A legal analysis exploring environmental rights and criminal accountability will be published in id-Dritt (GħSL), Edition XXXVI (2026). This article presents selected highlights and complementary themes.
Environmental degradation is no longer hypothetical. It is a measurable and escalating crisis reshaping legal systems. In July 2025, sea surface temperatures in the western Mediterranean soared to 31°C, up to 8°C above normal, marking the region’s most extreme marine heatwave on record. Climatologists called it a “once-in-a-billion” event, attributed to anthropogenic climate change.
This was not an anomaly, but part of a broader trend. As ecological destabilisation accelerates, legal systems are being pushed toward transformation. Environmental harm is increasingly framed not merely as a policy issue, but as a matter of enforceable legal responsibility.
A crisis quantified: Legal systems under pressure
The Global Risks Report 2025 ranks extreme weather, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem collapse as the top long-term threats to global stability. Notably, environmental risks now surpass digital and technological concerns, despite the latter receiving more regulatory attention. This mismatch exposes an institutional lag: the law is evolving quickly in response to AI and digital risks yet often reacts slowly or inconsistently to ecological collapse.
Environmental harm as a Human Rights issue
In Europe, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has begun interpreting environmental degradation through Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, holding states accountable for failing to mitigate environmental risks. However, the absence of an explicit right to a healthy environment remains a significant legal gap.
At the ECtHR’s 75th anniversary conference in May 2025, digital rights dominated the agenda, while environmental protection received limited attention, revealing a persistent tension between legal priorities and environmental urgency.
The criminal turn: From regulation to responsibility
Criminal law is also adapting. The EU’s Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on environmental crime significantly broadens Member States’ obligations, introducing “qualified offences” for conduct causing long-lasting or irreversible environmental damage. It mandates criminal liability for both individuals and corporations, with penalties reaching up to ten years’ imprisonment.
Although the Directive does not use the term “ecocide,” its influence is clear. At the global level, Pacific Island states have proposed adding ecocide to the Rome Statute. While the International Criminal Court has yet to codify such a crime, its response signals growing recognition of environmental harm as a matter of international criminal justice.
Corporate accountability and ESG enforcement
Parallel developments in corporate law underscore that environmental accountability now extends beyond states. The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive impose binding obligations on companies to assess and mitigate environmental and human rights risks across their operations and supply chains.
This shift transforms ESG from a voluntary framework into a system of enforceable compliance. Noncompliant companies face civil liability, regulatory sanctions, and reputational damage. Increasingly, discussions are exploring whether severe corporate negligence in environmental matters could trigger criminal liability under evolving legal frameworks.
Malta: A microcosm of legal transition
Malta illustrates both progress and inertia. A 2018 constitutional amendment introduced a state obligation to protect the environment for future generations, yet it remains part of the non-justiciable Declaration of Principles. Criminal environmental law is underdeveloped, and transposition of Directive 2024/1203 remains incomplete ahead of the transposition deadline in May 2026.
Despite institutional frameworks like the Environment and Resources Authority, and Climate Action Authority, enforcement and coordination are limited. Structural reforms are underway, including proposals to overhaul the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, but a coherent national strategy is still lacking.
Civil society has grown more active. NGOs such as Repubblika increasingly invoke EU and international environmental law to challenge state decisions. Meanwhile, interest in topics like ecocide and climate litigation is rising within Malta’s legal community.
Conclusion: Between momentum and uncertainty
A new legal order of environmental accountability is emerging, anchored in human rights, criminal responsibility, and corporate duty. Yet key questions remain unresolved, inter alia, the limits of judicial review, the balance between national sovereignty and supranational enforcement, and the capacity of institutions to deliver on ambitious legal mandates.
Legal systems are being tested by environmental realities that defy conventional boundaries. Whether they adapt with sufficient speed and coherence is uncertain, but the need for transformation is no longer in doubt.
This article was first published in the Sunday Times on 10/08/2025. Another version was published on the Malta Independent on 10/08/2025 and can be found here
A detailed legal analysis of these evolving European and international frameworks, with particular focus on environmental rights, criminalisation and Malta’s legal infrastructure, will be published in id-Dritt (GħSL), Edition XXXVI (2026).
A follow-up piece is planned, to assess national developments following the transposition deadline for Directive (EU) 2024/1203 and the outcome of recent legislative proposals concerning Malta’s planning and environmental review framework.
Author
Related Articles
All Insights
