudence, continues to affirm the link between the rights set forth in the Convention and the quality of the environment, thereby extending its ratione materiae jurisdiction. To illustrate the role of these two jurisdictions, we could refer to two cases. In the Lopez Ostra v. Spain case (1994), the applicant complained about pollution emanating from a leather industry waste treatment plant (gas emissions, pestilential odors, and contaminations) harming the health of nearby residents46. In response to his claims, the Court concluded that the defendant State had failed in its obligation to maintain a balance between the economic well-being of the town and the applicant's effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private and family life. In the case of Tătar v. Romania (2009), a gold mine whose extraction process used sodium cyanide and was located near the applicants' home released approximately 100,000 m³ of treatment water containing cyanides into the ecosystem following an ecological accident in January 2000. The Court affirmed that even if the causal link between the fact (exposure of the applicants' son to sodium cyanide) and the harm (his asthma) could not be established, the State remains bound to apply the precautionary principle. The future Malabo Court, whose criminal division would play the role of the ICC for Africa, enjoys a broader material jurisdiction than that of the ICC, which includes, according to the provisions of Article 28 A of the Protocol amending the Protocol on the Statute of the ACJHR: illicit trafficking in hazardous waste and illicit exploitation of natural resources, with the major innovation being serious harm to the environment committed by legal persons in Article 46 C of said protocol. The entry into force of this protocol will allow effective repression of acts that would be qualified as ecocide.

In the era of the International Criminal Court, the International criminal law is called upon to develop to take into account new forms of environmental criminality embodied in the crime of ecocide, which States and other international actors advocate for its codification, through a process that unfolds over time and space. While establishing an environmental public order47 constitutes a priority for the international community, opinions remain divided between, on the one hand, States that, without opposing the codification of this offense, prefer to control its normative and institutional modalities, and, on the other hand, legal scholars and civil society, which are multiplying initiatives both from a normative and institutional perspective. The journey of the various proposals demonstrates that there is no single answer to this criminality of the millennium, the urgency of which recommends incorporation into a binding text containing its definition and the body responsible for its repression. The common values shared by members of the international community and the inherent rights of nature must constitute the driving forces to allow for comprehensive integration and effective prosecution, with the political will of States needing to go beyond difficulties for the good of humanity.

2 Christian TSHIMALA BANUNGANA, "Vers l'intégration de l'écocide dans le Statut de Rome", Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2022, p. 236. 3 In a 65-page document, with 21 annexes, crimes against humanity committed against indigenous peoples of the Amazon are specifically imputed to the Brazilian President and ministers. Based on Article 7 of the ICC Statute, the following acts are targeted: "murder" (Art. 7 § 1-a); "extermination" (Art. 7 § 1-b); "enslavement" (Art. 7 § 1-c); "deportation or forcible transfer of population" (Art. 7 § 1-d); "persecution" (Art. 7 § 1-h). available online at: https://www.unilim.fr/iirco/2021/06/09/le- procureur-de-la-cour-penale-internationale-saisi-dune-nouvelle-plainte-visant-jair-bolsonaro-et- quatre-de-ses-ministres/, consulted February 20, 2026.

17 See For more details see, : Mamoud ZANI, "Pour une justice pénale internationale en matière environnementale: à propos de la répression des atteintes à l'environnement par une juridiction internationale spécialisée", Cahiers de la recherche sur les droits fondamentaux, p. 129, available online at http://journals.openedition.org/crdf/6472, consulted March 5, 2026. 18 This is the case for genocide recognized in the 1948 Genocide Convention, war crimes in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression in the Statute of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg.

Criminology Discourse: From Environmental Crime to Ecocide," the Indian Journal of International Law, Vol.64, January-June 2024, n°s 1 and 2, p 73. 27 See in this sense: Julia THIBORD, "Ecocide: l'occasion manquée", p. 2, available online at https://notreaffaireatous.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Ecocide-_-loccasion-manquee.pdf, consulted March 5, 2026. 28 See: "Ecocide: The need for a fifth international crime", op. cit., p. 26, and Tifaine PONS , op. cit., p. 47, and Rachel KILLEAN and Damien SHORT, A critical defence of the crime of ecocide, p 5. Environmental Politics, 2025, available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2025.2492441, consulted February 20, 2026.

44 Camille MONTAVON, Marie DESAULES, op. cit., p. 648. 45 Monsanto International Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, op. cit., p. 54. 46 See: Mamoud Zani, op. cit., p. 127. 47 This question is at the heart of concerns of this community for over fifty years. See: Camille MONTAVON, Marie DESAULES, , op. cit., p. 660.

A- Books: Céline NEGRE, Les atteintes massives à l’environnement, Alain PELLET, Patrick DAILLIER, Droit international pénal, PEDONE, Paris,2000. B – Theses: Ecocide.The need for a fifth international crime. A critical analysis of the proposed definition of ecocide, available online at https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/95891/1/PILTHESIS_7009.pdf, consulted 05 March 2026. Romaine DE RIVAZ, La notion d'écocide : définitions et perspectives, Mémoire de maîtrise en droit, Université de Genève, 2022, available online at https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:166317, consulted 20 February 2026. Tifaine PONS , L’émergence de l’écocide comme catégorie juridique dans la société internationale contemporaine, Tarragona 2020, http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11797/TFM632, consulted 05 March 2026. C Articles : Anne-Lise BESSE, Margaux DUBOIS, Réflexions sur l’introduction du crime d’écocide dans le Code Pénal, https://notreaffaireatous.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Le%CC%81cocide-dans-le- CP.pdf, consulted 05 March 2026. Céline BIMBENET, L’écocide en tant que crime de droit international dans le nouveau Code pénal : une nouvelle arme contre les pollueurs ?, available online at file:///C:/Users/PC%20LENOVO/Downloads/lecocide-en-tant-que-crime-de-droit-international- dans-le-nouveau-code-penal-une-nouvelle-arme-contre-les-pollueurs%20(1).pdf, consulted 20 February 2026. Peter DORAN, Rachel KILLEAN, Mary-Carmen MC DERMOTT, Karena MC ERLEAN, Lydia MILLAR and Stephanie RoODGERS, Criminalizing ‘Ecocide’ at the International Criminal Court, EJNI Briefing Paper, School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast, available online at file:///C:/Users/PC%20LENOVO/Downloads/SSRN-id3827803.pdf, consulted 05 March 2026. Rachel KILLEAN and Damien SHORT, A critical defence of the crime of ecocide, Environmental Politics, 2025, available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2025.2492441, consulted February 20, 2026 Marie-Eve MARLEAU et Éva MASCOLO-FORTIN, Les tribunaux d’opinion comme expériences de Justice populaire, Relations, Numéro 801, mars–avril 2019, available online at https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/rel/2019-n801-rel04335/90302ac.pdf, consulted 05 March 2026. Camille MONTAVON, Marie DESAULES, Regards croisés sur le crime d’écocide : des tentatives de concrétisation du concept, entre société civile et institutions (inter)nationales, Dans Droit et société 2022/3 (N°112), pages 643 à 662, available online at file:///C:/Users/PC%20LENOVO/Downloads/DRS1_112_0643.pdf, consulted 05 March 2026.

Laurent NEYRET, Pour la reconnaissance du crime d’écocide, Revue juridique de l’environnement, 2014/HS01, Volume 39, pp 177 – 193, available online at https://www.cairn.info/revue-juridique- de-l-environnement-2014-HS01-page-177.htm , consulted 20 February 2026. Julia THIBORD, Ecocide : L’occasion manquée, available online at https://notreaffaireatous.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/09/Ecocide-_-loccasion-manquee.pdf, consulted 05 March 2026. Christian TSHIMALA BANUNGANA, Vers l’intégration de l’écocide dans le Statut de Rome, Annuaire canadien de droit international, Volume 59, Novembre 2022, pp 233-284, available online at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-yearbook-of-international-law-annuaire- canadien-de-droit-international/article/vers-lintegration-de-lecocide-dans-le-statut-de- rome/9AFDE4C377FCE5176AD98D2CB2CEDE8B, consulted 02 February 2026. Ankita SHARMA and J.J. MOZIKA, "Transforming the Green Criminology Discourse: From Environmental Crime to Ecocide," the Indian Journal of International Law, Vol.64, January-June 2024, n°s 1 and 2. Christian Tshiamala Banungana, La judiciarisation des atteintes environnementales : La Cour Pénale Internationale à la rescousse?, available online at https://www.sqdi.org/wp-content/uploads/205-243- 521_Banungana.pdf, consulted 05 March 2026. Mamoud ZANI, Pour une justice pénale internationale en matière environnementale : à propos de la répression des atteintes à l’environnement par une juridiction internationale spécialisée, Cahiers de la recherche sur les droits fondamentaux, available online at http://journals.openedition.org/crdf/6472, consulted 05 March 2026.