UDTR Global Rights of Nature Radar

Humans matter too: a misanthropic misunderstanding of ecocentrism is derailing the ecocide debate

Identification

Public canonical key

doi:10.1080/13642987.2026.2656484

Authors

Darryl Robinson

Reported year

2026

Reported language

en

Source type

article

First detected

2026-11-09T19:12:04.742868+00:00

Last metadata observation

2026-11-09T19:12:04.742868+00:00

Last HTTP verification

Not checked

Institutions reported by the source

Queen's University · Queens University

Documentary abstract — original language

In this article, I unpack the extremely widespread misuse of terms “anthropocentric” and “ecocentric” that has spread like a virus throughout the current ecocide literature, leading numerous scholars to denounce any consideration of human interests as “anthropocentric”. The ecocide literature is replete with the continually-echoed assertion that an “ecocentric” provision must feature an absolute prohibition, with no allowance for human impacts. These are demonstrable misunderstandings of both terms. Ecocentrism is concerned for all living things, including humans. Furthermore, ecocentrism does not ignore basic science. Hence it recognizes that humans, like all creatures, cannot survive without drawing from and impacting the environment. While numerous ecocide commentators reject any balancing between human and non-human interests, this ironically precludes the sophisticated assessment that an ecocentric position requires. To exclude consideration of human well-being is not “ecocentric”; it is “misanthropic”. This widespread error in ecocide literature has led to prescriptions that are scientifically ungrounded and ethically untenable. It has impeded the needed nuanced debate. This is one of two companion articles that discuss recurring common over-simplifications which are currently impairing the ecocide debate. The companion article unpacks the empirical and ethical reasons why simply banning all high-impact activity is not as simple as proponents appear to assume. The goal of these two articles is to foster a “second phase” of the ecocide debate, a more mature discussion that is conversant with environmental ethics, science, and the limits of criminal law.

Identifiers

OPENALEX

W7154935882

DOI

10.1080/13642987.2026.2656484

Documentary context

Documentary family

Scholarship

Source-reported types

article

Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.

Sources

OpenAlex · Record 1 · Record 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2026.2656484
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W7154935882

Documented bibliographic relations

Source-declared references and links; they do not establish legal support or UGLC qualification. Up to 20 outgoing references are displayed.

• openalex:w1927508922 · CITES
• openalex:w2008727260 · CITES
• openalex:w2073141645 · CITES
• openalex:w2109850972 · CITES
• Making Wild Law Work—The Role of ‘Connection with Nature’ and Education in Developing an Ecocentric Property Law · CITES
• openalex:w2496455427 · CITES
• openalex:w2771549989 · CITES
• Anthropocentrism: More than Just a Misunderstood Problem · CITES
• openalex:w2889021054 · CITES
• openalex:w3191652750 · CITES
• Earth Jurisprudence · CITES
• openalex:w4298339389 · CITES
• openalex:w4327969648 · CITES
• openalex:w4387058731 · CITES
• openalex:w4398155252 · CITES
• openalex:w4400018756 · CITES
• openalex:w4401228724 · CITES
• From ecocide to ecocentrism: Conceptualising environmental victimhood at the International Criminal Court · CITES
• openalex:w4403942326 · CITES
• ‘Human, all too human’: the anthropocentricisation of ecocide · CITES

0 incoming references within the detected corpus

Documentary status

Relevance pending

Library

This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.