首页 > 最新文献

Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy最新文献

英文 中文
Could Culling of Elephants Be Considered Inhumane and Illegal in South African Law? 在南非法律中,扑杀大象会被视为不人道和非法吗?
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-09-29 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529
R. Slotow, A. Blackmore, M. Henley, Karen Trendler, Marion E. Garaï
Abstract Elephant culling is included in National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in the Republic of South Africa, as a last-resort option to reduce elephant population size when required to meet reserve objectives. Recent judgments in South African courts have emphasised the importance of considering animal welfare in conservation. We assess the approved method of culling elephant family units, in terms of the legal and policy framework in South Africa, as well as considering elephant welfare and wellbeing. We find that the current culling method is likely to be inhumane, and potentially inconsistent with the Constitution, as interpreted by the judiciary. In addition, in certain circumstances, culling is illegal in terms of the Animals Protection and Meat Safety Acts, and contravenes World Organisation for Animal Health and global standards for the slaughter of animals. We recommend considering a moratorium on culling of elephant family units, as well as of lone bulls, until humane slaughter methods, and standard operation procedures that ensure an extremely high probability of instantaneous (“clean”) kill, are developed and approved. We recommend an ethics review process for conservation management interventions involving wellbeing risks to animals, such as is required for animal research. Notwithstanding other imperatives that need consideration, conservation practice should better balance welfare, to align with both South African legislation and global norms.
南非共和国的大象管理国家规范和标准中包含了大象扑杀,这是在需要达到保护区目标时减少大象种群规模的最后选择。南非法院最近的判决强调了在保护中考虑动物福利的重要性。我们根据南非的法律和政策框架,以及考虑到大象的福利和福祉,评估了被批准的扑杀大象家庭单位的方法。我们发现,目前的筛选方法很可能是不人道的,而且可能与司法部门解释的宪法不一致。此外,在某些情况下,根据《动物保护和肉类安全法》,扑杀是非法的,也违反了世界动物卫生组织和屠宰动物的全球标准。我们建议考虑暂停捕杀大象家庭单位,以及单独的公牛,直到人道的屠宰方法和标准的操作程序,确保极高的瞬间(“干净”)杀死的可能性,被开发和批准。我们建议对涉及动物健康风险的保护管理干预措施进行伦理审查,例如动物研究所需要的。尽管需要考虑其他必要事项,但保护实践应更好地平衡福利,以与南非立法和全球规范保持一致。
{"title":"Could Culling of Elephants Be Considered Inhumane and Illegal in South African Law?","authors":"R. Slotow, A. Blackmore, M. Henley, Karen Trendler, Marion E. Garaï","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Elephant culling is included in National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in the Republic of South Africa, as a last-resort option to reduce elephant population size when required to meet reserve objectives. Recent judgments in South African courts have emphasised the importance of considering animal welfare in conservation. We assess the approved method of culling elephant family units, in terms of the legal and policy framework in South Africa, as well as considering elephant welfare and wellbeing. We find that the current culling method is likely to be inhumane, and potentially inconsistent with the Constitution, as interpreted by the judiciary. In addition, in certain circumstances, culling is illegal in terms of the Animals Protection and Meat Safety Acts, and contravenes World Organisation for Animal Health and global standards for the slaughter of animals. We recommend considering a moratorium on culling of elephant family units, as well as of lone bulls, until humane slaughter methods, and standard operation procedures that ensure an extremely high probability of instantaneous (“clean”) kill, are developed and approved. We recommend an ethics review process for conservation management interventions involving wellbeing risks to animals, such as is required for animal research. Notwithstanding other imperatives that need consideration, conservation practice should better balance welfare, to align with both South African legislation and global norms.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73430734","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}
引用次数: 2
Legal Options (and Obligations?) for Enhanced Canada–United States Cooperative Southern Resident Killer Whale Conservation 加强加美合作保护南方虎鲸的法律选择(和义务?
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-07-19 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2021.1930334
Cameron S. G. Jefferies, David C. Adie, Zach Bliss, S. Kent
Abstract The critically endangered Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) population is at a conservation crossroads. The SRKW’s range extends from California to southern Alaska, but the core habitat of the species is the inland Salish Sea. The principal threats to the population are the decline in Chinook salmon abundance, physical and acoustic disturbance, and environmental contamination. Effective management must respond to the cumulative impact of these threats. The SRKW population has been protected as an endangered species in Canadian and U.S. waters for more than a decade, and emergency conservation measures have been produced in both jurisdictions. Unfortunately, these conservation measures have failed to stabilize the population or advance cooperative ecosystem-based conservation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) legally obligates states to cooperate in marine mammal conservation and, with respect to cetaceans, specifically requires states to work through an appropriate institution for their conservation and management. This article examines ongoing efforts by Canada and the United States to stabilize and recover the SRKW population in view of UNCLOS and the objective of long-term stewardship. This assessment includes ad hoc cooperative mechanisms and possible developments under existing cooperative forums. Although the base legal obligations created by UNCLOS are likely met, the objective of institutionalized cooperative cetacean conservation and management in UNCLOS is not met; moreover, existing cooperative forums are insufficient to effect SRKW recovery. Canada and the United States continue to approve projects without properly assessing the cumulative transboundary impact on the SRKW population or quantifying their contribution to important ecosystem-based thresholds, which reveals the true extent of management dissonance in the Salish Sea. This analysis concludes that enhanced bi-lateral cooperation and long-term co-existence with the SRKW population requires the creation of a new institutional forum, analogous to the International Joint Commission, that coordinates SRKW recovery measures and assesses future projects in view of cumulative effects management.
极度濒危的南方虎鲸(SRKW)种群正处于保护的十字路口。SRKW的活动范围从加利福尼亚延伸到阿拉斯加南部,但该物种的核心栖息地是内陆的萨利希海。对其种群的主要威胁是奇努克鲑鱼数量的减少、物理和声学干扰以及环境污染。有效的管理必须对这些威胁的累积影响作出反应。在加拿大和美国水域,SRKW种群作为濒危物种已经被保护了十多年,并且在两个司法管辖区都制定了紧急保护措施。不幸的是,这些保护措施未能稳定种群数量或推进基于生态系统的合作保护。《联合国海洋法公约》在法律上要求各国在海洋哺乳动物保护方面进行合作,在鲸类方面,特别要求各国通过适当的机构进行保护和管理。鉴于《联合国海洋法公约》和长期管理的目标,本文审查了加拿大和美国为稳定和恢复SRKW人口所做的持续努力。这项评估包括特设合作机制和现有合作论坛下可能的发展。虽然《联合国海洋法公约》规定的基本法律义务可能得到履行,但《联合国海洋法公约》规定的制度化合作保护和管理鲸类动物的目标尚未实现;此外,现有的合作论坛不足以实现SRKW的恢复。加拿大和美国继续批准项目,但没有适当评估对小鲨鱼种群的累积跨界影响,也没有量化它们对重要生态系统阈值的贡献,这揭示了萨利希海管理不协调的真实程度。这项分析的结论是,加强双边合作和与SRKW人口的长期共存需要建立一个类似于国际联合委员会的新的机构论坛,以协调SRKW人口的恢复措施,并根据累积效应管理评估未来的项目。
{"title":"Legal Options (and Obligations?) for Enhanced Canada–United States Cooperative Southern Resident Killer Whale Conservation","authors":"Cameron S. G. Jefferies, David C. Adie, Zach Bliss, S. Kent","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2021.1930334","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1930334","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The critically endangered Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) population is at a conservation crossroads. The SRKW’s range extends from California to southern Alaska, but the core habitat of the species is the inland Salish Sea. The principal threats to the population are the decline in Chinook salmon abundance, physical and acoustic disturbance, and environmental contamination. Effective management must respond to the cumulative impact of these threats. The SRKW population has been protected as an endangered species in Canadian and U.S. waters for more than a decade, and emergency conservation measures have been produced in both jurisdictions. Unfortunately, these conservation measures have failed to stabilize the population or advance cooperative ecosystem-based conservation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) legally obligates states to cooperate in marine mammal conservation and, with respect to cetaceans, specifically requires states to work through an appropriate institution for their conservation and management. This article examines ongoing efforts by Canada and the United States to stabilize and recover the SRKW population in view of UNCLOS and the objective of long-term stewardship. This assessment includes ad hoc cooperative mechanisms and possible developments under existing cooperative forums. Although the base legal obligations created by UNCLOS are likely met, the objective of institutionalized cooperative cetacean conservation and management in UNCLOS is not met; moreover, existing cooperative forums are insufficient to effect SRKW recovery. Canada and the United States continue to approve projects without properly assessing the cumulative transboundary impact on the SRKW population or quantifying their contribution to important ecosystem-based thresholds, which reveals the true extent of management dissonance in the Salish Sea. This analysis concludes that enhanced bi-lateral cooperation and long-term co-existence with the SRKW population requires the creation of a new institutional forum, analogous to the International Joint Commission, that coordinates SRKW recovery measures and assesses future projects in view of cumulative effects management.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86691865","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}
引用次数: 1
The Elephant in the Courtroom: An Analysis of the United Kingdom’s Ivory Act 2018, Its Path to Enactment, and Its Potential Impact on the Illegal Trade in Ivory 法庭上的大象:对英国《2018年象牙法案》的分析,其颁布之路,及其对象牙非法贸易的潜在影响
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-07-19 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2021.1933721
C. Cox
Abstract In 2019, Royal Assent was granted to the United Kingdom’s Ivory Act 2018. The legislation, introduced by Environment Secretary Michael Gove in 2018, was welcomed by politicians and conservation groups as “an extraordinary achievement” and “a landmark in our fight to protect wildlife and the environment.” In passing through the Parliamentary process in only seven months, the Ivory Act was testament to the cross-party commitment to tackling the illegal ivory trade. However, its path to enactment has not been smooth sailing. Following Royal Assent, the Ivory Act was the subject of judicial review brought by a company created by a group of antiques dealers, the Friends of Antique Cultural Treasures Limited, for the purpose of challenging the Ivory Act. While the Ivory Act is now considered among the strictest ivory trade legislation in the world, this article considers its path to enactment, its likely impact on the trade in ivory artifacts in the United Kingdom, and whether the act can fulfil the British government’s aim to make it “one of the toughest bans on the planet.”
2019年,英国《2018年象牙法案》获得御准。这项由环境大臣迈克尔·戈夫(Michael Gove)于2018年提出的立法受到政界人士和保护组织的欢迎,被视为“一项非凡的成就”和“我们保护野生动物和环境的斗争中的一个里程碑”。《象牙法案》仅用了7个月就通过了议会程序,证明了跨党派致力于打击非法象牙贸易的决心。然而,该法案的实施之路并非一帆风顺。在获得王室批准后,《象牙法案》受到了一家由古董经销商组成的公司的司法审查,该公司名为“古董文化珍宝之友有限公司”,目的是挑战《象牙法案》。虽然《象牙法案》现在被认为是世界上最严格的象牙贸易立法之一,但本文考虑了它的颁布路径,它对英国象牙制品贸易的可能影响,以及该法案是否能实现英国政府的目标,使其成为“地球上最严厉的禁令之一”。
{"title":"The Elephant in the Courtroom: An Analysis of the United Kingdom’s Ivory Act 2018, Its Path to Enactment, and Its Potential Impact on the Illegal Trade in Ivory","authors":"C. Cox","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2021.1933721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1933721","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2019, Royal Assent was granted to the United Kingdom’s Ivory Act 2018. The legislation, introduced by Environment Secretary Michael Gove in 2018, was welcomed by politicians and conservation groups as “an extraordinary achievement” and “a landmark in our fight to protect wildlife and the environment.” In passing through the Parliamentary process in only seven months, the Ivory Act was testament to the cross-party commitment to tackling the illegal ivory trade. However, its path to enactment has not been smooth sailing. Following Royal Assent, the Ivory Act was the subject of judicial review brought by a company created by a group of antiques dealers, the Friends of Antique Cultural Treasures Limited, for the purpose of challenging the Ivory Act. While the Ivory Act is now considered among the strictest ivory trade legislation in the world, this article considers its path to enactment, its likely impact on the trade in ivory artifacts in the United Kingdom, and whether the act can fulfil the British government’s aim to make it “one of the toughest bans on the planet.”","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88483988","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}
引用次数: 0
Environmental Crimes: A Framework for Detection, Monitoring, and Enforcement in The Maldives 环境犯罪:马尔代夫的侦查、监测和执法框架
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-07-19 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2021.1942249
A. Abdulla, Erika J. Techera
Abstract The Maldives suffers environmental crimes, such as illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, illegal discharge and dumping of waste and chemicals, illicit trafficking of wild flora and fauna, and prohibited air pollution, as well as coral and sand mining. This article provides a desk-based, legal analysis of environmental crime in the Maldives. As the first study focusing on this topic in the Maldives, this article highlights the challenges facing this state, explores the existing legal landscape, and provides a framework of recommendations to enhance the law to detect, monitor, and punish environmental crimes.
马尔代夫饱受环境犯罪之害,如非法、不报告和不管制(IUU)捕鱼、非法排放和倾倒废物和化学品、非法贩运野生动植物、被禁止的空气污染、以及珊瑚和采砂。本文以案头为基础,对马尔代夫的环境犯罪进行法律分析。作为首个在马尔代夫聚焦此主题的研究,本文强调了这个国家所面临的挑战,探讨了现有的法律环境,并提供了一个建议框架,以加强对环境犯罪的侦查、监控和惩罚。
{"title":"Environmental Crimes: A Framework for Detection, Monitoring, and Enforcement in The Maldives","authors":"A. Abdulla, Erika J. Techera","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2021.1942249","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1942249","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Maldives suffers environmental crimes, such as illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, illegal discharge and dumping of waste and chemicals, illicit trafficking of wild flora and fauna, and prohibited air pollution, as well as coral and sand mining. This article provides a desk-based, legal analysis of environmental crime in the Maldives. As the first study focusing on this topic in the Maldives, this article highlights the challenges facing this state, explores the existing legal landscape, and provides a framework of recommendations to enhance the law to detect, monitor, and punish environmental crimes.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74895103","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}
引用次数: 0
UNCAHP, One Health, and the Sustainable Development Goals 联合国艾滋病规划署、同一个健康和可持续发展目标
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-05-02 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2021.1923731
Elien Verniers, Sabine Brels
Abstract The United Nations Convention on Animal Health and Protection (UNCAHP) is a proposed convention that aims to provide a global protection to all animals worldwide. This initiative is proposed by the Global Animal Law (GAL) organisation, resulting from the expertise of prominent international animal lawyers. While the United Nations (UN) covers human rights (e.g., the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]) and environmental protection (e.g., the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]), animal welfare is still absent in the UN agenda. To address this lacuna and to fill the gap for global animal protection covering all categories of animals (companion, farm, lab, sport, and wild) and all aspects of animal protection (wildlife preservation, the welfare of animals, and their fundamental interests), UNCAHP should find its way to the UN. This research article analyses One Health and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as possible avenues for UNCAHP to enter the UN’s door and identifies which one(s) can be the best. In a first step, UNCAHP is analysed and evaluated. In a second step, the pathways of One Health and the SDGs are elaborated. Finally, we provide an overall conclusion dedicated to the main advantages of UNCAHP being adopted by the UN and its implications for global animal welfare worldwide.
联合国动物健康与保护公约(UNCAHP)是一项旨在为全世界所有动物提供全球保护的拟议公约。这项倡议是由全球动物法组织(GAL)提出的,汇集了国际知名动物律师的专业知识。虽然联合国(UN)涵盖人权(如《世界人权宣言》(UDHR))和环境保护(如《联合国气候变化框架公约》(UNFCCC)),但动物福利仍然缺席联合国的议程。为了弥补这一空白,填补涵盖所有动物类别(伴侣动物、农场动物、实验室动物、运动动物和野生动物)和动物保护的各个方面(野生动物保护、动物福利和它们的根本利益)的全球动物保护的空白,UNCAHP应该设法进入联合国。这篇研究文章分析了一个健康和可持续发展目标(SDGs)作为UNCAHP进入联合国大门的可能途径,并确定哪一个(s)可能是最好的。第一步是分析和评价联合行政协调会。第二步,阐述了“同一个健康”和可持续发展目标的途径。最后,我们提供了一个总体结论,致力于联合国采用UNCAHP的主要优势及其对全球动物福利的影响。
{"title":"UNCAHP, One Health, and the Sustainable Development Goals","authors":"Elien Verniers, Sabine Brels","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2021.1923731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1923731","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The United Nations Convention on Animal Health and Protection (UNCAHP) is a proposed convention that aims to provide a global protection to all animals worldwide. This initiative is proposed by the Global Animal Law (GAL) organisation, resulting from the expertise of prominent international animal lawyers. While the United Nations (UN) covers human rights (e.g., the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]) and environmental protection (e.g., the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]), animal welfare is still absent in the UN agenda. To address this lacuna and to fill the gap for global animal protection covering all categories of animals (companion, farm, lab, sport, and wild) and all aspects of animal protection (wildlife preservation, the welfare of animals, and their fundamental interests), UNCAHP should find its way to the UN. This research article analyses One Health and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as possible avenues for UNCAHP to enter the UN’s door and identifies which one(s) can be the best. In a first step, UNCAHP is analysed and evaluated. In a second step, the pathways of One Health and the SDGs are elaborated. Finally, we provide an overall conclusion dedicated to the main advantages of UNCAHP being adopted by the UN and its implications for global animal welfare worldwide.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82896863","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}
引用次数: 1
Ethical and Legal Considerations for Scientists Collaborating with Whalers: A Case Study of International Research Using the Outcome of Contemporary Whaling by Iceland 与捕鲸者合作的科学家的伦理和法律考虑:冰岛当代捕鲸成果的国际研究案例研究
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-04-03 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2021.1909807
Conor Ryan, V. Papastavrou, P. Sand
Abstract This article explores some ethical and legal issues regarding international research conducted on whales killed by Iceland since it resumed whaling in 2003. In total, 35 peer-reviewed publications and 11 conference presentations were identified, wherein international research directly or indirectly relied on contemporary whaling for samples or data. The authors of these publications were affiliated with 56 institutions from 13 countries. Parallels are drawn between this research and the offshoring of biomedical research that exploited weaker regulations elsewhere. Ethical assessments were rarely included in the reviewed papers, and none of them addresses the issue of compatibility with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) or with the laws and ethical standards within the countries where the researchers are based. Diplomatic efforts to uphold international treaties to protect whales may be undermined by research using the outcome of whaling. Government grants were used by research institutions in four ICRW member countries (Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States) where the governments had formally objected to Iceland’s reservation against the ICRW whaling moratorium. Researchers and their institutions may become tacitly complicit in contemporary commercial and alleged scientific whaling, when these activities may not be consistent with the ethical standards or laws within their own countries. Greater transparency is needed among academic institutions, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, funding bodies, journals, and professional societies regarding legal and ethical issues when data or samples from such whaling operations are used. Ethical frameworks need to be developed analogous to those used in international biomedical research and other disciplines.
本文探讨了冰岛自2003年恢复捕鲸以来,对其捕杀的鲸鱼进行国际研究的一些伦理和法律问题。总共确定了35份同行评审的出版物和11份会议报告,其中国际研究直接或间接依赖于当代捕鲸的样本或数据。这些出版物的作者隶属于13个国家的56个机构。这种研究与利用其他地方较弱监管的生物医学研究的离岸外包有相似之处。伦理评估很少包括在被审查的论文中,而且没有一篇论文涉及与《国际捕鲸条例公约》(ICRW)或研究人员所在国家的法律和伦理标准的兼容性问题。维护保护鲸鱼的国际条约的外交努力可能会被利用捕鲸成果的研究破坏。政府拨款被四个ICRW成员国(西班牙、瑞典、英国和美国)的研究机构使用,这些国家的政府正式反对冰岛对ICRW暂停捕鲸的保留意见。研究人员和他们的机构可能成为当代商业捕鲸和所谓的科学捕鲸的同谋,而这些活动可能不符合他们自己国家的道德标准或法律。在使用此类捕鲸活动的数据或样本时,学术机构、政府机构、非政府组织、资助机构、期刊和专业协会需要在法律和道德问题上提高透明度。需要制定类似于国际生物医学研究和其他学科中使用的伦理框架。
{"title":"Ethical and Legal Considerations for Scientists Collaborating with Whalers: A Case Study of International Research Using the Outcome of Contemporary Whaling by Iceland","authors":"Conor Ryan, V. Papastavrou, P. Sand","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2021.1909807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1909807","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores some ethical and legal issues regarding international research conducted on whales killed by Iceland since it resumed whaling in 2003. In total, 35 peer-reviewed publications and 11 conference presentations were identified, wherein international research directly or indirectly relied on contemporary whaling for samples or data. The authors of these publications were affiliated with 56 institutions from 13 countries. Parallels are drawn between this research and the offshoring of biomedical research that exploited weaker regulations elsewhere. Ethical assessments were rarely included in the reviewed papers, and none of them addresses the issue of compatibility with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) or with the laws and ethical standards within the countries where the researchers are based. Diplomatic efforts to uphold international treaties to protect whales may be undermined by research using the outcome of whaling. Government grants were used by research institutions in four ICRW member countries (Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States) where the governments had formally objected to Iceland’s reservation against the ICRW whaling moratorium. Researchers and their institutions may become tacitly complicit in contemporary commercial and alleged scientific whaling, when these activities may not be consistent with the ethical standards or laws within their own countries. Greater transparency is needed among academic institutions, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, funding bodies, journals, and professional societies regarding legal and ethical issues when data or samples from such whaling operations are used. Ethical frameworks need to be developed analogous to those used in international biomedical research and other disciplines.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88362986","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}
引用次数: 4
International Environmental Law and Sea Turtles: Anatomy of the Legal Framework and Trade of Sea Turtles in the Lesser Antilles 国际环境法与海龟:剖析小安的列斯群岛的法律框架和海龟贸易
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-01-15 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2020.1872164
C. Saladin
Abstract Of the seven extant species of sea turtles, five navigate the waters of the Caribbean Sea surrounding the Lesser Antilles. As migratory species at all life stages, sea turtles need a coherent and strong legal framework in order to ensure the survival of the species for present and future generations. In light of the ongoing Holocene mass extinction crisis, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) conducted a comprehensive global assessment that presented alarming findings of unprecedented decline in global ecosystems and of rapid acceleration in extinction rates that threatens one million species. The current legal framework of international treaties implemented to protect these fragile species is fragmented and often ineffective due to deficient implementation and enforcement. Public health risks linked to the consumption of sea turtle parts and derivatives are also discussed in this article. Finally, this article offers recommendations for effectively monitoring sea turtle fisheries as to enhance an evolution toward more sustainable activities.
在现存的7种海龟中,有5种生活在小安的列斯群岛周围的加勒比海水域。海龟作为所有生命阶段的迁徙物种,需要一个连贯而强有力的法律框架,以确保该物种在今世后代的生存。鉴于正在发生的全新世大灭绝危机,生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间平台(IPBES)进行了一项全面的全球评估,提出了令人震惊的发现,即全球生态系统前所未有的衰退和灭绝速度的迅速加速,威胁着100万种物种。目前为保护这些脆弱物种而实施的国际条约的法律框架支离破碎,而且由于缺乏实施和执行,往往无效。本文还讨论了与食用海龟部位及其衍生物有关的公共卫生风险。最后,本文提出了有效监测海龟渔业的建议,以促进向更可持续的活动发展。
{"title":"International Environmental Law and Sea Turtles: Anatomy of the Legal Framework and Trade of Sea Turtles in the Lesser Antilles","authors":"C. Saladin","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2020.1872164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2020.1872164","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Of the seven extant species of sea turtles, five navigate the waters of the Caribbean Sea surrounding the Lesser Antilles. As migratory species at all life stages, sea turtles need a coherent and strong legal framework in order to ensure the survival of the species for present and future generations. In light of the ongoing Holocene mass extinction crisis, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) conducted a comprehensive global assessment that presented alarming findings of unprecedented decline in global ecosystems and of rapid acceleration in extinction rates that threatens one million species. The current legal framework of international treaties implemented to protect these fragile species is fragmented and often ineffective due to deficient implementation and enforcement. Public health risks linked to the consumption of sea turtle parts and derivatives are also discussed in this article. Finally, this article offers recommendations for effectively monitoring sea turtle fisheries as to enhance an evolution toward more sustainable activities.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88222617","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}
引用次数: 1
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the EU Environmental Liability and Environmental Crime Directives as Implemented by Scotland and the Rest of the United Kingdom 评估苏格兰和英国其他地区实施的欧盟环境责任和环境犯罪指令的有效性
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2021.1920123
Mitchell Lennan
Abstract This article analyses critically the effectiveness of two EU Directives: Directive 2004/35/CE on Environmental Liability (ELD), and Directive 2008/99/EC on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (ECD). As the effectiveness of these directives can only be judged through their implementation within a member state’s jurisdiction, this article focuses on the United Kingdom—a now former member of the EU. A comparison is made between the implementation of these two directives in two discrete legal systems in the United Kingdom: that of Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom (rUK), that is, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This article begins by establishing the roots of the ELD’s weaknesses by examining how the ELD has been transposed in the rUK and Scotland. It then turns to whether these weaknesses have been addressed by the implementation of the ECD. Finally, the effectiveness of the ECD regime is assessed by examining how both Scotland and the rUK deal with wildlife crime. This article ultimately concludes that despite implementing the two regimes through separate legal systems, both face similar shortcomings that limit their effectiveness.
摘要本文批判性地分析了两个欧盟指令的有效性:关于环境责任的指令2004/35/CE (ELD)和关于通过刑法保护环境的指令2008/99/EC (ECD)。由于这些指令的有效性只能通过其在成员国管辖范围内的实施来判断,因此本文主要关注英国——现在是欧盟的前成员国。比较了这两个指令在联合王国两个独立的法律体系中的实施情况:苏格兰的法律体系和联合王国(rUK)的其余部分,即英格兰、威尔士和北爱尔兰。本文首先通过研究ELD如何在英国和苏格兰被转移来确定ELD弱点的根源。然后是这些弱点是否已通过实施幼儿发展计划得到解决。最后,通过检查苏格兰和英国如何处理野生动物犯罪来评估ECD制度的有效性。本文最终得出的结论是,尽管通过不同的法律体系实施这两种制度,但它们都面临着限制其有效性的类似缺点。
{"title":"Evaluating the Effectiveness of the EU Environmental Liability and Environmental Crime Directives as Implemented by Scotland and the Rest of the United Kingdom","authors":"Mitchell Lennan","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2021.1920123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1920123","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyses critically the effectiveness of two EU Directives: Directive 2004/35/CE on Environmental Liability (ELD), and Directive 2008/99/EC on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (ECD). As the effectiveness of these directives can only be judged through their implementation within a member state’s jurisdiction, this article focuses on the United Kingdom—a now former member of the EU. A comparison is made between the implementation of these two directives in two discrete legal systems in the United Kingdom: that of Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom (rUK), that is, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This article begins by establishing the roots of the ELD’s weaknesses by examining how the ELD has been transposed in the rUK and Scotland. It then turns to whether these weaknesses have been addressed by the implementation of the ECD. Finally, the effectiveness of the ECD regime is assessed by examining how both Scotland and the rUK deal with wildlife crime. This article ultimately concludes that despite implementing the two regimes through separate legal systems, both face similar shortcomings that limit their effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86866434","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}
引用次数: 5
Conservation Territorialization and Sport Hunting in Lebanon’s Shouf Biosphere Reserve 黎巴嫩绍夫生物圈保护区的保护、领土化和运动狩猎
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2020-12-26 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2020.1866237
R. Greeley
Abstract This article problematizes the narrative that states expand their control through classifying lands adjacent to a protected area under different conservation categories, such as buffer or transition zones. Through many periods of fieldwork and interviews done in language, I found that the Lebanese state could not territorialize and control such areas next to the Shouf Biosphere Reserve (SBR). Instead, SBR’s adjacent zones presented dissimilar and attenuated territories of governance, depending on different state and local actors’ abilities to effect control in these zones at different times. This work offers a reading of how state and local actors negotiate a range of legalities in efforts to territorialize these conservation zones.
摘要本文对国家通过将保护区附近的土地划分为不同的保护类别(如缓冲区或过渡区)来扩大其控制的叙述提出了质疑。通过多次实地考察和语言访谈,我发现黎巴嫩政府无法将Shouf生物圈保护区(SBR)附近的地区划为领土并加以控制。相反,SBR的相邻区域呈现出不同的、弱化的治理领域,这取决于不同国家和地方行动者在不同时间对这些区域实施控制的能力。这项工作提供了国家和地方行动者如何在努力将这些保护区领土化的过程中谈判一系列合法性的阅读。
{"title":"Conservation Territorialization and Sport Hunting in Lebanon’s Shouf Biosphere Reserve","authors":"R. Greeley","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2020.1866237","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2020.1866237","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article problematizes the narrative that states expand their control through classifying lands adjacent to a protected area under different conservation categories, such as buffer or transition zones. Through many periods of fieldwork and interviews done in language, I found that the Lebanese state could not territorialize and control such areas next to the Shouf Biosphere Reserve (SBR). Instead, SBR’s adjacent zones presented dissimilar and attenuated territories of governance, depending on different state and local actors’ abilities to effect control in these zones at different times. This work offers a reading of how state and local actors negotiate a range of legalities in efforts to territorialize these conservation zones.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88523513","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}
引用次数: 3
Trophy Hunting, Canned Hunting, Tiger Farming, and the Questionable Relevance of the Conservation Narrative Grounding International Wildlife Law 运动狩猎,罐头狩猎,老虎养殖,以及国际野生动物法保护叙事的可疑相关性
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2020.1866236
Yann Prisner-Levyne
Abstract Trophy hunting, canned hunting, and tiger farming have attracted much negativity from the general public because of their trivialization of wild animals’ lives and welfare. Yet they persist because of their perceived conservation value. This article seeks to demonstrate that whether these activities have conservation value or not is irrelevant. As science demonstrates Darwin’s theory that the difference in cognitive abilities between humans and non-human animals is one of degree, it becomes more and more difficult to justify the objectification of animal life enshrined into international wildlife law and conservation policies. This trivialization of animal life is the result of the utilitarian narrative that grounds conservation policies reflected in international wildlife law where the end justifies all means, no matter how ethically controversial they may be. As the lives of wild animals are objectified and trivialized as these activities exemplify, conservation for sustainable use remains the sole yardstick to legalize or ban wildlife exploitation-based industries at the international and national level. The weight of scientific evidence demonstrating high cognitive abilities of non-human animals in several orders of the Animal Kingdom, however, supports many animal ethics theories that wild animals and animals’ lives in general have intrinsic worth. As such, wild animals are at least moral patients, entitling them to a minimum of specifically tailored rights that cannot be automatically overridden by mere trivial anthropocentric interests, but rather weighted against them. A more zoocentric rights-based approach to international wildlife law could yield better conservation results than the current utilitarian species-focused approach.
摘要运动狩猎、罐头狩猎和老虎养殖因其对野生动物的生命和福利的轻视而引起了公众的强烈不满。然而,它们仍然存在,因为它们被认为具有保护价值。本文试图证明这些活动是否具有保护价值是无关紧要的。随着科学证明达尔文的理论,即人类和非人类动物之间的认知能力差异是程度上的差异,越来越难以证明国际野生动物法和保护政策中对动物生命的客观化是合理的。这种对动物生命的轻视是功利主义叙事的结果,功利主义叙事是保护政策的基础,反映在国际野生动物法中,在这些法律中,目的证明了一切手段是正当的,无论这些手段在伦理上有多大争议。正如这些活动所示,野生动物的生命被物化和琐细化,因此,在国际和国家层面上,保护野生动物以实现可持续利用仍然是使以野生动物开发为基础的行业合法化或禁止的唯一标准。然而,大量科学证据表明,在动物王国的几个目中,非人类动物具有很高的认知能力,这支持了许多动物伦理理论,即野生动物和动物的生命总体上具有内在价值。因此,野生动物至少是道德上的病人,赋予它们最低限度的特别定制的权利,这些权利不能被微不足道的人类中心主义利益自动推翻,而是对它们不利。与目前功利主义的以物种为中心的方法相比,以动物权利为基础的国际野生动物法可能会产生更好的保护效果。
{"title":"Trophy Hunting, Canned Hunting, Tiger Farming, and the Questionable Relevance of the Conservation Narrative Grounding International Wildlife Law","authors":"Yann Prisner-Levyne","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2020.1866236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2020.1866236","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Trophy hunting, canned hunting, and tiger farming have attracted much negativity from the general public because of their trivialization of wild animals’ lives and welfare. Yet they persist because of their perceived conservation value. This article seeks to demonstrate that whether these activities have conservation value or not is irrelevant. As science demonstrates Darwin’s theory that the difference in cognitive abilities between humans and non-human animals is one of degree, it becomes more and more difficult to justify the objectification of animal life enshrined into international wildlife law and conservation policies. This trivialization of animal life is the result of the utilitarian narrative that grounds conservation policies reflected in international wildlife law where the end justifies all means, no matter how ethically controversial they may be. As the lives of wild animals are objectified and trivialized as these activities exemplify, conservation for sustainable use remains the sole yardstick to legalize or ban wildlife exploitation-based industries at the international and national level. The weight of scientific evidence demonstrating high cognitive abilities of non-human animals in several orders of the Animal Kingdom, however, supports many animal ethics theories that wild animals and animals’ lives in general have intrinsic worth. As such, wild animals are at least moral patients, entitling them to a minimum of specifically tailored rights that cannot be automatically overridden by mere trivial anthropocentric interests, but rather weighted against them. A more zoocentric rights-based approach to international wildlife law could yield better conservation results than the current utilitarian species-focused approach.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91133294","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}
引用次数: 1
期刊
Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1