There are many works of art (poems, stories, films, songs) that illustrate the horrors of military operations and war in general. Every word in these works is imbued with the pain of millions of lost lives, ruined destinies, for example: (excerpt from a poem by Inna Vin)
War spares no one, neither old nor young, nor small!!! Their souls are distorted by life, And the pain echoes like hell.
Indeed, “war spares no one.” During the period of hostilities, losses are suffered not only by people, but also by the environment in all its diversity. In an attempt to inflict as much damage as possible on the defending side, people use any methods the use of which is simply unacceptable - burning forests, sending water and livestock, shallowing water bodies, mass shooting of wild animals and birds, soil contamination. Unfortunately, this list of aggressive and unreasonable actions towards our nature and representatives of the animal world can be continued for a very long time, since historical chronicles regarding these crimes contain many real examples. This article will discuss how the legislation of our country qualifies this crime and punishes the perpetrators.
Punishment for ecocide in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
General provisions
Despite the extensive history of criminal law in the Russian Federation, a separate rule establishing liability for ecocide was introduced only in 1997. Regarding international regulation of the inadmissibility of ecocide, the first legal provisions classifying the act in question as a criminal offense were dictated by the outrageous actions of the United States of America in the war with Vietnam.
Story
The military conflict in Vietnam became one of the largest in the second half of the 20th century (the US entered the conflict from March 1965 to 1973). International environmental organizations were extremely outraged by the actions of the Americans, which occurred during the entire period of their armed forces being on the territory of the warring countries. To destabilize the enemy, American aircraft sprayed more than 72 million liters of Agent Orange defoliants to destroy forests and crops in South Vietnam. In addition, mechanical impact/destruction of vegetation was repeatedly used using massive bombardment of the jungle, as well as removing the surface layer of soil using heavy tracked vehicles. Even without counting the human deaths during and after the war, the environmental consequences of US actions are horrific:
- more than 500 thousand hectares of mangrove forests and more than 100 thousand hectares of lowland forests were destroyed;
- more than 1 million hectares of jungle were partially destroyed (damaged);
- 40 to 70% of all crops of bananas, rice, sweet potatoes, papaya, tomatoes, 70% of coconut plantations, 110 thousand hectares of casuarina plantations were destroyed;
- reduction in the species number of birds from 150 to 18;
- the appearance of malarial mosquitoes and mass exoduses of rodents, which are carriers of many diseases, including plague.
To our deepest regret, in addition to all possible condemnation of the actions of the United States by international tribunals (the Russell Tribunal for the investigation of war crimes committed in Vietnam), as well as the trampled honor of the United States of America itself, and despite all the bravado and inhumane acts, they completely and completely lost the Vietnam War.
Who invented the word
The word “ecocide” has militaristic origins. The term was introduced by American biologist Arthur Galston. In the 1950s, Galston was part of a team of scientists who developed Agent Orange, a synthetic mixture that causes cancer and genetic mutations. Agent Orange was sprayed by the US Armed Forces throughout South Vietnam. The name "Orange" comes from the orange color of the barrels used to transport this chemical.
When Galston learned about how his invention was being used, he immediately turned into an ardent anti-war activist. At the 1970 Conference on War and National Responsibility, he first called the destruction of the Vietnamese jungle "ecocide."
Forest fires in Spain. Photo: depositphotos
Composition and responsibility
It is immediately worth noting that the disposition of the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which will be discussed below, includes not only acts committed in wartime, but also any other acts that have as their goal the mass destruction of environmental elements. So, the provisions of Article 358, introduced in 1997 into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, are as follows:
Mass destruction of flora or fauna, poisoning of the atmosphere or water resources, as well as committing other actions that can cause an environmental disaster, are punishable by imprisonment for a term of twelve to twenty years.
Based on the presented definition of the atrocity in question, any actions involving large-scale consequences will be qualified in this way. For obvious reasons, the legislator has not provided specific indicators that should be considered mass, since this characteristic is strictly individual and depends on a huge number of factors, for example:
- Actual number/volume of destroyed/damaged animals (birds) and plant crops;
- The degree of their significance for human life and the balance of the environment;
- Occurring and/or possible consequences;
- Type of method of implementation of the crime.
All these and possible other aspects/circumstances of the crime must and will be taken into account when sentencing the perpetrator. But, unfortunately, this uncertainty causes many additional difficulties with qualifications. For example, can the killing of 5 animals, of which only a few dozen individuals remain, be considered a massacre? Yes, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains separate rules regulating liability for the killing of animals listed in the Red Book, but this in no way helps to solve this problem, since, in fact, the situation from the above example is a reasonable demonstration of such a criterion as mass character .
Taking into account the above provisions of Art. 358 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to highlight five actions that form the objective side of the crime in question:
- Mass destruction of flora.
- Mass destruction of wildlife.
- Departure of the atmosphere.
- Dispatch of water resources.
- Other actions that could cause an environmental disaster.
Based on these actions, the time of completion of the crime is determined - this is the moment of occurrence of the specified consequences or the moment of committing actions that can lead to an environmental disaster. And the motives pursued by the perpetrators do not play a key role in qualification, but can lead to a final verdict in the form of a set of crimes.
Peculiarities
Anyone who is in one way or another familiar with the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation knows that almost every crime has a number of overlaps with other acts that violate criminal law. Within the framework of the topic under consideration, there is a particular similarity with ecocide in the crimes prescribed in Chapter 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for example:
- Article 246. Violation of environmental protection rules during work.
- Article 247. Violation of rules for handling environmentally hazardous substances and waste.
- Article 248. Violation of safety rules when handling microbiological or other biological agents or toxins.
- Article 250. Water pollution.
- Article 251. Atmospheric pollution.
- Article 252. Pollution of the marine environment.
- Article 254. Damage to land.
- Article 261. Destruction or damage to forest plantations.
Based on existing law enforcement practice, the key difference between Article 358 and the articles of Chapter 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the direct object of the crime. The object of ecocide is characterized by possible irreversible consequences or the onset of an environmental disaster, which may be a consequence of these very consequences. And Chapter 26, from an objective point of view, establishes responsibility for the irrational use of natural resources and the possible consequences of this violation.
Judicial practice under Article 358 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Cassation ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 18, 2018 N 127-UD18-16
By the verdict of the Simferopol District Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea dated December 9, 2013, Asanov was acquitted under Part 3 of Art. , part 3 art. 146 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and for the totality of crimes provided for in Part 3 of Art. , clauses 6, 9, 12, 13, part 2, art. 115, part 1 art. , part 3 art. , paragraphs 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, part 2, art. 115, part 1 art. , part 3 art. 146, part 3 art. , part 3 art. , part 2 art. 146, part 3 art. , part 3 art. 146, part 3 art. 146, part 5 art. 185, part 1 art. , part 4 art. 187, part 4 art. 187, part 3 art. , part 4 art. 187, part 3 art. , part 1 art. , part 3 art. 190, part 4 art. 190, part 3 art. , part 4 art. 190, part 3 art. , part 2 art. , part 3 art. 357, part 3 art. , part 3 art. 357, part 3 art. , part 3 art. 357, part 3 art. , part 3 art. 358, part 3 art. , part 1 art. 358, part 3 art. , part 3 art. 358, part 3 art. , part 4 art. 358, part 3 art. , part 4 art. 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, sentenced to life imprisonment with confiscation of property, on the basis of Part 2 of Art. The Criminal Code of Ukraine, together with the sentence of August 4, 2005, is to life imprisonment with confiscation of property.
What changed
In 2021, the discussion of ecocide has again acquired a legislative dimension. The Hague court has promised several times to pay special attention to crimes that lead to “environmental destruction” and “exploitation of natural resources.” But France switched to the most active measures in November of this year. They proposed to supplement the Civil Climate Convention by making causing significant damage to ecosystems an offense. It will be punishable by a fine of up to 4.5 million euros or imprisonment for a term of three to ten years.
Following France, the International Legal Group became more active. Experts want to formulate a legal definition of ecocide. They plan to complete the work early next year.
Turtle during an oil spill. Photo: depositphotos
Commentary to Art. 358 Tax Code of the Russian Federation
Federal Law No. 168-FZ of December 20, 2005 made some changes to the article in question. However, as before, the objects of taxation are cars, motorcycles, scooters, buses and other self-propelled machines and mechanisms on pneumatic and caterpillar tracks, airplanes, helicopters, motor ships, yachts, sailing ships, boats, snowmobiles, motor sleighs, motor boats, jet skis, non-self-propelled (towed vessels) and other water and air vehicles... registered in the prescribed manner in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. However, there are exceptions to this rule.
Firstly, the Tax Code contains a list of vehicles that are not subject to taxation, and, secondly, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are given the right to supplement the provided list at their own discretion.
The list of vehicles not subject to taxation is given in paragraph 2 of Article 358 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. With its letters, the Russian Ministry of Finance clarified some questions about which vehicles are not recognized as an object of taxation. Thus, in order to establish that a passenger car received through the social security authorities is not subject to transport tax, the taxpayer must submit to the tax authority documents confirming the fact of receiving the specified passenger car through the relevant organizations. These provisions also apply if the cars were purchased and converted by disabled people at their own expense (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated July 8, 2004 N 03-06-11/100).
The letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 2, 2005 N 03-06-04-04/44 states that not only passenger and cargo sea, river and aircraft owned by the carrier organization, but also chartered vessels are not recognized as taxable objects .
Explanations regarding the payment of transport tax by agricultural producers are contained in the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated November 1, 2005 No. 03-06-04-04/42. Experts from the Ministry of Finance clarify that combines of all brands, special vehicles (milk tankers, livestock trucks, special vehicles for transporting poultry, machines for transporting and applying mineral fertilizers, veterinary care, maintenance), registered to agricultural producers and used in agricultural work for the production of agricultural products , are not subject to transport tax.
Until recently, there were many questions related to the so-called mobile enterprises - vehicles that perform production and household functions. Such vehicles, in accordance with the All-Russian Classification of Fixed Assets, are accounted for as buildings and structures, and these include mobile power stations, transformers, laboratories, workshops, kitchens, shops, showers and clubs. According to Federal Tax Service inspectors, there is no need to pay tax on such cars. However, the Ministry of Finance insisted on the opposite, citing the International Agreement on the Adoption of Uniform Technical Specifications for Wheeled Vehicles (concluded in Geneva on March 20, 1958), according to which any equipment transported by special vehicles is considered cargo. The letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated December 15, 2004 N 03-06-04-04/14 recommended paying tax based on the power of the car, but in accordance with its letter dated November 22, 2005 N 03-06-04-02/ 15 truck-based specialized vehicles are classified as trucks and are taxed at higher rates.
In addition, subparagraph 9 of paragraph 2 of Article 358 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation establishes that ships registered in the Russian International Register of Ships are not subject to transport tax, therefore, transport tax is not paid in respect of ships registered in this register.
When applying this benefit, shipowners need to consider the following. Federal Law No. 168-FZ of December 20, 2005 was published in the Parliamentary Gazette and in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta on December 23, 2005. According to paragraph 2 of Article 4 of this Law, the changes to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation introduced by it come into force on January 1, 2006, but not earlier than after one month from the date of their official publication. Thus, changes made to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation cannot come into force before January 23, 2006.
At the same time, the general rules for the entry into force of acts of legislation on taxes and fees are established in Article 5 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. According to paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, acts of tax legislation come into force no earlier than one month from the date of their official publication and no earlier than the 1st day of the next tax period for the corresponding tax. Consequently, these changes can only come into force after January 24, 2006, with the beginning of a new tax period for a specific tax. Since the tax period for transport tax is a calendar year (Article 360 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), the transport tax benefit for ships registered in the RMRS can only be applied starting from 2007.
It should be especially noted that this change, although it improves the situation of taxpayers, cannot be applied from January 1, 2006. According to paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, acts of legislation on taxes and fees that abolish taxes and (or) fees, reduce the size of tax rates (fees), eliminate the obligations of taxpayers, payers of fees, tax agents, their representatives or otherwise improve their situation , may have retroactive effect if they expressly provide for it. However, paragraph 2 of Article 4 of Federal Law No. 168-FZ of December 20, 2005, which speaks of the entry into force of changes to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, does not contain any provisions giving these changes retroactive effect. The Law does not say that the new provisions apply to legal relations from January 1, 2006. Therefore, the new norms do not have retroactive effect and come into force in the manner indicated above.
