a legal defense for one of the seven wonders of the world
Purpose: to save one of the seven great natural wonders of the world by charging the individual decision-makers who are responsible for the environmental destruction of the great barrier reef, with criminal liability through the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
[ for Sustainability ]
Outcome: to establish the international legal precedent, where all coral reefs of the world, can gain protection from further future destruction, thus enormously mitigating climate change and protecting future generations.
[ argument 1 ]
Individuals are criminally liable where they deliberately inflict conditions of life, which scientists have calculated will bring about the physical destruction [ atleast in part, perhaps in whole ] of the national group we know as the coral reef [ article 6, definition c ];
[ argument 2 ]
The physical destruction of the coral reef will threaten the existence of entire nations who depend on the reefs for food and livelihood, where their devastation will cause the physical destruction of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, therefore contributing to the physical destruction of humanity in whole or in part.
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",
[ Article 25 ] where the perpetrators intentionally engaged in the conduct within their business activities that advanced or will advance coral reef's devastation since 2002. Effectively everyone involved can face a penalty of up to 30 years to life inprisonment and serious financial forfeitures. An appropriate penalty for those destroying one of the seven wonders of the world which is essential to humanities survival, in 'recognising that such a grave crime threatens the peace, security and well-being of the world' and therefore 'determined to end the impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and the prevention of such crimes' [ Rome Statute preamble ].
Where those complicit advanced their conduct with knowledge of the circumstance of physical destruction as awareness that the circumstance existed and that the consequences of the conditions of life they inflict on the Great Barrier Coral Reef group would occur within the ordinary course of events; wheather in their pursuit of profit, energy, power, ignorance or otherwise.
Please donate to help us make it happen.
WHAT WE'RE BUILDING TO MANAGE THIS
Click the links below to see what we're working on and fundraising for...
Click the picture to read...
Click the picture to read...
Click the picture to read...
Click the picture to read...
SQP ICC legal action to protect the great barrier coral reef.
get in contact.
We are pursuing direct donations and planning a crowd funding campaign to develop the full-time legal and campaign team that will co-ordinate the participation of all collaborators on this case. Your donations are so very much appreciated.
Key Profiles under construction.
the assets & wealth to be forfeited
FACILITATORS of the crime
a profile for the open-source collaborative legal campaign.
SQP ICC legal action to protect the great barrier coral reef.
A paper published in progress, by Miriam Clements.
The unique SQP-ICC legal context extracted from the Rome Statute, can realize justice for the type of genocide that has developed within industrial civilization, as a slow, insidious, sophisticated, sinister, corporate-political-military complex engineered, indifference to life; occurring as a circumstance in pursuit of other priorities such as profit, power and contracts for GDP, energy or jobs, whilst accepting the harm they will cause as a necessary consequence to secure their desired benefit.
The function of this legislation allows the court, the power to 'prevent' this crime and punish corporate, government, private and investment decision makers for their willingness to cause severe environmental destruction, that scientists have calculated will cause irreparable harm to humanity and the planet. No malicious intent is required within their intent and attempt to cause harm.
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 occur if the individuals attempted and intended development is completed and/or operational. Their development does not need to complete and the physical destruction does not need to have occurred, for the individual’s criminal complicity but the consequence must simply be foreseeable.
In the years since publishing the profile for the SQP-ICC legal context and recognizing the immense potential for the protection of the environment and human rights, I have found it worthwhile to disregard the term 'genocide', as for most, this associates with a broad range of pre-conceived assumptions, which do not match the legal definition of the Rome Statute text that article 6, definition c and article 30, along with other relevant articles, provides for.
A good example, is that physical destruction in whole or in part, does not require death. Although death of one or more persons certainly constitutes physical destruction, so does illness, disease, forced relocation, sound pollution, contamination pollution and the shattering of the delicate mosaic of common bonds, which we recognize as culture.
[ detailed as a primary consideration within the Rome Statute Preamble ]. Conditions of life inflicted can be turning the great barrier reef into a coal tanker track, dredge dumping and according to Greenpeace Australia, create the seventh most polluting area in the world, which is twice the C02 output of France and according to scientists, will kill the barrier reef.
The unique basis for argument one, profiled in the introduction, extends from my long-term work on the potential for the existing Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to provide large-scale, widespread and extensive environmental protection. In early August 2014, I made the observation to key representatives at the United Nations and directly to the International Criminal Court, that the definition of the law under Article 6, definition C of the Rome Statute, did not limit protection of 'national or ethnic groups' to that of only 'human' groups. A separate interpretation text called 'the Elements of the Crime', within Element 1 & 2, specifies this limitation as 'one or more persons'.
Article 9.2 of the Rome Statute invites amendments to this interpretation text and within my paper, I requested that the ICC prosecutor and judges consider proposing an amendment to the Assembly of State Parties, that would eliminate the interpretation restriction of 'national or ethnic groups' as only 'persons', and allow the law to extend protection for all animal, pollinator and sea-life 'national groups'.
For the purpose of my [ argument 1 ] proposition, a 'national group' of Australia under the threat of physical destruction, calculated by a vast array of scientists, would be identified as the life of the Great Barrier Coral Reef, which as a group includes marine and plant life.
This is a meaningful opportunity to provide the world a genuine possibility to protect one of the seven great natural wonders of the world, where the Australian Judicial system is unable or unwilling to do so. The Rome Statute provides a context where the government licenses do not provide the complicit individuals with exemption from criminal responsibility for their destructive decisions [ Article 33 ] and where government officials are individually criminally liable for their participation in advancing the crime [ Article 38 ]. It should be made clear that the international criminal court arrests and conducts trials against individuals, whose government, corporate, power or wealth positions, provide them no protection or amnesty.
I have had a recent connection with Jeff Hansen, the Australian director of Sea Shepherd, who through Omar Todd, Sea Shepherd's communication director, asked if the SQP-ICC legal context can help to save the Great Barrier Reef; resulting in my considering this possibility.
I propose that the SQP ICC legal context can protect the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.
[ argument 1 ] If there was ever a reason that 2/3rds of the United Nations Assembly of States Parties members, may agree to amend the Elements of the Crime interpretation text, as Article 9.2 of the Rome Statute allows them to do; then surely it would be with the purpose to save one of the seven great natural wonders of the world and preserve the Great Barrier Reef as a "national group" facing physical destruction in whole or in part at the hands of individuals profiting from dirty industry.
[ argument 2 ] can be made in the context of the already existing law as profiled and interpreted within the SQP Climate Change Prevention Profile [ SQP CCPP ], requiring no amendment to the law or interpretation text. This legal submission can be formed and submitted for the consideration of the prosecutor to launch a formal investigation, now.
The fact is that the physical destruction and survival of the human group, is directly linked to the physical destruction of the coral reefs and therefore, when individual beneficiaries and decision-makers such as Georgina Hope [Gina] Rinehart, Clive Palmer, Gautam Adani, GVK Reddy, Russel Reichelt, Tony Burke, Michael Roche and Greg Hunt; who are allegedly attempting to deliberately inflict physical destruction from mining or dredge dumping, and are therefore all guilty of accelerating climate change and affecting the survival of the reef as a national group and humanity as a whole.
A joint statement is signed by Professor Tim Flannery, Professor Fiona Stanley, the Climate Council of Australia and Dr Liz Hanna of the Climate and Health Alliance representing 27 health organisations, states clearly that coal is killing humans and therefore, the individuals listed above as complicit in advancing the coal development, are deliberately inflicting conditions of life on the national groups of Australia, that will cause the direct physical destruction and death of humans; this will also occur in India, where the coal will be used.
Research from the World Health Organisation now confirms that air pollution is responsible for 1 in 8 deaths globally, therefore causing the physical destruction of 1/8th of the human population on earth, 'in whole'. An alarming corporate lead cultural change is demonstrated by Eskom reporting their companies contribution to local deaths in their annual report in South Africa; an account of which can be found on the video link below. At what point did it become acceptable for a dirty-energy company to assume human death as an acceptable conseqence within the ordinary course of events of their business operation and report the mortality caused within their annual report without criminal consequence. The SQP-ICC legal context removes this kind of immunity, currently extended by default or government complicity to the profitable businesses of dirty industry, in order to protect a culture of humanity, which respects life as the priority.
Where fifty NGO's collaboratively wrote to Frédéric Oudéa, CEO of Société Générale, asking him to abandon his involvement with the nine of the planned mega-mines planned for the Galilee Basin; now under the SQP-ICC legal context, they can instead write to Monsieur Oudea and confirm that his alleged personal criminal liablity has been submitted for the consideration and investigation of the International Criminal Court.
This legal context provides a sleeping giant of environmental protection for the world to collaboratively use, in defence against the decision makers who are progressing the harm, with the outcome of holding these individuals to direct criminal account. What is interesting is to see, which groups are willing to support immediate criminal liability for complicit individuals and which individuals are afraid of the consequences this may provide for their organisation or personal safety. What is sure, is that if enough individuals progress support for the ICC action and the world's citizen's join in support, then this legal application can shift power, redistribute wealth and provide the environmental protection from large industry which is so desperately needed.
The construction and operation of the Gallalie coal mines, will generate levels of carbon that scientists calculate will raise ocean acidity levels to bring about the physical destruction of remaining life in the reef, following the sediment contamination due from the dredge dumping. The reef's entire demise is forecasted and what was once one of the greatest natural wonders in the world, will become a highly polluted, with convoys of bauxite-filled shipping tankers transporting th dirty fuel for distribution to worlds poorest; who will unwittingly partake in the destruction of their own clean water and air supplies, to maximise profit of the billionaires, who could alternatively be investing in clean-energy transition.
“Coral reef damage also greatly affects food security, income, the stability of the whole ecosystem, and could increase the threat of coastal disasters,” Jensi Sartin from Bali-based Reef Check Foundation.
"Whole nations will be threatened in terms of their existence," said Carl Gustaf Lundin of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
Coral reefs are part of the foundation of the ocean food chain. Nearly half the fish the world eats make their homes around them. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide - by some estimates, 1 billion across Asia alone - depend on them for their food and their livelihoods. If the reefs vanished, experts say, hunger, poverty and political instability would ensue.
As a general proposition, the physical destruction of humanity is valid but direct cases also evidence the destruction. Ted Whittingham's fishery business collapsing as a result of fish disease caused by a high level of heavy metals and an unwillingness by authorities to investigate demonstrates the obstruction of justice, where unwillingness to investigate meets the requirements for the ICC's right to assume jurisdiction over Australia's judicial system. Dirty industry impact on water quality, ultimately affects the health and safety of fish-life, which impacts the human food system and causes human illness and disease.
Evidence provided by Pollocks study of deadly white syndrome coral disease, profiles this as a circumstance of dredge dumping and describes the consequence that once the sediment affects the coral, the reef never recovers. Linked to the fact that experts state that the sediment dumped in a limited location, can be dispersed across the entire coral reef by winds, currents and waves; then perhaps it can be foreseen that dredge dumping has the long-term capability to kill the entire reef with White Syndrome disease. The long-term impact on the ecosystem is calculated by scientists but recent developments such as the Hay Point coal port expansion in 2006, is a good example of the time that may pass before the physical destruction can be clearly identifiable, in terms of the impact on marine life, pollution levels and human health. This development was also a clear example that standards and containment of harm planned on paper is unlikley to be managed, therefore destruction from the Abbott Point development, has a probability to be equally devastating.
Greg Hunt clearly states that since approving the Abbott Park Coal Port expansion, he has refused four applications to dredge dump, based on the fact that it inflicts unacceptable levels of environmental harm. Infact he verifies his criminal liability in allowing the dumping to move forward for Abbott Point, by certifying his awareness of both circumstance and consequence. This awareness is what the court requires to charge an individual with criminal liability for advancing the physical destruction of national groups. The law dictates that Greg does not hold autonomous authority to decide that Abbott Park destruction is acceptable, due to his desire for profit, industry and trade and he is criminally liable for this.
What is powerful about the SQP ICC legal context, is the ability for the court to order a halt to industrial activity upon investigation, in order to provide protection from harm for victims. It would be proposed to the court that the ICC pre-trial chamber issue an order for the Gallalie mines 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. 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.
These orders may also provide the necessary factors to avoid UNESCO listing one of the great seven natural wonders of the world, on the world heritage endangered list; as this would mean significant cost to Australia's reputation and tourism. In addition to the Rome Statute, the ICC can consider and apply all relevant international laws, conventions, treaties and principles of law [ Article 21.b ] that otherwise do not hold the penalties that this court has the power to impart. Therefore World Heritage laws that provide long-term protection to the conservation of values is legislation that the court can consider. Australians for Animals
commissioned an advice from the Chair of the Australian International Law Association, who argues that Australia has violated its obligations under the World Heritage Convention. Australia is also violating UNCLOS, the Convention on Migratory Species and the Convention on Biodiversity and according to Sue Arnold of Australian's for Animals, the issue of sound pollution under-water, is an area of concern that is under-represented within local law.
Penalties of up to 30 years to life imprisonment and severe financial forfeitures can be awarded to the peretrators. 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 Gina Rineharts or Clive Palmers fortunes, can be ordered by the court, to be seized by the Australian 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 billionaires, which has been generated by inflicting large-scale, wide-spread and severe environmental destruction, could provide the world's marine enthusiasts, health experts and scientists, with the world's greatest fortunes, to invest in marine protection, preservation and prevention of negative consequences on human health. Current and future generations of Australia and the world, would realize the value of such fortunes for the common good. Distribution mechanisms would cease, such as inheritance allocations for their children and instead, the wealth can be redistributed back to value for the general ecosystem of the world and for the benefit of future generations.
The SQP-ICC legal strategy, helps to resolve what a NASA funded mathematical model recently predicted as two of the issues that will collapse industrial civilization within 15 - 20 years: as unsustainable natural resource exploitation and unreasonable wealth inequality.
There exists a unique option for some of the perpetrators relevant to this Australian case, in that they may completely and voluntarily abandon the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevent the completion of the crime, and then they shall not be liable for punishment or atleast reduce their criminal liability. [ 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.
Interestingly, Greg Hunt has specified a statement to the effect of 'who are we to stop 100 million Indian people having electricity' and Michael Roche states, 'who are we to stop the coal boom'. The question of greater relevance that Michael and Greg should be asking is, 'who are we to destroy the planet' with criminal decision-making. Therefore, i have approached the Indian Youth Congress to ask them directly if future generations of Indian citizens, would like their electricity to be provided, at the cost of devastating the global environment and destroying one of the seven wonders of the world. Their answer has immediately been 'absolutely not'. We are brainstorming an appropriate campaign to prove Greg's comments inaccurate. In contradiction to Greg's statement, a keen observer finds that India is currently leading the world in establishing innovative legal precedents to protect their environment, for the benefit of their people and ecosystems.
Given that coal production itself is one of the greatest generators of dirty industry induced climate change and is an industry full of decision-makers who are currently criminally liable under the SQP-ICC legal context; then infact contrary to Greg's position, stopping the coal boom, would mean preventing large-scale, wide-spread and severe climate change and their volunatry decision to do so, may provide them with avoidance of a personal prison sentence.
Ordering the halt to the Gallalie mining development would be valuable progress for avoiding climate change and the ensuing destruction and devastation of national groups. Avoiding the 'attempt' and 'intent' to develop and operate new coal mines, would help to eliminate the need for a global carbon tax agreement, due to be signed next year in Paris by all governments of the world. This will be the first ever world empire agreement, that holds the average tax-paying citizen financially liable for the damage caused by dirty industrial activity. It's curators and beneficiaries can then legally continue to advance new destruction for great personal profit and have the general population pay for the damage they cause.
What must be considered, is the fact that all existing new clean-energy technologies have the ability to replace dirty energy quickly, affordably and perhaps entirely, within a small scale micro-generation grid, though multiple installations across a city. This change is possible if leadership, governance and investors stop providing amnesty to those whose conduct deliberatly inflicts environmental harm when in the primary pursuit of profit. The world has an asset of greater value to protect than the individual fortunes of a few.
Appropriately, to propose a fast and immediately operational transition to end dirty energy, it was necessary to design an energy transition strategy which may transform existing cities to self-sufficient clean-energy in an affordable, efficient and localised system. This allows me to verify that dirty energy is immediately, economically and essentially replaceable.
Please view the clean energy transition strategy which i have designed that can transform existing cities to clean energy, which perhaps the Indian investors of the Gallalie mines could be encouraged to instead invest in, for the provision of the energy they seek for India.
Click the thumbnail pictures below to enter the web profiles of Waste Complete, Energy Eminence and the Clements clean-energy transition exhibition proposition.