Pub Date : 2021-09-29DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-19DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-19DOI: 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.”
{"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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-19DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2021-05-02DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-15DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2020-12-26DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2020-10-01DOI: 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.
{"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}
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：