ISSUES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR OFFENCES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Keywords:
environmental crime; environmental security; environment; natural resources; blanket provision; causation; environmental harm; differentiation of criminal liability; environmental restoration; green criminologyAbstract
This article examines the statutory and doctrinal foundations of criminal liability for environmental offences through an analysis of Chapter XIV of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, interpretative guidance issued by the Plenum of the Supreme Court, and contemporary international scholarship. The central argument is that making criminal liability for environmental offences dependent solely on material consequences that have already occurred or on the monetary value of individual natural resources fails to adequately account for ecosystem integrity, long-term environmental harm, and risks whose consequences are difficult to remedy. The study addresses the legal certainty of blanket provisions, the evidentiary challenges associated with establishing environmental consequences and causation, the distinction between environmental crimes and administrative offences, the determination of culpability on the part of public officials, the proportionality of criminal penalties, and the relationship between criminal sanctions and environmental restoration measures. Approaches developed within international green criminology and reflected in European Union Directive 2024/1203 are examined as potential legal alternatives rather than models to be mechanically transplanted into national legislation. The author advances proposals for a graduated approach to the assessment of environmental risks under criminal law, aligning the use of expert knowledge with applicable standards of proof, treating environmental restoration measures as a distinct consideration independent of criminal punishment, and developing harmonised interpretative guidance for judicial practice.
References
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Жиноят кодекси. 1994 йил 22 сентябрь. XIV боб, 193–204-моддалар. Расмий матн: https://lex.uz/docs/111453. (Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, adopted on 22 September 1994, Chapter XIV, Articles 193–204. Official text: https://lex.uz/docs/111453)
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий суди Пленумининг 1996 йил 20 декабрдаги 36-сон «Экология, атроф-муҳитни муҳофаза қилиш ва табиатдан фойдаланиш соҳасидаги ҳуқуқбузарликлар ва жиноятлар тўғрисидаги ишлар бўйича суд амалиёти ҳақида»ги қарори. https://lex.uz/docs/1442456. (Resolution No. 36 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan, dated 20 December 1996, “On Judicial Practice in Cases Concerning Offences and Crimes in the Field of Ecology, Environmental Protection and the Use of Natural Resources” (incorporating amendments of 3 July 2026). Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/1442456)
South N. Green Criminology: Reflections, Connections, Horizons // International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 2014. Vol. 3, No. 2. P. 5–20. DOI: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v3i2.172.
Brisman A., South N. Green Criminology and Environmental Crimes and Harms // Sociology Compass. 2019. Vol. 13, No. 1. e12650. DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12650.
Lynch M.J., Long M.A. Green Criminology: Capitalism, Green Crime and Justice, and Environmental Destruction // Annual Review of Criminology. 2022. Vol. 5. P. 255–276. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-114647.
Tourangeau W. A Systems-Based Approach to Green Criminology // Critical Criminology. 2022. Vol. 30. P. 983–999. DOI: 10.1007/s10612-022-09627-y.
Cao A.N., Wyatt T. The Conceptual Compatibility Between Green Criminology and Human Security: A Proposed Interdisciplinary Framework for Examinations into Green Victimisation // Critical Criminology. 2016. Vol. 24. P. 413–430. DOI: 10.1007/s10612-016-9318-7.
Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law // Official Journal of the European Union. 30.04.2024. ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1203/oj.
Lindqvist R., Lombardini C., Suvantola L., Ollikainen M. The deterrence effect of criminal sanctions against environmental crime in Finland: an application of the rational choice model of crime // European Journal of Law and Economics. 2024. Vol. 58. P. 175–200. DOI: 10.1007/s10657-024-09818-8.
Lampkin J.A., Wyatt T. Utilising Principles of Earth Jurisprudence to Prevent Environmental Harm: Applying a Case Study of Unconventional Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas in the United Kingdom // Critical Criminology. 2020. Vol. 28. P. 501–516. DOI: 10.1007/s10612-018-9426-7.
Aryaputra M.I., Juita S.R., Sukimin S., Muryati D.T., Sutanti R.D., Nnawulezi U. Examining the Model of Criminal Responsibility for Corporations Perpetrating Environmental Crimes // Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia. 2026. Vol. 8, No. 1. P. 185–203. DOI: 10.14710/jphi.v8i1.185-203.
Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide. Commentary and Core Text. Stop Ecocide Foundation. June 2021. https://www.stopecocide.earth/expert-drafting-panel.
Mol H. Green Criminology and (Constructions of) Environmental Crime and Harm: A Review Essay // Critical Criminology. 2016. Vol. 24. P. 145–150. DOI: 10.1007/s10612-015-9301-8.
Wyatt T., Brisman A. The Role of Denial in the “Theft of Nature”: Comparing Biopiracy and Climate Change // Critical Criminology. 2017. Vol. 25. P. 325–341. DOI: 10.1007/s10612-016-9344-5.
