For fifty years, "ecocide" has lacked a clear legal definition. The word entered public discussion in the 1970s, introduced by biologist Arthur Galston.
The term was later adopted by Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in a United Nations speech. Since then, however, it has not secured a stable place in criminal law. Recently, the debate has reignited. The climate crisis and mounting evidence of links between environmental degradation and conflict are prompting institutions to seek new legal tools.
The most advanced proposal emerged in 2021: to add ecocide to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, alongside war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The definition is practical: a series of illegal or arbitrary acts that knowingly cause severe, widespread, or long-term ecological damage.
Within this formulation is an attempt to hold together multiple dimensions: the disproportion between harm and expected benefits; the extension of impacts beyond local boundaries; and their persistence over time. But above all, it signals a shift in perspective. The environment is no longer just a backdrop to human activity; it is a subject worthy of protection in its own right. That, perhaps, is what is truly at stake.
