Can the law save the world?

Dr Liana Minkova’s postdoctoral research project explores accountability mechanisms for environmental destruction in international law and the proposed new crime of ecocide. She argues that the law can be a key tool to save us from environmental disaster. 

Rounds of interstate discussions and painstakingly negotiated UN agreements may one day be augmented by further laws and routes to hold countries and other actors to account for environmental harm. Dr Liana Minkova is investigating how individual persons and states can be held accountable, alongside non-state actors such as oil companies.  

Her interest in environmental justice was sparked by one of the big topics in the field, a proposed criminalisation of ecocide, as the fifth international crime. While international lawyers and non-governmental organisations have proposed different definitions of ecocide, the term is generally considered to denote severe damage to the natural environment taking place on a mass scale and/or with long-term impact. If criminalised, ecocide would provide a tool for holding individual persons responsible for such actions. Liana’s research as Kathleen Hughes Research Fellow at Newnham is a progression of her PhD focus on the work of the International Criminal Court, in which she explored how such laws are construed in practice, defining the boundaries of what are considered the gravest acts. 

‘I am comparing accountability mechanisms, how they are presented in international governance and the political implications. My goal is to expand the conversation, because a lot of the time scholars tend to focus piecemeal on a particular principle or element: reparations, environmental harm or other concepts. I am looking at the big picture, using comparative research as a foundation for a discussion of the idea of accountability,’ she said. 

[pull-out quote if space] ‘Now is really the time to be talking about those questions. We cannot afford to delay any longer.’  

States have the right to invoke the responsibility of other states if they allege that another has caused environmental harm. In one successful case, Australia took Japan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for breaching a moratorium on whaling. In another, the Philippines alleged China had violated its obligations towards all other countries by harming the marine environment in the South China Sea.  

Symbolic value 

In terms of sanctions, the ICJ has ordered reparations for environmental damages only once, in 2018, for harm suffered by Costa Rica after Nicaragua cut down close to 300 trees and cleared more than six hectares of vegetation. The court made a declaration of wrongfulness, but awarded only $120,000. ‘It was not much; the court was criticised for not really explaining how the judges arrived at their calculation’, Liana said. ‘So there are still questions surrounding the impact of declaring a state is responsible for environmental harm. But at least it has symbolic value and it affirms environmental principles.’ 

Accountability mechanisms for non-state actors such as companies and individuals are similarly limited. In practice, Liana said, the only cases leading to compensation awards have been for spills while shipping oil overseas. Others, such as the Deepwater Horizon [oil drilling] disaster, for instance, do not fall under the civil liability regime. 

‘We have international institutions, but states usually don't like to be constrained too much by international law, so we often end up with very narrow regimes reflecting the interests of states in a specific area.’ 

Ecocide and jurisdiction 

A ray of hope, Liana believes, is emerging consensus around definitions of ecocide which have been tailored to match the language of the International Criminal Court (ICC), for the purpose of being incorporated into international law. Even then, for a particular definition to have a chance to be included in the statute of the ICC will require a lot of states to support it, which might take quite a while. 

There is a further debate over whether the ICC is the appropriate institution for pursuing environmental justice. Given its remit to investigate crimes including genocide and crimes against humanity, some are concerned the ICC will not have the resources to also address environmental crimes, or may tackle only one or two symbolic cases rather than offering a comprehensive system of accountability.  

‘On the other hand,’ says Liana, ‘I understand the arguments that some of the campaigners make, that it is much easier to rely on an existing institution than set up a whole new one. When states actually start debating this proposal in the Assembly of States Parties, it will probably be one of the main questions.’ 

The ICC announced plans two years ago to complete new policies on environmental crimes in 2025, and the Prosecutor made an open call for expert opinions. Liana submitted a paper to the court drawing on some of the insights from her postdoctoral research. Another paper published in the Journal of International Criminal Justice considers socio-legal questions such as whether limitless growth can be ‘sustainable’ and the pretence of objective rationality when deciding whose interests to prioritise.  

‘I also look at whether the perpetrator intended the crime or acted recklessly and the challenges the court might face in establishing this with respect to environmental harm, which is usually a by-product of other activities, as well as the precautionary principle – risk management before taking action when there is a lack of scientific consensus on potential harm – and the challenges of incorporating insights from that. 

‘In some ways, in terms of the damage going on, this feels quite high level. But it could be one of the mechanisms by which we finally do get a grip on this and compel states to take climate change more seriously. Treaties and capacity-building have been the main focus, but there is an important role for legal accountability.’ 

Liana, who is from Velingrad in Bulgaria, this year became a Teaching Associate in the Department of Politics and International Studies in Cambridge and Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, though she remains affiliated to Newnham as a Director of Studies for Lent 2025. ‘Newnham is such an amazing community, and when I see how the Governing Body and committees work, I feel like it's a very efficient system. Well, it’s a college run by women, so I guess they are efficient at multi-tasking!’ 

• The Kathleen Hughes Research Fellowship held by Liana Minkova is named in honour of Dr Kathleen Hughes (1926–1977), Newnham Fellow, College Lecturer and Director of Studies in History (1955–77), University Lecturer in the Early History and Culture of the British Isles and appointed not long before her early death as the first Nora Chadwick Reader in Celtic Studies. An undergraduate and graduate student at Bedford College, London, she developed a lifelong interest in Old Irish and Irish history and published several important books and articles in the field. Her friend and colleague Dorothy Whitelock wrote: 'Her death at the age of fifty is a sad loss for Celtic studies. Her influence will last long, not only from her writings, but from what she gave to students and to numbers of scholars who consulted her and received generous help and counsel. … She gave warm affection and understanding to an amazing number of academic and non-academic friends of all ages.’ 

This feature first appeared in the Roll Letter 2023-24, published January 2025.  Photo shows Liana Minkova (right) and the International Criminal Court in Den Haag by justflix, reproduced under Creative Commons 4.0 international licence.