Pub Date : 2022-08-25DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2103918
Pablo P. Castelló
Abstract Philosophers have long articulated theories of animal rights. However, concrete questions such as “How should the Constitution of Australia change if it recognized the right to self-determination of some wild animals?” have rarely, if ever, been studied. Inspired by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s theory of animal rights, this article explores a legal strategy about how wild animals’ interest in self-determination could be recognized in the Australian Constitution. I argue that conferring strong constitutional protection to wild animals regarding self-determination would require: (1) recognizing fundamental legal rights of wild animals to political representation, immunity from being objects of property rights, self-determination, and territory, and (2) defining to whom the proposed rights would apply and identifying the territories over which animals would have a right to govern themselves. I offer a strategic proposal in relation to point 2 and suggest that granting a legal status beyond the personhood–property divide, what I call “legal animalhood,” is the soundest strategy to recognize the fundamental legal rights of wild animals. Finally, I show that the proposed strategy is a better approach to confer strong legal protection to wild animals than Karen Bradshaw’s property rights strategy and ecocentric approaches.
{"title":"A Strategic Proposal for Legally Protecting Wild Animals","authors":"Pablo P. Castelló","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2103918","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2103918","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Philosophers have long articulated theories of animal rights. However, concrete questions such as “How should the Constitution of Australia change if it recognized the right to self-determination of some wild animals?” have rarely, if ever, been studied. Inspired by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s theory of animal rights, this article explores a legal strategy about how wild animals’ interest in self-determination could be recognized in the Australian Constitution. I argue that conferring strong constitutional protection to wild animals regarding self-determination would require: (1) recognizing fundamental legal rights of wild animals to political representation, immunity from being objects of property rights, self-determination, and territory, and (2) defining to whom the proposed rights would apply and identifying the territories over which animals would have a right to govern themselves. I offer a strategic proposal in relation to point 2 and suggest that granting a legal status beyond the personhood–property divide, what I call “legal animalhood,” is the soundest strategy to recognize the fundamental legal rights of wild animals. Finally, I show that the proposed strategy is a better approach to confer strong legal protection to wild animals than Karen Bradshaw’s property rights strategy and ecocentric approaches.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86324010","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2151135
Hira Jaleel
trafficking
人口贩卖
{"title":"Is CITES Protecting Wildlife? Assessing Implementation and Compliance","authors":"Hira Jaleel","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2151135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2151135","url":null,"abstract":"trafficking","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86488172","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2151136
Nikolas P. Sellheim
{"title":"Patrik Baard, Ethics in Biodiversity Conservation.","authors":"Nikolas P. Sellheim","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2151136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2151136","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86683409","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2146847
Jiaxin Xu, Zhijia Liu, M. Leslie
Abstract Media coverage on controversial topics, such as whaling, presents opposing arguments that can shape public opinions. To investigate how the US and Japanese media portrayed Japan’s withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission, we examined 368 news reports on whaling from the US and Japan published during 2018 and 2019, concurrent with Japan’s withdrawal. We identified ten frequently used arguments and analyzed how they were deployed to support either the pro-whaling or anti-whaling stance. Unsurprisingly, Japanese reports were predominantly more pro-whaling than the US reports. Cultural differences alone did not fully explain these diverging stances and usage of arguments. Moreover, broader anthropocentric concerns and the interests of the two countries overlapped, suggesting that while the two countries have a shared awareness of anthropocentric perspectives, the communication problem lies in their diametrically opposed assertions regarding those topics. By analyzing the issue, we revealed the potential for mutual understanding between the US and Japan, which allowed us to propose possible solutions to improve diplomacy on this issue.
{"title":"A Comparative Analysis of US and Japanese News Reports on Whaling Suggests Strategies to Improve Bilateral Communication on Commercial Whaling in Japan","authors":"Jiaxin Xu, Zhijia Liu, M. Leslie","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2146847","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2146847","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Media coverage on controversial topics, such as whaling, presents opposing arguments that can shape public opinions. To investigate how the US and Japanese media portrayed Japan’s withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission, we examined 368 news reports on whaling from the US and Japan published during 2018 and 2019, concurrent with Japan’s withdrawal. We identified ten frequently used arguments and analyzed how they were deployed to support either the pro-whaling or anti-whaling stance. Unsurprisingly, Japanese reports were predominantly more pro-whaling than the US reports. Cultural differences alone did not fully explain these diverging stances and usage of arguments. Moreover, broader anthropocentric concerns and the interests of the two countries overlapped, suggesting that while the two countries have a shared awareness of anthropocentric perspectives, the communication problem lies in their diametrically opposed assertions regarding those topics. By analyzing the issue, we revealed the potential for mutual understanding between the US and Japan, which allowed us to propose possible solutions to improve diplomacy on this issue.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77366406","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2151116
A. Wright, H. Moors-Murphy
Abstract Marine mammals are protected under dedicated taxonomic legislation, endangered species legislation, and general environmental stewardship laws in many countries. Governments and agencies within those countries are tasked with assessing and limiting human impacts in accordance with their own laws, including those arising from underwater noise emissions. While the United States (US) has established thresholds for permanent and temporary threshold shifts (PTS and TTS) in the hearing of marine mammals, Canada has not yet established specific numeric onset thresholds for hearing impairment or other noise-related impacts. Given that Canada and the US are jointly responsible for the management of a number of at-risk marine mammals, we provide a brief overview of the main laws and associated standards relevant to management of noise impacts on marine mammals in these two jurisdictions. The US PTS/TTS thresholds are only a small part of a suite of elements collectively applied to assess and mitigate the full range of impacts of noise on marine mammals, and the implementation of these (or any other) thresholds in Canada would not negate the need to conduct case-specific impact assessments to satisfy their own broader requirements. Caution should be taken when applying US thresholds to address Canadian legal standards, as there are substantial differences in the legal definitions to which these thresholds might be applied. Thus, the need for, and application of, similar generalised PTS/TTS thresholds in Canada is still under debate and noise impacts will likely continue to be assessed in different ways in these two bordering nations.
{"title":"Regulating Impacts of Noise on Marine Mammals in North America: An Overview of the Legal Frameworks in Canada and the United States","authors":"A. Wright, H. Moors-Murphy","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2151116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2151116","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Marine mammals are protected under dedicated taxonomic legislation, endangered species legislation, and general environmental stewardship laws in many countries. Governments and agencies within those countries are tasked with assessing and limiting human impacts in accordance with their own laws, including those arising from underwater noise emissions. While the United States (US) has established thresholds for permanent and temporary threshold shifts (PTS and TTS) in the hearing of marine mammals, Canada has not yet established specific numeric onset thresholds for hearing impairment or other noise-related impacts. Given that Canada and the US are jointly responsible for the management of a number of at-risk marine mammals, we provide a brief overview of the main laws and associated standards relevant to management of noise impacts on marine mammals in these two jurisdictions. The US PTS/TTS thresholds are only a small part of a suite of elements collectively applied to assess and mitigate the full range of impacts of noise on marine mammals, and the implementation of these (or any other) thresholds in Canada would not negate the need to conduct case-specific impact assessments to satisfy their own broader requirements. Caution should be taken when applying US thresholds to address Canadian legal standards, as there are substantial differences in the legal definitions to which these thresholds might be applied. Thus, the need for, and application of, similar generalised PTS/TTS thresholds in Canada is still under debate and noise impacts will likely continue to be assessed in different ways in these two bordering nations.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84272713","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2146850
Mark Reamer
Abstract In 1994, the United States government removed the Eastern North Pacific gray whale from the Endangered Species List due to its recovery rather than extinction. This notable action also marked the first removal of a marine mammal from the List due to population recovery since its enactment in 1973. The gray whale case study is well documented, in large part due to the charismatic nature of whales, a deep regard for marine mammal species, multiple federal laws and international treaties involved in their management and recovery, and a series of legal cases involving the Makah tribe in its pursuit to resume cultural subsistence whaling. The events leading up to the gray whale’s listing as endangered, the actions taken by both the US and the international community, and some of the events since the species’ delisting creates a unique and comprehensive case study that provides space for reflection on the future use of environmental laws to protect and preserve species, including, but certainly not limited to, large cetaceans in the Anthropocene.
{"title":"Recovery of the Eastern North Pacific Gray Whale: A Case Study","authors":"Mark Reamer","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2146850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2146850","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 1994, the United States government removed the Eastern North Pacific gray whale from the Endangered Species List due to its recovery rather than extinction. This notable action also marked the first removal of a marine mammal from the List due to population recovery since its enactment in 1973. The gray whale case study is well documented, in large part due to the charismatic nature of whales, a deep regard for marine mammal species, multiple federal laws and international treaties involved in their management and recovery, and a series of legal cases involving the Makah tribe in its pursuit to resume cultural subsistence whaling. The events leading up to the gray whale’s listing as endangered, the actions taken by both the US and the international community, and some of the events since the species’ delisting creates a unique and comprehensive case study that provides space for reflection on the future use of environmental laws to protect and preserve species, including, but certainly not limited to, large cetaceans in the Anthropocene.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79440891","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 : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2103920
R. Mathews
{"title":"Rosemary-Claire Collard, Animal Traffic: Lively Capital in the Global Exotic Pet Trade (Duke University Press 2020), ISBN 978-1-4780-1092-0","authors":"R. Mathews","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2103920","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2103920","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76074308","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2077388
Samantha de Vries
Abstract Iconic Canadian species are sometimes killed for “trophies,” for subsistence, or for the illicit market. Certain species may be under greater threat than sustainable regulation quotas imply, due to law and policy loopholes. There are two main questions relevant to Canadians that this article seeks to address: (1) What policy challenges do Canadian practitioners face in regards to CITES implementation and other Canadian wildlife legislations? (2) Which species are of most concern for poaching and trafficking in Canada according to practitioners, and does this align with international trade trends? In-depth interviews were conducted with eight Canadian wildlife officials (wildlife enforcement agency representatives with extensive experience working on wildlife criminal cases) to seek their perspectives. The findings suggest Canada operates under a conservation model of sustainable use and open trade, yet is lacking in implementation of certain policies and in certain areas such as the Canadian Arctic. There is no consensus among practitioners, some of whom work within the same agency, on which Canadian species are currently most at risk or of special concern for poaching and the illicit trade. These findings suggest there are gaps in law and policy in Canada in regards to in-demand species, and implementation needs to be harmonized across provinces and agencies to better protect wildlife. CITES listings of Canadian species may need to be reviewed in light of some of these identified problems (particularly with the bear gall bladder trade and polar bear harvesting). Identified species of concern were only somewhat aligned with available international export data.
{"title":"Wildlife Law and Policy Loopholes and Canadian Species of Concern: Practitioners’ Perspectives","authors":"Samantha de Vries","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2077388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2077388","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Iconic Canadian species are sometimes killed for “trophies,” for subsistence, or for the illicit market. Certain species may be under greater threat than sustainable regulation quotas imply, due to law and policy loopholes. There are two main questions relevant to Canadians that this article seeks to address: (1) What policy challenges do Canadian practitioners face in regards to CITES implementation and other Canadian wildlife legislations? (2) Which species are of most concern for poaching and trafficking in Canada according to practitioners, and does this align with international trade trends? In-depth interviews were conducted with eight Canadian wildlife officials (wildlife enforcement agency representatives with extensive experience working on wildlife criminal cases) to seek their perspectives. The findings suggest Canada operates under a conservation model of sustainable use and open trade, yet is lacking in implementation of certain policies and in certain areas such as the Canadian Arctic. There is no consensus among practitioners, some of whom work within the same agency, on which Canadian species are currently most at risk or of special concern for poaching and the illicit trade. These findings suggest there are gaps in law and policy in Canada in regards to in-demand species, and implementation needs to be harmonized across provinces and agencies to better protect wildlife. CITES listings of Canadian species may need to be reviewed in light of some of these identified problems (particularly with the bear gall bladder trade and polar bear harvesting). Identified species of concern were only somewhat aligned with available international export data.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89255061","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2077393
Zhen Miao, Qiang Wang, Xiaofeng Cui, Kirsten Conrad, Wei Ji, Wei Zhang, Xuehong Zhou, Douglas Craig MacMillan
Abstract The illegal ivory trade is the main driver of elephant poaching in Africa. In recent years, China—long regarded as the main destination of illegal ivory trade—has undertaken a series of policy interventions to curtail ivory imports, such as the closure of ivory carving enterprises. In this article we explore the impact of these recent interventions on the price of ivory and poaching and the wider drivers connected to the illegal trade, such as China’s macro-economic performance. The research demonstrates that the price of illegal ivory in China has dropped significantly, mainly due to measures taken under China’s “Ecological Civilization” (EC) programme and ivory trade ban to curb demand and supply. The number of illegal ivory seizures decreased over time but remains active, with a high proportion of seizures categorized as minor infringements (ivory pieces under 2.4 kg) often imported by tourists as souvenirs. We also find that the price of ivory is recovering in other destinations such as Vietnam, and it is becoming clear that all countries should make more political commitments on the existing basis to elephant conservation and curtailing illegal ivory trade.
{"title":"The Dynamics of the Illegal Ivory Trade and the Need for Stronger Global Governance","authors":"Zhen Miao, Qiang Wang, Xiaofeng Cui, Kirsten Conrad, Wei Ji, Wei Zhang, Xuehong Zhou, Douglas Craig MacMillan","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2077393","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2077393","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The illegal ivory trade is the main driver of elephant poaching in Africa. In recent years, China—long regarded as the main destination of illegal ivory trade—has undertaken a series of policy interventions to curtail ivory imports, such as the closure of ivory carving enterprises. In this article we explore the impact of these recent interventions on the price of ivory and poaching and the wider drivers connected to the illegal trade, such as China’s macro-economic performance. The research demonstrates that the price of illegal ivory in China has dropped significantly, mainly due to measures taken under China’s “Ecological Civilization” (EC) programme and ivory trade ban to curb demand and supply. The number of illegal ivory seizures decreased over time but remains active, with a high proportion of seizures categorized as minor infringements (ivory pieces under 2.4 kg) often imported by tourists as souvenirs. We also find that the price of ivory is recovering in other destinations such as Vietnam, and it is becoming clear that all countries should make more political commitments on the existing basis to elephant conservation and curtailing illegal ivory trade.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85935134","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2022.2077406
H. Kretser, Monica Nuñez-Salas, J. Polisar, L. Maffei
Abstract The jaguar (Panthera onca) is one of five Panthera cats facing global conservation concerns. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers the jaguar to be Near Threatened, and its global population has declined by an estimated 25% in 25 years. Current jaguar populations range from Mexico to Argentina with some individuals confirmed in the United States. For this article we compile and review the legal protections categorized in the constitution, national laws, and infra-legal level in each of those countries to identify the presence of government-approved endangered species lists, specific jaguar protection laws, government-approved jaguar management plans and human–wildlife conflict regulations, and the administrative and criminal sanctions for hunting and wildlife trade. We also note which laws allowed for legal killings of jaguar for hunting, subsistence use or conflict. We recommend that countries adopt jaguar-specific protection laws, establish and update administrative and criminal penalties, modify existing legislative language to ensure improved adoption, enforcement and prosecution, recognize non-binding management practices through legal channels, and harmonize legal policies across countries. We propose additional reviews on illegal wildlife trafficking, human–wildlife conflict, and enforcement, among others, to continue identifying legal gaps. This first range-wide assessment of and perspective on jaguar legislation illustrates opportunities for strengthening legal protections by comparing the variety of structures and approaches employed to conserve this important species.
{"title":"A Range-Wide Analysis of Legal Instruments Applicable to Jaguar Conservation","authors":"H. Kretser, Monica Nuñez-Salas, J. Polisar, L. Maffei","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2022.2077406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2077406","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The jaguar (Panthera onca) is one of five Panthera cats facing global conservation concerns. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers the jaguar to be Near Threatened, and its global population has declined by an estimated 25% in 25 years. Current jaguar populations range from Mexico to Argentina with some individuals confirmed in the United States. For this article we compile and review the legal protections categorized in the constitution, national laws, and infra-legal level in each of those countries to identify the presence of government-approved endangered species lists, specific jaguar protection laws, government-approved jaguar management plans and human–wildlife conflict regulations, and the administrative and criminal sanctions for hunting and wildlife trade. We also note which laws allowed for legal killings of jaguar for hunting, subsistence use or conflict. We recommend that countries adopt jaguar-specific protection laws, establish and update administrative and criminal penalties, modify existing legislative language to ensure improved adoption, enforcement and prosecution, recognize non-binding management practices through legal channels, and harmonize legal policies across countries. We propose additional reviews on illegal wildlife trafficking, human–wildlife conflict, and enforcement, among others, to continue identifying legal gaps. This first range-wide assessment of and perspective on jaguar legislation illustrates opportunities for strengthening legal protections by comparing the variety of structures and approaches employed to conserve this important species.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75634075","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：