Literature Review

World Wide Web technologies create fundamentally new potentials for social interaction and decision-making among diverse social actors. A new generation of Web technologies, accompanied by new political cultures, portends an ushering of radical transformations in democratic decision-making. This chapter asks three critical questions: (1) How do emerging Web technologies deepen democratic participation? (2) How do we avoid or transform scenarios where Web technologies are employed to maintain political-economic oligarchies of power? and (3) What new political cultures or political contracts may emerge through the convergence of Web technology and political engagement? This chapter uses the recent precedent of Liquid Democracy online decision-making experiments in Germany, to answer these questions and peer into the futures of governance. The study came to the following conclusions: (1) We are witnessing a shift from formal representative democracy to situational and fluid forms of governance; (2) Alongside this we are seeing a deepening of political participation, which may bring forth new political cultures and political contracts; and, (3) A number of possible scenarios emerge from the decline of formal representative democracy—A possible “Liquid Revolution” where online governance has transformed democracy; a “Steady-state Oligarchy” where pseudo-representative and oligarchic powers persist; a “Partner State” where representative and online variegated governance is blended; and a “War of the Worlds” where statist and variegated governance online systems aggressively compete for power.

At the root of techno-capitalist development – popularly marketed as “modernity,” “progress” or “development” – is the continuous and systematic processes of natural resource extraction. Reviewing wind energy development in Mexico, coal mining in Germany and copper mining in Peru, this article seeks to strengthen the post-liberal or structural approach in genocide studies. These geographically and culturally diverse case studies set the stage for discussions about the complications of conflictual fault lines around extractive development. The central argument is that “green” and conventional natural resource extraction are significant in degrading human and biological diversity, thereby contributing to larger trends of socio-ecological destruction, extinction and the potential for human and nonhuman extermination. It should be acknowledged in the above-mentioned case studies, land control was largely executed through force, notably through “hard” coercive technologies executed by various state and extra-judicial elements, which was complemented by employing diplomatic and “soft” social technologies of pacification. Natural resource extraction is a significant contributor to the genocide-ecocide nexus, leading to three relevant discussion points. First, the need to include nonhuman natures, as well as indigenous ontologies and epistemologies, into genocide studies to dispel an embedded anthropocentrism in the discipline. Second, acknowledges the complications of essentializing identity and the specific socio-cultural values and dispositions that are the targets of techno-capitalist development. Third, that socio-political positionality is essential to how people will relate and identify ecocidal and genocidal processes. Different ontologies, socio-ecological relationships (linked to “the Other”), and radical anti-capitalism are the root targets of techno-capitalist progress, as they seek assimilation and absorption of human and nonhuman “natural resources” into extractive economies. Genocide studies and political ecology – Anthropology, Human Geography and Development Studies – would benefit from greater engagement with each other to highlight the centrality of extractive development in sustaining ecological and climate catastrophe confronting the world today.

This conceptual article presents a comprehensive overview of principles, new urban descriptors and analysis methods that provide relevant ecological information, which can be fully incorporated into the planning process, by connecting ecological perspectives to planning and management issues. Section one summarizes the different notions of ecological urbanism and explores what concepts and basic assumptions can constitute a guide to implement an ecological perspective into urban planning. Section two covers what frameworks exist for planning and managing the city under an ecological perspective; and what methods and tools are being used by different stake holders to implement an ecological vision today. As a synthesis, the paper suggest that ecological urbanism applies through six concepts (ecological networks, nestedness, cycles, flows, dynamic balance and resilience), which can be covered by three principles: I) an eco-systemic understanding and management of the city; II) a bioregional governance; III) an ecologically balanced planning. By doing so, this piece of work builds conceptually and practically a frame towards the transformation of current planning and management practices outlining clues for reinterpreting strategies to re-signify and re-conceptualize the existing dichotomous relationship between city-nature, environment-society, while strives for a new understanding of the way we inhabit the habitat.

This article sketches a vista of human inhabitation within the expanse of the natural world freed from human physical and discursive ownership. In that future, humanity is downscaled within the ecosphere, where the sixth extinction has been averted, climate change made tractable, and chemical poisons banned. To live bioregionally is to live in concord with the land and in accordance with its affordances; it is to belong with all its members, nonhuman and human, equitably and generously. To live as cosmopolitans is to be open to, connected with, and hospitable toward all Earthlings. Also cosmopolitan, in this article’s argument, is the pursuit of self-realization by a creative mash-up of cultural shards – a kind of intra-individual cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitan bioregionalism is an imaginary founded on belonging to place and planet. It is a way of life inspired by the desire to remain near Earth’s being and cosmic wealth, with all the existential biddings of respect and delicacy such nearness entails

At the global level, voices are growing to criminalise severe environmental destruction as ecocide so that the International Criminal Court can punish. This social phenomenon suggests that international criminal law has been ineffective in protecting the environment and humanity at the time of planetary crisis. In parallel, however, only a small body of literature exists looking at how criminal justice is effective in preventing environmental damage at the domestic level. To address this research gap, this study first builds a green criminological perspective, which emphasises crimes of the powerful, and explains different types of ecocide. Then, it examines Korean environmental criminal law and demonstrates that high-level personnel in corporations have not been adequately held accountable for serious environmental destruction. As a viable option to strengthen criminal justice in the environment sector in Korea, it is argued that the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (SAPA) can be amended to hold business owners and other responsible persons accountable and liable for serious environmental crime caused by corporate activities.

This article suggests that incerased attention to the destruction of the environment in tandem with UN sanctions and embargoes may have negative economic impacts on developing countries and advocates for a lockstep approach at the international level similar to that of the COVID-19 response.

Bioregionalism is an environmental movement and social philosophy that envisions decentralized community self-rule within political boundaries redrawn to reflect the natural contours of differing ecosystem types. Emerging from the religious “counterculture” of the United States it has escaped these enclaves, and has begun to influence contemporary environmental politics and resource management strategies. Its goal is nothing less than to foster an ethics of place and create sustainable human societies in harmony with the natural world, and consistent with the flourishing of all native species. This paper assesses the history, types, impacts, perils and prospects of “countercultural” bioregionalism and its offshoots.

This article explores the barriers to international criminal law penalizing environmental destruction. Given the strong arguments that favor the creation of international environmental offenses, perhaps the key question should be: why is there not (already) a comprehensive international criminal law of the environment? This Article proposes that the emergence of an international criminal law of the environment is dependent on four distinct elements whose assemblage requires great care: international law, a regime increasingly emphasizing cooperation but also traditionally built on state sovereignty and equality; the global environment, a complex and all-encompassing notion whose protection as a global public good is problematic; international environmental law, the branch of public international law most specifically concerned with the protection of the environment but perhaps not naturally inclined to criminalization; and criminal law, a regime emphasizing public order, individual guilt, and punishment.

International criminal law is an imperfect tool for solving broad environmental problems. Issues such as climate breakdown are primarily political and economic in nature, and require political and economic solutions.In the absence of effective political leadership in this space, the definition of wanton acts is an ambitious attempt to bring international criminal law to bear on these broad problems. It would require the ICC to balance the environmental damage of an activity against the economic and social benefits it may bring. Finding a consistent and fair approach would be a difficult task for the ICC.

The “Rights of Nature” movement stems from traditional Indigenous knowledge that recognizes the interconnectedness of all living beings. It could eventually spur legal protection for water, animals and ecosystems, but would require a remaking of the United States’ legal system.While some of the most recent municipal and court actions may be good symbolic first steps, law professor Noah Sachs said, they haven’t yet led to any meaningful enforcement or protection of nature in the U.S.

The environment provides a multitude of ecosystem services that ensure our well-being; clean water, pure air, and food, to name a few. Yet, individuals continue to degrade the environment with little to no recourse. Current international laws in place prove ineffective in protecting our environment at a global level. Thus, it is time to enact stricter international laws to hold big polluters accountable.Ecocide, broadly understood to mean mass damage and destruction of ecosystems – severe harm to nature that is widespread or long-term, is a continuing issue on our planet. Thus, it is necessary to criminalize such action to prevent further environmental degradation. The Independent Expert Panel, convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation for the Legal Definition of Ecocide, recently proposed an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to include the crime of ecocide. While this proposal offers a viable solution to our current environmental issues, there are several weaknesses in the proposal. This article analyzes the history of ecocide, the proposed Rome Statute amendment, and the weaknesses of the proposed amendment. Through this analysis, it becomes clear that it is necessary to criminalize ecocide despite the disadvantages.

The proposal to include ecocide as the fifth crime in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ('Rome Statute') is part of ongoing efforts by jurists aimed at enhancing environmental protection through international criminal law. If adopted, the crime would be the first standalone environmental crime under the Rome Statute. Its proponents view it as a powerful liability norm for dealing with the humanitarian, ecological and structural aspects of environmental damage that together threaten international peace and security. Its accommodation into the Rome Statute would necessitate changes to the substantive provisions of the Statute. In light of the controversial change, this article raises questions about its feasibility as a criminal liability norm and concludes that the crime of ecocide represents an appropriate legal response to environmental damage. This argument is anchored on the ecological integrity framework understood as a grundnorm for international law.