Pub Date : 2018-10-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2018.1551477
Giorgos Balias
Abstract Despite 25 years of the European Union's Habitats Directive, the erosion of biodiversity in the EU has continued. To help explain the failure, this article analyzes Habitats Directive Article 6(3) and (4) and their key terms. It concludes, among other points, that the “Appropriate Assessment,” the objective of which is to insure the integrity of the Natura 2000 network sites, has not been used as it should have. Moreover, the vagueness of many terms in Article 6(3) and (4) have allowed biological conservation to be overcome by the imperative of economic growth. This article calls for greater recognition of the need for legal action despite incomplete scientific knowledge, as well as for better education of both the community and the courts in incorporating scientific knowledge into conservation policy.
{"title":"The Appropriate Assessment under the European Habitats Directive: Interplay Between Science, Law, and Policy","authors":"Giorgos Balias","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1551477","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1551477","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite 25 years of the European Union's Habitats Directive, the erosion of biodiversity in the EU has continued. To help explain the failure, this article analyzes Habitats Directive Article 6(3) and (4) and their key terms. It concludes, among other points, that the “Appropriate Assessment,” the objective of which is to insure the integrity of the Natura 2000 network sites, has not been used as it should have. Moreover, the vagueness of many terms in Article 6(3) and (4) have allowed biological conservation to be overcome by the imperative of economic growth. This article calls for greater recognition of the need for legal action despite incomplete scientific knowledge, as well as for better education of both the community and the courts in incorporating scientific knowledge into conservation policy.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89121581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2018.1554872
P. Sand
Abstract Commercial trade in ivory remains one of the major threats to the survival of an iconic wildlife resource: the elephant, in particular the African species (Loxodonta africana). At its 2016 Johannesburg meeting, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) adopted by consensus an urgent call for the closure of domestic markets for ivory. The only Party which has openly defied that call is Japan – claiming that its own domestic ivory market is strictly controlled, and does not contribute to elephant poaching elsewhere. The present study analyzes that claim in light of the evidence, including the country's legislation (as recently amended) and its application in practice (as documented by multiple recent surveys). The author's findings do not support Japan's claim to a sweeping exemption from the global ban agreed by the CITES Conference. On the contrary, in view of serious shortcomings in the Government's current legislative and administrative controls over the ivory trade (especially with regard to internet transactions), the author recommends effective termination of Japan's domestic ivory market; and pending such closure, a reclassification of Japan in category 2 of the CITES legislation list (‘legislation believed not to meet all the requirements for CITES implementation’).
{"title":"Japan’s Ivory Trade in the Face of the Endangered Species Convention","authors":"P. Sand","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1554872","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1554872","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Commercial trade in ivory remains one of the major threats to the survival of an iconic wildlife resource: the elephant, in particular the African species (Loxodonta africana). At its 2016 Johannesburg meeting, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) adopted by consensus an urgent call for the closure of domestic markets for ivory. The only Party which has openly defied that call is Japan – claiming that its own domestic ivory market is strictly controlled, and does not contribute to elephant poaching elsewhere. The present study analyzes that claim in light of the evidence, including the country's legislation (as recently amended) and its application in practice (as documented by multiple recent surveys). The author's findings do not support Japan's claim to a sweeping exemption from the global ban agreed by the CITES Conference. On the contrary, in view of serious shortcomings in the Government's current legislative and administrative controls over the ivory trade (especially with regard to internet transactions), the author recommends effective termination of Japan's domestic ivory market; and pending such closure, a reclassification of Japan in category 2 of the CITES legislation list (‘legislation believed not to meet all the requirements for CITES implementation’).","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80391173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2018.1483300
Bram Janssens, A. Trouwborst
This review article assesses the relevance of international wildlife treaties for the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s five species of rhinoceros – white rhino (Ceratotherium simum), black rhino (Diceros bicornis), Indian rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), Javan rhino (Rhinoceros sondaicus) and Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis). The analysis covers global treaties like the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the World Heritage Convention and the Ramsar Wetlands Convention, alongside various regional African treaties. Employing standard legal research methodology combined with relevant knowledge from the natural and social sciences, the focus of the review is both on past performance and future potential of the treaties involved. The outcomes of the analysis suggest that, despite pervasive compliance deficiencies which continue to curtail the effectiveness of the various treaties, the prospects of various rhinoceros populations may well have been (even) worse without some of these treaties. The comparative importance of the World Heritage Convention for the conservation of the three Asian rhino species is an example. The main threat to rhinoceroses – poaching driven by a demand for rhino horn in various Asian countries – is international in nature, and a substantial part of the analysis centers on the international community’s efforts to address this threat over the past four decades within the framework of CITES. A key recommendation flowing from this analysis is for CITES parties to seriously but critically explore alternatives to the current trade ban regime, including the option of a strictly controlled legal trade in rhino horn sourced from viable, sustainably managed populations.
{"title":"Rhinoceros Conservation and International Law: The Role of Wildlife Treaties in Averting Megaherbivore Extinction","authors":"Bram Janssens, A. Trouwborst","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1483300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1483300","url":null,"abstract":"This review article assesses the relevance of international wildlife treaties for the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s five species of rhinoceros – white rhino (Ceratotherium simum), black rhino (Diceros bicornis), Indian rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), Javan rhino (Rhinoceros sondaicus) and Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis). The analysis covers global treaties like the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the World Heritage Convention and the Ramsar Wetlands Convention, alongside various regional African treaties. Employing standard legal research methodology combined with relevant knowledge from the natural and social sciences, the focus of the review is both on past performance and future potential of the treaties involved. The outcomes of the analysis suggest that, despite pervasive compliance deficiencies which continue to curtail the effectiveness of the various treaties, the prospects of various rhinoceros populations may well have been (even) worse without some of these treaties. The comparative importance of the World Heritage Convention for the conservation of the three Asian rhino species is an example. The main threat to rhinoceroses – poaching driven by a demand for rhino horn in various Asian countries – is international in nature, and a substantial part of the analysis centers on the international community’s efforts to address this threat over the past four decades within the framework of CITES. A key recommendation flowing from this analysis is for CITES parties to seriously but critically explore alternatives to the current trade ban regime, including the option of a strictly controlled legal trade in rhino horn sourced from viable, sustainably managed populations.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83167264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2018.1481597
Olga Koubrak
Sawfishes are the world’s most endangered marine fish. These shark-looking rays were once common in tropical and subtropical coastal waters across the globe and are now extinct in large portions of their range. Sawfishes were first assessed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN) in 1996. Today, both species of sawfish present in the Caribbean are classified as critically endangered or facing “an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.” Only 2.4 percent of chondrichthyans, a class that includes more than one thousand species of sharks, rays, skates, and chimaeras, have been placed in this category. Even if all external sources of mortality are eliminated, it will take anywhere from “several decades” to over 100 years for the Caribbean sawfishes to recover. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, sawfishes’ perilous status became recognized in national and international law. In 2003, it “won the dubious distinction of being the first animal that can spend its entire life in the ocean” to be listed under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA).
{"title":"A Future for a Forgotten Predator: An Assessment of International Legal Frameworks for Protection and Recovery of the Caribbean Sawfishes","authors":"Olga Koubrak","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1481597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1481597","url":null,"abstract":"Sawfishes are the world’s most endangered marine fish. These shark-looking rays were once common in tropical and subtropical coastal waters across the globe and are now extinct in large portions of their range. Sawfishes were first assessed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN) in 1996. Today, both species of sawfish present in the Caribbean are classified as critically endangered or facing “an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.” Only 2.4 percent of chondrichthyans, a class that includes more than one thousand species of sharks, rays, skates, and chimaeras, have been placed in this category. Even if all external sources of mortality are eliminated, it will take anywhere from “several decades” to over 100 years for the Caribbean sawfishes to recover. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, sawfishes’ perilous status became recognized in national and international law. In 2003, it “won the dubious distinction of being the first animal that can spend its entire life in the ocean” to be listed under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA).","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83309749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2018.1485957
Laura Muir, Natalie Klein
Abstract The conservation and management of sharks is regulated under different international instruments of varying degrees of specificity and with different legal purposes. Two international instruments targeted at the conservation and management of sharks are the International Plan of Action for Sharks and the Sharks Memorandum of Understanding, which was adopted under the Convention on Migratory Species. This article examines and compares these two non-binding instruments, querying not only what was gained from the adoption of an additional non-binding instrument in the Sharks MoU just ten years after the IPOA Sharks but also how the accumulation of soft law instruments may operate within the framework of international environmental law. We show that such instruments do serve different purposes and can serve the ultimate goal of improving the conservation status of sharks, as well as thickening international environmental law to the benefit of species conservation.
{"title":"From IPOA Sharks to Sharks MoU Under the Convention on Migratory Species: Progress or Clutter in International Environmental Law?","authors":"Laura Muir, Natalie Klein","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1485957","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1485957","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The conservation and management of sharks is regulated under different international instruments of varying degrees of specificity and with different legal purposes. Two international instruments targeted at the conservation and management of sharks are the International Plan of Action for Sharks and the Sharks Memorandum of Understanding, which was adopted under the Convention on Migratory Species. This article examines and compares these two non-binding instruments, querying not only what was gained from the adoption of an additional non-binding instrument in the Sharks MoU just ten years after the IPOA Sharks but also how the accumulation of soft law instruments may operate within the framework of international environmental law. We show that such instruments do serve different purposes and can serve the ultimate goal of improving the conservation status of sharks, as well as thickening international environmental law to the benefit of species conservation.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76942617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2018.1481598
J. Gómez, N. Vliet
Abstract Wild animals have a special importance in Colombian rural contexts, where access to other sources of protein is limited. In rural communities, fishing and hunting provide food and generate income for household subsistence. In general, an important portion of the animals harvested is consumed within the family, and the remaining surplus is traded to acquire other subsistence foods and goods. Under the Colombian legal framework, harvesting animals from the wild (fishing and hunting) for subsistence purposes is allowed without restrictions on harvested amounts, if limited to family consumption. However, the trade of wild fish and wild meat, even in small amounts, is subject to a license, permit, or authorization. Regulations for the commercial use of wild fish, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, are clear and simple to comply with. On the other hand, the commercial use of wild meat, regulated under the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, remains illegal in practice, due to the complex requirements and the caveats in the regulatory framework. The reasons for these differences in the legal requirements to obtain a commercial permit for wild fish and wild meat are based on institutional differences and not on the sustainability of the practice. Considering the relevance of both hunting and fishing for rural livelihoods, it is important to question whether the current legal framework offers guarantees for the sustainable use of these resources in the future. Our analysis shows that the contrasting regulatory approaches between fish and wild meat use, as well as the discrepancies in the arguments to justify commercial fishing while prohibiting wild meat trade, have concrete consequences for local livelihoods. Moreover, instead of guaranteeing sustainability, bans on wild meat trade lead to more underground distribution channels and, potentially, also to increased pressure on fish stocks. Integrated management options need to be encouraged at the local level and promoted through integrated policy and regulatory frameworks for both resources and their habitats. Improved valuation and monitoring systems for subsistence and small-scale fish and wildmeat trade should also be integrated in the regulatory system to ensure sustainability for the future.
{"title":"Regulations on the Use of Fish and Wild Meat Segregate the Intrinsically Un-Dissociable for Subsistence Livelihoods in Colombia","authors":"J. Gómez, N. Vliet","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1481598","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1481598","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Wild animals have a special importance in Colombian rural contexts, where access to other sources of protein is limited. In rural communities, fishing and hunting provide food and generate income for household subsistence. In general, an important portion of the animals harvested is consumed within the family, and the remaining surplus is traded to acquire other subsistence foods and goods. Under the Colombian legal framework, harvesting animals from the wild (fishing and hunting) for subsistence purposes is allowed without restrictions on harvested amounts, if limited to family consumption. However, the trade of wild fish and wild meat, even in small amounts, is subject to a license, permit, or authorization. Regulations for the commercial use of wild fish, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, are clear and simple to comply with. On the other hand, the commercial use of wild meat, regulated under the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, remains illegal in practice, due to the complex requirements and the caveats in the regulatory framework. The reasons for these differences in the legal requirements to obtain a commercial permit for wild fish and wild meat are based on institutional differences and not on the sustainability of the practice. Considering the relevance of both hunting and fishing for rural livelihoods, it is important to question whether the current legal framework offers guarantees for the sustainable use of these resources in the future. Our analysis shows that the contrasting regulatory approaches between fish and wild meat use, as well as the discrepancies in the arguments to justify commercial fishing while prohibiting wild meat trade, have concrete consequences for local livelihoods. Moreover, instead of guaranteeing sustainability, bans on wild meat trade lead to more underground distribution channels and, potentially, also to increased pressure on fish stocks. Integrated management options need to be encouraged at the local level and promoted through integrated policy and regulatory frameworks for both resources and their habitats. Improved valuation and monitoring systems for subsistence and small-scale fish and wildmeat trade should also be integrated in the regulatory system to ensure sustainability for the future.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87954469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2018.1439701
Neelotpalam Tiwari, Himanshu Pabreja
“Environmental justice could be achieved only if we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric to ecocentric.”11 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, ¶ 14, (2012) 4 SCC 362 (India)....
{"title":"India's Protected Areas: Are They Really Protected or at the Mercy of Wildlife Boards?","authors":"Neelotpalam Tiwari, Himanshu Pabreja","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1439701","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1439701","url":null,"abstract":"“Environmental justice could be achieved only if we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric to ecocentric.”11 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, ¶ 14, (2012) 4 SCC 362 (India)....","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83358114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2018.1439702
Judge Anthony Lucky
If the environment could speak, would it express satisfaction with the performance of those who are meant to guard its interest? In any event, whatever the performance ratings given to the executiv...
{"title":"Diversity in Judgments: The Role of the Courts in Promoting Biodiversity","authors":"Judge Anthony Lucky","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1439702","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1439702","url":null,"abstract":"If the environment could speak, would it express satisfaction with the performance of those who are meant to guard its interest? In any event, whatever the performance ratings given to the executiv...","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88847452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2017.1413781
Stephen Leitheiser
During his recent presidential campaign, now US President Donald J. Trump seized the opportune moment of discontent with the establishment when he used the phrase “drain the swamp” to illustrate his pledge to remove “corrupt, career politicians” preventing the United States from being “great again.” Trump’s campaign to “drain the swamp” provides an ironically accurate illustration of the United States’ policies on wetland management for more than 120 years—policies that encouraged the conversion of what were considered wasted swamplands into productive uplands that could be used for agriculture and other economic activity.1 This “drain the swamp” mentality has also been displayed historically throughout Europe and, more recently, Asia, Africa, and Oceania—so much so, in fact, that a recent study estimates that, in the last 300 years, humans have eliminated 87 percent of wetlands globally,2 with 30 percent of these losses occurring since 1970.3 The rapid disappearance of global wetlands has become increasingly alarming as science continues to indicate that wetlands are not wasted and unproductive areas but rather areas of immense importance to both humans and wildlife and among the most productive ecosystems worldwide.4 Once recognition of wetland importance was established, protection campaigns followed beginning with an international treaty: the Convention onWetlands (hereinafter the “Ramsar Convention”), signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971.5 The Ramsar
{"title":"The Politics of “Better Than Nothing” in National Wetland Protection Law","authors":"Stephen Leitheiser","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2017.1413781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2017.1413781","url":null,"abstract":"During his recent presidential campaign, now US President Donald J. Trump seized the opportune moment of discontent with the establishment when he used the phrase “drain the swamp” to illustrate his pledge to remove “corrupt, career politicians” preventing the United States from being “great again.” Trump’s campaign to “drain the swamp” provides an ironically accurate illustration of the United States’ policies on wetland management for more than 120 years—policies that encouraged the conversion of what were considered wasted swamplands into productive uplands that could be used for agriculture and other economic activity.1 This “drain the swamp” mentality has also been displayed historically throughout Europe and, more recently, Asia, Africa, and Oceania—so much so, in fact, that a recent study estimates that, in the last 300 years, humans have eliminated 87 percent of wetlands globally,2 with 30 percent of these losses occurring since 1970.3 The rapid disappearance of global wetlands has become increasingly alarming as science continues to indicate that wetlands are not wasted and unproductive areas but rather areas of immense importance to both humans and wildlife and among the most productive ecosystems worldwide.4 Once recognition of wetland importance was established, protection campaigns followed beginning with an international treaty: the Convention onWetlands (hereinafter the “Ramsar Convention”), signed in Ramsar, Iran in 1971.5 The Ramsar","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79038781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2018.1439693
Abhishek Kumar
An American political philosopher and Harvard University professor, Michael Sandel, famously remarked that “Justice is not only about the right way to distribute things. It is also about the rightway to value things.”1 In today’s globalized economiccentric world, humans have forgotten the real value of the environment and wildlife to our life. Environmental destruction and wildlife crimes are today’s “tragedy of the commons,” and our apathy towards it would lead us only to self-destruction. This approach can be termed as a signature in the race to human destruction. The human tragedy is not merely that environmental destruction and wildlife crimes are a de trop reality of today, but also that we ourselves do not know that environmental destruction and wildlife crimes are something that happens to humankind in the first place. The impact of environmental destruction is no longer a subject matter of research hypotheses; rather, such hypotheses attempt to measure its magnitude. It was the 2016 headline reading “Development More Important Than Tigers, Supreme Court Says”2 that raised eyebrows and concerned many for the simple reason that even the “last resort” to get justice (read environmental justice here) is agreeing with the government’s argument of development over the environment. The successive governments, both at the Centre and the states, have always argued that India is a developing nation with somewhat 22 percent of its population still under the garb of poverty,3 and in order to bring them out of poverty, the state needs to create basic infrastructure, generate employment, promote industrialization, etc., and all these development activities, unfortunately, will have some negative impacts on the environment and wildlife. It is a non-debateable obligation on the part of the government to eradicate poverty, but can environmental destruction be a
{"title":"Economic Development and Environmental Justice: Cruel Conundrum or Symbiotic Relationship? (We Can Have Plan B, but No Planet B!)","authors":"Abhishek Kumar","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2018.1439693","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2018.1439693","url":null,"abstract":"An American political philosopher and Harvard University professor, Michael Sandel, famously remarked that “Justice is not only about the right way to distribute things. It is also about the rightway to value things.”1 In today’s globalized economiccentric world, humans have forgotten the real value of the environment and wildlife to our life. Environmental destruction and wildlife crimes are today’s “tragedy of the commons,” and our apathy towards it would lead us only to self-destruction. This approach can be termed as a signature in the race to human destruction. The human tragedy is not merely that environmental destruction and wildlife crimes are a de trop reality of today, but also that we ourselves do not know that environmental destruction and wildlife crimes are something that happens to humankind in the first place. The impact of environmental destruction is no longer a subject matter of research hypotheses; rather, such hypotheses attempt to measure its magnitude. It was the 2016 headline reading “Development More Important Than Tigers, Supreme Court Says”2 that raised eyebrows and concerned many for the simple reason that even the “last resort” to get justice (read environmental justice here) is agreeing with the government’s argument of development over the environment. The successive governments, both at the Centre and the states, have always argued that India is a developing nation with somewhat 22 percent of its population still under the garb of poverty,3 and in order to bring them out of poverty, the state needs to create basic infrastructure, generate employment, promote industrialization, etc., and all these development activities, unfortunately, will have some negative impacts on the environment and wildlife. It is a non-debateable obligation on the part of the government to eradicate poverty, but can environmental destruction be a","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79213584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：