The Centre for Climate Engagement (CCE) at Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge, has submitted a response to a public consultation on the draft policy on accountability for environmental crimes under the Rome Statute launched by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Summary
The Office of the Prosecutor’s Draft Policy on Environmental Crimes responds to the urgent need for stronger legal action against environmental harm. While most legal systems and multilateral agreements aim to safeguard nature, human-driven environmental damage now poses a serious and immediate threat to life on Earth and contributes significantly to climate change. The Draft Policy reflects the International Criminal Court’s recognition that protecting the environment is essential to securing a sustainable and liveable future for all.
“Environmental harm—such as deforestation, pollution, resource exploitation, or climate-related displacement—worsens instability, deepens humanitarian crises, and impacts vulnerable communities most severely. We welcome OTP’s draft policy because we believe that recognising and prosecuting these acts under international law is key to addressing their long-term impact and preventing further damage to the environment.”
Sofie Surraco, Member of CCE’s research team
Key Points from our Response
- Clarify the ICC’s approach to climate-related cases: The policy should set out when and how climate-related harms could fall within the Court’s jurisdiction, including how it might assess historic emissions or systemic causes under existing legal standards. It should also consider how climate change overlaps with other types of environmental harm, which may be more straightforward to prosecute.
- Clarify how to prove intent: The policy should offer clearer guidance on evidentiary standards for mens rea in environmental crimes. Given the difficulty of proving direct intent, it should explore whether concepts like wilful blindness, reckless disregard, and systemic negligence can be used to establish liability. The role of scientific evidence—such as satellite imagery, attribution studies, and forensic climate science—in linking harm to individual actors should also be explicitly addressed.
- Strengthen corporate accountability: Clearer mechanisms are needed to hold companies and financial institutions accountable for environmental harm. The policy should outline how the ICC will apply attribution science to connect harmful outcomes—like emissions, pollution, or deforestation—to corporate conduct. This would help define the kinds of actions that fall within the scope of environmental crimes under the Rome Statute.
- Collaborate with Experts: The ICC should partner with climate scientists, public health experts, indigenous knowledge holders, and forensic specialists to strengthen the way environmental harm and its human impact are documented. This would support more accurate investigation and better address complex questions of causation, such as linking emissions to displacement or health effects.
- Build institutional capacity: To deliver effective justice, the ICC must invest in training and capacity-building. The policy should outline plans for training investigators, prosecutors, and judges in environmental issues. It should also consider creating specialised units and expert panels which may work to clarify how non-human harms—like biodiversity loss or ecosystem degradation—can be addressed within the Court’s current framework.
The authors of our response authors were Léa Weimann (University of Cambridge), Sofie Surraco (CCE), Kakoly Pande (The 36 Group) and Nick Scott (CCE).
Photo by Vladimir Srajber
Slingshot