If that means the Global South invading countries like the US or the UK in order to stop big ecociders like Shell, Exxon, Chevron or P&G, then I’m all for it.

Unfortunately we all know that those are not the intended targets of that legislation.

Invading other countries is against international law, and is exactly what these regulations aim to prevent.

So, then, how are they going to stop those supposed ecocides? Meaning, how are they going to enforce those regulations on countries that are not following them?

There are enforcement methods that don't involve invasions

Such as?

More to the point, and putting ecocide and genocide in a similar ballpark, doesn’t anyone remember Rwanda anymore? Or Srebrenica? (this latter labeled technically as a massacre). Does anyone believe that those atrocities could have been stopped by “harsh words” alone? Or by economic sanctions? They weren’t.

Enforcement in this case means imposition of force, which in an inter-state situation means invasion or, at the very least, a military attack (see Kosovo in ‘99, technically not an invasion).

I didn't count UN sanctioned peacekeeping as "invasion", but I can see how this could be seen as a purely semantic distinction.

I personally think it should be one instrument on the table as a matter of last resort, mainly for the purpose of deterrence.

> Invading other countries is against international law

This is a popular assumption, but it is not true. At least, definitely not now:

US and Europe invading multiple countries and international community being chill about it had set a strong enough precedent.

C'mon, NATO had recently updated its doctrines to allow it warfare over climate - we have all the preconditions for fun stuff.