The fight against ecocide - VPRO documentary - 2015

Summary of the VPRO documentary (2015): “The fight against ecocide”

The documentary argues that large-scale environmental destruction—driven by industry, pollution, and extractive projects—should be treated not only as a regulatory or civil matter, but as a criminal international offense. It presents the concept of ecocide (“ecological genocide”) as a missing legal category that could create stronger deterrence and accountability when existing environmental laws fail.

1) Why “ecocide” is proposed as a crime

• The film opens with the claim that human activity is systematically damaging the planet (climate change, warming, melting ice, rising seas), while the Earth cannot defend itself in court.
• It argues that current environmental legislation is inadequate: harms are normalized through permitting, and corporations face too little personal or criminal accountability.
• The core legal idea is that criminal law would establish a threshold: actions so destructive they cross a line would become “malum prohibitum” (prohibited because they are inherently unacceptable).

2) Polly Higgins’ campaign: legal representation and “rights of the Earth”

• The documentary centers on Polly Higgins, a lawyer who left her practice to advocate for Earth rights and a legal duty of care.
• She frames the Earth as her “client,” and compares court advocacy for ecosystems to tutors ad litem in child cases: if victims can’t speak for themselves, representatives can bring evidence (including scientifically provable harm) to court.
• Higgins promotes ecocide as the fifth crime against humanity and aims to build an international coalition to amend the Rome Statute (the legal basis for the International Criminal Court).

3) Baltasar Garzón and a complementary strategy: targeting powerful actors

• The film includes Baltasar Garzón, describing him as focusing on corporate responsibility.
• His approach is more direct: he supports efforts to empower communities and states to resist corporate harms, while Higgins focuses on broader legal redesign and advocacy.

4) International law precedent and the UN’s rejected attempt

• The documentary references Olaf Palme’s earlier effort (from 1972) to put ecocide on the international agenda.
• It claims that ecocide was nearly included in the UN legal framework in the 1990s, but was removed after closed-door action.
• The film alleges that corporate and state interests pressured the UN working group; it names the United States, United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands as allegedly behind the removal, portraying this as a turning point that delayed progress.

5) Accountability through criminalization (vs. civil lawsuits)

Interview emphasis suggests civil litigation often fails in practice:

• When communities sue, firms may become insolvent, and accountability can evaporate.

Criminal law is presented as stronger because it would deter decision-makers by creating a risk of individual prosecution (“people think twice when they can go to jail”).

The documentary also portrays environmental law as needing moral and psychological “sensitivity” to the violence of ecological destruction—harms society has largely learned to ignore.

6) Case study: mining threats to Sami communities in Sweden

• The documentary provides an on-the-ground report of nickel mining impacts in Swedish territory inhabited by the Sami.
• It argues that the legal system prioritizes shareholders and economic interests over:
  • indigenous rights,
  • habitat protection,
  • and downstream drinking water safety.
• A major theme is that environmental damage is tied to cultural survival: if the land and livelihood disappear, it cannot be restored—described through the idea of cultural/collective irreversible loss (the film uses “solstalgia” conceptually).

7) Climate justice and small island states

• The documentary extends ecocide beyond pollution to include sea-level rise driven by human actions.
• Higgins seeks support from small island states, arguing the law should create a legal duty of care and enable preventative assistance.
• The film presents the proposal as achievable by amendment to the Rome Statute, with the International Criminal Court as the enforcement mechanism.

8) Strategy: gaining state backing and political momentum

• The film repeatedly stresses that legal change requires heads of state to formally request or champion the amendment.
• It reports meetings and diplomatic discussions (including with Swedish environmental leadership) and suggests there may be a near-term opportunity linked to international processes (climate negotiations and UN-related sustainability efforts).

---

Presenters/Contributors (as named in the subtitles)

• Polly Higgins
• Baltasar Garzón
• Michael Balgardner (Greenpeace, described as working for Greenpeace Switzerland)
• Brunwin Lei (environmental lawyer, Australia)
• Marie Person (Sami community member featured in the documentary)
• Ola (interview participant; presented as from Palau in the small-island segment)
• (His Excellency) Ulf/“Udof” Palme (presented as a Prime Minister speech; subtitles indicate Olaf Palme)
• Isabella Lavine (named in a discussion of foreign affairs/European Parliament background)
• Åsa/Orso Romson (Swedish environment minister, as spelled in subtitles: “Orso Romson”)
• King Maria’s father, Kut (Sami father featured during the mining discussion)
• Álvaro “Morales”/Evo Morales (named as wanting to include land rights in constitution)