Environmental Law and Green Crime

Green criminology focuses on environmental harms, regardless of legislation, and takes an ecocentric approach, whereas traditional criminology is anthropocentric.

The three principles are: environmental rights and environmental justice, an ecocentric approach, and the inclusion of animal rights and species justice.

Green criminology focuses on the concept of 'harm' rather than 'crime', taking a transgressive approach that breaks the boundaries of traditional criminology.

It allows for a more critical examination of why some harmful acts are not labeled as criminal, while other less-harmful acts are.

The subject matter is not clearly defined, making it difficult to determine what constitutes harming the environment and who decides.

Secondary green crime is a crime that arises out of disobeying rules that seek to regulate environmental disasters, and it is also referred to as symbiotic green crime.

State violence against environmental groups is an example of secondary green crime, and it is considered a crime because it involves disobeying rules made to protect the environment.

The Environment Act 2021 allows NGOs to bring derivative claims against a company's directors to ensure the environment has been considered in their decisions regarding the company.

Yes, a single act can include both primary and secondary green crimes. An example of this is the poaching and trafficking of animals (primary green crime) and legal hunting and environmental changes (secondary green crime) contributing to the decline of species.

The main point of disagreement among criminologists is the definition of 'green crime', with traditional criminology arguing for a narrow definition that focuses on activities that breach laws protecting the environment.

The primary aim of governments is achieving economic growth, and this is often achieved through producing and consuming, which can lead to environmental harm.

MJ Lynch

Marxists argue that current social divisions are reinforced in the face of environmental harms, with poor people bearing the brunt of the harms.

Ulrich Beck points out the emergence of green crime as a new problem, while Marxists offer an alternative analysis of the consequences of green crime, arguing that it is a result of industrial capitalism.

Primary green crimes are those that constitute harm inflicted on the environment, while secondary green crimes are not

Marxists believe that capitalism must be either eradicated or severely controlled for significant global agreement on environmental protection to be achieved.

It has resulted in crimes transcending boundaries and covering multiple jurisdictions

Those who suffer health or other problems due to pollution, damage, or destruction of the environment

Marxists argue that companies are given the green light to extract and pollute because governments prioritize economic growth over environmental protection.

Crimes committed against the environment

The main idea behind Ulrich Beck's concept of the 'risk society' is that modern industrial societies create new risks, largely manufactured through modern technologies, which were unknown in earlier days. This relates to green crime as environmental damage is a part of the risks created through modern technology.

When Ulrich Beck says 'Smog is democratic', he means that environmental problems, such as smog, do not discriminate based on traditional social divisions like class, ethnicity, and gender.

The concept of the 'global risk society' means that risks, including environmental damage, now transcend boundaries, and all countries need to work together to tackle this problem.

Zemiology is the study of social harms, and green criminology is a zemiological approach because it focuses on the study of social harms related to the environment.

The implication is that all countries need to work together to tackle environmental problems, and that innovative political responses are required to address the new environmental challenges we face.