This blog addresses key concerns about the Independent Expert Panel definition of the crime of ecocide. While the draft balances legal clarity with ecological gravity by targeting “unlawful or wanton” acts causing severe, widespread, or long-term environmental harm, authors argue it insufficiently challenges anthropocentric legal frameworks and permits trade-offs that could undermine its intent. The assumption that there are conditions in which it is permissible to cause environmental damage fails to recognize the gravity of the crime of ecocide which should have a similar no derogation standard as human rights crimes such as torture. Burke and Celermajer urge a more ecocentric definition grounded in multispecies justice, asserting that ecological destruction threatens the very foundation of life. As international debate continues, ecocide’s legal recognition could reshape global environmental governance and moral accountability.