ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME AND THE GEOPOLITICS: PROVING RESPONSIBILITY IN GLOBAL CHAINS OF POWER
Keywords:
environmental crime, resources, responsibility, scientific approaches, geopolitics, sustainability, environmental forensicsAbstract
Purpose: Environmental crime today represents one of the most complex forms of modern criminal activity, as it transcends the boundaries of classical law and encompasses economic, political, and scientific dimensions. The paper aims to explore how these interconnections shape legal and institutional responses to environmental offenses and to highlight the growing importance of scientific evidence in proving responsibility.
Design/Methods/Approach: The paper is based on a qualitative and analytical approach, combining theoretical, legal, and ethical perspectives. It does not include empirical measurement or field data but analyzes the role and potential of scientific methods, such as forensic ecology, satellite monitoring, and data analysis; in establishing environmental responsibility. The approach is conceptual and comparative, focusing on international cases, institutional frameworks, and the epistemological limits of scientific evidence.
Findings: The analysis shows that environmental crime functions as a transnational and institutionalized phenomenon, in which responsibility is often diffused among corporate and governmental actors. Control mechanisms remain fragmented, and the causal links between actions and consequences are frequently indirect or obscured. Based on a review of legal frameworks and international practice, the study concludes that proving responsibility requires the integration of scientific verification models, stronger institutional cooperation, and a global approach to environmental accountability.
Originality/Value: The conclusion is based on the thesis that researching and proving environmental crime requires a new paradigm founded on scientific integration and the ethics of responsibility, in which scientific institutions, states, and international organizations share joint accountability for preserving sustainable justice and global security.
References
Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bebbington, A., & Humphreys Bebbington, D. (2022). Political ecologies of the subsoil: Extractive industries and socio-environmental conflicts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2003). The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Higgins, P., Short, D., & South, N. (2023). Ecocide, law and the Anthropocene: The moral and legal case for a new international crime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knox-Hayes, J. (2020). The Routledge handbook of financial geography. London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2023). Environmental rule of law: Tracking progress and identifying gaps. Nairobi: UNEP.
Zečević, M., & Nikolić, N. (2012). Globalizacija i konkurentnost. Tehnički fakultet, Čačak
Zuboff, S. (2021). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs.
