There are two main approaches to environmental protection. The anthropocentric approach frames environmental safeguards as a means to protect human interests, while the ecocentric approach advocates for protecting the environment for its own sake. Historically, international law has favoured the anthropocentric view. In 2021, the proposed definition of “ecocide” as a fifth international crime under the Rome Statute renewed discussions on criminalising environmental harm. Although the drafting panel claims the definition is ecocentric, the authors argue it remains anthropocentric, based on its three threshold requirements. They further contend that the panel’s justification lacks practicality, is unsubstantiated, and redundant. A key issue, the authors note, is that legal frameworks rarely distinguish between ecocentric and anthropocentric perspectives. Acknowledging that the core aim of environmental law is to deter ecological destruction, the paper outlines four legal approaches: ecocentric civil law, anthropocentric civil law, ecocentric criminal law, and anthropocentric criminal law. These are positioned on a continuum based on the level of deterrence they provide.