جرم انگاری بین المللی بوم زدایی:چالش ها و موانع

قدیر, محسن; ابطحی, شراره

doi:10.22066/cilamag.2025.2016438.2479

جرم انگاری بین المللی بوم زدایی:چالش ها و موانع

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

محسن قدیر ¹

شراره ابطحی ²

¹ استادیار دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه قم

² دکتری حقوق بین الملل دانشگاه قم

10.22066/cilamag.2025.2016438.2479

چکیده

جهان امروز با بحران فزایندة تخریب محیط‌زیست روبه‌روست. از جنگل‌زدایی گسترده گرفته تا آلودگی آب‌ها و هوا، زیست‌بوم‌ها با سرعتی هشداردهنده در حال نابودی هستند. چارچوب‌های حقوقی و مقررات بین‌المللی موجود در برخورد با این بحران‌ها اغلب ناکارآمد بوده و پاسخگوی چالش‌های پیچیدة محیط‌زیستی نیستند. این شکاف عمیق در عدالت محیط‌زیستی، نیازمند تدوین سازوکاری جدید همچون جرم‌انگاری تخریب محیط‌زیست است. پذیرش مسئولیت قانونی و پاسخگویی مجرمان می‌تواند گامی مؤثر به‌ سوی آینده‌ای پایدار باشد. بوم‌زدایی(اکوساید) که به معنای تخریب زیست‌بوم‌ها و محیط‌های طبیعی است، به‌طور مستقیم بر زندگی بشر و سایر موجودات زنده تأثیر می‌گذارد. این پدیده، یکی از مهم‌ترین تهدیدات محیط‌زیستی در عصر کنونی شده است. تخریب محیط‌زیست نه‌تنها به منابع طبیعی آسیب می‌زند، بلکه منجر به بحران‌های اجتماعی، اقتصادی و حتی انسانی می‌شود .در عرصة بین‌المللی، جرم‌انگاری بوم‌زدایی با چالش‌های متعددی روبه‌روست. محدودیت‌های قانونی و قضایی، چالش‌های سیاسی و اقتصادی و تفاوت‌های فرهنگی و اجتماعی در نگرش نسبت به محیط‌زیست ازجملة این موانع هستند. در این پژوهش، این پرسش و فرضیه مطرح است: چه چالش‌ها و موانعی برای جرم‌انگاری بین‌المللی بوم‌زدایی وجود دارد؟ چالش‌های اجرایی، ازجمله فقدان چارچوب‌های حقوقی قوی و اختلافات سیاسی بین کشورها، مانع اجرای مؤثر قوانین جرم‌انگاری بوم‌زدایی در سطح جهانی می‌شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

حقوق بین‌الملل کیفری

محیط‌زیست

بوم‌زدایی

جرم‌انگاری بین‌المللی

چالش‌ها و موانع

موضوعات

حقوق بین الملل محیط زیست

عنوان مقاله English

Challenges to the International Criminalization of Ecocide

نویسندگان English

Mohsen Ghadir ¹

Sharareh َAbtahi ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Qom University

² PhD in International Law, University of Qom

چکیده English

The criminalization of ecocide faces numerous challenges at the international level, and thus, understanding and addressing these challenges is crucial for achieving environmental goals. These challenges stem not only from legal reasons but also from political, economic, and social factors. This article aims to examine and analyze the most significant challenges facing the international criminalization of ecocide.
One of the primary challenges in the criminalization of ecocide is the absence of a single, clear definition of this phenomenon at the international level. While many treaties and conventions stress the importance of environmental protection, ecocide is not explicitly defined as a specific crime in many of these documents. This vagueness makes it challenging to identify and assess environmentally harmful actions, leading to ineffective penalties.
Countries often have concerns about international interference in their internal affairs, which can hinder the adoption and enforcement of international laws to criminalize ecocide. Some nations may have economic or political interests in exploiting natural resources, making them hesitant to accept stringent regulations for ecocide. Additionally, the principle of national sovereignty in international relations may clash with the need for global oversight and enforcement of these regulations.
Even if international regulations are established to criminalize ecocide, a significant challenge lies in the lack of resources and enforcement capabilities. Many developing countries lack the necessary infrastructure and funding to effectively monitor and enforce these regulations. Issues such as a shortage of skilled personnel, surveillance equipment, and adequate funds for investigations and prosecutions can impede implementation.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Ecocide

International Criminal Court

Rome Statute

منابع:

- Articles

1. Anderson, Kenneth. “The Rise of International Criminal Law: Intended and Unintended Consequences.” The European Journal of International Law 20, no. 2 (2009).

2. Arias, F. V., and A. K. Reinefeld. “50 Years of the Proposed Crime of Ecocide: Challenges Regarding its Definition and Possible Answers.” International Criminal Law Review (2024).

3. Bertram, D. A. “Towards an International Crime of Ecocide.” (2024).

4. Branch, Adam, and Liana Minkova. “Ecocide, the Anthropocene, and the International Criminal Court.” Ethics & International Affairs (2023).

5. Preston, Brian J. “The Use of Restorative Justice for Environmental Crime.” Criminal Law Journal 35 (2011).

6. Bruch, Carl. “The Environmental Law of War, All’s not Fair in (Civil) War: Criminal Liability for Environmental Damage in Internal Armed Conflict.” Vermont Law Review 25 (2001).

7. Bosio, E. “The Environmental Protection Under International Criminal Law: The New Crime of Ecocide.” (2023).

8. Crook, M., D. Short, and N. South. “Ecocide, Genocide, Capitalism, and Colonialism: Consequences for Indigenous Peoples and Global Ecosystem Environments.” (2018).

9. Cusato, Eliana, and Emily Jones. “The 'Imbroglio' of Ecocide: A Political Economic Analysis.” Leiden Journal of International Law (2023).

10. Drumbl, Mark A. “International Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law and Environmental Security, Can the International Criminal Court Bridge the Gaps?” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 6 (2000).

11. Duthel, H. “The Jurisdiction of the ICC: Scope and Challenges: An Analysis of the ICC's Competencies and the Challenges Arising from its International Role.” (2024).

12. Freeland, Steven. “Addressing the Intentional Destruction of the Environment during Warfare under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” (2015).

13. Gauger, Anja, Mai Pouye Rabatel-Fernel, Louise Kulbicki, Damien Short, and Polly Higgins. “The Ecocide Project: Ecocide Is the Missing 5^th Crime Against Peace.” (2013).

14. Gillett, M. “Prosecuting Environmental Harm Before the International Criminal Court.” (2022).

15. Khan, Asif, Shaukat Hussain Bhatti, and Abid Shah. “An Overview of Individual Criminal Liability for the Crime of Aggression.” Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ) 5, no. 1 (2021).

16. Killean, Rachel, and Elizabeth Newton. “From Ecocide to Ecocentrism: Conceptualizing Environmental Victimhood at the International Criminal Court.” International Review of Victimology (2024).

17. Lawrence, Jessica C., and Kevin Jon Heller. “The First Ecocentric Environmental War Crime: The Limits of Article 8(2) (b) (IV) of the Rome Statute.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 20 (2007).

18. Gillett, Matthew. “Environmental Damage and International Criminal Law.” (2013).

19. Minkova, L. G. “The Fifth International Crime: Reflections on the Definition of ‘Ecocide’.” Journal of Genocide Research (2023).

20. Milaninia, Nema, and Jelena Aparac. “Climate Change Litigation before the International Criminal Court: Prospects in Theory and Practice.” (2021).

21. Palarczyk, D. “Ecocide before the International Criminal Court: Simplicity Is Better Than Elaborate Embellishment.” Criminal Law Forum (2023).

22. Schneider, M. “… need for an international crime of ecocide and what are the comparative strengths and weaknesses of using ecocide in the context of the ICC to establish legal ...”.

23. Jodoin, Sébastien. “Protecting the Rights of Future Generations through Existing and New International Criminal Law.” (2013).

24. Short, Damien. “Cultural Genocide and Indigenous Peoples: A Sociological Approach.” The International Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 6 (2010).

25. Tanwar, Parth, and Jaispriya Poply. “Global Offences and International Law: A Comprehensive Analysis of War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, Genocide, and Crimes of Aggression.” (2024).

- Cases/ Documents

1. A/CN.4/466. Thirteenth report on the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of mankind, by Mr. Doudou Thiam, Special Rapporteur, Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (Part II) – including the draft statute for an international criminal court Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission: 1995, vol. II(1) p. 35, para. 8.

2. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 1948, see http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/ volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf last accessed 16/07/12.

4. Public Redacted Version of the Prosecutor’s Application under Article 58, Situation in Darfur (ICC-02/05-157-AnxA), Office of the Prosecutor, 14 July 2008, § 14.

5. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 17 July 1998 (last amended 2010).

6. Violations of Arts 35(3) and 55(1) of Additional Protocol I are not listed as grave breaches, whereas the ENMOD Convention does not impose criminal liability in case of violation of its provisions.

7. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, (1986) Yearbook of the ILC, 1986, Vol. II, Pt. 2, p. 46, para. 96.