Literature Review

Cruelty to animals is illegal in California, as it is across the country. But California’s laws on the subject are extensive and detailed, covering a wide range of specific behavior, situations, and types of animals—from service dogs and racehorses to circus elephants and exotic species. Below, we’ve summarized the most important state laws that pet owners and animal lovers should know about.

In the eyes of the law, pets are our property and we, their owners. Just as goats belong to a dairy farmer, cars belong to their drivers, and toasters to bagel-eaters, pets are simple property. But some people think pets are just too important to us for this to remain the law. They suggest that this designation degrades the role of animals in our lives to that of slaves and thereby limits their ability to obtain the rights they deserve.

Legal guardianship of animals” is the reissue of the first doctoral thesis in Brazil regarding animal rights, published in 2000, now updated.

At the end of January, we reported on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee taking public testimony on a bill wanting to give legal rights to animals. Within Senate Bill 164 was a new section allowing the creation of private contracts between animal owners and “guardians” to preserve the rights of animals as if they were humans.

Animal neglect is the failure to provide basic care required for an animal to thrive. At first glance, such cases may seem less egregious than a single, brutal act of violent abuse, but severe neglect can mean extended periods of extreme suffering resulting in permanent injury or death.

Abstract: The quality of the environment is the most important part of human life in dignity and humility. In practice, ecocide are mostly committed by corporations, both national and transnational. Environmental crimes that are structured and systematic or often called ecocide do not concern as an extraordinary crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has proposed to several countries such as Fiji, Vanuatu, and the Maldives that the need to add elements as international criminal crimes categorized as extra ordinary crimes in the Rome Statute and recognized as the fifth type of crime that becomes the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for trial. The purpose of this research is as a contribution to answer question. First, to analyze and to understand in developing extraordinary law enforcement against the crime of ecocide as extraordinary crime. Second, law enforcement review against ecocides in various regulations and various court decisions in Indonesia Third, to analyze the concept of international environmental law in the extraordinary enforcement law against ecocide crimes (Extra ordinary Crime) The research method used by researchers is normative juridical approach. This means that the legal material used as a study is secondary data. In this normative legal research it is not closed the possibility that empirical data (field) is also presented as an option to support and sharpen the study.

In 2021, with their proposals of a new definition of ‘ecocide’, the Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (‘IEPLDE’) and the Promise Institute for Human Rights (‘UCLA’) Group of Experts reignited the discussion on expanding the International Criminal Court’s (‘ICC’ or ‘Court’) jurisdiction over the gravest instances of environmental degradation. The proposed definitions form part of the broader campaign towards the international criminalisation of ‘ecocide’ and its prosecution before the ICC. This discussion challenges such ambitions, arguing that, in its current form, the Court would be unable to produce environmentally-satisfactory results. It underscores that the human-centric fundaments of modern international criminal law (‘ICL’) prevent the ICC from fusing different approaches and values governing international environmental law (‘IEL’) into its institutional design. A middle-ground is proposed instead: rather than surrendering the pursuit of environmental justice before the ICC or risking a ‘symbolic’ revolutionisation, the focus should be re-oriented on maximising the ‘environmental’ potential of the current statutory framework. This approach aligns with the strive towards greater ‘internationalisation’ of international courts and tribunals, encouraging more eager analysis of their statutory provisions from multiple perspectives and in the context of a variety of cross-sectoral international law norms, objectives, principles, and approaches. Two possible directions for progression in that regard are proposed: (i) more resourceful translation of environmental realities into the substantive prohibitions of war crimes and (ii) more active reliance on and application of a ‘greened’ scope of Articles 21(3) and 7(1) of the Statute.

Popular interest in a new crime of ‘ecocide’ has recently surged. The proposed crime seeks to repudiate and stigmatize the most egregious environmental wrongdoing and would complement other efforts to curb the ongoing destruction. In June 2021, an international panel proposed a definition of the crime. Initial academic commentaries, many of them critical, reflect entirely understandable first reactions. However, combining international criminal law (ICL) and environmental law raises fascinating new issues that are not initially obvious. In this article, I survey the main issues in defining ecocide. For example, is a crime of ecocide a worthy idea? Is the best approach to amend the ICC Statute or to start with a smaller group of supportive states? I also introduce the main drafting options and controversies. The hardest puzzle, by far, is how to align ecocide with environmental law. Some seemingly simple solutions would entail rejecting environmental law; I argue that there are principled, normative, and strategic reasons why a crime of ecocide should reflect environmental law, not reject it. I show that each available solution invites plausible concerns. Thus, a conversation about defining ecocide must be a nuanced one about which options are least problematic. I outline possible future directions for exploration; with further deliberation, more elegant criteria may yet be found.

Abstract: The protection of the environment and above all the climate and energy crisis that destroys human life is a topic of debate at an international level for the protection of ecocide. However, so far we do not have a concrete and perfect notion, given that the term ecocide was born from biological science and not from jurists. International criminal law and especially the International Criminal Court (ICC) once again takes on the leading role. A new article is needed to introduce ecocide to the other crimes already punished by the Court. The time is right and now ripe and the international necessity demands, with the help of international criminal law, to further evolve this branch of international law, to protect peoples, to punish those who destroy the environment both in the period of peace and war and above all the large companies and multinationals that are protagonists of this crime. The case is clear enough, the conduct is broad in our day but it certainly includes the mens rea a ignorance to be punished as a crime. Of course we also speak of restorative or restorative international justice for this crime because we have an ethical need and demand towards future generations to take clear positions for the protection and human life.

This thesis lies at the intersection between international environmental law andinternational criminal law. International environmental law (IEL) aims at protecting and regulating the environment and natural resources in a multitude of ways. However, the question of responsibility and accountability is a missing attributable link between the protection offered by IEL principles, and the conduct prohibited. In this regard, the purpose of international criminal law (ICL) is to contribute to ending impunity and hold perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern accountable for their conduct. For this reason, this thesis will be centered around the following question: To what extent can individuals be held criminally liable for environmental destruction under the proposed ecocide crime (definition) under the Rome Statute; and what are the benefits and shortcomings of prosecuting environmental destruction under the proposed definition?

The increasing severity of extreme weather events, consistent with predictions made by climate scientists, is already having a dramatic impact on healthcare. In Europe’s heatwave of summer 2003, for example, more than 70,000 excess deaths were recorded. While climate change is affecting healthcare, however, healthcare is also affecting climate change.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will invest at least $21.7 million in several key programs to help agricultural producers manage the impacts of climate change on their lands and production. NIFA awarded $6.3 million for 14 Soil Health grants and $5.4 million for seven Signals in the Soil grants through its Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). NIFA also is investing at least $10 million this year in a new AFRI program area priority called, “Extension, Education, and USDA Climate Hub Partnerships,” to train the next generation of agriculturalists and foresters to incorporate climate change research into their management practices.