Green victimology the branch of victimology that places victims of ecological harm at the centre of legal analysis has evolved from a marginal theoretical claim into a recognisable current in contemporary international law. Four converging developments confirm this: the constitutional rise of the Rights of Nature, the campaign to list ecocide among the Rome Statute crimes, an increasingly assertive jurisprudence from the ICJ and ITLOS, and the entrenchment of indigenous protections under UNDRIP. Together they advance one doctrinally potent proposition: that an ecosystem can be wronged and is therefore entitled to genuine restoration rather than mere monetary settlement. Measured against this emerging standard, Indonesia among the world's most biodiverse yet ecologically vulnerable states displays a marked gap between its progressive constitutional text and its impoverished enforcement. Using a normative-doctrinal method built on statutory, conceptual, comparative, and case-based inquiry, this article argues that Indonesia's framework, despite formally embracing ecocentric principles, suffers five structural deficits: non-recognition of ecosystems as juridical subjects, the absence of any official stance on ecocide, persistent failure to meet the free, prior and informed consent standard, the lack of an operative mechanism of ecological restitutio in integrum, and the structural weakness of victims' access to environmental justice. It concludes by proposing five concrete reforms to align Indonesian law with the emerging international architecture of ecological victim protection.