Central Idea

Mexico’s ‘Maya train’ project has generated controversy due to its scale and environmental impact.
The project aims to connect tourists to historic Maya sites across a 1,525 km route, with a cost of $20 billion.
Critics have dubbed it a “megaproject of death” for its threats to the Yucatan peninsula’s environment, Indigenous communities, and cave systems, leading to accusations of ecocide and ethnocide.

Understanding Ecocide

Ecocide, derived from Greek and Latin, means “killing one’s home” or “environment.”
It encompasses actions like port expansions damaging marine life, deforestation, illegal sand-mining, and polluting rivers.
Several countries, including Mexico, are considering ecocide legislation, with calls to elevate it to an international crime akin to genocide.
There is no universally accepted legal definition of ecocide.
A proposed definition states it as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge of causing substantial, severe, and either widespread or long-term environmental damage.

Biologist Arthur Galston in 1970 linked environmental destruction with genocide during the Vietnam War’s Agent Orange use.
British lawyer Polly Higgins advocated for ecocide as an international crime in 2010.
The Rome Statute of the ICC deals with four major crimes but only holds perpetrators accountable for intentional wartime environmental damage.

Ecocide is a crime in 11 countries, with 27 others considering similar laws.
The European Parliament voted unanimously to include ecocide in law.
Ecocide laws provide a crucial legal instrument to protect the environment.
They can hold individuals in corporate leadership accountable and promote ethical investment practices.
These laws could offer justice to low- and middle-income countries disproportionately affected by climate change.

Some argue that ecocide definitions are ambiguous, setting a low threshold for implicating entities.
The concept might unintentionally suggest it’s acceptable to destroy the environment for human benefit.
Proving ecocide may be challenging, especially for transnational crimes involving corporations.
The ICC’s limited jurisdiction, inability to hold corporate entities liable, and uneven track record in securing convictions are concerns.

India has recognized the legal personhood of nature in some judgments.
Some Indian judgments have used the term ‘ecocide,’ but it hasn’t fully materialized in law.
India’s legislative framework includes various environmental laws, which need consolidation and streamlining.
The National Green Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over certain critical environmental matters.
Addressing issues of liability and compensation remains a challenge, as seen in cases like the Bhopal gas disaster and CAMPA fund misuse.
India should align its environmental laws with the concept of ecocide.

Ecocide laws are crucial for protecting the environment and holding perpetrators accountable.
However, challenges in defining, proving, and enforcing ecocide must be addressed.
India needs to update its environmental laws to incorporate ecocide principles, promoting a more comprehensive approach to environmental protection.