Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has accused Russia of committing "ecocide" over , describing it as "an environmental bomb of mass destruction".
The Kakhovka dam, which lies about 30km east of the city of Kherson, provides water to and .
People living along the banks of the Dnipro river had to be evacuated from their homes as flood waters submerged streets and buildings.
But does the damage constitute ecocide?
What is ecocide?
Ecocide is similar to a crime against humanity "but perpetrated on the natural environment", Professor of Environmental Politics and International Relations at UNSW, Anthony Burke, told SBS News.
It's not a criminal offence under international law, he said.
"But what we do have is a new definition that has been drafted as a new article in the Rome Statute in the International Criminal Court," Professor Burke said.
"The core of it is that these be acts committed with the knowledge that there would be substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread, or long term, damage to the environment.
"If we want to call the damage to this dam 'ecocide', that's the test that would need to meet if that was an international law.”
Ukraine is among a small group of nations, including Russia, where ecocide is domestically criminalised.
In Article 441 of Ukraine's criminal code, it's defined as the "mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning of air or water resources, and also any other actions that may cause an environmental disaster".
Is the Kakhovka dam destruction an example of ecocide?
Eugene Simonov is a Canberra-based international environmental advocacy expert, and expert coordinator of .
He said the Kakhovka dam is the sixth to be destroyed during the war, according to UWEC's records. It also isn’t the first time the notion of ecocide has been brought up by Ukrainian authorities during the conflict.
"Many types of destruction caused by this war, from fires to intensive shelling of agricultural land to occupation of national parks and destroying their property, have been framed as ecocide," he told SBS News.
Mr Simonov said until the water subsided and a detailed assessment took place, it was hard to know if the environmental destruction would be significant enough to qualify as ecocide.
"You can speculate that these consequences are more or less likely, but you cannot say what the scale of the damage is," he said.
"You predict it's big, but it depends on many factors about which you don't have information."
What could the ecological impacts be?
Ukraine's foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba warned of significant environmental harm as a result of the dam’s collapse.
"Entire ecosystems are facing long-term and irreversible harm because of the floods. Animals in the Nova Kakhovka Zoo have already died in the rising water," he said.
“This is only the beginning of harm for fauna in the south of Ukraine, along the Dnipro River and in the Black Sea.
"We are witnessing ecocide on a regional, not just Ukrainian scale."
Mr Simonov said while he expected it to be "a major source" of environmental issues "for many, many years to come", there could be one "ironic" benefit of the dam's destruction.
"Despite all this tragic situation, and human loss and loss of natural assets, it still holds certain promise, that old, obsolete infrastructure that is being destroyed will not be brought back, but will be replaced by some much more appropriate, modern ways to ensure a more sustainable life environmentally, socially, and economically," he said.
"Of course dam removal is a scientifically based process; it should happen in a very different way … but now, I hope there is an option not to restore that dangerous and very harmful object."
Could Russia be prosecuted for ecocide?
Mr Simonov said it could be argued that the entire war in Ukraine was an act of ecocide.
Professor Burke said from a legal standpoint, that would be hard to prosecute.
"But I gather UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme] and the Ukrainian government have been cataloguing a list of environmental impacts of the war," he said.
"They're really grave and substantial, ranging from potential extinctions, damaging agricultural land, and much more, so one could argue that Russia's warfighting practice raises those concerns."
It would take at least five years for Ukraine to be able to launch a prosecution for ecocide using its own criminal code, Professor Burke said.
"They've got to identify perpetrators, arrest them, and then stage the case," he said.
Professor Burke said the other possibility is that the International Criminal Court could launch a prosecution for environmental war crimes.
"The threshold and the test there is much higher because the damage has got to be widespread, long-term and severe and excessive in relation to any military advantage," he said.
"Blowing up a dam … it's not a military target that is at all legitimate, so I think that the damage from this event could actually meet that test."
Russia has denied responsibility for the Kakhovka dam's destruction.
Additional reporting by Reuters
