Hacker News Reader

Comment by daenz | Hacker News Reader

Here's the definition they're working with[0]:

>Ecocide is loss, damage or destruction of ecosystem(s) of a given territory(ies)… such that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants has been or will be severely diminished

– definition submitted by Polly Higgins to the UN Law Commission in 2010

0. https://ecocidelaw.com/ecocide-law-2/

View on HN

It would seem that development of natural resources as well as population growth could result in “ecocide”. Whom do they sue?

Whoever has deep pockets but is politically weak enough.

Norway and their oil fund is my guess for the first target.

It seems like the sort of thing that should already be covered under existing property laws then.

I'm not really sure what the need is to create an entirely new concept called "ecocide" when you could just consider it destruction of property/theft/vandalism/whatever

The problem is that property laws are local or national, because it's assumed that I need physical access to your property to do anything. If I fire a rocket at your property from some other country, I would be violating all kinds of air space regulations or maybe even international treaties on weapons.

We now have a better understanding of the unintended, global consequences of small, national actions.

Then it seems like the real need is for a better international enforcement mechanism. As cancerous as it is, maybe international copyright law could be an inspiration? I'm just highly skeptical of creating a whole new category of offense when our existing legal framework should already have ways of dealing with this kind of externality

Thanks. I think it's pretty crazy to make something internationally illegal that most people don't even know the definition of.

You get the general idea from the name anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com