The amendment:
- Changes the definition of ecocide to a legal definition as proposed by Polly Higgins in her book Eradicating Ecocide: Exposing the Corporate and Political Practices Destroying the Planet and Proposing the Laws Needed to Eradicate Ecocide, as well as her draft law submission to the United Nations International Law Commission in 2010.
- Further specifies operative clause 3 regarding the adoption of the crime of ecocide in the Rome Statute as well as the expansion of the jurisdiction of the ICC for the crime of ecocide over corporations.
- Reframes focus of operative clause 1 to the Global North.
Why:
- Seeing that this is largely a legal resolution, it is important that we pursue a sufficiently clear legal definition of ecocide that would expand the jurisdiction of the ICC over corporations and corporate activity and thus create a duty of care for the State, individuals and corporations. The definition proposed by Polly Higgins does so.
- It's important to stress the expansion of the jurisdiction of the ICC, which currently only has jurisdiction over individuals and States, as this was one of the key aspects of a crime of ecocide. The draft law proposed by Polly Higgins is explicitly mentioned to provide a framework for such an amendment. The procedure was also further specified for clarity to include the adoption then ratification of such an amendment.
- Another key aspect of a crime of ecocide was to amplify the responsibility of the Global North, as the ICC can be argued to be a tool of Western imperialism reinforcing the repression of the Global South, particularly Africa, in its continued persecution of politically and developmentally weak states yet inaction to hold larger global powers accountable. Alongside the expansion of jurisdiction over corporations, it's important to emphasise the destruction caused by the Global North in the Global South. (Furthermore, the original text seemed to imply emphasis of public and private institutions in the Global South).
- Destruction was added as actions of (neo)colonialism and (neo)imperialism did/do not always constitute exploitation of the environment.
- State and private actors was included to further emphasise responsibility of individuals and corporations.