“…Green criminologists have also engaged in the study of existing and proposed environmental law and regulation, as well as the failures, inadequacies, and inefficacies thereof, which may stem from avoidance of corporate, state, and personal responsibility regarding environmental crimes, harms, and threats (de Prez, ; Fitzgerald & Barat, ; Katz, ; South, ) or from an “implementation deficit” due to “a country's lack of financial and technical resources, limited expertise in international environmental law, inability to keep pace with the rapid expansion in treaties, overstretched and under‐resourced ministries and state institutions, and cultural and religious factors” (Walters, , p. 197 (citation omitted)). Green criminological study of responses to environmental crime and harm has included inquiries into the role and potential impact of litigation (Salama & White, ; Yeager & Smith, ); specialized courts devoted to resolving environmental matters (Walters & Westerhuis, ; White, ; White & Graham, ); and individual, grassroots, and institutionalized resistance and opposition to environmental crimes and harms (Brisman & South, , ; Cianchi, ; Ellefsen, ; Rodríguez Goyes, ; McClanahan, ; Weinstock, ). A growing body of work has also argued that climate change and other potentially irreversible harms to the planet now require radical responses from legal systems, including support for proposals to introduce a named crime of ecocide into international law (Crook, Short, & South, ; Higgins, Short, & South, ).…”