A panel of international experts drafted a definition of the crime of ecocide in 2021 as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with the knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”
Yet, despite numerous efforts at both national and international levels, including by the Ecocide Law Alliance, most civil-law states lack a crime of ecocide in their criminal codes.
While its criminalization would be complex and politically contentious even in peacetime, armed conflict creates an urgent need to establish legal frameworks for adjudication and accountability for severe environmental harm.
Ukraine has faced significant challenges investigating and prosecuting ecocide since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, and there is little room for delay. Faced with continuous environmental destruction, Kyiv had no choice but to move forward with investigations and charges as the war continued.
Although efforts to adjudicate ecocide are underway, including the 2023 destruction of the Kakhovka dam, attacks on the Sumy ammonia plant, and an attempt to destroy a nuclear facility in Kharkiv, there are legal and investigative constraints that require robust efforts from the investigative, prosecutorial, and judicial communities.
In the absence of established jurisprudence on ecocide, courts will be required to interpret and apply key elements of the crime with little guidance. This is particularly true for the requirement that environmental damage is widespread, long-term, and severe.
The most relevant available guidance comes from the interpretation of international humanitarian law on protecting the environment during armed conflict. This includes Article 35(3) and Article 55 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit warfare expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment.
The authoritative International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) commentary on these provisions was developed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and the US’s extensive use of the Agent Orange defoliant. According to that commentary, “long-term” damage is understood as harm lasting more than a decade.
But such an approach is difficult to align with the realities of an ongoing war. Ukraine’s authorities cannot wait 10 years before assessing environmental harm and pursuing accountability. Courts will need to develop a more practical and context-sensitive interpretation.
The concept of “widespread” raises similar challenges, and Ukrainian prosecutors have increasingly focused on identifying patterns of conduct rather than viewing incidents in isolation. The destruction of dams and other water-management infrastructure, for example, has been a repeated tactic by Russian forces across the country.
International humanitarian law specifically protects works and installations whose damage or destruction could unleash dangerous forces, including the water behind dams and dikes, under Article 56 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Demonstrating a broader pattern of attacks may help establish the widespread nature of the environmental harm.
The notion of “severe” environmental damage also remains open to interpretation. It is not clear if severity should be assessed primarily by reference to the impact on ecosystems, biodiversity, and individual species of flora and fauna, or if it should also encompass the consequences for human populations, whose livelihoods, mental and physical health, and living conditions are affected.
Given the interconnected nature of environmental and human harm, courts will likely be required to address both dimensions.
There is a further question over attempted ecocide, and whether it should give rise to criminal liability. This is particularly relevant in situations where an intended environmental catastrophe was prevented only through the intervention of Ukrainian emergency services or other factors.
In such cases, the anticipated irreversible damage may not have materialized, but the perpetrators deliberately targeted facilities that could have caused catastrophic consequences.
Courts will need to determine what evidence is sufficient to prove both the intent and the environmental consequences sought in an attack.
Several indictments alleging the crime of ecocide under Article 441 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine have already been submitted to Ukrainian courts, but they have not yet received substantive judicial consideration, nor has the Supreme Court issued guidance on interpreting the criminal elements.
The coming years are likely to be decisive in shaping both Ukrainian and international understanding of ecocide in armed conflict, and the understanding that environmental damage caused by Russia’s aggression extends far beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Pollution, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem destruction have regional and global consequences, making accountability for such crimes a matter of concern for the whole world.
Ensuring those responsible are held accountable is essential not just to deliver justice for affected communities in Ukraine, but to strengthen deterrence against similar conduct in the future.
Anna Stakhanova is a legal expert specializing in international crimes, prosecution reform, and accountability. Her research at CEPA focused on Transitional Justice policy for Ukraine. In her most recent position, Anna worked as the Key Expert on Accountability for International Crimes with the EU Project Pravo-Justice in Ukraine, where she advised and trained key stakeholders within the Ukrainian justice system. Prior to this, Anna served as an International Consultant on Accountability for War Crimes with the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) in Poland. Anna holds an LLM in International Law from the London School of Economics, along with master’s degrees in law and linguistics from National University of Odesa Law Academy and Odesa I.I. Mechnikov National University.
Isabella Nieminen is a Program Assistant with the Democratic Resilience program at CEPA. A recipient of the Fulbright Award and the Critical Language Scholarship, her research interests include transitional justice, civil society resilience, and the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
