Response to interpellation 2023/24:771 on the introduction of ecocide as an international crime
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the introduction of ecocide as an international crime in the Rome Statute. S wants ecocide to be classified as an international crime in order to combat impunity in cases of large-scale environmental destruction 1 2 and believes that the government should show leadership and actively drive the issue internationally 2. M considers accountability for environment-related crimes in Ukraine to be a high priority 3 4. M argues that the Rome Statute should only be opened if there are very strong reasons and conditions for broad support, which the government assesses do not exist for ecocide today 3 5. M emphasizes that environmental crimes require specific expertise and that it may be better to strengthen national and regional legal systems 5. M argues that there is a lack of an internationally recognized definition of ecocide 5, that the ICC already has limited resources 6, and that Sweden will be an active part of the discussion if conditions exist in the future 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Linnéa Wickman has asked me whether the government considers that the Rome Statute should be supplemented so that ecocide is classified as an international crime, and what concrete steps I and the government have taken or plan to take in that case to drive the issue internationally.
To begin with, I want to emphasize what the government has clearly stated since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine: Accountability for the crimes committed in Ukraine in connection with the Russian aggression is a high priority for the government. This includes accountability for environment-related crimes. Great efforts are being made in Ukraine to map the environmental destruction resulting from the war in order to investigate crimes but also to be able to manage and quantify the damages in order to then be able to demand compensation from Russia.
The starting point for the discussion on a possible new criminal classification is that there is an existing possibility in the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and under international humanitarian law to judge individuals who have committed attacks against the environment during armed conflicts as war crimes. The ICC prosecutor has in this context announced that he wants to develop a new policy to improve accountability regarding environment-related crimes in the Rome Statute.
Establishing ecocide as a crime even in peacetime in the Rome Statute is part of an important debate on how we should address large-scale destruction of the earth's ecosystems.
The work of developing the international law framework is simultaneously a task that requires a broad consensus among many states in order to achieve success. Otherwise, there is a risk that it will be confirmed that the establishment of such a crime does not have international support.
For an amendment to the Rome Statute to be adopted, it is required that at least two-thirds of the parties vote for it. For it to then enter into force, it is required that seven-eighths ratify or approve the amendment. We have seen that it has taken years to get through the amendments that have already been made to the statute.
The Rome Statute constitutes a successful result of a balanced and difficultly negotiated compromise that largely consisted of a codification of already existing gross and serious crimes, which in the vast majority of cases also are based on so-called customary law. The Statute should only be opened up if there are very strong reasons and conditions for broad support among the parties to the Statute. There are a number of other proposals for amendments to the Rome Statute being discussed among the States parties.
The Government welcomes and participates in various processes in the area of accountability for large-scale environmental destruction. The Government follows the development of the issue closely, and if there are conditions to establish ecocide as an international crime, Sweden intends to be an active part of the discussion on this.
Linnéa Wickman (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by welcoming the new Minister for Foreign Affairs and congratulating her on her important assignment. There is no shortage of challenges in our global environment, and the importance of a strong and clear Swedish voice to ensure that international law is respected has rarely been so great. I am certain that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will frequently have to debate this with us Social Democrats here in the chamber of the Riksdag.
It is for my part long-awaited to, after a wait of four months, be able to debate this pressing interpellation and take part in the government's response.
I took the initiative for this debate because international legislation against large-scale environmental destruction is needed, because there is an ever-strengthening international movement for this, and to try to get a statement from the government on whether the government wants this and what Sweden, if so, does to move forward internationally step by step so that ecocide can be classified as a punishable crime in the International Criminal Court.
This is not a new question. Olof Palme already described at the Stockholm Conference in 1972 that "the immense destruction caused by extensive indiscriminate bombing, by the large-scale use of bulldozers and chemical agents" could be described as ecocide. When the Rome Statute was then adopted in 1998, however, the crime of ecocide was deleted at the last moment from being classified as one of humanity's most serious crimes.
Mr. Speaker, the developments in our world clearly show the need to strengthen international law and combat the impunity that prevails regarding large-scale environmental destruction, ecocide, which is defined as "illegal or reckless acts committed with the knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of serious and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment".
A clear example of ecocide is, among other things, Russia's warfare in the illegal war of aggression in Ukraine through the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam in Ukraine in June 2023. The dam and its reservoir had more water than the entire Mälaren. The drinking water supply was affected for hundreds of thousands, 40 cities and communities were flooded, farmland has been contaminated by toxic substances and mines have been spread downstream of the river.
This was the largest environmental catastrophe in Europe in decades. That the International Criminal Court is now investigating whether the case can lead to prosecution within the framework of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, which regulates environmental damage in connection with war, is hopeful. But it is not enough to stop ecocide crimes in the future, especially not in peacetime.
The EU revised the environmental crime directive last year in order to make the most serious damage to the environment punishable in "cases comparable to ecocide". It is an example of the issue moving forward, thanks to everyone who is engaging in this.
Mr. Speaker, the core issue here is that we need to establish a global regulatory framework where ecocide is recognized as the serious crime it is. The Foreign Minister has not actually answered the question of whether the government believes that ecocide should be recognized as a separate crime in the Rome Statute.
Yes, it is a long process. Yes, it requires support from a large number of countries. Yes, the Rome Statute is a hard-fought compromise. But what does the government want, regardless of what other states want?
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the congratulations. I look forward very much to many spirited debates ahead on important issues such as this.
Russia's aggression against Ukraine has not only hit the civilian population and infrastructure hard but has also affected the environment and climate, just as Linnéa Wickman pointed out. This has also shed light on the question of how accountability is to be achieved for large-scale environmental destruction in Ukraine and elsewhere in the world.
The idea of being able to demand international law responsibility for environmental crimes is not new, just as Linnéa Wickman said. The term ecocide has appeared since the 70s. However, there is no established definition of the concept. Ecocide figured in an early stage as a potential crime to be included in the Rome Statute, just as was mentioned, but it was then not included in the final list of crimes included in the statute because there was no support at that time. On the other hand, it is possible to demand responsibility for large-scale environmental destruction as part of Article 8 on war crimes in the event of widespread, long-term and serious damage to the natural environment.
Ukraine, like several other states, has ecocide in its national legislation. Countering ecocide is one of the points in President Zelenskyy's so-called ten-point plan for peace. Great efforts are also being made in Ukraine to map the environmental destruction resulting from the war in order to investigate ecocide crimes according to national legislation, but also to be able to manage and quantify the damages in order to then be able to claim damages from Russia.
As mentioned, widespread, long-lasting and severe damage to the environment in war can constitute a war crime according to Article 8. Sweden was one of the founding members of the damage register under the Council of Europe established to document the extensive damage caused by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, including the environmental issue.
In February 2024, the ICC's prosecutor Karim Khan announced that he had initiated a process that will result in a comprehensive policy document on environmental crimes, which aims to ensure that the ICC has a systematic approach to handling environment-related crimes within the court's jurisdiction in order to improve accountability regarding these specific crimes.
Accountability for the crimes that have been committed in Ukraine in connection with the Russian aggression is a very high priority for the government. This also applies to accountability for environment-related crimes.
Linnéa Wickman (S)
Madam Speaker! The insight that in war it is often part of the strategy to also damage nature in order to hinder a future reconstruction becomes very clear in Ukraine when we see the Russian warfare. As was mentioned here, the prevention of ecocide crimes is also included in President Zelenskyy's peace plan.
I want to assert that Sweden has a particularly important role in the issue of supporting Ukraine, both when it comes to Russia being held accountable for its ecocide crimes and when it comes to developing international law in order to ultimately be able to prevent future ecocide crimes even in peacetime. That is also what we are talking about here.
The high-level group that President Zelenskyy appointed to investigate the war's environmental consequences was led by the former Foreign Minister Margot Wallström. Also, more Swedes worked in the group, for example Greta Thunberg and the Member of Parliament Rebecka Le Moine. One of the 50 recommendations that the group put forward is directed at the international community and concerns precisely acting to have ecocide introduced as an international crime also in peacetime. It is an appeal that the government needs to listen to and act upon.
We are in agreement in this Riksdag that we shall support Ukraine for as long as is required for them to win the war. The support we give Ukraine to strengthen the ability to document and collect evidence of war crimes and Sweden's commitment to create a special tribunal for Russia's crimes of aggression are important efforts.
It is also positive, as we have previously noted, that there is a development and that the International Criminal Court is reviewing how accountability can be improved regarding environment-related crimes. But if ecocide is to be recognized once and for all as a separate crime, in a world where ecosystems are being destroyed at a frightening pace, after decades of discussions, the government needs to do more than just follow the issue. How are conditions to be created to establish ecocide as an international crime if Sweden does not actively drive the issue towards other countries? The Foreign Minister is welcome to answer that.
I do not doubt that it is a long, difficult and laborious process for ecocide to be recognized as an international crime. But I am also afraid that this issue risks following a pattern in Sweden's foreign policy with this government – a pattern where Sweden's voice in the world becomes weaker and where the government seems to have a low confidence in what role Sweden's engagement can play. Sweden's government also often chooses passivity over activity, to follow rather than to show leadership.
The fact is that this government has been given a historic opportunity to support the concrete proposal that three small island nations have submitted to the International Court of Justice that ecocide should be recognized as an international crime. Previous governments have not been able to do this. Now it is up to the government to prove itself when it comes to the words and the concern for the large-scale environmental crimes we see. We must fight that impunity. Then the government must act, move, and show leadership.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! I believe one should be well aware that environmental crimes in a broad sense require specific knowledge and expertise that the ICC may not currently possess in sufficient extent. Some argue that it is better to strengthen national and regional legal systems and initiatives to handle environmental crimes rather than adding a new category of crime to the ICC's already very extensive jurisdiction.
There are also several different processes underway regarding accountability for large-scale environmental destruction internationally. One example is that in the recently revised EU directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law provisions, the environmental crime directive, a provision has been included which means that Member States shall ensure that intentional environmental crimes that have led to destruction of or extensive and substantial damage to the environment shall be considered a particularly serious crime. The maximum penalty that can be imposed for such crimes shall be at least eight years of imprisonment. The crime covers acts that are comparable to ecocide.
Even within the Council of Europe, environmental crime is high on the agenda. Work is underway to develop a new convention on the protection of the environment through criminal law provisions. The draft convention that is currently relevant largely reflects the recently adopted environmental crime directive. Therefore, the convention also contains a provision that intentional environmental crimes that have led to the destruction of or extensive and substantial damage to the environment shall be considered a particular serious crime.
During the difficult negotiations on the Rome Statute, there was consensus regarding the main categories of the four crimes to be included, all of which have customary legal grounding, as I mentioned earlier. It was a prerequisite for the Rome Statute to eventually be adopted.
It then took an additional twelve years from the time the statute was signed until a consensus regarding the definition of the crime of aggression was actually reached. One conclusion of this is that the Rome Statute should probably not be opened up, unless there are very strong reasons and conditions for broad support among the parties to the statute. The government assesses that these do not exist for ecocide today.
One difficulty is, as I have said previously, that there is a lack of an internationally recognized definition of ecocide. It is difficult to design an ecocide crime in an accurate and sufficiently clear way. An independent panel of experts did, however, in 2021 produce a proposal that has provided a basis to work further on.
No, the government does not take a passive role in foreign policy. We work very hard and purposefully to benefit Swedish interests in the world. It also implies an obligation to prioritize where we have the greatest opportunity to influence what is good for Sweden. If it is judged to be hopeless, it is perhaps not the best prioritization to continue working on.
That is not to say that the question of ensuring a legal process against those who have committed serious environmental crimes is not extremely urgent.
Linnéa Wickman (S)
Madam Speaker! This is an important debate, simply to try to bring clarity to what the Swedish government actually thinks on the issue and to get answers on what the Swedish government is doing to back up the words that impunity in large-scale environmental destruction must be combated.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs points out that it may be better to strengthen the national legal systems in connection with this. But there is nothing that says it would stand in the way of us also working at an international level to develop our regulatory frameworks and stand up for a rules-based world order.
As I said earlier, I do not imagine in any way that it is a simple question or that it would be quick to introduce ecocide as a new independent crime in the Rome Statute. But it is sad that the Foreign Minister actually cannot describe any concrete examples of how Sweden has pushed forward on the issue towards other states in international forums.
As I also mentioned earlier, this government has a historical opportunity as there are parties to the Rome Statute which, in the recent past, quite recently, have submitted a proposal to request that the issue be taken up again. International law must be constantly updated. We must learn from what is happening in the world. But here it is clear that the Swedish government seems to lack both a plan and a will, actually, to step forward.
I mean that we need to develop international frameworks that can address large-scale environmental crimes in the same way that we today address other serious international crimes. But that requires Sweden to cooperate with other countries and push forward. That is the only way we can create the coalition that is required.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! It is very true that Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa submitted a formal proposal to the ICC on 9 September this year to include ecocide in the Rome Statute. The Government's assessment, however, is consistently that there is currently not sufficient support for this among the parties to the Rome Statute. Furthermore, a comprehensive reform process of the court and the Rome Statute system has been ongoing since 2019, and the ICC already has limited resources and many complex investigations and cases, which are also important, to manage.
During 2025, a review of the crime of aggression is planned, in accordance with what was decided during the review conference in Kampala in 2010. This will also take resources from the court and the States Parties. Sweden is part of the group pushing that the same rules of jurisdiction should apply to all crimes in the Rome Statute, which could lead to the court's jurisdiction in the future potentially covering a case of an aggression by a state that is not a party to the Statute.
The discussion on ecocide and its legal status continues to be an important part of the global dialogue on environmental protection and international law. If there are conditions in the future to establish ecocide as an international crime in the Rome Statute, Sweden will be an active part of the discussion on this.
I would like to thank you for an important debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.