News the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) is seeking to list damaging the environment among the world’s most serious crimes is encouraging. 

But we should remain realistic about the ability of a newly empowered court to redress environmental injustice. 

The front page of Wednesday’s edition revealed that the I.C.C. is seeking to expand its mandate to include environmental crimes (“Tuiloma joins expert panel to define 'ecocide'”). 

A former Samoan diplomat and I.C.C. Judge, Tuiloma Neroni Slade, is the sole Polynesian representative among 12 experts responsible for creating a legal definition of ‘ecocide’ or the most serious environmental crimes. 

Tuiloma’s inclusion on a panel that could change international jurisprudence reflects his stature but also recognition of the disproportionate effects climate change is having on the Pacific. 

We have contributed a tiny fraction of the world’s carbon emissions. Yet we bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and frequent flooding, when compared to big polluters in the southern hemisphere. 

This is a clear cut case of injustice on a global scale and one which is - ideally - suited for an international body like the I.C.C. to prosecute. 

Tuiloma underscored this very issue on the Stop Ecocide website.

“There cannot be a more demanding moment for the international community to take effective action now, by the terms of the Rome Statute, to address the alarming ever-manifesting dangers of gross environmental destruction, global climate change in particular, and the consequences of severe, inhumane and disproportionate damage suffered by communities around the world, especially the blameless and most vulnerable,” he said. 

A new mandate to prosecute environmental crime would be a major change to the court’s operations; it has previously exclusively prosecuted those responsible for war crimes and other atrocities. 

That the I.C.C. is preparing to elevate environmental vandalism to a list of the world’s most serious crimes shows a shift in international thinking that recognises the urgency of protecting the environment. 

The new crime of ‘ecocide’ also gives rise to a number of potential new legal possibilities. 

Will carbon-polluting corporations now be held accountable for environmental destruction as dictators have been for crimes against humanity?

But before we raise expectations for the court to become an avenue for tackling climate change, we should set our expectations accordingly. The court’s record as a judicial force, since its creation in 2002, has been patchy at best.  

One of the main reasons preventing the I.C.C.from fulfilling its mandate is the rules of international relations and national sovereignty. 

Sovereign nations can brush off I.C.C. investigations with little consequence; only when an accused’s country agrees to send them to the Hague, can a trial even begin.

That rarely happens. 

A perfect example of such limits is the actions of Indonesia’s special forces, who, when withdrawing from Timor-Leste, oversaw the destruction of some 75 per cent of the nation’s infrastructure and hundreds of deaths. 

The United Nations indicted Indonesia’s military commander, General Wiranto. But he never showed up. 

When the I.C.C. announced plans to investigate the President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, for the bloodshed during that country’s war on drugs, he responded by saying he would withdraw from the court. 

The handful of people to be successfully prosecuted by the court have typically been dictators from African nations who have been overthrown in coups and gladly handed over by new regimes. 

Similar dynamics are likely to limit the ability of the I.C.C. to take action on environmental crimes. 

The world’s two biggest polluters, China and the United States of America, have never signed up to be members of the court and subject to its jurisdiction. 

Ultimately, serious action on climate is going to depend on persuading the world’s largest nations that environmental crime requires a serious commitment.   

We hope that the court’s new direction sends a message that its more than 120 member countries will not stand for it any longer.