Prevented Shell from drilling the Arctic
The SQP-ICC context holds the directors criminally liable
SQP-ICC Argument Background
We live in a time where science calculates that unsustainable resource exploitation and industrial operations which devastate ecosystems, are inflicting conditions of life that will bring about the physical destruction of the human group, in whole or in part; and a potential collapse of industrial civilization, within 20 years.
Scientific and economic calculations forecast that contamination and destruction of our air, earth and water life-systems, will culminate in a perfect storm of water, food and energy crisis’s; threatening the imminent survival of many across the world.
World governments agree that carbon emissions must be severely limited, with scientists urging a reduction to zero emissions within the century, in order to recover the global environmental balance required for sustaining life on earth.
The sources of such calculations include the world’s most credible organizations, such as NASA funded mathematical models, The United Nations, the IPCC, The Pentagon, KPMG, the UK Government Office of Science, along with the agreement of most developing nations, who endure the front-line of harm.
Yet industrialized economies aggressively advance their allegiance to the development of fossil fuels and contaminating industry. Justifying ‘business as usual’, on the basis that fossil fuels remain the most efficient form of energy that will maintain stable economies, in order to avoid an economic collapse that may emerge if the global energy market transitioned to less efficient forms of energy, which are those that offer a chance to protect the environment from future harm. Perhaps also with the priority to maintain the profitability of well-developed and heavily invested business models, which support the personal fortunes, derived from bringing about catastrophic levels of environmental devastation, pollution and human harm.
In contradiction to the much publicized aspiration of diminishing climate change, the world’s industrialized, production and resource based economies, currently pursue thousands of new harmful industrial developments across the world. Most of these investments advance in developing nations, often financed and facilitated in partnership with the governance, corporate and investment interests from developed nations; cumulatively in pursuit of profit, energy, development contracts and economic superiority.
The efficient escalation of new contaminating, destructive and polluting industrial developments, creates a large scope for foreseeable destruction, that will inflict great humanitarian and environmental costs upon vulnerable ecosystems. Science now clearly calculates the devastating effect due by the advance of unsustainable industrial systems, rendering the most wide-spread, large-scale and severe cases, to be a situation of grave international concern.
On the boundaries of the global climate change narratives, exists the majority of the world’s most vulnerable communities; who fight penniless and often powerless to defend their ancestral lands from multi-national corporations, governments and investment alliances, intent on the development of any lands that provide opportunity for resource, power and profit. NGO’s raise some awareness for the devastation due to be inflicted against vulnerable communities but an atmosphere often exists where a fear personal retribution, prevents most direct action against the corporate, government and investment related individuals, who actively facilitate and provide means for the harm, with significant personal benefit.
This equation signals a willingness of decision makers from developed nations to sacrifice the life-systems required for the survival of developing nation’s people, in order to maintain first world resource abundant economies and the significant profits derived from continuing the destructive nature of these businesses.
These economically motivated consortiums deliberately advance industrialization that contaminates the natural resources that sustain the indigenous national groups, ‘way of life’; deliberately inflicting conditions of life upon them that bring about their physical destruction, in whole or in part. [ Article 6, Definition C, Rome Statute ] This is a slow, insidious, corporate engineered form of genocide, that can be considered an unforeseen circumstance applicable to the law of ‘geno’ - to bring about, ‘cide’ - physical destruction.
The Vienna Convention invokes the 'principle of maximum effectiveness,' which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties; stating that treaties are to be interpreted "in good faith" according to the "ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.". Importantly, the Vienna Convention also states that the language of treaties, must be ‘interpreted’ when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied, in a perhaps “unforeseen circumstance”.
The unforeseen circumstance relevant for interpretation, is the emergence of the sophisticated, corporate-political-investment consortiums ‘indifference to life’, has developed under industrial civilization; engineering of a modern-day, methodical, manifest pattern of genocide, currently in process against vulnerable communities across the world. In addition to inflicting direct harm on local communities and often, entire nations of people; science now calculates the cumulative industrial harm will bring about large-scale, widespread and severe physical destruction of the human group and human life system, causing the devastation and death of many, in the coming years ahead.
The immediate victims of this conduct, emerge due to the destruction of ecosystems which sustain the life of the indigenous communities, who live in close proximity to the industrial devastation. The conditions of life that cause this destruction are deliberately advanced by corporate, government, investment and facilitation curators, with clarity of both the circumstance and consequence of harm that they inflict as both knowledge and awareness of what they will bring about.
THE SQP-ICC OPPORTUNITY
The SQP-ICC context identifies legislation within the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which offers these life-systems and vulnerable communities, an opportunity for immediate protection, by the power of an existing law and existing court. As a secondary benefit, the prevention of new harmful industrial developments and the courts ability to halt the harmful existing operations, provides a powerful tool to legislatively limit the acceleration of climate change, without requiring any new global agreements. The SQP-ICC context can be applied to investigations and trials for cases around the world, almost immediately, if the ICC is resourced and financed to advance these ‘ICC for Sustainability’ cases.
Preventing destructive industrial development and activity, is the most direct and necessary mechanism to resolve the global issue of climate change. The SQP-ICC legal context could therefore be the most powerful existing defense to preserve the world’s greatest ecosystems, environments and defend vulnerable human groups; where national governments and judicial systems pursue private and corporate profit, power and resource appropriation, in priority to protecting the planet, people, species populations and life systems.
The SQP-ICC context appreciates that industrial interests can be compelled to voluntarily stop contaminating and polluting industrial developments by legislative force; given that Article 25.f of the Rome Statute provides that if an individual criminally liable person, abandons the effort to commit the crime or takes substantial measures to prevent the completion of the crime, then they shall not be liable for punishment for their original attempt to commit the crime, if they completely and voluntarily gave up their criminal purpose. The application of direct criminal liability for their individual decision-making, facilitation and action to advance the harm that will devastate ecosystems and humans, is a necessary measure to inspire their voluntary forfeiture of otherwise highly profitable activities, which cause devastation. Whilst such significant profit, power and quality of life benefit remains for business and government decision makers to cause industrial devastation, the widespread transition to clean industry systems is otherwise unlikely.
Industrial systems which accelerate carbon emissions, along with environmental devastation and contamination; can be directly connected and traced to the proprietors, investors and directors, who are the decision makers complicit in advancing the harm. Applying existing criminal liability to those who have deliberately, (with awareness) advanced environmental destruction or pollution, that is calculated [ element 3 ] by extensive scientific and economic evidence, to inflict conditions of life upon people that will bring about the physical destruction of national groups, in whole or in part; effectively establishes the actions of industrial consortium decision makers advancing harmful industrial activity, to be illegal and punishable with up to 30 years to life imprisonment and personal financial forfeitures.
This could single-handedly be the most powerful tool to inspire a new culture of investment into less profitable but totally possible, new generation clean energy and clean industrial technologies; that often struggle to commercialize or gain access to market.
Once a legal precedent is successfully established, then the SQP-ICC legislative context, defines contaminating industry as illegal, thus forcing or inspiring a voluntary, complete and immediate transition to clean energy and sustainable industry. This transition will be necessary for investment, governance, corporate and construction decision-makers, to avoid the personal criminal liability prescribed for what must be considered ‘the world’s most serious crime’; as the intentional destruction of life systems, that will accelerate climate change, for the short-term benefit of resource, profit or power.
The SQP-ICC application of the Rome Statute, holds to account, the culture of corporate, governance and investment decision-makers, who otherwise appear to consider the contamination and devastation that results within the ordinary course of their industrial operations, simply as an acceptable cost of doing business. This provision of justice is necessary against those who knowingly advance harm at such great cost to human and environmental life, with justification to do so, on the basis of their corporate mandate for pursuit of profit, government mandate to secure necessary energy and resource demand. Finally, these billion dollar destructive developments, meet financial mandate objectives that secure both profit and power but also advance contractual contributions to the GDP of industrial economies, which benefits a nation’s final position of global power; suggesting also that whilst the world recognizes unsustainable industry in GDP calculations, it motivates the continuation of such harm.
The alarming complacency and assumed impunity of this corporate culture that has developed toward both human and environmental life systems, is demonstrated by Eskom, South Africa, who report openly on their coal production contribution to local deaths in their annual report, without any expectation of criminal consequence. Inferring that death by pollution and contamination, inflicted upon vulnerable affected communities is an acceptable consequence occurring within the ordinary course of events of their business operation. The SQP-ICC legal context eliminates this industrial-complex immunity, currently extended with government complicity, to the profitable businesses and decision-makers of dirty industrial operations; with hope to force the world’s transition away from such harm.
SQP-ICC CONTEXT SUMMARY
INDIVIDUALS [ decision-makers including, corporate, government, private, investment, special interests or any facilitators of the commission of the crime, in any way ]
DELIBERATELY [ INTENT ] [ they meant to engage in the conduct with the knowledge, as awareness, that the conditions of life inflicted create a circumstance of harm and a consequence of physical destruction, that will occur in the ordinary course of events. ] [ Article 9 refers to Elements of the Crime text, for the appropriate requirement of intent to be decided by the court on a case by case basis. ]
[ ATTEMPT TO ] [ Where the persons responsible have facilitated the crime with a purpose to aid, abet, provide means for its commission, otherwise assist or in any other way contribute to the attempted commission of the crime ]
[ evidenced by statements and orders progressing the conduct in a manifest [ obvious, apparent, evident ] pattern, which is the corporate & government standard when advancing a business development and licensing of industrial operations ]
INFLICT CONDITIONS OF LIFE [ contamination of ground-water, ocean and river ecosystems which brings about the contamination of clean drinking and washing water, sound pollution affecting human and ecosystem health, carbon emissions, development destruction and toxic industrial harm, depleted food stock, contaminated food source such as heavy metals in the traditional fish stocks, extermination of species, altered dynamics of the ecosystem forcing slow long-term destruction, forced relocation of people and wildlife populations, environmental devastation, increased ecosystem toxicity, emotional stress, fear and devastation within the immediately affected community, trauma, intimidation and targeted killings of protestors, the resulting health effects from experiencing such stress and fear, the derogation of culture and community when faced with a loss of clean water and free abundant natural food stocks, which can result in human trafficking, prostitution, begging, child labor, etc ]
CALCULATED [ by scientific evidence, economic forecasts, other legal case precedents and real world examples of harm, existing impacts, anecdotal evidence from affected communities with relevance to cultural impact, conditions of life inflicted, etc ]
TO BRING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION [ sickness, disease, starvation, shattered cultural bonds, way of life, sustainability, death, etc ]
OF A NATIONAL GROUP or INDIGENOUS GROUP [ vulnerable communities, nations and the global population of humans with relevance to the cumulative effect of climate change ]
[ With the proposed SQP-ICC amendment to the ‘elements of the crime’ interpretation text, the national group definition of ‘Victims’ could extend to directly protect animal, pollinator and marine life, in addition to recognizing rainforests, coral reefs or the Arctic ecosystem, as directly destroyed ‘national groups’ ]
IN WHOLE OR IN PART [ harm is not required to be death or to be experienced by an entire or complete national group nor for every member of a national group to be affect, but it only requires that various forms of physical destruction are inflicted on one or more within the group, in whole or in part. This enables the impacts to be inflicted against only ‘one or more’ in the group affected, and for the consequences to be broadly considered by a comprehensive investigation to include all types of harm inflicted ]
The SQP-ICC context applies a three layered argument to define the victims of industrial devastation.
The immediately affected ‘national group’, is defined in the ‘Elements of the Crime’ text as ‘one or more persons’, who are often the indigenous tribes native to inhabiting their ancestral lands, which are greatly compromised by governance groups who administer the resource rights to their indigenous lands.
The secondary national group affected, is the global human group, whose economic future, peace and security are all affected by the industrial interests man-made acceleration of climate change, though a continued commitment to developing contaminating industrial systems, rather than compromising the networks, business’s and individual’s profit and power, with a transition to safe, sustainable systems.
Third national group of victims
On August 1st, 2014, I proposed an amendment to Elements of the Crime text to the ICC, that will remove the ʻgroupʼ definition limitation to ʻhumanʼ group, defined as one or more ‘persons’, to allow a core statute interpretation of ‘national group’ that extends to protect all ecosystem groups. I have sought support for this amendment from state parties, the judges, the prosecutor; NGOʼs, leaders and public figures of influence.
The Rome Statute text does not limit the definition of ʻnational groupsʼ as victims, to only ʻhumanʼ groups; but generically prescribes conditions of life inflicted against ‘groups’.
The Elements of the Crime text, referenced in Article 9 of the Rome Statute, as a separate non-statute text, existing for the purpose of assisting the court with interpretation and application of the Rome Statute; then provides Element 1 and 2, that does then apply a limitation to the definition of affected ʻgroupsʼ as that of ʻone or more personsʼ.
Amendments to The Elements of the Crime text, may be proposed by any state party, the judges in absolute majority or by the prosecutor [ Article 9, 2. ].
Therefore, the SQP-ICC cases argue that at this unique juncture in history, where the genocide of other species groups will inflict unsustainable conditions of life upon all life, including the survival of humanity; justifying the application of a broader interpretation of national ‘groups’ affected, to include direct harm to animal, pollinator and sea life groups, as a valuable, necessary and appropriate amendment for nations to support.
This means that the devastation of a rainforest, coral reef or arctic ecosystem, could remain protected to sustain life for future generations, against severe physical destruction, by this defense which qualifies each ecosystem as a ‘national group’.
This is relevant in cases when the direct harm to humans has not been explicitly evidenced or the causal link has many levels or tenuous connections, yet if such destruction is clearly evidenced to directly impact the wider global ecosystem and will subsequently accelerate climate change that impacts the global population, then a direct defense is valid.
The argument to legally recognize that devastation of animal, pollinator and sea life ecosystems, impacts the cumulative physical destruction of national human groups; is submitted to the court in hope to compel the prosecutor and, or judges, to support this amendment to the Elements of the Crime text.
If the prosecutor, judges or a state party were to support this amendment, then 2/3rds of the United Nations Assembly of States Parties members, may agree to amend the Elements of the Crime interpretation text. Article 9.2 of the Rome Statute allows them to agree on this amendment, easily justifiable with the purpose to save an ecosystem as important as the Arctic, the Rainforests or the Coral Reefs; with the intent to sustain the global life system for the benefit of future generations. Whereby considering the Arctic, Rainforest or Coral Reef ecosystem as a "national group" facing physical destruction in whole or in part, due to decisions by individuals intent on profiting from dirty industry, would possibly extend this important environment a strong long term protection, regardless of the causal link to human harm, that the existing law provides protection against.
Right to Jurisdiction:
Those responsible, are those who facilitate the crime with a purpose to aid, abet, provide means for its commission, otherwise assist or in any other way contribute to the attempted commission of the crime". [ Article 25.f ]
It is reasonable to assume and possible to evidence, that relevant decision-makers are aware of the scientific, economic and inhabiting communities calculation of the physical destruction which their industrial activity will cause; and that they meant to engage in the conduct [ Article 30.2.a ], in pursuit of other priorities; against both directly affected victim groups, against the global population and against the environment.
Corporate and independent decision makers are not relieved of liability due to acts committed pursuant to a government order. [ Article 33 ] Therefore, even if a government who is not a party to the Rome Statute has issued a license to decision makers who commit the conduct of the crime in a jurisdiction that is a party to the Rome Statute, then they remain criminally liable.
Government or state official decision-makers are not exempt from criminal liability due to their official capacity. [ Article 28 ] Whilst some may be nationals of a state which is not a party to the Rome Statute, if they aid a crime in a nation which is a party to the Rome Statute, then their criminal liability lies in the nation where this mental element of the crime was committed.
Therefore, every individual natural person complicit in advancing the crime, is liable without protection of state, corporations or private persons of influence.
The International Criminal Court can assume jurisdiction at its own discretion, to investigate and prosecute; where the national judicial systems are obstructing justice or are unable or are unwilling to genuinely carry out the investigation or prosecution; [ Article 17 ] as will be evidenced by local legal cases or investigations already pursued at a national level and within the national judicial system. The application of the ‘suspension of security’ legal tool, applied to delay or create jurisdiction issues around a case, also substantiates the argument that a national judicial system is simply ‘unable’ to investigate or prosecute the crime, due to such interference.
Jurisdiction also applies where the individuals responsible were tried in a national court but shielded from explicit criminal responsibility or when court proceedings were not conducted independently or impartially; or if unjustified delays were inconsistent with an intent to bring the person responsible to justice. [ Article 20 ].
Individuals are criminally liable when they are nationals of state parties signatories to the Rome Statute and, or, when they conduct the crime in states who are signatories to the Rome Statute.
The mental element of the crime of intent to commit the crime, often takes place in the board room of multi-national corporations, and the attempt to commit the crime by way of a manifest pattern of statements and orders are also issued from multi-national boardrooms, which can be located across the other side of the world to the countries and communities which will endure the conditions of life which their decisions inflict.
Mae from Point Hope, on the shores of the Chukchi Sea, addressed the Board of Royal Dutch Shell “I came here two years ago to ask the question I ask again today. How will Shell compensate us for any spill that kills our food? How will they compensate 50 generations, to keep them going through the winter? You are coming into our ocean, which provides our food security annually. We rely on the ocean for our food. I am a grandmother with 17 grandkids. My grandchildren are so afraid right now that with a 75% chance of an oil spill, they will never be able to eat our traditional food again.”
An oil spill resulting from Shell’s drilling for oil production, will threaten the marine life, and destroy the Inupiat culture of the Chukchi. Within the US Interior Ministry report, they list a myriad of reasons for a spill, including multiple mentions as ‘unknown’ triggers for a spill. This ‘unknown’ factor, coupled with the world’s experience that the majority of oil extractions leading to oil spills; allows the argument that the oil spill in the Arctic is almost inevitable if Shell is allowed to drill there for oil.
The question is therefore, is this an acceptable risk for the world to take in that the Arctic ecosystem that supports the global life system. If an oil spill occurs within the two months of Shell’s summer operations, then it may not be contained for 10 months of winter; during which time, oil will pour into the Arctic ocean under thick sheets of ice that make the pipeline impossible to access, and during snow storm environmental conditions that make containment of an oil spill impossible to humanly stop.
Such destruction of this ecosystem would bring about catastrophic environmental effects for the global population and irreversibly bring about the physical destruction of many.
“To be clear, there are many Alaskans that hold grave concerns about the negative impacts of climate change on our state as we are one of the fastest warming places on Earth and strongly believe we need to protect biologically sensitive areas such as the Coastal Plain and offshore areas in the Arctic from oil development.
We feed our families off what the rich land and seas of our Ancestors provides us with…
The hunting and gathering of our native foods ensures that our cultural practices and spiritual beliefs stay intact for our future generations.
Many of our communities would not be able to sustain our Native way of life, without access to healthy fisheries, marine and land animals.
This is something our elders, through thousands of years of traditional ecological knowledge, understood and is why we continue to work towards protection of these ecosystems.
The dollar will only take us so far, but there is no replacement for our native foods or the pure value of nature.
We need to work together to mitigate the effects of climate change and address the complex and often, too rigid, dual state and federal management system as it impedes our ability as Alaska native people to adapt to the shifting of seasons that is taking place and is often resulting in food insecurity.
As we look for opportunities for economic development we should consider the option for a more compassionate and diverse economy and one that does not come at the expense of irreparable damage to crucial ecosystems and Indigenous ways of life. “Arctic Opportunities” must include, acknowledge, and be respectful of a diversity of voices, and the voice of Alaska Native tribal communities have much to contribute to this dialogue.”
This is an exert from a letter written by Alaskan Native Woman on March 4, 2015; to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; in an attempt to stop the alleged crime of Hague based company directors for Royal Dutch Shell.
In less than five weeks, Shell intends to begin drilling for oil in the Arctic, in order to supply the US with oil, beyond the year 2025.
Most experts will confirm that drilling for oil, comes with a 75% certainty of an oil spill. Therefore oil extraction in the pristine Arctic ecosystem, certifies its future contamination as inevitable, if Shell’s drilling is allowed to move forward.
According to the SQP-ICC context, the conduct engaged by the ROYAL DUTCH SHELL directors, who direct the business from its registered location in the Hague, meets with the jurisdiction obligation of the Netherlands as a state party to the Rome Statute. Therefore the directors, voting right shareholders, any facilitators of the conduct and those providing means for; or aiding this development in any way, within the Hague and other European nations, who are state parties to the Rome Statute; are allegedly criminally liable for their intent and attempt to drill oil the Arctic. The crime has been transacted in the board room of Royal Dutch Shell by its directors who decide to advance.
Their criminal liability is based on their decision to deliberately inflict conditions of life upon the native people, the global human group and the environmental life system, that will bring about the groups physical destruction, in whole or in part; by the contamination calculated that will be caused by the industrial operation, the psychological devastation which has ripped apart the delicate culture bonds of the Alaskan people, who are under great pressure and stress as a result of what some consider their ‘impending doom’ and the likely catastrophic oil spills that will result in devastating the Arctic ecosystem, people included.
The Chukchi Sea is considered to be one of the most dangerous places in the world to drill for oil. According to the NYT, “the area is extremely remote, with no roads connecting to major cities or deep-water ports within hundreds of miles, making it difficult for clean-up and rescue workers to reach in case of an accident. The closest Coast Guard station with equipment for responding to a spill is over 1,000 miles away. The weather is extreme, with major storms, icy waters and waves up to 50 feet high. The sea is also a major migration route and feeding area for marine mammals, including bowhead whales and walruses.”
The New York Times details the “fear that a drilling accident in the treacherous Arctic Ocean waters could have far more devastating consequences than the deadly Gulf of Mexico spill of 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion killed 11 men and sent millions of barrels of oil spewing into the water.”
The U.S. Ministry of Interior’s document that proposes to assess the risk of a spill, clearly profiles all the elements and incidents that may cause such a spill, rendering almost impossible to consider a chance of a spill unlikely. The list includes platform spills such as the risk of structure failure, hurricane storms, collisions, process facility releases, storage tank releases, arctic ice force, arctic facility low temperature, and other unforeseen events that may bring about a spill, related to ‘the unpredictable force of the Arctic nature’. They also list the large pipeline spill options as internal or external corrosion, third party impacts such as anchor impact, jack-up rig spud barge, or trawler fishing nets; and operation impacts which include rig anchoring or work boat anchoring; mechanical impacts which include connection failure or material failure; natural hazard impacts which include mud slides or storm hurricanes, they list ‘unknown’ as a potential large pipeline spill risk and finally, they profile the natural risk conditions of the Arctic that will risk creating an oil spill, including ice gouging, strudel sour, upheaval buckling, thaw settlement and again they list ‘other’, leaving open the fact that cleaning up spills is only possible in the 2 summer months, and with historic patterns of ice formation, cleaning up any spills in winter conditions make such work nearly impossible.
Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell are experienced at causing oil spill devastation. They have recently agreed to a $84m (£55m) settlement with residents of the Bodo community in the Niger Delta, whose land, river and ecosystem was destroyed by two oil spills in 2008 and 2009. Fishing and farming to earn a living became impossible for the community and the people lost their water supply, integral to their physical survival. Thousands of hectares of mangroves, flaura and fauna were affected in the southern Ogoniland region. These cases are some of the biggest spills in decades of oil exploration in Nigeria and were achieved by Shell. Yet Shell’s original offer of reparations to the community was volunteered at a total of 6,000. Lawyer Martyn Day, who represented the community, said it was "deeply disappointing that Shell took six years to take this case seriously and to recognise the true extent of the damage these spills caused to the environment and to those who rely on it for their livelihood". Thus indicating Shell’s lack of empathy toward the conditions of life they intend and attempt to inflict against the national group and their lack of care for the physical destruction which they will almost certainly bring about. If fact the cultural devastation already inflicted upon the national group, amounts to a level of stress and fear that the people will take much to recover from.
Therefore, the mental element of ‘intent’ [ Article 30 ] as knowledge as awareness that they will inflict conditions of life on the Arctic people that will bring about the groups physical destruction in whole or in part, can be considered comprehensively met. Clearly Shell directors, voting right shareholders and all other facilitators, “mean to engage in the conduct; having knowledge as awareness that a circumstance of harm exists and that the consequence of harm will occur in the ordinary course of events”, even if simply indicated by their multi-million dollar liability as a result of causing such devastation against the people of the Niger Delta. The stakes in the Arctic are much higher however, given that this is a life system that supports the global human population.
Shell are also experienced at catastrophic failure in the Arctic, when in 2012, they failed to manage the climate risks, demonstrating that regardless of the PR campaign promoting the aspiration to have an incident free drilling in the Arctic; the evidence confirms that their publicity profile assuring risk free oil extraction, is not realistic. It could even be considered as misleading and deceptive conduct. In 2012, Shell's contractors experienced numerous incidents and mistakes and lost control of a specially built drilling rig, while towing it through a ferocious storm, which once it ran aground, this very expensive piece of equipment was dismantled for scrap. This demonstrated the sort of unforeseen circumstance and error that dictates the almost certain inevitability of harm posed by their drilling in the Arctic, if the ICC does not act to prevent this within the next five weeks.
Shell, will be the first company to drill in the federally controlled U.S. arctic waters in two decades, having invested between $6bn (£3.85bn) to obtain drilling rights, purchase equipment and secure permits from necessary federal agencies in pursuit of an underwater supply of oil estimated to hold more than 20 billion barrels. Therefore, the directors of Shell have a directorial mandate to protect and deliver value to their shareholders as their committed priority and as such; protecting an ecosystem integral to the survival of life on earth or abandoning the harm against the indigenous communities who will be directly devastated, cannot be their priority. They are legally mandated as directors to protect their pursuit of profit in priority to all else.
These directors of Shell will risk the survival of indigenous communities and almost certainly ensure the devastating contamination of one of the world’s most essential ecosystems, in exchange for the Arctic oil reserves that some experts equate to the equivalent energy provision of only three years supply. Supply earmarked for the benefit of the US energy market at a time in history where fossil fuel consumption should be limited to ensure that life on earth can be maintained with reasonable quality of life and for survival to remain likely for most.
Another concern was highlighted by The Guardian newspaper, who referenced “leading academic, Prof Robert Bea, from the engineering faculty at the University of California in Berkeley. He made a special study of the Deepwater Horizon accident, and raised concerns that the recent slump in oil prices could compromise safety across the industry as oil producers strive to cut costs. Bea, who has worked as a consultant to BP and Shell, told the Guardian: “We should all be concerned about tradeoffs between production and protection ... With the significant reduction in the price for oil, there are equally significant pressures to reduce costs so that acceptable profitability can be maintained.” Bea was brought in by Shell in 2004 to review how the group had assessed the risks associated with the proposed drilling in the Chukchi Sea. “At the end of the week’s discussions, we agreed to disagree,” he said.”
The Arctic already endures the impact of industrial related climate change, with an alarming decline of summer sea ice which amplifies warming effects. The expansion of open water entices internationally governed Arctic nations to pursue what is considered easier access to oil and other resources in the region. Thus with the Shell oil drilling development moving forward, it diminishes the barriers for other resource interests to advance developments with subsequent contamination of the Arctic ecosystem. Consequently the struggle of the indigenous Arctic people, is increasingly a battle against southerners seeking to impose political agendas and resource extraction developments, at enormous devastation and stress to the native people, by economic and governance force.
If the SQP-ICC context is successfully applied by the International Criminal Court, to block Shell from drilling for and spilling oil in the Arctic, then it will significantly help to deter future economic investments from advancing the destruction of this ecosystem.
Population displacements due to climate change and the adverse environmental effects of industrial developments, will devastate the delicate social and culture mosaic of affected societies. These developments also trigger growing competition over resources, jobs, and social services in receiving areas and bring about deeply destabilizing economic and political consequences calculated for the future and the people and their community existence. The migrant workers entering these remote native communities also leads to compromising social conditions for the woman and children, often devastating in their own right.
The indigenous communities lack the resources to relocate, forced upon them as a result of contamination nor do they have the will to move. These individuals and societies who inhabit their ancestral lands, struggle to cope with the enormous psychological stress and physical repercussions of industrial developments which so directly threaten their safety, health and peace. They experience the direct contribution of industrial activity toward changing climate and environmental devastation, by facing industrial giants who will destroy their way of life and extinguish their ability to survive in the way that they have lived for thousands of years. Currently, only the International Criminal Court holds legislative power to hold the individuals accused from Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands to justice, and prevent their action to progress this harm against the Arctic.
Ironically, according to calculations by many scientific groups, at current carbon consumption rates, the world will already surpass it’s carbon budget of 565 gigaton within 16 years, by using only one fifth of the fossil fuels already held on reserve by nations and energy companies, by 2035. Therefore, when the world’s governments all agree that any quality of human life cannot be sustained beyond using one fifth of these current fossil fuel reserves, the question must be asked, in whose interest do we allow further reserves to be exploited, at such extreme risk to one of our most important ecosystems. Although carbon capture and storage technologies will extend the carbon budget possible to exploit, prior to reaching climate catastrophe, it is unlikely that such technology will ever allow 2,795 gigatons of carbon currently on reserve, to be consumed.
This carbon budget is expected to be consumed entirely by this current generation on earth and the risk to the Arctic ecosystem is exploited for resource that provides such short term benefit to this current generation; Thus proposing that the current curators of the industrialized nation systems, not only compromise the third world for the comfort and convenience of the first world, but that the Shell corporate directors also certainly compromise the survival of future generations for the benefit of immediate returns of their shareholders and their own remuneration.
The SQP-ICC context therefore allows a logical legislative mechanism to restrain business action that advances in contradiction to the scientific intelligence that requires this limitation on fossil fuels, for the protection of humanity and to sustain survival of life on earth.
The determination to advance the acceleration of Climate Change and the willingness to risk devastating the precious and pristine ecosystem of the Arctic, that significantly contributes to the global environmental balance and is necessary to protect in order to preserve the health of a rapidly dying ocean. Their action represents the global contradiction in play between the aspirational talks to prevent Climate Change and the reality of large industry escalating the industrial systems and environmental harm that brings Climate Change about.
The case of Royal Dutch Shell drilling the Arctic, conflicts with the consensus of good conscience, in that deciding it is acceptable to risk the destruction of the Arctic ecosystem, will be surely considered by future generations to be one of the world’s greatest crimes. This situation represents the necessity to realign the values of industrial development with the survival needs of future generations and the SQP-ICC context provides this opportunity and the mechanism to do so.
During his time of leadership at the United Nations, Kofi Annan developed a five point framework to evolve the world to a point where this preventative law of Genocide, would be brought to life and used to protect communities from impending and foreseeable devastation. The SQP-ICC context, identifies the environmental devastation as the vector that prevents individuals in power, from deliberately inflicting conditions of life upon people that bring about their physical destruction, in whole or in part. Kofi Annan’s five point framework provided that we take advantage of the "early and clear warning that allows the information gathering" necessary to prevent harm and that the world utilizes every opportunity to "end impunity through judicial action in international courts" with "swift and decisive action", encouraging our willingness to act in order to prevent such future harm.
The function of the SQP-ICC context, is to bring to life, the court’s power to 'prevent' this crime before it advances to perhaps immediate harm within five weeks of the date of this case profile submission to the court. The proposition is now extended to community groups, scientists, lawyers, NGO’s and any citizen who wishes to contribute time, in order to collaboratively develop a second detailed evidence submission to the court, that may delay Shell’s drilling plans, whilst the Prosecutors office formalizes an investigation. The campaign which promotes this case to the public is called ‘Victory Arctic’.
The International Criminal Court’s application of the SQP-ICC context, extracted from the Rome Statute, provides the world with a necessary chance to judicially punish corporate, government, private and investment decision makers with criminal liability and penalties, for their willingness to cause severe environmental and human destruction, that scientists have calculated will cause irreparable harm to directly impacted indigenous communities living within our most important ecosystems. Action which also impacts the broader group of humanity through climate change and contributes to the physical destruction the global life system.
To successfully establish the international legal precedent, that protects vulnerable indigenous communities and our most important ecosystems that sustain the global life system, will powerfully defend against future destruction, thus enormously mitigating climate change and protecting future generations.
The physical destruction of the Arctic will threaten the existence of entire nations who depend on the ice levels to balance global environments. The devastation of the Arctic may bring about the physical destruction of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, affecting food supply and economies, therefore contributing to the physical destruction of humanity in whole or in part.
We must 'recognise that such a grave crime threatens the peace, security and well-being of the world' and therefore we must be 'determined to end the impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and the prevention of such crimes' [ Rome Statute preamble ].
In the context of the already existing law as profiled and interpreted within the SQP-ICC context, requiring no amendment to the law or interpretation text; at the time of publishing, this legal case profile has been submitted for the consideration of the International Criminal Court prosecutor, requesting the court’s consideration to launch an urgent and formal investigation, that may prevent the directors of ROYAL DUTCH SHELL from inflicting conditions of life upon the national people in Arctic and the life system of the world.
The urgency of the case, requests the priority of the court, in order to utilize the preventative nature of the law. Enabling the court, a unique opportunity to exercise its power under the Rome Statute to prevent the crime from beginning in 5 weeks.
The immediate risk of the crime against the Arctic, its people and the global population, advancing in five weeks, may only be stopped if the ICC invokes its power to prevent the crime.
If the ICC does not investigate this case and stop Shell, then the calculated physical destruction will likely occur and the Arctic ecosystem is likely to be devastated which will become known as one of the world’s greatest crimes.
Charles O. HollidayChairman
Born March 9, 1948. A US national, appointed Chairman of the Company with effect from May 2015, having previously served as a Non-executive Director since September 2010.
He was Chief Executive Officer of DuPont from 1998 to 2009, and Chairman from 1999 to 2009. He joined DuPont in 1970 after receiving a B.S. in industrial engineering from the University of Tennessee and held various manufacturing and business assignments, including a six-year, Tokyo-based posting as President of ...
Hans WijersDeputy Chairman and Senior Independent Director
Born January 11, 1951. A Dutch national, appointed a Non-executive Director of the Company with effect from January 2009.
He was Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Management of Akzo Nobel N.V. from 2003 to 2012, having become a Board member in 2002. From 1999 to 2002, he was a Senior Partner at The Boston Consulting Group. He was Dutch Minister for Economic Affairs from 1994 to 1998, and was previously Managing Partner of ...
Ben van BeurdenChief Executive Officer
Born April 23, 1958. A Dutch national, appointed Chief Executive Officer with effect from January 1, 2014.
He was Downstream Director from January to September 2013. Previously he was Executive Vice President Chemicals from December 2006, when he served on the boards of a number of leading industry associations, including the International Council of Chemicals Associations and the European Chemical Industry Council. Prior to this, he held a number of operational and ...
Simon HenryChief Financial Officer
Born July 13, 1961. A British national, appointed Chief Financial Officer of the Company with effect from May 2009.
He was Chief Financial Officer for Exploration & Production from 2004 to 2009, and was Head of Group Investor Relations from 2001 to 2004. Prior to these roles, he held various finance posts including Finance Manager of Marketing in Egypt, Controller for the Upstream business in Egypt, Oil Products Finance Adviser for Asia-Pacific, Finance Director for ...
Guy ElliottNon-executive Director
Born December 26, 1955. A British national, appointed a Non-executive Director of the Company with effect from September 2010.
He was Chief Financial Officer of Rio Tinto plc and Rio Tinto Limited from 2002 to April 2013, and remained Senior Executive Director of these companies until the end of 2013. Prior to joining the Rio Tinto Group, he worked in investment banking and gained an MBA at INSEAD. From 2007 to 2010, he was a Non-executive Director of Cadbury plc, ...
Euleen GohNon-executive Director
Born April 20, 1955. A Singaporean national, appointed a Non-executive Director of the Company with effect from September 1, 2014.
She is a chartered accountant and also has professional qualifications in banking and taxation. She held various senior management positions with Standard Chartered Bank and was Chief Executive Officer of Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore from 2001 until 2006.
She has also held non-executive appointments on various boards including ...
Gerard KleisterleeNon-executive Director
Born September 28, 1946. A Dutch national, appointed a Non-executive Director of the Company with effect from November 2010.
He was President/Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Management of Koninklijke Philips N.V. from 2001 to 2011. Having joined Philips in 1974, he held several positions before being appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Philips’ Components division in 1999 and Executive Vice-President of Philips in 2000. From 2010 to 2013, he ...
Sir Nigel Sheinwald GCMGNon-executive Director
Born June 26, 1953. A British national, appointed a Non-executive Director of the Company with effect from July 2012.
He was a senior British diplomat who served as British Ambassador to the USA from 2007 to 2012, before retiring from the Diplomatic Service. Prior to this, he served as Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the Prime Minister, and Head of the Cabinet Office Defence and Overseas Secretariat. He served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative ...
Linda G. StuntzNon-executive Director
Born September 11, 1954. A US national, appointed a Non-executive Director of the Company with effect from June 2011.
She is a founding partner of the law firm of Stuntz, Davis & Staffier, P.C., based in Washington, DC. Her law practice includes energy and environmental regulation, as well as matters relating to government support of technology development and transfer.
She chaired the Electricity Advisory Committee to the US Department of Energy from 2008 to 2009, ...
Patricia A. WoertzNon-executive Director
Born March 17, 1953. A US national, appointed a Non-executive Director of the Company with effect from June 1, 2014.
She is Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer of Archer Daniels Midland Company in the USA, which she joined in 2006.
She began her career as a certified public accountant with Ernst & Ernst in Pittsburgh, USA before joining Gulf Oil Corporation in 1977 where she held various positions in refining, marketing, strategic planning and finance...
Gerrit ZalmNon-executive Director
Born May 6, 1952. A Dutch national, appointed a Non-executive Director of the Company with effect from January 1, 2013.
He was an adviser to PricewaterhouseCoopers during 2007, Chairman of the trustees of the International Accounting Standards Board from 2007 to 2010, an adviser to Permira from 2007 to 2008, and Chief Financial Officer of DSB Bank from 2007 to 2008. He was the Minister of Finance of the Netherlands twice, from 1994 to 2002 and from 2003 to 2007...
Michiel BrandjesCompany Secretary
Born December 14, 1954. A Dutch national, appointed as Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of the Company in February 2005.
He joined Shell in 1980 as a Legal Adviser and was later appointed Head of Legal in Singapore. Following a period as Head of Legal in China, he was appointed Company Secretary of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company. In June 2014, he was appointed a Non-executive Director of Constellium N.V.
INDIVIDUALS ALLEGED with PERSONAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has acknowledged reciept and review of the Victory Arctic case profile on June 15th 2015.
On Tuesday June 3rd, 2015, Miriam Clements submitted an argument to the International Criminal Court, that applies the SQP-ICC context from the Rome Statute, to charge the directors of ROYAL DUTCH SHELL with personal criminal liability, for intending and attempting to inflict conditions of life upon the Arctic people, that will bring about their physical destruction, in whole or in part; with awareness of both the circumstance and consequence of harm they inflict.
This case profile submission to the court,
launches the 'Victory Arctic' campaign, which offers perhaps the final chance to legislatively prevent Shell from drilling for oil in the Arctic; due to otherwise begin within 5 weeks of this case submission to the court.
In accordance with the Rome Statute, the Office of the Prosecutor must analyse all information submitted in order to determine whether the rigorous criteria of the Statute are satisfied.
Once a decision is taken whether or not there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, the Office will promptly inform 'Sustainable Quality Purpose' [ SQP ] of the courts decision.
give the VICTORY ARTIC signal to support the campaign
Help us to raise the profile of the Victory Arctic case to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic for Oil in July 2015. In 5 weeks from the date of this case submission to the court, the drilling is due to begin. If we establish an international legal precedent with Victory Arctic to stop the Shell directors from the world's worst crime of devastating nature, then we will prevent many more future industrial developments from contaminating our ecosystems that sustain life.
A CAMPAIGN TO BRING TO LIFE THE SLEEPING GIANT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL PROTECTION BY DEFENDING THE ARTIC, with SCIENTISTS, NGO'S, LEGAL ORGANISATIONS, LEADERS, INDIVIDUALS OF COMPASSION, INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS, ETHICAL CORPORATIONS and BUSINESS PEOPLE,
Make the sign in your own photograph
SUPPORT VA TO PROFILE THE EVIDENCE TO THE WORLD'S HIGHEST COURT TO PREVENT THE HARM, DEMANDING THAT THE DEVASTATION BE PREVENTED, BY RAISING THE LEVEL OF INTERNATIONAL CONCERN THAT MAY HELP COMPEL THE COURT TO INVESTIGATE THE VICTORY ARCTIC CASE
The Penalties and Perpetrators
The application of the SQP-ICC context against accused individuals, offers a powerful tool to change the minds of those who order, solicit or induce [ Article 25.3.b ] the commission of harmful activity. This precedent would guide future investment decisions toward sustainable, environmentally sound, industrial activity.
Personal and direct penalties against the individuals accused, can include imprisonment up to 30 years or life, a fine or a forfeiture of value derived [ Article 77 ]. Accused individuals have their personal fortunes and personal freedom at risk.
If perpetrators completely and voluntarily abandon the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevent the completion of the crime, they shall not be liable for punishment [ Article 25.f ].
If the individuals responsible commence execution with a substantial step and without such withdrawal, then they remain criminal liable regardless of whether the crime does not occur due to circumstances independent to that persons intention.
The courts ability to impose ʻa forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from the crimes, [ Article 77.2.b ] provides a tool for global wealth redistribution; especially if the voting right shareholders are charged with accountability for their vote to advance the harm, most likely for their benefit of private profit. The nature of these crimes are linked to some of the wealthiest in the world and thus providing access to great fortunes for redistribution and global benefit.
Also interesting is that any derived benefits allocated, such as inheritances, can be traced, secured and re-directed by the court, to provide reparation for the crime. This penalty holds beneficiaries financially accountable, even if they are not directly complicit in any criminal liability.
The Court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation; to be held in trust, where the court will determine principles for the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims. [ Article 75 ]; which won’t prejudice the rights of victims under national or international law. State parties shall give effect to fines or forfeitures ordered by the court by recovering the value of the proceeds, property or assets. [ Article 109 ] All state parties to the Rome Statute have committed to co-operating with the instruction of the court, to enforce these penalties.
Penalties of up to 30 years to life imprisonment and severe financial forfeitures will be significant inspiration for participants in the crime to immediately abandon their action, given the significant personal liability that they each face against their freedom and finances.
The court holds the power to impose the ‘forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from the crimes, [ Article 77.2.b ]. This can mean, for example, that those responsible can be ordered by the court, to be seized by their local authorities [ Article 109 ] and held in trust to make reparations to the victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation [ Article 75]
The ability to seize the wealth and assets of high net worth individuals and powerful directors, that is profit and power generated from their willingness to inflict large-scale, wide-spread and severe environmental destruction, could provide the world's marine enthusiasts, health experts, scientists and future generations, with some of the world's greatest fortunes, to invest in marine protection, preservation and prevention of negative consequences on human health.
The SQP-ICC context’s application of the Rome Statute, allows the wealth gained at the cost of the global environmental and human destruction, to be seized and redistributed back to value for the general ecosystem of the world and for the benefit of future generations. Current and future citizens would realize great value from such fortunes, being redistributed for the common good. Distribution mechanisms such as inheritance allocations for beneficiaries would no longer be possible.
The SQP-ICC legal strategy, therefore helps to resolve the unreasonable wealth inequality, that currently poses a global threat to humanity; given that much inequitable wealth distribution can be directly traced to the industrial activity, which can be directly traced to carbon emissions; according to the research of scientist and economic scholars, such as the evidence provided in the research of Richard Heede.
What is powerful about the SQP ICC legal context, is the potential for the court to order a halt to industrial activity upon investigation, in order to provide protection from harm for victims; or to halt the activities of the directors, who the industrial activity requires to advance.
It would be proposed to the court that the ICC pre-trial chamber issue an order for the licensing, construction and development, to be halted. A request will be made to issue orders for assets to be seized from the individuals who are criminally liable and transferred into government administration so as to inhibit their ability to continue advancing the harm and to restrict their natural reaction to protect and hide their assets from the courts future reach, in the case that they are found guilty.
The court can also order their provisional arrest [Article 92]. The purpose of these orders would be to avoid flight risk, limit their ability to obstruct justice or intimidate those who can provide evidence and prevent the harmful conditions of life, which their criminal conduct will continue to inflict on the national groups affected.
The SQP-ICC context, which is publicized as the ‘Victory *” campaigns, provide an open-source case collaboration platform, to develop a comprehensive "basis of information", in order to submit a detailed evidence profile on each case to the International Criminal Court.
Upon receipt of the SQP-ICC context case profile or the secondary detailed evidence submission, the Prosecutor's office may initiate investigations, and will analyze the seriousness of the information received. [ Article 15.1, 15.2 ].
The Prosecutor’s office may seek additional information from the state, intergovernmental, non-governmental organizations and other reliable sources [ Article 15.2 ]. This constitutes a preliminary investigation to assess the request for a formal investigation.
The individuals accused can provide [ Article 19 ] "Challenges to the jurisdiction of the court or admissibility of a case". Upon receipt of the accused formal right of reply, [ Article 19.3 ], then the authors, supporters and victims relevant to the basis of information may submit responding observations, to further validate the need for a trial and evidence guilt.
The prosecutor may conclude a reasonable basis exists to proceed with an investigation and then request the authorization of the Pre-Trial Chamber judges, [ Article 15.3 ] to commence a formal investigation.
The prosecutor would then notify all state parties to the Rome Statute treaty, of the investigation. [ Article 18.1 ] States can request a 6 month deferral within one month of notification, on the basis of conducting their own investigation. [ Article 18.2 ]
The prosecutor can agree to defer or the pre-trial chamber can instruct the ICC investigation to proceed regardless of the attempted intervention, in order to protect witnesses, preserve the integrity of evidence and act in a timely manner if the urgency is required. [ Article 18.6 ]
Based on the urgency of climate change acceleration cases and the immediate destruction of local communities and ecosystems; it is hoped that the court will be compelled to avoid investigation delays.
It is possible for relevant governance groups or private investors to provide the finance and resource necessary to equip the court to advance such investigations. In the case that the ICC are not financially or resource equipped to allocate priority to sustainability cases of such importance to the survival of the life system on earth, it is possible for private financiers to advance finances to allow these cases to be resourced and financed with priority.
A state shall not be discharged from its obligations whilst a party to the statute, due to a future withdrawal [ Article 127.2 ], therefore, if the crime is already in commission, a state’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute will not protect the individuals who current stand accused and are evidenced to be committing the crime.
** Article 21.b states that all appropriate, applicable treaties & the principles & rules of international law can also be applied by the court.
Evidence and dialogue in perpetuity
The preliminary examination may conclude that the information submitted does not constitute a reasonable basis for an investigation and the prosecutor shall inform those who provided the information. [ Article 15. (6.) ]
If the investigation is not approved, further information based on new facts or evidence, can be provided for renewed consideration of an investigation at any time [ Article 15.6 ].
Effectively this evidence submission begins a dialogue in perpetuity [ Article 53.4. ] with the court, as the Prosecutor may request to review the decision at any time, if satisfied that new facts have arisen, which negate the basis on which the case was previously found inadmissible” [ Article 19. (10.) ]
Importantly, this action collates and preserves facts, records and access to a clear profile of events at any future time, where the evidence of physical destruction brought about, will amass with greater profiles of evidence.
Importantly, this record will also allow the financial value derived from the industrial activity crime of devastation and contamination, so that even if that finance has changed hands into an inheritance by the time the crime is finally prosecuted, then that benefit derived may be re-secured and re-distributed to the broader population as reparation for harm caused.
The "basis of information” can be submitted without lodging a ʻPrevention of Genocideʼ case directly with national courts; when the arguments and evidence within other existing international legal violations and current cases to other courts, which utilize local laws relevant to the national court [ Article 21.1.b ], already demonstrate an obstruction of justice by the national courts; where the national courts have been ‘unable’ or ‘unwilling’ to uphold justice. This is especially relevant in countries where the national governments currently have the right to veto, alter, overturn or reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court, rendering their judicial system, simply unable to protect and simply an extension of the government’s economic objectives as the judicial system has no independence from the final decision of the political leaders who license the harm.
The current SQP-ICC context argues the ICC’s right to jurisdiction based on the multiple legal cases to prevent these industrial developments, which are subjected to an obstruction of justice within the national judicial systems relevant. It is also relevant due to the unusual fact that the mental and attempt elements that constitute the conduct of the crime or often committed in a separate country to the government licensing of the crime, which can also be a separate nation from the installation of the statements and orders that bring about the crime.
Where the nature of a nations judicial system does not exist independently of the government in power, whose priority is economic advantage regardless of laws that limit this pursuit. Or where a nations court system have governments who openly disagree with evidence provided by the majority of world scientists with a denial that human and industrial activity advances climate change, although this can be directly traced to industrial operations, then it can also be argued that such a nations judicial system is unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute this crime.
To elevate such crimes within these national judicial systems, to the graver charge of Genocide and expect that the government or judicial officials, who are complicit in committing the crime themselves, would agree to investigate their own actions, is unreasonable. Although, evidence of an 'obstructed request, from the public prosecutor to investigate a genocide charge, would satisfy the basis for transferring jurisdiction over the crime to the ICC.
Court Proceedings – Perpetrators and Trial
At any time after the initiation of an investigation, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall issue a warrant of arrest for a person, to ensure the persons appearance at trial; to ensure they do not obstruct or endanger the investigation or court proceedings and where applicable, to prevent the person from continuing with the commission of that crime or a related crime; which is within the jurisdiction of the court and arises out of the same circumstances; [ Article 58 ] Otherwise the court may issue a summons to appear with or without restriction of liberty, if the summons is sufficient to ensure the persons appearance.
State Parties to the Rome Statute are under agreement to take immediate steps to arrest the person in question [ Article 59 ] and transport them to transact their extradition [ Article 89.3 / 102.b ] or surrender [ Article 89 / 90 / 102.a ].
The Pre-Trial Chamber shall, on the basis of the hearing, determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the person committed each of the crimes charged and based on such determination will confirm those charges and commit the person to a trial chamber for a trial [ Article 61.7 ].
It may otherwise adjourn the hearing and request further evidence and investigation, or amend the charge to establish a different crime, or it may decline the charges determining insufficient evidence [ Article 61.7. b. c.].
If charges are confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber, then the ICC president constitutes a trial chamber [ Article 61.11 ] to be held in public and any international location can be established for specific ICC [ for Sustainability ] trials to proceed.
Measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses [ Article 68 ], allows the court to order a halt to industrial developments, due to cause immediate harm.
Compilation of comprehensive evidence against individuals causing the environmental destruction that accelerates climate change will record both the perpetrators of the crime and the beneficiaries of the financial value derived; with the opportunity for the courts to order forfeiture of this value, at a future time.
The Victory Arctic campaign can advance with or without political or judicial will, as the evidence will provide future generations and future ethical governance groups, with a comprehensive basis of evidence, upon which to take action.
If the current proprietors of world power and state judicial systems, deny the immediate application of the SQP-ICC context, then they imply their own personal complicit liability, in aiding the crimes, that may be prosecuted in future years when new governance and power groups can apply this law to all relevant cases since the Rome Statutes ratification by 122 states, for crimes committed since 2002.
International Criminal Court [ extension ] for Sustainability
On August 6th 2014, I proposed to the ICC, United Nations, UNDP and UNESCO, international leaders and leading sustainability related public figures, that an extension of the International Criminal Court should be provided resource and finance, to investigate the most devastating cases that the SQP-ICC context provides an opportunity to prevent; thus establishing the base for an International Criminal Court for Sustainability, with a focus to prevent the acceleration of Climate Change and defend against some of the greatest crimes against humanity, which the world must now consider as the destruction of our essential life systems.
Convening a special and independent extension of the ICC, for the purpose of preventing climate change through the proposed application of this law, would allow a large caseload of environmental destruction cases to be investigated with speed.
Importantly, this would eliminate the conflict otherwise due by sustainability cases competing against the backlog of existing ICC cases, relevant to other crimes of another nature.
The context for the ICC Rome Statue, refers to our need for "consciousness" with regards to the "delicate mosaic" of "common bonds", "cultures" & "shared heritage”, "that may be shattered at any time". Uniquely, the destruction of indigenous cultures around the world, for the insatiable and unstoppable appetite for industrial development, will shatter this delicate mosaic of vulnerable communities across the world and the Rome Statute uniquely provides the world with a mechanism to protect these people, where their national governments are allowing their exploitation through environmental destruction.
The context for a special court mission convened as the ‘International Criminal Court of Sustainability’, would be focused on cases applicable to “widespread, long-term or severe damage to the natural environment”.
THE SQP-ICC LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
The SQP-ICC legislative context, extracted from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, argues that the prevention of climate change, can be achieved by constructing this legal case against individual natural persons [ Article 25 ], who have intentionally progressed industrial activity since 2002 [ Article 24 ] or who advance new developments which will cause wide-spread, large-scale or severe environmental devastation; that accelerate the physical destruction of people, ecosystems and who cumulatively contribute to the catastrophe of climate change.
The ‘calculation’ of physical destruction that will be bought about by an industrial installation inflicting contaminating and devastating conditions of life upon the national group, [defined as one or more persons], has been clearly established by a range of scientists, NGO’s, national law suits to prevent the development harm and existing real-world case precedents. [ Article 6, Definition C ] [ Elements of the crime text, element 3 ]
The decision makers deliberate ‘intent’ and ‘attempt’ to inflict such conditions of life that will bring about physical destruction in whole or in part; is defined simply, by the fact that they meant to engage in the conduct of advancing the industrial development with the knowledge, defined as having awareness, that a circumstance of harm exists and the consequence of physical destruction, will occur in the ordinary course of events. [ Article 30 ]
Thus establishing that the mental element of ‘intent’, does not requires malicious intent to destroy. Rather, it broadly establishes harm as a circumstance and consequence that will occur within the ordinary course of events; in the case that the facilitators advance the construction and operation, for any number of ‘ordinary reasons’, such as pursuit of profit, economic advantage, power, energy provision or otherwise. In this case, the decision makers have knowledge, defined as awareness of the circumstance and consequence of the conditions of life they will inflict, that will bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part, of one or more persons of the national group; and that they accept this consequence as a cost of doing business; likely expecting no accountability for causing such devastating harm.
This criminally liable conduct of the industrial, corporate, government, investment and insurance alliances, takes place in the context of a manifest or emerging pattern of similar conduct directed against the (vulnerable local) group, as statements and orders are issued to deliberately and manifestly progress industrial developments and operations. [Element 5] The nature of such business developments is to plan, finance, license, construct and operate the industrial activity; with a manifest pattern of statements, orders, publications, press releases, license applications and consents; matched by the media and PR profiles of many affected groups and environmental organizations, who clearly assert for the knowledge and awareness of the stakeholders, that physical destruction will be a result of the conditions of life they inflict.
Perhaps the most important element of the SQP-ICC context is its ability to ‘PREVENT’ the industrial development from advancing to the stage where it will transact and install to inflict the conditions of life. In this case, the calculated awareness of the physical destruction that will be bought about, can be used as the basis of evidence that allows the court to order that the accused individuals are to be prevented from proceeding.
The history for this legislation evolves from the "Prevention" and punishment of Genocide Convention 1948. This unique criminal context allows criminal liability to be alleged against decision-makers who simply 'intend' and 'attempt' to inflict the conditions of life that bring about the physical destruction of a national group. Therefore, the scientific evidence must 'calculate' that the physical destruction will foreseeably occur, if the individuals attempting and intending the development are allowed to complete and become operational.
The development does not need to complete and the physical destruction does not need to have occurred, for the individual’s criminal complicity, investigation, arrest and trial. If the awareness of circumstance and consequence due from the conditions of life they intend to inflict are evidenced, then the calculated physical destruction that will be bought about, allows the individuals to be criminally investigated, charged and bought to trial for the attempt to commit harm.
Article 6, Definition C of the Rome Statute defines the crime of Genocide as “Deliberately inflicting on a national group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”; with modern society allowing the detailed provision of such calculations, by scientists, economists and NGO’s, media and communities affected.
In many situations, the jurisdiction of the crime is in fact relevant to the location of the board room, where the intent and attempt to inflict such conditions of life, providing instruction for the statements and orders to transact and direct the operational installation of such harm.
Make the sign in your own photograph
International Criminal Court
Office of the Prosecutor
confirming review of the
SQP-ICC context argument