In December 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) issued its Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage Through the Rome Statute which sets out how the OTP may use its powers and mandate to investigate and prosecute international crimes with an environmental dimension, and to support national efforts to prosecute such crimes. This is a welcome effort to focus ICC priorities on environmental crimes, in line with other international efforts including the International Committee for the Red Cross Guidelines on the Protection of the Natural Environment in Armed Conflict, the International Law Commission Principles on Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, and the adoption of the crime of ecocide by fourteen states and the European Union.
Previous efforts to prosecute environmental damage at the ICC have not been successful. There is a single reference in the Rome Statute to the “natural environment” in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) which recognizes “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment” as a war crime. However, no charges have been brought under this provision, likely due to the high bar. In 2016, the OTP published its Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritisation which, under case selection criteria, stated that particular consideration would be giving to crimes “that are committed by means of, or that result in, inter alia, the destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land.” This led to reporting, at the time, that the ICC OTP would now be focusing actively bring cases on the destruction of the environment. While former Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir has been charged with furthering genocidal policy through the poisoning of wells and destroying water pumps, the case has not progressed to trial. Additionally, the ICC has also issued arrests warrants for Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash, Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov, Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu, and Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov for directing attacks at civilian objects and targeting Ukrainian electric infrastructure. However, given that the warrants are secret, it is unclear if environmental damage was explicitly mentioned.
The 2025 Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage is notable for taking a more comprehensive view of environmental damage than what is explicitly covered in the Rome Statute. It recognizes that environmental crimes include crimes committed by means of, or that result in, environmental damage. For example, the Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage recognizes that the war crime of intentional starvation of civilians as a method of warfare can be perpetuated through the means of environmental damage, specifically “illegal exploitation of natural resources, or illegal dispossession of land.” Likewise, the crime of aggression can also be an environmental crime if it results in environmental damage, for example, “the polluting of fields, forests, and bodies of water.”
The Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage is a clear political statement, emphasizing the importance of prosecuting environmental crimes in the broadest sense. Given the sheer number of international crimes, the ICC OTP must prioritize which cases to prosecute. These are often high-profile cases and, in many cases, crimes that have not yet been prosecuted by the ICC. As such, these prosecutions help to establish both international precedents and reinforce national prosecutorial efforts.
Based on the ICC’s principle of complementarity, the Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage can also provide a mandate for resource mobilization and technical assistance to assist national efforts to investigate and prosecute similar cases.
As prosecutions of environmental crimes continue to develop, there remain areas of ambiguity that require further development. For example, there is a need for further clarity on what constitutes environmental damage. While a broad definition of environmental damage is important, the initial framing in the Policy is narrower, focusing on the natural environment. However, the Policy does indeed implicitly recognize the importance of the broader human environment including water infrastructure, agriculture, natural resources, and land.
Additionally, the Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage does not spend significant time on remedies, which is within the purview of the Rome Statute. We encourage the ICC OTP to articulate the expansive remedies available for environmental damage, including reparations made on a collective basis, which are particularly appropriate for environmental damage. This is in line with the ICC Trust Fund for Victims’ Strategic Plan, which states that reparations programs may take guidance from the Sustainable Development Goals related to the environment.
Finally, recent wars have highlighted two particular challenges with prosecuting crimes related to environmental damage: dual use and proportionality. Dual use objects can be used for both civilian and military objectives and thus can still be targeted because of their military capabilities. Generally, the environment is considered a civilian object, yet much military action involves interaction with the environment, such as fighting in a forest. Properly distinguishing when and under what circumstances environmental civilian objects become legitimate military targets, and when they are not, is crucial for environmental protection in wartime.
Based on the principle of proportionality, the Rome Statute explicitly criminalizes disproportionate attacks on the environment. However, there are currently no clear standards or procedures for determining proportionality (in the Policy or elsewhere), particularly as it relates to environmental crimes. This vagueness provides cover for militaries to carry out excessive attacks, including against the environment.
While these issues still further thinking and policy development, the OTP Policy on Addressing Environmental Damage represents an important step forward in many cases. Indeed, the continuing scale of environmental damage in conflicts around the world makes it clear that this is an important time for strategic cases, nationally and internationally, that seek accountability for environmental damage.