Critical Conversations on Human Rights: The Promise Institute Podcast The Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA School of Law

In this episode, the Promise Institute’s Kate Mackintosh speaks with Shirleen Chin and Daniel Bertram about how international crimes are created. Drawing lessons from the adoption of the crime of aggression at the International Criminal Court, and with reflections on the social and political processes involved in the creation of international law, the authors consider what might be the most promising path towards an international crime of ecocide.  

Daniel Bertram is a PhD candidate at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, where he researches ecocide’s journey towards international criminalization. The fruits of previous research projects have appeared in Global Environmental Politics, Transnational Environmental Law, and the German Law Journal. Next to his academic endeavors, Daniel reports from multilateral environmental meetings for the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.  

Shirleen Chin is the founder and director of Green Transparency, a consultancy firm that works on strategic advocacy, and she helps Stop Ecocide International (SEI) with political, legal and academic strategy. Her work has included participating in UCLA Promise Institute’s Working Group on the Proposed Definition of Ecocide, editing an Opinio Juris symposium series on Exploring the Crime of Ecocide as well as representing SEI at the International Criminal Court’s Assembly of States Parties and other multilateral events. 

This podcast is one in a series of conversations with authors of the 15 short papers in our online symposium: The Crime of Ecocide – New Perspectives, which you can find on www.ecocidelaw.com/symposium. The site also hosts a regularly updated annotated bibliography, which lists and summarizes publications on ecocide, as well as information on proposed definitions and legal developments around the world. 

One of the most complicated aspects of defining an international crime of ecocide is the mental element. What level of knowledge, intention or recklessness as regards the consequences of their actions must someone have in order to be guilty of the crime? Very little serious environmental damage is caused purposefully; it tends to be a result of activity that is carried out for other reasons. But most international crimes require intentional harm. 

In this episode, The Promise Institute’s Kate Mackintosh speaks with three international lawyers who offer their suggestions for how to solve this puzzle.  

Luke Johnson is a 2nd year PhD student at Northumbria University investigating the definition of ecocide and how the crime may be implemented and enforced into practice.  

Lisa Oldring is a doctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam, focusing on the crime of ecocide from a human rights perspective. A former senior UN human rights advisor, she is currently an advisor to Stop Ecocide International and Member of the Board of Directors, Avocats Sans Frontières Canada.  

Darryl Robinson, Professor of Law at Queen’s University Faculty of Law, helped to negotiate the definitions of crimes in the International Criminal Court Statute, and was involved in the Promise Institute for Human Rights expert group on ecocide. 

 

This podcast is one in a series of conversations with authors of the 15 short papers in our online symposium: The Crime of Ecocide – New Perspectives, which you can find on www.ecocidelaw.com/symposium. The site also hosts a regularly updated annotated bibliography, which lists and summarizes publications on ecocide, as well as information on proposed definitions and legal developments around the world. 

How does ecocide relate to other legal frameworks that are important to protecting our environment, such as human rights - including cultural rights, the rights of women and of Indigenous peoples - and the rights of nature?  

Hosted by the Promise Institute’s Kate Mackintosh, the three authors in this episode consider these questions in the contexts of post-coup Myanmar and India’s sacred rivers, while foregrounding the importance of including the voices of those most affected in defining the crime. 

Jonathan Liljeblad is a member of the Indigenous Pa'Oh peoples of Shan State, Myanmar, and Associate Professor at the Australian National University College of Law. 

Gita Parihar works as an in-house legal consultant for NGOs and the UN on environmental and human rights matters. She is also interested in the connection between ecology and spirituality, as well as regenerative activism. 

Camilla Taddei is a human rights advocate currently working as a consultant for the international non-governmental organization No Peace Without Justice. Her expertise and research interests are related to minorities and indigenous peoples, along with environmental protection and social justice through an intersectional perspective. 

This podcast is one in a series of conversations with authors of the 15 short papers in our online symposium: The Crime of Ecocide – New Perspectives, which you can find on www.ecocidelaw.com/symposium. The site also hosts a regularly updated annotated bibliography, which lists and summarizes publications on ecocide, as well as information on proposed definitions and legal developments around the world. 

How would a crime of ecocide work in practice, and what would it contribute to the struggle against climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation?  

In this episode, our three guests speak with the Promise Institute's Kate Mackintosh to consider the difference an international crime of ecocide would make to the practice of bauxite mining in Jamaica; deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, and global wildlife crime. 

Paulo Busse is a Brazilian criminal, environmental and human rights lawyer with over 20 years’ experience advising and representing human rights and environmental organizations. In collaboration with other lawyers, he has spearheaded a number of cutting-edge legal actions to protect the environment in Brazilian courts and advised on national ecocide laws. 

Tameka Samuels-Jones is an Assistant Professor at York University and the Associate Director of York University’s Centre for Research on Latin America & the Caribbean. Her research interests include environmental crime, Indigenous law in the Caribbean and regulatory law and emphasizes inclusivity in the development of environmental policies and laws particularly in countries in the Global South.  

Olivia Swaak-Goldman is the Executive Director of the Wildlife Justice Commission. She has almost three decades of experience in international justice and diplomacy, including as Head of the International Relations Task Force of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Senior Legal Advisor at the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Legal Advisor at the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, and Legal Assistant at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.  

This podcast is one in a series of conversations with authors of the 15 short papers in our online symposium: The Crime of Ecocide – New Perspectives, which you can find on www.ecocidelaw.com/symposium. The site also hosts a regularly updated annotated bibliography, which lists and summarizes publications on ecocide, as well as information on proposed definitions and legal developments around the world. 

We are witnessing a “firehose of falsehood” on the internet and in the media: mis- and disinformation that attempts to overwhelm the truth.  As deepfake and synthetic media technologies become more sophisticated and their use more prolific, it is becoming more and more vital to develop tools and systems to identify when media has been manipulated - often through fake or deceptive audio and video - to increase trust in our information ecosystem.

This fourth installment of our Global Digital Rights Challenges series features Sam Gregory @SamGregory, Program Director at WITNESS @witnessorg and three Promise Fellows, Nick Levsen, Aya Dardari and Ani Setian. Hear Sam outline the work he is doing at WITNESS, including in consultation with actors in the Global South who have lived-experience of the impact of mis- and disinformation, and learn more about preparing for and pre-empting future deepfake crises by developing detection skills and ensuring equitable global access to media forensic tools.

P.S. We have a small housekeeping note: The fifth conversation in this series is titled “Life Interrupted: the Impact of Internet Shutdowns” and in a way that is both oddly fitting and also unfortunate, the audio for that talk was throttled by - you guessed it - poor internet connectivity and is best enjoyed while watching the speakers in real time. It’s a fascinating exploration of the power of ISPs, government’s role in securing internet access, and the vulnerabilities when daily life relies on connectivity. Head over to our Promise Institute YouTube channel to watch Tomiwa Ilori speak with Mark Verstraete, and to round out our Global Digital Rights Challenges series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgqbQmIRMnM 

America exports many things, but its content moderation standards may be the most important. Activists and concerned citizens the world over use social media as a microphone to connect, mobilize and push for change - which makes the content rules that online platforms set and enforce enormously influential in shaping the global discourse.

However, because these rules are often designed based on U.S. sensibilities and priorities, they can have an adverse impact on globally marginalized communities. Platforms can also be subject to pressure from governments, including those with poor human rights records, to crack down on dissent and opposition.

In this third of our five-part series on Global Digital Rights Challenges, Promise Institute Assistant Director Jess Peake talks with Marwa Fatafta, MENA Policy Manager at Access Now, about the effect that the decisions of American platforms has on censorship of activists in the Middle East and North Africa, and how such actions impact fundamental human rights, censor dissent, and erase history. 

Special thanks to our partners in this series, UCLA Law's Institute for Technology, Law and Policy.