• AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s probably mostly because it says “the gravest crime against humanity” and not “a grave crime against humanity”. Except for the US, which always seems to vote against anything that might bind it.

    There are 11 types of crimes against humanity in the Rome charter (must be widespread/systemic and targeted against civilian population):

    1. Murder;
    2. Extermination (including “the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population”);
    3. Enslavement;
    4. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    5. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    6. Torture;
    7. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    8. Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    9. Enforced disappearance of persons;
    10. The crime of apartheid;
    11. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
    • Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      … no mention of environmental crimes that impact humanity/human groups?

      Toxic pollutants & climate change I mean.

      The water wars & subsequent great migrations are gonna fuel the above list directly (+ the additional loss of habitat, biodiversity, and possibly the ability to raise children).

      But all that would hint at megacorps of today being at fault. Which we apparently can’t have.
      (Saying megacorps of the past benefiting from slavery is “victimless” … and ofc isn’t counting forced prison labour some countries like the USA practice today.)

        • Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh, yeah, possibly.
          I read 11 as directly intentional and toward a specific individual or groups - like building a damn to starve ppl, not to feed your own … and with climate change I meant that a “weapon of mass destruction” version of that indirect, non-targeted destruction (that inevitably leads to an environment where more of the 11 points happen - more killing, more slavery, more rapes, etc).

          • AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah fair enough, no doubt getting countries to agree that corporations should be accountable for “accidental” damage to the enviroment would be even more difficult than getting them to sign up to this!