Showing posts with label international law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international law. Show all posts

Saturday, 24 January 2026

Board Of Peace™. Registered 22.01.26, no fixed address. Donald J. Trump, sole trader.

 




IMAGE: The Guardian, 23 January 2026


At a side event to the January 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland the US Trump Administration 'birthed' its new organisation which allegedly "seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict" and which apparently intends to sideline what its creators see as a less "nimble and effective international peace-building body" which happens to have stood the test of time for the last eighty years.


The Board of Peace foundational charter, as published, raises a suspicion that it was drafted with more than passing reference to model rules for exclusive & expensive sporting clubs. While its Chair and the composition of the Executive Board all but guarantee it will be under the coercive control of Donald J. Trump.


Chairman of the Board of Peace as of 22 January 2026:


  • Donald J. Trump


Seven Members of the Executive Board of the Board Of Peace as of 22 January 2026:


  • Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State

  • Steve Witkoff, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East

  • Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law

  • Sir Tony Blair, former U.K. prime minister

  • Marc Rowan, CEO, Apollo

  • Ajay Banga, World Bank president

  • Robert Gabriel, security advisor


Nineteen Ordinary Members of Board Of Peace as of 22 January 2026:


  • Isa bin Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, minister of the prime minister’s court, Bahrain

  • Nasser Bourita, minister of foreign affairs, Morocco

  • Javier Milei, president, Argentina

  • Nikol Pashinyan, prime minister, Armenia

  • Ilham Aliyev, President, Azerbaijan

  • Rosen Zhelyazkov, prime minister, Bulgaria

  • Viktor Orban, prime minister, Hungary

  • Prabowo Subianto, president, Indonesia

  • Ayman Al Safadi, minister of foreign affairs, Jordan

  • Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, president, Kazakhstan

  • Vjosa Osmani-Sadriu, president, Kosovo

  • Mian Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, prime minister, Pakistan

  • Santiago Peña, president, Paraguay

  • Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, president, Qatar

  • Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, minister of foreign affairs, Saudi Arabia

  • Hakan Fidan, minister of foreign affairs, Turkey

  • Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, special envoy to the U.S. for the UAE

  • Shavkat Mirziyoyev, president, Uzbekistan

  • Gombojavyn Zandanshatar, prime minister, Mongolia


US President Trump also extended invitations to twenty-seven other countries to join his Board of Peace:

  • Australia

  • Austria

  • Brazil

  • China

  • Croatia

  • Cyprus

  • Finland

  • Germany

  • Greece

  • India

  • Ireland

  • Italy

  • Japan

  • Netherlands

  • New Zealand

  • Oman

  • Poland

  • Portugal

  • Republic of Korea

  • Romania

  • Russian Federation

  • Singapore

  • Spain

  • Switzerland

  • Thailand

  • Ukraine

  • United Kingdom


The United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Ireland, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, Norway, Cyprus, China, Russia, and Israel were among nations absent from the signing and, although a handful of countries are expected to join the Board at a later date, there are also other nations which have specifically rejected or are reluctant to accept Trump's invitation.


It is reported that the State of Israel expects to be appointed to the Executive at some time in the future.


Twenty-seven signatures on 22 January 2026 doesn't suggest red-hot international enthusiasm.


CHARTER OF BOARD OF PEACE as of 22 January 2026:


CHARTER OF THE BOARD OF PEACE


PREAMBLE


Declaring that durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common-sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed;


Recognizing that lasting peace takes root when people are empowered to take ownership and responsibility over their future;


Affirming that only sustained, results-oriented partnership, grounded in shared burdens and commitments, can secure peace in places where it has for too long proven elusive;


Lamenting that too many approaches to peace-building foster perpetual dependency, and institutionalize crisis rather than leading people beyond it;


Emphasizing the need for a more nimble and effective international peace-building body; and


Resolving to assemble a coalition of willing States committed to practical cooperation and effective action,


Judgment guided and justice honored, the Parties hereby adopt the Charter for the Board of Peace.


Article 1: Mission


CHAPTER I-PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS


The Board of Peace is an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict. The Board of Peace shall undertake such peace-building functions in accordance with international law and as may be approved in accordance with this Charter, including the development and dissemination of best practices capable of being applied by all nations and communities seeking peace.


CHAPTER II

MEMBERSHIP

Article 2.1: Member States
Membership in the Board of Peace is limited to States invited to participate by the Chairman, and commences upon notification that the State has consented to be bound by this Charter, in accordance with Chapter XI.

Article 2.2: Member State Responsibilities

(a) Each Member State shall be represented on the Board of Peace by its Head of State or Government.

(b) Each Member State shall support and assist with Board of Peace operations consistent with their respective domestic legal authorities. Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to give the Board of Peace jurisdiction within the territory of Member States, or require Member States to participate in a particular peace-building mission, without their consent.

Article 2.2: Member State Responsibilities

(a) Each Member State shall be represented on the Board of Peace by its Head of State or Government.

(b) Each Member State shall support and assist with Board of Peace operations consistent with their respective domestic legal authorities. Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to give the Board of Peace jurisdiction within the territory of Member States, or require Member States to participate in a particular peace-building mission, without their consent.

(c) Each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman. The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force.

Article 2.3: Termination of Membership

Membership shall terminate upon the earlier of: (i) expiration of a three-year term, subject to Article 2.2(c) and renewal by the Chairman; (ii) withdrawal, consistent with Article 2.4; (iii) a removal decision by the Chairman, subject to a veto by a two-thirds majority of Member States: or (iv) dissolution of the Board of Peace pursuant to Chapter X. A Member State whose membership terminates shall also cease to be a Party to the Charter, but such State may be invited again to become a Member State, in accordance with Article 2.1.

Article 2.4: Withdrawal

Any Member State may withdraw from the Board of Peace with immediate effect by providing written notice to the Chairman.


CHAPTER III-GOVERNANCE

Article 3.1: The Board of Peace

(a) The Board of Peace consists of its Member States.

(b) The Board of Peace shall vote on all proposals on its agenda, including with respect to the annual budgets, the establishment of subsidiary entities, the appointment of senior executive officers, and major policy determinations, such as the approval of international agreements and the pursuit of new peace-building initiatives.

(c) The Board of Peace shall convene voting meetings at least annually and at such additional times and locations as the Chairman deems appropriate. The agenda at such meetings shall be set by the Executive Board, subject to notice and comment by Member States and approval by the Chairman.

(d) Each Member State shall have one vote on the Board of Peace.

(e) Decisions shall be made by a majority of the Member States present and voting, subject to the approval of the Chairman, who may also cast a vote in his capacity as Chairman in the event of a tie.

(f) The Board of Peace shall also hold regular non-voting meetings with its Executive Board at which Member States may submit recommendations and guidance with respect to the Executive Board’s activities, and at which the Executive Board shall report to the Board of Peace on the Executive Board’s operations and decisions. Such meetings shall be convened on at least a quarterly basis, with the time and place of said meetings determined by the Chief Executive of the Executive Board.

(g) Member States may elect to be represented by an alternate high-ranking official at all meetings, subject to approval by the Chairman.

(h) The Chairman may issue invitations to relevant regional economic integration organizations to participate in the proceedings of the Board of Peace under such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate.


Article 3.2: Chairman

(a) Donald J. Trump shall serve as inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace, and he shall separately serve as inaugural representative of the United States of America, subject only to the provisions of Chapter III.

(b) The Chairman shall have exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities as necessary or appropriate to fulfill the Board of Peace’s mission.


Article 3.3: Succession and Replacement


The Chairman shall at all times designate a successor for the role of Chairman. Replacement of the Chairman may occur only following voluntary resignation or as a result of incapacity, as determined by a unanimous vote of the Executive Board, at which time the Chairman’s designated successor shall immediately assume the position of the Chairman and all associated duties and authorities of the Chairman.


Article 3.4: Subcommittees


The Chairman may establish subcommittees as necessary or appropriate and shall set the mandate, structure, and governance rules for each such subcommittee.


CHAPTER IV-EXECUTIVE BOARD

Article 4.1: Executive Board Composition and Representation

(a) The Executive Board shall be selected by the Chairman and consist of leaders of global stature.

(b) Members of the Executive Board shall serve two-year terms, subject to removal by the Chairman and renewable at his discretion.

(c) The Executive Board shall be led by a Chief Executive nominated by the Chairman and confirmed by a majority vote of the Executive Board.

(d) The Chief Executive shall convene the Executive Board every two weeks for the first three months following its establishment and on a monthly basis thereafter, with additional meetings convened as the Chief Executive deems appropriate.

(e) Decisions of the Executive Board shall be made by a majority of its members present and voting, including the Chief Executive. Such decisions shall go into effect immediately, subject to veto by the Chairman at any time thereafter.

(f) The Executive Board shall determine its own rules of procedure.


Article 4.2: Executive Board Mandate

The Executive Board shall:

(a) Exercise powers necessary and appropriate to implement the Board of Peace’s mission, consistent with this Charter;

(b) Report to the Board of Peace on its activities and decisions on a quarterly basis, consistent with Article 3.1(f), and at additional times as the Chairman may determine.

Article 5.1: Expenses

CHAPTER V-FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Funding for the expenses of the Board of Peace shall be through voluntary funding from Member States, other States, organizations, or other sources.

Article 5.2: Accounts

The Board of Peace may authorize the establishment of accounts as necessary to carry out its mission. The Executive Board shall authorize the institution of controls and oversight mechanisms with respect to budgets, financial accounts, and disbursements, as necessary or appropriate to ensure their integrity.


CHAPTER VI LEGAL STATUS

Article 6

(a) The Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities possess international legal personality. They shall have such legal capacity as may be necessary to the pursuit of their mission (including, but not limited to, the capacity to enter into contracts, acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property, institute legal proceedings, open bank accounts, receive and disburse private and public funds, and employ staff).

(b) The Board of Peace shall ensure the provision of such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of the functions of the Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities and personnel, to be established in agreements with the States in which the Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities operate or through such other measures as may be taken by those States consistent with their domestic legal requirements. The Board may delegate authority to negotiate and conclude such agreements or arrangements to designated officials within the Board of Peace and/or its subsidiary entities.


Article 7

CHAPTER VII-INTERPRETATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Internal disputes between and among Board of Peace Members, entities, and personnel with respect to matters related to the Board of Peace should be resolved through amicable collaboration, consistent with the organizational authorities established by the Charter, and for such purposes, the Chairman is the final authority regarding the meaning, interpretation, and application of this Charter.


CHAPTER VIII-CHARTER AMENDMENTS

Article 8

Amendments to the Charter may be proposed by the Executive Board or at least one-third of the Member States of the Board of Peace acting together. Proposed amendments shall be circulated to all Member States at least thirty (30) days before being voted on. Such amendments shall be adopted upon approval by a two-thirds majority of the Board of Peace and confirmation by the Chairman. Amendments to Chapters II, III, IV, V, VIII, and X require unanimous approval of the Board of Peace and confirmation by the Chairman. Upon satisfaction of the relevant requirements, amendments shall enter into force on such date as specified in the amendment resolution or immediately if no date is specified.


Article 9

CHAPTER IX-RESOLUTIONS OR OTHER DIRECTIVES

The Chairman, acting on behalf of the Board of Peace, is authorized to adopt resolutions or other directives, consistent with this Charter, to implement the Board of Peace’s mission.


CHAPTER X-DURATION, DISSOLUTION AND TRANSITION

Article 10.1: Duration

The Board of Peace continues until dissolved in accordance with this Chapter, at which time this Charter will also terminate.

Article 10.2: Conditions for Dissolution

The Board of Peace shall dissolve at such time as the Chairman considers necessary or appropriate, or at the end of every odd-numbered calendar year, unless renewed by the Chairman no later than November 21 of such odd-numbered calendar year. The Executive Board shall provide for the rules and procedures with respect to the settling of all assets, liabilities, and obligations upon dissolution.


CHAPTER XI-ENTRY INTO FORCE

Article 11.1: Entry into Force and Provisional Application

(a) This Charter shall enter into force upon expression of consent to be bound by three States. (b) States required to ratify, accept, or approve this Charter through domestic procedures agree to provisionally apply the terms of this Charter, unless such States have informed the Chairman at the time of their signature that they are unable to do so. Such States that do not provisionally apply this Charter may participate as Non-Voting Members in Board of Peace proceedings pending ratification, acceptance, or approval of the Charter consistent with their domestic legal requirements, subject to approval by the Chairman.

Article 11.2: Depositary

The original text of this Charter, and any amendment thereto shall be deposited with the United States of America, which is hereby designated as the Depositary of this Charter. The Depositary shall promptly provide a certified copy of the original text of this Charter, and any amendment or additional protocols thereto, to all signatories to this Charter.


CHAPTER XII RESERVATIONS

Article 12

No reservations may be made to this Charter.


CHAPTER XIII-GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 13.1: Official Language

The official language of the Board of Peace shall be English

Article 13.2: Headquarters

The Board of Peace and its subsidiary entities may, in accordance with the Charter, establish a headquarters and field offices. The Board of Peace will negotiate a headquarters agreement and agreements governing field offices with the host State or States, as necessary.

Article 13.3: Seal

The Board of Peace will have an official seal, which shall be approved by the Chairman.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed this Charter.

* my yellow bolding used in this post

[See https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-charter-of-trumps-board-of-peace/]



Note: There is no mention of the Gaza Strip or the Palestinian people in this Charter, nor mention of the recently announced National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) or how this Palestinian body would interact with the Chair, Executive or Membership of the Board of Peace.


The wording of this Charter appears to suggest that the Board is to be funded by Ordinary Members. While at least five of those current representatives for ordinary member countries listed at the end of the charter document as of 22 January 2026 may not be guaranteed entry the United States of America, as their named countries can also be found on the full list of nations whose citizens are banned or partially restricted from entry into the USA or its territories. 


Friday, 12 January 2024

International Court of Justice currently hearing South Africa's application for a provisional finding that the Government of Israel was and is committing acts of genocide against the Palestinian people within the Gaza Strip

 

IMAGE: ABC News, 12 January 2024

 






On Thursday 11 January 2024, at 8pm Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time, the International Court of Justice began the first of two public hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by South Africa in the case South Africa v. Israel.


The first hearing day of the full Court (comprising fifteen sitting judges & two ad hoc judges representing South Africa & Israel) was given over entirely to South Africa's evidence and argument.


What followed was almost three hours of detailed, frequently distressing and often very shocking evidence of the Government of Israel and its defence forces' strong desire and deliberate sustained intent to destroy the Palestinian people within the occupied Gaza Strip. Thus breaching the international universal prohibitions against genocide as found in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide


This is one video submitted in evidence:

I'm coming to occupy Gaza,

and beat Hezbolla.

I stick by one mitzvah,

to wipe off the seed of Amalek.

To wipe off the seed of Amalek.

{chorus}

I left home behind me,

won't come back until victory.

We know our slogan,

there are no uninvolved civilians.

There are no uninvolved civilians.

{chorus}

[Translation, Middle East Monitor, Instagram, 7 December 2023]


The entire hearing of 11 January can be viewed at:

https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3 and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2vQ7suQWGg.


Today's public hearing, again beginning at 8pm Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time, will see Israel put its rebuttal argument to the full Court.


This day's hearing can be viewed at:

https://webtv.un.org/en/schedule/2024-01-12.


NOTE:

Pleadings, oral arguments and documents in South Africa v. Israel will not be published until the conclusion of the case.



Saturday, 18 November 2023

Tweets of the Week








Friday, 10 November 2023

Landmark High Court ruling delivered on 8 November 2023 in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023]


NZYQ is an undocumented stateless person whose age cannot be established, who entered Australian territorial waters by boat in 2012 seeking asylum.


The Minister for Immigration at that time was Labor MP Chris Bowen. During the subsequent years to date the following members of the government of the day have held that office: Labor MPs Brendan O'Connor & Tony Burke; Liberal MPs Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton, David Coleman, Alan Tudge (acting) & Alex Hawke; with the current incumbent being Labor MP Andrew Giles.


Since June 2017 NZTQ has been seeking resolution of his matter in the Australian lower courts and finally in the High Court of Australia in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCATrans 153 before the full Court.


Human Rights Law Centre, media release, 8 November 2023:


Indefinite immigration detention unlawful: High Court rules


The High Court has today ruled that it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the Australian Government to detain people indefinitely in immigration detention.


Nearly 20 years ago, the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of indefinite immigration detention in the case of Al-Kateb v Godwin. Today, a majority of judges of the Court overruled that decision. 


In this landmark legal challenge, brought by a person referred to by the pseudonym NZYQ, it was argued that Al-Kateb was wrongly decided, and that it is unlawful and unconstitutional for the Australian Government to continue to detain a person where there is no real prospect that they could be removed from Australia. 


Subsequent to the 2004 decision, attempts to overturn it failed. As a result, the Australian Government has routinely detained people for prolonged periods of time – some for over a decade. 


Today, the average period of time for which the Australian Government holds people in immigration detention is 708 days. There are 124 people in detention today whom the Government has detained for over five years. Many of those people are stateless or owed protection by Australia, meaning that they cannot be returned to their countries of origin as a matter of international law. 


The Human Rights Law Centre and UNSW’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law appeared as amici curiae – friends of the court – to successfully argue that detention is unlawful for any person the Government is unlikely to remove in the foreseeable future.  


Quotes attributable to Sanmati Verma, Acting Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre:


Indefinite detention ends today. The High Court has overturned a two-decades-old authority that allowed the Government to lock people up in immigration detention potentially for the rest of their lives. Today, the High Court held that the Government can no longer detain people if there is no real prospect that it will become practicable to remove them from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. Detention in these circumstances is unconstitutional.


This has life-changing consequences for people who have been detained for years without knowing when, or even if, they will ever be released.


The government must respect the constitutional limits of detention and act immediately to free people who have been indefinitely detained.”


Quotes attributable to Professor Jane McAdam AO, Director of UNSW’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law:


Indefinite detention has always been arbitrary and unlawful under international law. We welcome the High Court’s decision today, which will mean that Australia can no longer detain people for years on end. For decades, Australia’s approach to detention has been completely out of step with that of other democratic countries. As a result of this significant decision, this will now have to change.


This is an important and long-awaited victory for human rights.”


Excerpt from NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2023] HCATrans 154 (8 November 2023), 8 November 2023:


AT 4.17 PM SHORT ADJOURNMENT


UPON RESUMING AT 4.33 PM:


GAGELER CJ: The order I am about to pronounce is the order of the Court with which at least a majority agrees. The Court will publish its reasons for the order in due course. The order is:


The questions stated for the opinion of the Full Court in the further amended special case filed on 31 October 2023 be answered as follows:


Question 1: On their proper construction, did sections 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) authorise the detention of the plaintiff as at 30 May 2023?

Answer: Yes, subject to section 3A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).


Question 2: If so, are those provisions beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth insofar as they applied to the plaintiff as at 30 May 2023?

Answer: Yes.


Question 3: On their proper construction, do sections 189(1) and 196(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) authorise the current detention of the plaintiff?

Answer: Yes, subject to section 3A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).


Question 4: If so, are those provisions beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth insofar as they currently apply to the plaintiff?

Answer: Yes.


Question 5: What, if any, relief should be granted to the plaintiff?

Answer: The following orders should be made:

It is declared that, by reason of there having been and continuing to be no real prospect of the removal of the plaintiff from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future:

(a) the plaintiff’s detention was unlawful as at 30 May 2023; and

(b) the plaintiff’s continued detention is unlawful and has been since 30 May 2023.

A writ of habeas corpus issue requiring the defendants to release the plaintiff forthwith. [my yellow highlighting]


Question 6: Who should pay the costs of the further amended special case?

Answer: The defendants.


The Court will now adjourn until 9.30 am tomorrow for the pronouncement of orders and otherwise until 10.00 am.


AT 4.36 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED


The Dept. of Home Affairs has reportedly stated that there are 92 detainees who were in a similar position to the Rohingya man, NZYQ.


Wednesday, 7 July 2021

State of the Global Natural Environment 2021: fighting to hold nations, governments, industries accountable for the catastrophic environmental harm they cause


American Society of International Law, 2 July 2021:


A group of legal experts, in a collaborative effort to confront environmental destruction, have proposed an amendment to the ICC Rome Statute that would add the crime of ‘ecocide’ to the Court’s jurisdiction. The proposal defines ‘ecocide’ as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” As reported by JURIST, the legal experts believe that the policies and precedents that are currently in place to address similar issues are “inadequate.” While the ICC maintains a history of delivering sentencing and legal precedents in war crimes cases, this amendment could alter the concept of accountability and extend it to the pressing issue of human contributions to climate change. If an ICC member state issues a recommendation for the proposal of the amendment to go forward, a vote will be taken on whether to execute the amendment. To succeed, two-thirds of the total vote are required. [my yellow highlighting]



STOP ECOCIDE FOUNDATION, Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide, COMMENTARY AND CORE TEXT, June 2021, excerpts:


It is widely recognised that humanity stands at a crossroads. The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the emission of greenhouse gases and the destruction of ecosystems at current rates will have catastrophic consequences for our common environment. Along with political, diplomatic and economic initiatives, international law has a role to play in transforming our relationship with the natural world, shifting that relationship from one of harm to one of harmony.


Despite significant progress, the inadequacies of current global environmental governance are widely acknowledged. National and international laws are in place to contribute to the protection of the natural systems upon which our well-being depends, yet it is apparent that such laws are inadequate and more is needed.


It is against this background that in late 2020 the Stop Ecocide Foundation convened an Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (‘Panel’). It comprises twelve lawyers from around the world, with a balance of backgrounds, and expertise in criminal, environmental and climate law. They have worked together for six months, charged with preparing a practical and effective definition of the crime of ‘ecocide’. The Panel was assisted by outside experts and a public consultation that brought together hundreds of ideas from legal, economic, political, youth, faith and indigenous perspectives from around the globe.


Between January and June 2021 the Panel convened for five remote sessions. Panel sub-groups were tasked with specific research and drafting tasks. A consensus on a core text of a definition of ecocide as an international crime was reached in June 2021.


It is the hope of the Panel that the proposed definition might serve as the basis of consideration for an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Statute addresses crimes that are deemed to be of international interest and relevance, and the time has come to extend the protections for serious environmental harm, already recognised to be a matter of international concern.


The inclusion of ecocide in the Rome Statute would add a new crime to international criminal law. This would be the first to be adopted since 1945. It would build on the existing crime of severe damage to the environment during armed conflict, whilst reflecting the fact that today, most severe environmental damage occurs during times of peace, a situation that currently falls outside the jurisdiction of the ICC. This definition of ecocide offers the States Parties to the Rome Statute the opportunity to meet current challenges.


Proceeding to agree a crime of ecocide could contribute to a change of consciousness, in support of a new direction, one that enhances the protection of the environment and supports a more collaborative and effective legal framework for our common future on a shared planet. It offers a new and practical legal tool.


The work has been inspired by earlier efforts, in 1945, to forge definitions of new international crimes, including ‘genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity’. Ecocide draws from both terms, in form and substance.


Taken with these two crimes, and with war crimes and the crime of aggression, we hope that ecocide might take its place as the fifth international crime…..



II. Proposed Amendments to the Rome Statute


To add ecocide as a new crime to the Rome Statute, the Panel recommends the following amendments. We note that consequential amendments may also be required for other provisions of the Rome Statute, such as Article 9, and to the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and the Elements of Crimes.


A. Addition of a preambular paragraph 2 bis

Concerned that the environment is daily threatened by severe destruction and deterioration, gravely endangering natural and human systems worldwide,


B. Addition to Article 5(1)

(e) The crime of ecocide.


C. Addition of Article 8 ter

Article 8 ter

Ecocide


1. For the purpose of this Statute, “ecocide” means unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.


2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:


a. “Wanton” means with reckless disregard for damage which would be clearly excessive in relation to the social and economic benefits anticipated;


b. “Severe” means damage which involves very serious adverse changes, disruption or harm to any element of the environment, including grave impacts on human life or natural, cultural or economic resources;


c. “Widespread” means damage which extends beyond a limited geographic area, crosses state boundaries, or is suffered by an entire ecosystem or species or a large number of human beings;


d. “Long-term” means damage which is irreversible or which cannot be redressed through natural recovery within a reasonable period of time; 


e. “Environment” means the earth, its biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, as well as outer space.



NOTE: This was signed by all twelve members of the Independent Expert Panel.