Legal options regarding the Erzincan İliç gold mine landslide in terms of ecocide and international law

The effects of the massive collapse at the gold mine site in İliç could create negative impacts over an area larger than estimated.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kutluhan Bozkurt wrote about the ecocide debates and the effects of cyanide on the region for 12punto.

Bozkurt's article is as follows:

The occurrence of a landslide in a region covering a large area at the gold mine site in İliç, Erzincan, has led to the renewal of debates on ecocide. It is clear that extracting gold with cyanide is not very innocent, and that the deadly effects of cyanide can destroy not only people but the entire region and the nature within it, which is beyond any explanation. Unfortunately, the protection of nature is not a goal in mining activities; on the contrary, nature itself turns into a target for mining activity.

The grave incident that occurred yesterday has the potential to affect not only human life but the entire ecosystem, both in the region where the incident took place and in a wider geography, and even countries other than Turkey due to its proximity to the water basin and the Euphrates River. Gold exploration with cyanide is a risk in itself, and nature should not be sacrificed for profit and mining.

Regarding the legal consequences of the accident, the following assessment can be made. Looking at Article 5 of the Rome Statute, under the heading "Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the Court," it is seen that the categories of "(a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression" are included. However, the heading or category of "ecocide crimes" is not included in these crime types/categories. Nevertheless, cyanide mining activity should be discussed indirectly under the category of "crimes against humanity" due to the deadly risks it contains.

Furthermore, the regulation adopted by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in 1998, the "Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law," should be taken into account regarding the current incident. Although Turkey is not a party to this Convention, this regulation has been taken into account by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the judicial body of the Council of Europe, and interpreted against Turkey. This is because the ECHR, in applications that may be directed to it, establishes case law primarily in connection with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which regulates the "Right to Life," and Article 8, which regulates the "Protection of Private Life," especially in the context of transboundary conventions.

It should be emphasized that being a party to the 1998 Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law is not legally very important because this regulation is a transboundary regulation. This is because the ECHR, in an application made for another reason, the Öneryıldız decision, took into account the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law, to which Turkey is not a party, in the interpretation of Article 2 of the ECHR. The factors that must be taken into account regarding the landslide in Erzincan İliç, which is highly likely to constitute the crime of ecocide, are the aforementioned international regulations as well as the case law of the ECHR.

According to this case law established by the ECHR; since transboundary regulations are now at the center of legal debates regarding the protection of the environment and the ecosystem, it becomes important to initiate the legal process immediately in terms of Article 13, "Right to an Effective Remedy," together with Article 2 of the ECHR, without exhausting domestic legal remedies. For this reason, those who are directly or indirectly harmed due to the accident, which is in the nature of an ecocide crime, have the legal right to initiate this process. Moreover, it is not only humans who are harmed here.

It is highly probable that nature and its ecosystem are also harmed. Without exhausting domestic legal remedies, the matter can be legally transferred to international authorities and judicial bodies with an urgent and precautionary request. Although Turkey is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, complaint and application mechanisms in the context of an ecocide crime should also be considered due to the accident.

Looking at it from the perspective of the American company operating the mine, the possibility of initiating a legal process, and submitting complaints and compensation claims against the US and its government in connection with "Liability" for those harmed by the accident and this crime, emerges as an option that can be discussed and considered in terms of international law.