The Monsanto Tribunal and Ecocide

by Alexander Gorski
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Jens Kersten

Photo Credit: Veronika Degmayr.

When word spread that a civil society initiative called the Monsanto Tribunal would meet in The Hague to review the human rights impact of the business model of American Multinational Monsanto, the reaction by conservative media ranged from annoyed to hostile. In an article called “The myth of the poisoning of the world” in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Jan Grossarth accused the initiative of staging a “show trial” that would verbally escalate the debate on the use of pesticides and reflect a dangerous radicalization of the environmental movement. He even went so far as to compare the rhetoric of the environmental activists to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the middle ages that accused Jews of poisoning wells. A less polemic, but similar conclusion was reached by Sergio Aiolfi in the Neue Züricher Zeitung of 14 October 2016. He also identified the Monsanto Tribunal as a “show trial” and concluded that the food-related challenges ahead required openness to technology and not a “self-appointed tribunal” engaging in a witch-hunt. A more moderate tone was struck by Michael Heussen for the public German information portal tagesschau.de. But while acknowledging the need for a debate given the complexity of the topic, Mr. Heussen also held that such “charges” of crimes against humanity and ecocide would impair the chance for a fair trial and indicate a premature judgment and inherent outcome. And at first glance the critics of the Tribunal were proven right, when the legal opinion was presented on 18 April 2017. Six questions were posed to the five judges of the Tribunal asking for an assessment of the business practices of Monsanto based on International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in relation to:

1. the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment;
2. the right to food;
3. the right to the highest attainable standard of health;
4. the freedom indispensable for scientific research and the freedoms of thought and expression;
5. complicity in the commission of war crimes in the context of the use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War;
6. the crime of ecocide.

And in fact, on all six points the findings of the Tribunal were unfavorable to Monsanto. But what does that imply? That a judicial proceeding (even an unofficial one) can be regarded as a “show trial” just because its outcome proves disadvantageous for one of the involved parties? Can critics cry prejudice simply because of the seriousness of the charges? Or conversely, does the process and the result of the Monsanto Tribunal demonstrate reactions of a conservative-, business- and even Monsanto-friendly media, that is in fact prejudiced? What is necessary yet missing in this debate is a straightforward and informed analysis of how the tribunal functions, in order to determine the validity and the weight of its judgment, not only amidst opposition and defamation, but also in light of blind and uninformed support. Therefore, this project will analyze the Monsanto Tribunal and its advisory opinion through the lens of the critique brought forward by its opponents.