For decades, the global response to environmental destruction has been a complex web of regulatory frameworks. These systems, detailed and often technocratic, have primarily operated on a principle of licensing harm and penalizing infractions with fines. But what happens when those fines are simply absorbed as a “cost of doing business”? The result is a system that has, by and large, failed to stem the tide of widespread, long-term environmental damage. This was the central challenge posed by Jojo Mehta of the Stop Ecocide Foundation in a recent presentation at Osgoode Hall Law School presented by the Jack & Mae Nathonson Centre on Transactional Human Rights, Crime, and Security. Her argument moves beyond tweaking existing regulations and calls for a fundamental shift in our legal consciousness: the international recognition of “ecocide” as a crime.
The Deterrence Factor of Criminal Law
The core of the case for ecocide law lies in the adaption of the term in criminal law. Environmental regulations exist in a sphere of administrative compliance, whereas criminal law carries an undeniable ethical and moral weight which could create more opportunities for deterrence rather than the acceptance of fines, for instance, as a ‘cost of business’. It draws a societal line in the sand, declaring certain acts not merely “non-compliant” but inherently wrong.
Mehta pointed out that corporations are, on the whole, rational actors. Their primary driver is profit, not ideological or purposeful environmental destruction. However, the pursuit of profit has led to the degradation of the very ecosystems we rely on for survival. Fines have proven to be an insufficient deterrent. Criminal law changes the calculus entirely. When individual criminal responsibility enters the picture, so does the risk of reputational catastrophe and, crucially, the loss of personal liberty. Suddenly, the potential cost becomes directly relevant to shareholders and executives in a way a corporate fine never could be. It is a powerful systemic lever that forces a recalibration of risk.
Expanding Our Circle of Care
Perhaps the most thought-provoking aspect of Mehta’s presentation was the framing of ecocide law as the next logical step in the evolution of human justice. She traced the historical expansion of our “circle of care”, from the abolition of slavery and the recognition of women’s rights to the establishment of human rights law. In each case, the law evolved to protect what society had come to value as intrinsically worthy. Ecocide law proposes that this circle must now expand to include the natural systems that sustain all life. It is a recognition that we are not separate from our environment, but fundamentally dependent upon it. This resonates deeply with a global intuitive connection to nature, a connection that is often more acutely felt in non-colonial societies. For ecocide law to be successful, it must help re-establish this connection, framing the natural world not as a resource to be exploited, but as our collective home.
A Focus on Consequences, Not Just Acts
A key insight from the Stop Ecocide campaign is the importance of definition. Effective ecocide law would not focus on prescribing a list of specific banned acts. Instead, it would focus on the consequences of those acts. The parallel that Mehta drew was powerful: “You’re not a murderer because of how you kill someone, but rather that that person is dead.” Similarly, ecocide would be defined by the fact of severe, widespread, or long-term damage to the environment, regardless of the precise method used to cause it. This consequence-based approach is more robust and harder for polluters to loophole their way around.
The Unspoken Critique and The Path Forward
The presentation, however, also prompted a critical internal reflection. While advocating for this new legal frontier, there was a sense of it being presented as a novel, independently developing conversation. This framing risks overlooking a crucial truth: many Indigenous legal traditions have long contained sophisticated frameworks for living in balance with nature, recognizing its intrinsic rights. A truly effective ecocide law cannot be built on a purely colonial worldview that still frames nature in terms of its utility to humanity. It must learn from and integrate these ancient wisdoms that have always understood the interconnectedness of all life.
This need for a deeper, more holistic approach is underscored by contemporary political challenges. In Canada, for instance, the push for a “green economy” is creating a paradoxical demand for minerals, leading to a surge in mining projects. These activities are increasingly being framed as issues of “national security” rather than environmental stewardship, potentially sidelining ecological concerns in the name of economic or geopolitical imperatives. This is precisely where an ecocide lens becomes vital. It provides a legal and ethical counterweight, forcing a conversation that goes beyond economics and security to ask a more fundamental question: are we causing severe, widespread, and long-term damage to our home?
The journey to recognizing ecocide is as much about shifting our collective mindset as it is about drafting statutes. It requires us to confront uncomfortable truths about our economic systems, to listen to marginalized wisdom, and to ultimately decide that our circle of care is wide enough to include the living world itself. As Jojo Mehta’s work makes clear, the law can be a powerful tool to catalyze that shift, moving us from a paradigm of licensing harm to one of affirming protection. Our survival may depend on it.
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.