Webinar Wrap-Up: Ecocide & Animal Protection under the Rome Statute

August 7, 2026

—

3–4 minutes

By 33 Bedford Row

Webinar Wrap-Ups: Briefing You on Animal Law Discussions! “Beyond Human Suffering: Ecocide & Animal Protection under the Rome Statute”

Panelists

What is the current position in international law?

The International Criminal Court’s Human-Centric Framework

The ICC prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression which are all historically focused on human suffering.
Environmental and animal harms have only been addressed as supplementary to human-centric crimes, never as standalone offences.

The term ecocide emerged in the 1970s during the Vietnam War (US use of defoliants to destroy forests).
Herz notes that current legal test requires harm to be widespread, long-term and severe, a threshold inherited by the ICC and notoriously difficult to prove.
Reform proposals include removing proportionality requirements to lower the evidentiary bar.

Proulx pointed out that animals are currently recognised only indirectly under ICC frameworks as:
- Property/objects – Killing livestock treated as pillage
- Civilian objects – Acknowledged as attacked but animals are not afforded victimhood
- Disproportionately used in warfare – Recognised but not prosecuted as a distinct harm
It was outlined by the panel that prosecutorial attention to animal-specific crimes remains minimal.
Proulx states that domestic ecocide bills (e.g., Scotland) have struggled due to high thresholds of proof.
Animal harm is not yet treated as a crime against humanity; it typically requires a demonstrable impact on humans.
- Emerging reparation schemes acknowledge the cultural and livelihood value of animals to victims (e.g., cattle donations) BUT Animals themselves do not receive reparations for harms inflicted on them.

What are the current factors influencing the implementation of animal protection globally?

Protecting animals often protects humans; wellbeing between both groups is intertwined.
Proulx pointed out some DIFFICULTIES:
- The ICC can only prosecute what is already criminalised domestically (known as the complementarity principle).
  - Most states globally have some animal-protection legislation, offering a foundation for consensus BUT timing, wording and political priorities remain obstacles.
- Animal trafficking may qualify as a transnational crime but meeting the threshold for an international crime (cross-border elements) is harder.
- Hastily incorporating animal protection could perpetuate hierarchical speciesism, prioritising some animal species over others, something already present in domestic law.

Smith expressed that Indigenous and Global South legal traditions often do not separate human and non-human entities, emphasising kinship, community and intergenerational justice.
International courts may overlook these cultural links, leading to fragmented approaches and impeding global consensus.
Clashes between international legal culture and domestic social cultures can result in complications in terms of implementation.

Panelists reject this as a false debate; the harms experienced by humans and animals go hand in hand. Recognising both enables fuller analysis of criminal behaviour.
The law should not have to choose which to address; one does not crowd out the other.

Conclusion

Herz concluded that environmental harm is complex and multifaceted (pollution, biodiversity loss, animal abuse); the crime of ecocide alone does not address all issues.
The ICC must be responsive, not stagnant. Perhaps responses can be drawn from innovation created outside the institution (within individual states).

Evidentiary thresholds, state consent and political sensitivity remain significant barriers.
The panelists also discussed that, aside from individuals or so-called natural persons, the ICC must hold powerful collective actors like corporations accountable.

This is an emerging legal frontier.
- The intersection of animal rights, environmental protection and international criminal law is one of the most rapidly evolving areas of global justice. This should be given more attention to support better protection of our environment, our rights as persons and, of course, the rights of animals.

It shows that fighting for animal protection is also fighting for human protection.
- The webinar dismantles the false dichotomy between human and non-human suffering. Acknowledging the connection would strengthen both human rights and environmental advocacy.
Legal professionals, advocates and policymakers need to grasp the obstacles and opportunities NOW to move forward with more robust safeguarding for animals.