Concerns Intervie

John: The vice red squiggly lines which would you like to see? Charles thanks very much for joining us this morning for the vital interest form. It's really a pleasure to talk with you today. We're going to be discussing a really important topic which is always in the news these days and with the crop 26 conference coming up in Glasgow.

The last week we had the meeting of the UN there was lots of discussion and that's the hope challenge that's facing the entire globe. What we are now calling climate change but there's been the environmental crisis which has been with us for actually decades now. Lots of rhetoric, lots of talk, some programs. We think little too late. You were involved recently with an interesting initiative that was undertaken by the stop and echo side foundation. That was the convening of an independent panel to work out for the legal definition of the crime of ecocide so that this would be something that the international criminal law world could deal with and actually try to make a difference in terms of bringing people to account for the environmental damage that we see going on around the world. To start off Charles why don't you give us a little background of how this international expert panel was convened and your involvement with it and how the mechanisms of coming up with this legal definition of an echo side? Charles: First of all thank you so much John for inviting me to advise on the address and also thank you for highlighting basically the amendment across the soup put within a national community and the discussions that the global level concerning effectively what we are calling us climate change, including most recently that build the theme of 76 general assembly. Concerning your question in terms of how I got involved.

This topic was foundation as a group that has been working on issues of climate change and environmental law and environmental advocacy. They came up on discussions with a number of themes especially the Pacific islands states. With this idea or bringing up a conversation or concerning ecocide as a concept that's been around for many years. The basic idea is that we need to look at all the tools that international community may have including international criminal law to prohibit certain conduct that causes a severe destruction to the environment which of course harms all of the international community.

When the audition [inaudible 00:03:04] foundation did was to invite 12 panelists a globally representative group of lawyers, climate change activist environmentalist and international criminal law people. To have a discussion on what this concept of equal set could look like as a matter of international criminal law. The task was basically to define the crime and present that idea that

John: Talk about the definition. What you came up with, if I can read from the amendment that was being put forward. I could talk ecocide means unlawful or wanting acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by these acts. You tried to get specific but also remain general in terms of what could be gathered underneath this dominant definition. Then to put the definition out there for discussion, for the world communities, that was the goal. Charles: That was the goal. Our remit was quite specific. We basically look at what are the possibilities for a new crime on the [inaudible 00:04:21] room studied of the international criminal court? Is there a possibility or making proposals for amendment? This is important to stress because there's a separate conversation and interest by others.

The idea that perhaps you could even have a standalone breaching team that is specifically with environmental crime. That's a separate discussion but here is specific to the Rome statute which is of course the study of international criminal court. Why that is significant? Is that code has at least 123 states parties as of today and essentially the most universal.

Part 2 Transcription Job T2345869 Speaker 1: That we have now the challenge of course, is the Rome statute itself focuses on crimes that really about harm essentially to human beings and persons. You think about war crimes against humanity and genocide. That really is the focus of those crimes. Now, we were supposed to look at what amendments could be made to include echo side. There was a proposal for a preamble, paragraph, the proposal to have some consequential amendments in terms of the text. The crime provision Article 5, and then there was this proposal for this new crime that you read, which would be an Article 8. The definition there attempts to draw from existing law and to be as broad as possible, but also to be specific in the sense that there's a criminal law instrument. It has to have that clarity. The definition that you read, where we talk about as a group me on are, or wanting acts that are committed by persons, obviously with knowledge, that there's a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread. That was one of the criteria or long term damage to the environment because by those that, so we went on to define the subsequent paragraph, some of the specific terms to get more clarity, but yes, you're right. It's an attempt to find the balance between being broad and then compassing of the kinds of con

cerns that we think the international community should have on the other hand, have the specificity to Cate them for the post of criminal law.

Speaker 2: Let's go look a little bit into the international criminal court. Some of our readers will understand the full dimension and function of the court, but to to give us an overview. This court was developed as a court of last resort because crimes against humanity war crimes genocide, if they were not prosecuted within a certain jurisdiction, then it was difficult all to bring accountability to governments and to individuals that were perpetrating these. It grew out of the idea of the tribunal that we've seen from Newburg and then there were tribunals after the Rwanda and the Yugoslavian situation. The feeling was that, here was a court that was set up to bring investigations and accountabilities outside of domestic jurisdiction. They talk about the concept of complementary. Can you describe how that works? Speaker 1: Exactly. John, the idea of international criminal colleagues that has been around since at least 1948 when there are discussions, bad international community within the UN framework for, at the time a convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, but there couldn't be a great, there was an agreement already at that time. The issue was effectively set aside, but the understanding was the international community would come back to the issue. There are several critical developments, of course in terms of the initial steps established the court, including a referral of the question of international criminal jurisdiction and how that could look like to the international law commission by the UN general assembly itself.

Of course, this was happening in the context of the cold war. Things didn't move very well until we got into the nineties when we got this other tribunal. Essentially, the ICC itself is a significant and achievement that took international community almost 50 years to accomplish. That's the backdrop. Having said that, the structure of the ICC is arguably quite realistic in the sense that this court was not supposed to be sitting in a faraway place, let's say the hay, which ultimately became the home of the trial. I know where the tribunal is based prosecuting crimes all over the world, even though the remit in terms of crimes themselves are very specific to the so-called core international crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The model of complementary that you talked about essentially takes as a starting point that in fact, the states where the crimes occur would have the first responsibility to a investigate. If they find out obviously sufficient evidence to proceed against individual to then prosecute those individuals at the national level. The criteria of

complemental was set out in adequate 18, which basically says, if you are unable you, the states parties, you are unable or unwilling to do the work yourself, to be able to prosecute yourself at the national level, then the international criminal courts jurisdiction would kick in essentially as support of last resort, as we say,

Part 3 Transcription Job T2345870 Speaker 1: Pull the remains of accountability in the absence of [unintelligible 00:10:04] actual limit ideas. Speaker 2: The success in the event successes, but the events on failures, and there have been lots of criticism of the ICC's workings over the years. It's basically gone after leaders in Africa that were involved in genocidal or civil wars and wars of aggression across their borders. Rwanda was certainly a good example. You were involved in tribunals that took place in Sierra Leone. Do people feel that the court has the capacity to add this new dimension to branch out into crimes that are not against humans but to against the entire planet? Hello? Hello? Speaker 1: Sorry, John I don't know what happened. I lost you there for a second. Speaker 2: Okay. Hold on for a minute. Let me get you back on the speaker. Okay. You are won? Speaker 1: Yes, I'm on. Sorry about that. Speaker 2: That's all right. Did you hear my last question about the ICC? Speaker 1: If you don't mind repeating. Speaker 2: Yes. Well, if the ICC had successes and failures and most of its efforts have been focused on bringing to justice, individuals that were involved in crimes against humanity and genocide, mostly within civil wars or wars of aggression many within in Africa, you were involved in the there were tribunals that went on, separately you were involved in Sierra Leone, but do people feel that the court has the capacity to expand into this new realm of environmental crimes and to add another dimension of crimes that not necessarily high harm against humans but harms that have impacted the entire planet? Speaker 1: [unintelligible 00:12:07] question, John. I think that there are at least a couple of points on both sides of the argument. Firstly, it is true that the International Criminal Court has, for the most part, focused on cases in Africa, that has been a bit sensitive, in particular, for African states. There's been a bit of a pushback against the court, oftentimes, because the court's actions may directly threaten high-level officials of African states. There's that aspect there. Now, the flip side of that, of course, is that there are many African victims of these atrocity crimes that see the court as the only

way they could get any accountability at all, because in the face of state action or state-supported or at least state acquiescence into atrocity crimes, then there is no hope for accountability at the domestic level.

That's the complexity of the ICC itself but then the second point, which is now going directly to the concern that you're raising, which is if the ICC has had some successes but also some failures, is it a wise thing at this time to then open the door for the ICC to be involved with something else that could be quite controversial, if not directly challenging in the sense of turning the spotlight more towards environmental crimes? My own personal view is that this is a question that states have to consider, I can offer my own thoughts. One thought is to say that because of the nature of the problem that the international community is dealing with, which is I'm talking about the problem of climate change, state must look at all the possible tools that they have at their disposal, that includes taken measures to have a greater and deeper cooperative framework that deal with some of the environmental concerns.

That includes the possibility of use of criminal law tools, were at the national level, also at the international level, to try to deter some of the behaviors that we find particularly problematic if you think about different situations around the world where we've had severe environmental destruction. Now, of course, on the other end of that whole spectrum, is the concern what that means, in practical terms, so even if you could politically reach an agreement to open up the International Criminal Court system towards crimes like environmental crimes, we didn't have the resources to be effective and that is a huge it's a million-dollar question. It was alreadySpeaker 2: A billion-dollar question, probably. Speaker 1: Possibly. The billion-dollar question right? Exactly.

Part 4 Transcription Job T2345871 Speaker 1: Ready the court is struggling with the situations that it has and just dealing with the three crimes that we have. Speaker 2: Yes, so let's look a little bit at examples of what these crimes may be and how evidence could be gathered and prosecutions could be brought. We have heard over the years of massive environmental crimes. I think we all know about Bull Paul, outside Valdis, Brightwater horizon and other major environmental disasters have taken place and how they were prosecuted and not prosecuted. They didn't seem to be a lot of repercussions for the companies that were involved or the individuals

involved. Many times low level officials became the scape courts and the big corporations that were implicated, paid fines, maybe there were millions and billions of dollars, but really they were just to write off on their balance sheet, so how is that going to be, what would be the process of trying to identify and bring charges against such entities? Speaker 1: Well, there really several issues there John that we have to unpack. One is the correct observation that you are making which is that we have had some severe, some incidents that really attracted a lot of attention because those incidents caused a lot of societal harm. Now you give examples that Valdis right out of the United States, we know how that went and primarily the mechanisms that there, we think about Bull Paul, if we think about no bull, if you think about the dumping of hazards with off of the course of hybrid course. Many, many years ago very controversial, think about what's happening with the Amazon, right?

I mean even as we speak we're talking about really some of the world's best and pristine ecosystems effectively been taking advantage so there one big observation that one could make is that we have different national legal systems and different ways of handling environmental issues but broadly one could say the balance seems to be, to go after the actors and have some kind of fine ultimately at the end of the day and of course there have some states that have criminalized some of the severe destruction that we're talking about and they could prosecute those individuals on the national law.

What the echo side would add is an international layer that actually has at least a minimum call of agreement on how you define the crime and essentially if you will set the standard international level, so that hopefully would be a common standard we see and consistent standard we see in different national legal systems. That could be one of the added values of an International Criminal Court involvement essentially to spotlight the issue and hopefully motivate or encourage changes to national laws at least in terms of severe disruption to the environment. Now having said that there's a separate and second point that's quite critical. In what you said, John, and this is, you mentioned who the actors that you talked about entities and corporations, right? That's incredibly important but the International Criminal Court's entire regime is about individuals so the ICC has no jurisdiction over companies in any way at least as the Rome studies written at the moment.

In fact, as a historical matter there were proposals in the room in negotiations to include corporations within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and basically it was a non-starter for some big states so the countries decided that this is

going to be a conversation that we would not be able to find agreement or so we're going to have to study aside, but it does raise a big question in terms of how effective would the ICC be if it's just going against individuals, not necessarily the companies that maybe be behind some of this behavior. Again it might at least from the views of some environmentalists. It would then, this might be an opportunity to have a separate conversation as to whether we should broaden the habit of the ICC itself.

Speaker 2: Yes, so Charles, have there been precedents where corporations have been held liable for example, human rights violations? Is that a way of looking at this? Speaker 1: Yes, there are precedents and as you know John, there have been that for at least 20 years before we got the adoption of the rugged principles, a lot of global discussion especially within the UN system to determine what is the scope of you responsibility for transnational or multinational corporations and especially in the--

Part 5 Transcription Job T2345872 Speaker 1: It seemed as if states were not at a place where they wanted to regulate through a binding instrument what corporations would do, so we ended up with this-if you will more softer, more fungible principles. They constituted an achievement in terms of at least [unintelligible 00:20:17] some responsibilities in the parts of companies and here's what International human rights law requires in terms of states and here's how states should be effectively been making sure that their companies and things within their jurisdiction would also-- if you will be aligned with what those instruments provide for. That could be a way forward in terms of some of these discussions, but I don't know that it's necessarily exclusive that we would fair because you have for example, the [unintelligible 00:20:43] principles out there. Now adopted and widely supported, It doesn't mean that you cannot also have a separate track where you can actually have accountability directly to the individuals who run it-again, the corporations of course are fictions because it's human beings that are running these corporations. There's a famous statement out of Neuro bank's judgment where the court said, "The violations of International law are committed by individuals, not by abstract entities." It's only after when we go after the individuals that the provisions of International law will be enforced, because remember the Nazis were saying, "No, you can't reach us," because we were acting like state officials and the state is this massive thing that ought be respected and not touched at all. Speaker 2: Well, that's always the criticism of International law, is that it tries to do many things, but it has no enforcement mechanisms. Basically it's a naming and shaming mechanism and that's what the [unintelligible 00:21:43] principles are too. In these days of massive social media, things can get immediate attention and that can be

cancelled out of existence by the mechanism social media, so maybe that's not such a bad methodology. Speaker 1: No, and I think there's definitely an impression that one forms that because of the availability of more information, the number of groups that are out, that are working on decision and greater awareness, what is at stake for the international community? Definitely more talk about climate change and the need for climate action, and we started off with your reference to what was happening in the UN general assembly. For many years before that the debate was whether we would get an agreement at international level, which we got eventually in 2015 the Paris Agreement. Where a number of significant elements of a puzzle for international community had effectively been [unintelligible 00:22:43] . We're still struggling, of course, with the implementation of some of the deeper, more substantive changes that states ought to make in terms of their behaviour but that's not the end of the issue.

In other words, I'm agreeing with you John, that this is the moment of hope in my view, and it does mean that one cannot be naïve to expect too much change, but perhaps because of all of these different things that are at play and the fact that the world is dealing with more and more crisis-- if you think about this past year alone, how many floods? How many natural disasters and hurricanes have you heard of? How many-- Incidents where in places we didn't used to have forest fires. I've been out to California, war floods in Germany, hurricanes towards New York now, not Florida? We are living through a time, it seems as if there's a lot of changes happening around us, and the scientists are telling us that, this science is very clear. Until we can keep the global temperatures below a certain level, we are going to be having this impasse. Including sea level rise [unintelligible 00:23:40] distance populations. Speaker 2: Well, we have seen in the past when major environmental crises have come to the fullest. For example, back when acid rain was a huge problem, and then you had the carbon issue and the holes in the universe and things in the atmosphere. There was transnational action to counter those issues that have been effective, but they're just not enough these days. It seems like we're trying to put fingers in the dykes and new leaks are happening every day. Speaker 1: [laughs] You're right, John. I think you put it very well. I don't know that the urgency that exists in the scientific community, those who are quite mentioned experts, seems to be different from unfortunately what the agencies at the policy and political levels yet, because it's when you think about the environment, this is a classic example of the global comments. It does require the actions of all states for us to be able to mitigate.

Part 6

Transcription Job T2345873 Charles: Account for some of the damage has been caused to the environment that ultimately has an impact on all of humanity, but not all of humanity only, every single living species on earth. Interviewer: It's interesting as part of the definition, when the amendment comes to the term environment, it's described as the earth. It's biosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, as well as outer space. There isn't much left, that's not covered in that definition. Charles: We had an interesting debate about this John on whether to define the environment, because we basically had two options that field evidence from the precedents. One approach in the past by international institutions, including as prestigious bodies, like the International Law Commission has been to say, you know what? The environment shouldn't be defined because part of what we know about what the environment is, would actually change over time. In the topic that we were dealing with in the commission, that the privilege of being on the commission protects the environmental relation to armed conflict. We shied away as a body from defining the crime.

Then of course, obvious gain we thought would come from that is as understanding evolves to know more about the environment, we could take that into account going forward. Now, the flip side of that is we had to consider that unlike the ISE project, where we're dealing with obligations for states and recommendations to states here, you will be talking about the Criminal law. We felt that we needed to at least have some definition to get more clarity as to what we're talking about. As you said, rightly the way it's defined, it is fairly broad and they ought to be broad. Because we get, once you leave that space for interactions with the the environment that we don't have today to be accommodated in the future, to the extent that this definition of status for. Interviewer: Moving this forward, now, I imagine would this initiative be discussed at the cop 26, this coming up in Glasgow? Is that on an agenda there? Charles: I do know that is the only agenda there at all. My hope is that the states that have shown an interest in this question would at least have some discussions maybe informally in terms of this idea of EchoSign. Definitely in the context of the International Criminal Court, assembly of states parties, which is expected in early December of this year. There is perhaps the likelihood, I don't know how strong the likelihood is that a number of states would have this raised the issue, within the context of the genuine debate. More importantly, perhaps even the possibility of proposing an amendment. There's a working group on amendments, if system and states that want to make proposals.

For example, in the way Switzerland did a few years ago for us to have salvation as a war crime, they make the proposal and the working group and then it follows the process from there. I'm hopeful that the discussions in in the Cop conference would feed into and open the door to some discussions in the ICC itself. Hopefully we'll get a number of things, even if they don't necessarily take on board or ask us what can we do all aspects of the definition. We'll at least now be motivated to raise the issue in the context of the ICC to have that conversation about whether this could be a good idea of the state. Interviewer: Charles, did the states parties that are supporting of this idea and are very concerned about the environment within their own domestic jurisdictions. Would it be possible for individual countries to adopt EchoSign as part of their criminal code and start doing Domestic Prosecutions Investigations within the context of EchoSign? Charles: It is possible. States are sovereign and already one of the things that we were able to rely on in the course of our work on the panel, where the existing definitions of crimes that we're dealing, whatever mental issues at the national level. What was interesting about that is that when you look at environmental destruction, broadly speaking, you had laws in Russia, a lot of former sovereign republics, Kazakhstan Czech Republic, Tajikistan, Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia and then in places like Vietnam as well, which obviously has a history.

Part 7 Transcription Job T2345874 Speaker 1: If you would suffer the effects of an environmental calamity of course, in the context of an armed conflict in that case.

Speaker 2: Agent, or in that napalm, for example? Speaker 1: Exactly. Agent orange, which is a famous. I said is actually brought, eventually gave us what became the NMO convention. Just the environmental convention that was agreed after the international court saw what the impacts were there. Now, having said that, I should say, there's nothing that precludes in other words, stay sick in this definition and running with it. Already I can point you a couple of examples. John there's a member of parliament in the UK that has actually tabled an amendment to the crime to include echo side effectively the way it was defined by the independent expert panel. It's before the UK parliament there. Just last week I saw a news item that a member of parliament in Mexico has actually proposed the inclusion of echo side. Now, this is happening in the context where we've seen some moves in the very European states.

For example, recently France passed a national law to criminalized environmental destruction as we defined it, but again, taking moves to legislate effectively on the back of this discussion that we are having and I'm expecting. and there has been statements that no countries and looking at this possibility as well. Yes, there's nothing to produce this from moving forward and having Eide definitions at the national level even in respect of what happens in the international criminal. Maybe those states, especially those that the Asia Pacific region that are quite sensitive because they're living through the impacts of climate. They're kinda like the finish of the wedge. Maybe it was this action from them too. Speaker 2: Also regional courts, I know you've been involved and we've worked on this in the past. The initiative to start a new African court of justice and human and people's rights. Is that also something that could be adopted regionally and have Eide as a regional initiative? Speaker 1: Well, I'm glad you brought up the African court of justice and human and people's rights which was an initiative basically by African states at the regional level. They adopted basically this instrument for African union member states, and the idea is to have original criminal jurisdiction at the African level. One of the most fascinating elements from the perspective of an international lawyer about the man protocol is basically the crimes that the right that included in the male protocols. Of course, we have all the core international crimes, world crimes, genocide crimes against the man, the crime of oppression sometimes actually defined to be even more progressive if you will, to encompass more bad acts within the definitions.

On top of that, quite significantly illicit expectation of natural resources, that's huge trafficking in hazardous with. Essentially, if African just take this forward, that would be criminal conduct that would be prohibited at the regional level, but for the states that joined the instrument as well, they will be obligated to go back into their national systems and prohibit that conduct if it's already not illegal in their national law. Essentially, what we see happening there, of course the ma protocol is not yet enforced John. It might take a few more years for that to happen. They need 15, ratifications, they've gotten a number of signatories, but not ratifications yet.

What we might see John is essentially we've seen in certain areas of international or some feedback loop between what happens at the regional level feeding in eventually to the international, or sometimes they have international standards informing what happens at the regional level so kind it's a two way street. My impression is that we might get more developments concerning environmental crimes at the regional level. Those who perhaps create the conditions for us to see more action at international level. It's not to say that the two tracks incompatible with each other's just to say that sometimes that's how the law has developed in certain areas.

Speaker 2: Groups like the Eide foundation, they're providing a clearing house to enable these different groups regional, international domestic groups to to work on these concepts and, and the move them forward within their own mechanisms. Speaker 1: Exactly. That's the value. I think that's another added value to this conversation. I have to say John asked with anything that is meaningful. This issue would obviously when, especially when it goes to the level of states and when states actually engage on it, maybe across different regions, but particularly the international criminal court, it will probably be controversial.

Part 8 Transcription Job T2345875 Speaker 1: For some of the reasons that use a flag at the beginning because some people have viewed that already international criminal court is struggling. If you keep in mind the context that I gave in the beginning that was effectively 50 year achievement. We worked on it, the idea of international criminal jurisdiction about 50 years before we got the court, there are a lot of people who have the view including scholars but also states that look you got to leave the ICC alone, even though it's been around for 20 plus years now it's still findings way forward. Let's let the court if you will grow and get settled. Then we can think about additional things. I have to say John that to the same people who make that argument, that was the same argument that was used in respect of the crime of aggression. You could make that argument time. Now. I don't want to be little the importance of making sure that the court succeeds and I think the ICC really does need states to step up in terms of supporting the court. They feels that one international criminal accountability but just to say that all to offer and that's part of the way we miss opportunities for change. We said we are going to focus on this issue for now and then we'll come to that later but we are already dealing with environmental crisis as you put in the beginning. We got to look at all the tools. I'm not saying criminal laws or the problems or even a big part of the problem but I think it's part of the wider solution that we should look at. Speaker 2: Within the support for the ICC. This it's a UN agency so security council has a lot to do. Do you see large states parties being more, how should I put it? Do you see the momentum for the IC support building or do you see those parties that are really critical of it? Having an impact on the future functioning of the court and support for the court? Speaker 1: I think the court is at a very set in a sensitive position and actually John the states in their wisdom, the decided not to make it part of the UN system it's actually standalone entity. It does have a very close relationship of course with the UN

system now from the Get Go even in terms of how it came about. That relationship has been and it continues.

Of course it has a formal role for the security council in terms of referrals but also deffers situation. The court and the justification for that of course is that international community has entrusted the security council with the primary responsibility, for the maintenance of international peace and security. That's all well and good but your broader point about the bigger states is an important one because one of the key things about the ICC at moment is that ICC has 123 states parties. The most single represented region is African states about 33 states parties. Then you have a lot of Western European states and regions but what you see when you look at the details a little bit closely is that there are gaps in terms of example the reach of the court in Asia. Big faiths in Asia haven't joined the ICC. We have that unfortunate incident of Malaysia joining as part of that universe of pushed by the court.

And then within the show order literally weeks later withdrawing itself. Because again they felt uncomfortable with the idea. You do see an absence of big faith at the table. India is not there. China is not there. Russia used to be in but it's taken off now is no longer involved. The political level there are some challenges to see how this big states will come on board. Soon. My own impression is that the question continue to push its universality objectives, continue to maintain its independence. It's going to continue, have to developing its own internal mechanism to show some successes. Obviously as John we have a new prosecutor. Everybody's looking to what he would do to think. Already we beginning to see some moment of that this past week, I'm sure you followed the controversy around his application of cons in the Afghanistan situation? People saying oh boy you're telling us you're going to go against the less path and leave the path.

I'm not going to comment on whether that's the reason why he made that decision. I am not the OTP so I don't want speculate. My point is we do need prosecutors who understand the context in which the court would function. Oftentimes big states even those that have not been part of the system like the United States have been quite instrumental for the success of this air.

One of the ironies of all of this because we are in the United States, we talk about the us rule as a good of super power is that the us has been significantly imported in development. The whole idea of international criminal law not just today, going back to November. Without the us it wouldn't have happened. In a sense we need the us to

come back to the mix, so to speak at least let it happen for others and help us develop that system.

Speaker 2: I.

Part 9 Transcription Job T2345876 [00:40:00]

We're coming to the end of our time, Charles. I think we've had a really interesting conversation about this whole concept of ecocide and how it can become part of the international criminal law institutions through the ICC, be discussed and become part of the conversation of how we deal with this environmental crisis that the whole globe is coming to. It can certainly be seen as a positive movement forward because it just adds another dimension to the conversation of how do you address this crisis?

Charles: Yes, I already see, John, and I hope that it does become part of the compensation. One of the benefits of the work of the independent expert panel is that now we're seeing global attention to this issue. We're seeing a lot of interest on the question of ecocide. I think already that has a benefit in terms of raising the awareness that, hey, the criminal law could be part of the solution, so let's have a conversation about that. If you think of some of the examples I gave of where already see members of parliament at the national level actually trying to propose ecocide, we are getting a global discussion on that issue.

I hope that as a second level, that there will be an official formal process at some point, hopefully not too distant future where this part is in international criminal court, but also not a foreign like the United Nations and the court process can engage on, where is that going? Can we do something about these crimes from the point of the criminal laws and see how that may assist us in terms of regulating essentially the global commerce. That will be of benefit to this and all of humanity and every species on the planet.

John: Yes, absolutely. Charles, thank you for your work on this. We'll certainly be watching that closely and hope that your visions for this come into a reality in the not too distant future.

Charles: Thank you so much, John, for having me, and congratulations on what seems like an excellent forum. It's an honor to be part of it.

John: Okay, Charles, thanks a lot.