首页 > 最新文献

Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy最新文献

英文 中文
The Preservation of Coral Reefs as a Key Step for Healthy and Sustainable Oceans: The Belize Case 保护珊瑚礁是健康和可持续海洋的关键步骤:伯利兹案例
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2020.1768691
Grazia Scocca
Abstract Employing scientific literature on the risks linked to the loss of coral, the article highlights the importance of protecting coral reefs from a legal perspective, implementing international environmental law instruments. This study analyses the provisions of the relevant international environmental treaties to highlight the obligations addressed to national governments, in order to ensure the protection of coral reefs and the preservation of the marine ecosystem. For this purpose, the article includes a case study of the successful experience of the Belizean national legislation, supported by a model of shared governance, to promote the conservation of the marine biodiversity and its sustainable use for healthy and protected oceans.
文章引用了与珊瑚丧失有关的风险的科学文献,强调了从法律角度保护珊瑚礁、实施国际环境法文书的重要性。本研究分析了相关国际环境条约的规定,以突出各国政府的义务,以确保珊瑚礁的保护和海洋生态系统的保存。为此目的,该条包括对伯利兹国家立法的成功经验的案例研究,在共同治理模式的支持下,促进海洋生物多样性的养护及其可持续利用,以促进健康和受保护的海洋。
{"title":"The Preservation of Coral Reefs as a Key Step for Healthy and Sustainable Oceans: The Belize Case","authors":"Grazia Scocca","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2020.1768691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2020.1768691","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Employing scientific literature on the risks linked to the loss of coral, the article highlights the importance of protecting coral reefs from a legal perspective, implementing international environmental law instruments. This study analyses the provisions of the relevant international environmental treaties to highlight the obligations addressed to national governments, in order to ensure the protection of coral reefs and the preservation of the marine ecosystem. For this purpose, the article includes a case study of the successful experience of the Belizean national legislation, supported by a model of shared governance, to promote the conservation of the marine biodiversity and its sustainable use for healthy and protected oceans.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82496948","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
An International Lawyer’s Field Guide to Trophy Hunting 《国际律师狩猎指南》
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2020.1768688
Elke Hellinx, J. Wouters
Abstract Although some research suggests that legal, well-regulated trophy hunting programmes can positively contribute to wildlife conservation efforts, surprisingly little legal scholarship has focused on the regulatory framework that governs trophy hunting, and remarkably little guidance exists for the development and improvement of regulation in this area. With this article, we aim to start bridging that gap. We dive into the regulatory web in an attempt to start disentangling it. In so doing, we provide an overview of the different legal issues that converge in trophy hunting, and of how international regulation addresses those issues. We successively outline the legal instruments that govern the following questions: (i) whether trophy hunting is allowed under international law, (ii) when and where trophy hunting is allowed, (iii) what animals may be hunted, (iv) how the transport of trophies across international borders is organised, and (v) what weapons and ammunition may be used. We find that at present, trophy hunting is governed by an intricate, multi-layered web of regulation in which a variety of actors (e.g., international bodies, national governments, wildlife agencies, local communities, private landowners) are enmeshed. We demonstrate that, because there are so many different actors and governance levels that intersect in the regulation of trophy hunting, it is by no means easy to regulate trophy hunting “well.”
尽管一些研究表明,合法的、监管良好的运动狩猎项目可以对野生动物保护工作做出积极贡献,但令人惊讶的是,很少有法律学术关注运动狩猎的监管框架,而且在这一领域发展和完善监管的指导也非常少。通过本文,我们的目标是开始弥合这一差距。我们潜入监管网络,试图解开它。在这样做的过程中,我们提供了不同的法律问题,汇集在运动狩猎,以及国际法规如何解决这些问题的概述。我们先后概述了管理以下问题的法律文书:(i)国际法是否允许运动狩猎,(ii)何时何地允许运动狩猎,(iii)可以猎杀什么动物,(iv)如何组织跨越国际边界的战利品运输,以及(v)可以使用什么武器和弹药。我们发现,目前,战利品狩猎是由一个复杂的、多层次的监管网络管理的,其中包括各种参与者(例如,国际机构、国家政府、野生动物机构、当地社区、私人土地所有者)。我们证明,由于在对战利品狩猎的监管中有如此多不同的参与者和治理水平,因此要“很好”地监管战利品狩猎绝非易事。
{"title":"An International Lawyer’s Field Guide to Trophy Hunting","authors":"Elke Hellinx, J. Wouters","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2020.1768688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2020.1768688","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although some research suggests that legal, well-regulated trophy hunting programmes can positively contribute to wildlife conservation efforts, surprisingly little legal scholarship has focused on the regulatory framework that governs trophy hunting, and remarkably little guidance exists for the development and improvement of regulation in this area. With this article, we aim to start bridging that gap. We dive into the regulatory web in an attempt to start disentangling it. In so doing, we provide an overview of the different legal issues that converge in trophy hunting, and of how international regulation addresses those issues. We successively outline the legal instruments that govern the following questions: (i) whether trophy hunting is allowed under international law, (ii) when and where trophy hunting is allowed, (iii) what animals may be hunted, (iv) how the transport of trophies across international borders is organised, and (v) what weapons and ammunition may be used. We find that at present, trophy hunting is governed by an intricate, multi-layered web of regulation in which a variety of actors (e.g., international bodies, national governments, wildlife agencies, local communities, private landowners) are enmeshed. We demonstrate that, because there are so many different actors and governance levels that intersect in the regulation of trophy hunting, it is by no means easy to regulate trophy hunting “well.”","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86365368","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
China and CITES: Strange Bedfellows or Willing Partners? 中国与《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》:同床异梦还是自愿合作?
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1708558
A. Whitfort
Abstract Using the lens of international norm dynamics, this article explores increasing contestation around the global norm to protect endangered species from over exploitation. Focusing on China’s recent announcement that it may lift its 25-year moratorium on the use of rhino horn and tiger bone in traditional Chinese medicine, and calls from some African states for increased international trade in rhino, this article explores current threats to the norm. As international discourse around the norm moves from debates about its applicability to fundamental challenges to its validity, the norm is weakening. To protect the norm, it has become necessary to adopt less traditional approaches to the interpretation of the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) by member states. Going forward, CITES debates about how best to protect endangered species should emphasise both conservation and animal welfare concerns.
摘要本文从国际规范动态的角度,探讨了围绕保护濒危物种免受过度开发的全球规范的日益激烈的争论。中国最近宣布可能会解除对犀牛角和虎骨在中药中使用的25年禁令,以及一些非洲国家呼吁增加犀牛国际贸易,本文重点探讨了目前对这一规范的威胁。随着围绕该规范的国际讨论从对其适用性的辩论转向对其有效性的根本性挑战,该规范正在削弱。为了保护这一规范,成员国有必要采取不那么传统的方式来解释《联合国濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》(CITES)。展望未来,CITES关于如何最好地保护濒危物种的辩论应该同时强调保护和动物福利问题。
{"title":"China and CITES: Strange Bedfellows or Willing Partners?","authors":"A. Whitfort","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1708558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1708558","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Using the lens of international norm dynamics, this article explores increasing contestation around the global norm to protect endangered species from over exploitation. Focusing on China’s recent announcement that it may lift its 25-year moratorium on the use of rhino horn and tiger bone in traditional Chinese medicine, and calls from some African states for increased international trade in rhino, this article explores current threats to the norm. As international discourse around the norm moves from debates about its applicability to fundamental challenges to its validity, the norm is weakening. To protect the norm, it has become necessary to adopt less traditional approaches to the interpretation of the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) by member states. Going forward, CITES debates about how best to protect endangered species should emphasise both conservation and animal welfare concerns.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74107548","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
Forty Years of EU Measures to Fight Wildlife Crime 欧盟打击野生动物犯罪的四十年
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1701765
L. Krämer
Abstract This article discusses the European Union’s measures to address wildlife crime within the EU. The first part addresses EU environmental legislation that directly or indirectly affects wildlife. This is followed by a description of the provisions concerning the enforcement of wildlife legislation and, in particular, the act to protect the environment through criminal law. In the third part, the measures are critically assessed and some possibilities are discussed to improve the fight against wildlife crime. A short concluding remarks section ends the presentation.
本文讨论了欧盟解决欧盟内部野生动物犯罪的措施。第一部分阐述了直接或间接影响野生动物的欧盟环境立法。随后介绍了有关野生动物立法的执行规定,特别是通过刑法保护环境的规定。在第三部分中,对这些措施进行了批判性评估,并讨论了改善打击野生动物犯罪的可能性。简短的结束语部分结束了演讲。
{"title":"Forty Years of EU Measures to Fight Wildlife Crime","authors":"L. Krämer","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1701765","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1701765","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article discusses the European Union’s measures to address wildlife crime within the EU. The first part addresses EU environmental legislation that directly or indirectly affects wildlife. This is followed by a description of the provisions concerning the enforcement of wildlife legislation and, in particular, the act to protect the environment through criminal law. In the third part, the measures are critically assessed and some possibilities are discussed to improve the fight against wildlife crime. A short concluding remarks section ends the presentation.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77721888","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
Legality of Delisting a Transboundary Ramsar Site to Combat HPAI Outbreak and the Adequacy Standards of Compensatory Sites 从跨境拉姆萨尔湿地除名以对抗高致病性禽流感爆发的合法性及补偿地点的适当标准
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2019-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1702246
Y. Samant, Avani Gupta
Abstract The Ramsar Convention’s purpose of protecting wetlands has been widely appreciated and received support from all the ratifying States, as nearly all the parties have placed a number of wetlands on the Ramsar list of wetlands of national and international importance. However, the Convention also envisions that, in certain scenarios, there might be a need for delisting of a site placed on the list due to reasons such as urgent national interests. The Convention employs a unique mechanism where if a State is to delist a Ramsar site, it is bound to provide a compensatory wetland. Theoretically, it comes across as an effective mechanism. But in practice, no State has ever delisted a site. Although situations such as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreaks are not inconceivable, there are no express guidelines for States to delist in such situations. Pertinent concerns are raised as to the legality of delisting a transboundary site during HPAI outbreaks. Therefore, States require a legally sound solution. Moreover, in terms of the compensatory wetland that a state is bound to provide upon delisting, the guidelines are unclear as to what the factors are that a State must take into account. In light of this question, clarity over the procedure is required to assist such States in delisting and providing a compensatory wetland.
《拉姆萨尔公约》保护湿地的宗旨得到了所有签约国的广泛认可和支持,几乎所有签约国都将一些湿地列入了《拉姆萨尔公约》国家和国际重要湿地名单。但是,《公约》还设想,在某些情况下,可能由于诸如紧急国家利益等原因需要将列入名单的地点除名。《公约》采用了一种独特的机制,如果一个国家要从拉姆萨尔湿地除名,它必须提供一个补偿性湿地。理论上,这是一种有效的机制。但在实践中,从来没有一个国家将一个场址除名。虽然高致病性禽流感(HPAI)爆发等情况并非不可想象,但在这种情况下,各国没有明确的除名准则。对在高致病性禽流感暴发期间将跨界地点除名的合法性提出了相关关切。因此,各国需要法律上合理的解决办法。此外,关于一个国家在除名时必须提供的补偿性湿地,准则没有明确规定一个国家必须考虑哪些因素。鉴于这个问题,需要明确程序,以协助这些国家除名和提供补偿性湿地。
{"title":"Legality of Delisting a Transboundary Ramsar Site to Combat HPAI Outbreak and the Adequacy Standards of Compensatory Sites","authors":"Y. Samant, Avani Gupta","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1702246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1702246","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Ramsar Convention’s purpose of protecting wetlands has been widely appreciated and received support from all the ratifying States, as nearly all the parties have placed a number of wetlands on the Ramsar list of wetlands of national and international importance. However, the Convention also envisions that, in certain scenarios, there might be a need for delisting of a site placed on the list due to reasons such as urgent national interests. The Convention employs a unique mechanism where if a State is to delist a Ramsar site, it is bound to provide a compensatory wetland. Theoretically, it comes across as an effective mechanism. But in practice, no State has ever delisted a site. Although situations such as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreaks are not inconceivable, there are no express guidelines for States to delist in such situations. Pertinent concerns are raised as to the legality of delisting a transboundary site during HPAI outbreaks. Therefore, States require a legally sound solution. Moreover, in terms of the compensatory wetland that a state is bound to provide upon delisting, the guidelines are unclear as to what the factors are that a State must take into account. In light of this question, clarity over the procedure is required to assist such States in delisting and providing a compensatory wetland.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88376344","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
Killing Wolves Legally: Exploring the Scope for Lethal Wolf Management under European Nature Conservation Law 合法捕杀狼:探索欧洲自然保护法下的狼管理范围
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223
A. Trouwborst, F. Fleurke
Killing Wolves Legally: Exploring the Scope for Lethal Wolf Management under European Nature Conservation Law Arie Trouwborst & Floor M. Fleurke To cite this article: Arie Trouwborst & Floor M. Fleurke (2019): Killing Wolves Legally: Exploring the Scope for Lethal Wolf Management under European Nature Conservation Law, Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223
引用本文:Arie Trouwborst & Floor M. Fleurke(2019):合法捕杀狼:探索欧洲自然保护法下的致命狼管理范围,国际野生动物法律与政策杂志,DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223链接到本文:https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223
{"title":"Killing Wolves Legally: Exploring the Scope for Lethal Wolf Management under European Nature Conservation Law","authors":"A. Trouwborst, F. Fleurke","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223","url":null,"abstract":"Killing Wolves Legally: Exploring the Scope for Lethal Wolf Management under European Nature Conservation Law Arie Trouwborst & Floor M. Fleurke To cite this article: Arie Trouwborst & Floor M. Fleurke (2019): Killing Wolves Legally: Exploring the Scope for Lethal Wolf Management under European Nature Conservation Law, Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1686223","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88792925","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: 11
Wildlife Crime and Animal Victims: Improving Access to Environmental Justice in Hong Kong 野生动物犯罪与动物受害者:改善香港环境正义的途径
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1677055
A. Whitfort
Abstract Wildlife crimes are often argued to be victimless, due to the anthropocentric view of crime that dominates policy and policing discourse. Falling outside the normative criminal justice lens, wildlife crimes are not frequently brought to court, and a lack of expertise in policing and prosecuting cases impairs their recognition as serious crimes. When wildlife offences are prosecuted, the tendency to try cases in the magistrates’ courts compounds problems with a lack of judicial exposure to this specialised form of crime and limits development of judicial expertise in the field. Lacking legal standing in the court process, harms caused to endangered animals (as individuals or species) are often marginalised from consideration in sentencing decisions. Recognised only as legal property, animals may be forfeited or returned to their lawful owners, in accordance with the court’s findings. Focusing on recent developments in criminal justice in Hong Kong and Scotland, this article argues that a more effective justice response to wildlife crime permits recognition of the interests of animals, as victims, in wildlife offences. In both jurisdictions, statements establishing the impact of wildlife crimes are utilised by prosecutors in their presentation of cases at court. Armed with knowledge of the role of animals as individual and species victims of crime, sentences may be passed that take appropriate regard of wild animal suffering, their monetary and conservation value, and the impact of their loss on biodiversity. The use of these statements is allowing for better-informed sentencing decisions in individual cases and improved environmental justice.
野生动物犯罪通常被认为是无受害者的,因为人类中心主义的犯罪观点主导了政策和警务话语。野生动物犯罪不属于规范的刑事司法范畴,不经常被送上法庭,而且缺乏执法和起诉案件的专业知识,损害了它们被视为严重犯罪的认识。在起诉野生动物罪行时,倾向于在地方法院审理案件的做法使问题复杂化,因为缺乏对这种特殊形式犯罪的司法接触,限制了该领域司法专门知识的发展。由于在法庭程序中缺乏法律地位,对濒危动物(作为个体或物种)造成的伤害往往在量刑决定中被边缘化。根据法院的裁决,动物只被视为合法财产,可能会被没收或归还给它们的合法主人。本文关注香港和苏格兰刑事司法的最新发展,认为对野生动物犯罪的更有效的司法反应是承认动物作为野生动物犯罪受害者的利益。在这两个司法管辖区,检察官在法庭上陈述案件时都使用了确定野生动物犯罪影响的陈述。了解了动物作为犯罪的个体和物种受害者的作用后,可以适当考虑野生动物的痛苦、它们的货币和保护价值以及它们的丧失对生物多样性的影响来作出判决。使用这些陈述可以在个别案件中作出更明智的量刑决定,并改善环境司法。
{"title":"Wildlife Crime and Animal Victims: Improving Access to Environmental Justice in Hong Kong","authors":"A. Whitfort","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1677055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1677055","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Wildlife crimes are often argued to be victimless, due to the anthropocentric view of crime that dominates policy and policing discourse. Falling outside the normative criminal justice lens, wildlife crimes are not frequently brought to court, and a lack of expertise in policing and prosecuting cases impairs their recognition as serious crimes. When wildlife offences are prosecuted, the tendency to try cases in the magistrates’ courts compounds problems with a lack of judicial exposure to this specialised form of crime and limits development of judicial expertise in the field. Lacking legal standing in the court process, harms caused to endangered animals (as individuals or species) are often marginalised from consideration in sentencing decisions. Recognised only as legal property, animals may be forfeited or returned to their lawful owners, in accordance with the court’s findings. Focusing on recent developments in criminal justice in Hong Kong and Scotland, this article argues that a more effective justice response to wildlife crime permits recognition of the interests of animals, as victims, in wildlife offences. In both jurisdictions, statements establishing the impact of wildlife crimes are utilised by prosecutors in their presentation of cases at court. Armed with knowledge of the role of animals as individual and species victims of crime, sentences may be passed that take appropriate regard of wild animal suffering, their monetary and conservation value, and the impact of their loss on biodiversity. The use of these statements is allowing for better-informed sentencing decisions in individual cases and improved environmental justice.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77488558","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
Deciphering the Complex Relationship between AEWA's and the Bonn Convention’s Respective Exemptions to the Prohibition of Taking 解读AEWA与《波恩公约》各自对禁止征用豁免的复杂关系
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1672945
M. Lewis
Abstract This article explores several interpretive complexities associated with Article III(2)(a) of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA). Article III(2)(a) attempts to avoid incongruity between AEWA and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)—specifically, in relation to the Convention’s prohibition on the taking of animals from certain species. However, an apparent misalignment between this provision and other aspects of AEWA’s legal text results in various legal uncertainties regarding the grounds of exemption that AEWA parties may invoke to allow the taking of certain protected species, as well as the potential for further developing AEWA’s exemptions regime in the future. The article investigates the interplay between relevant provisions of AEWA and the CMS, makes suggestions regarding the possible interpretations of these provisions, and identifies the practical implications of these interpretations.
摘要:本文探讨了与《非洲-欧亚迁徙水鸟保护协定》(AEWA)第III(2)(a)条相关的几个解释复杂性。第III(2)(a)条试图避免AEWA与《保护野生动物移栖物种公约》(CMS)之间的不一致,特别是与《公约》禁止从某些物种中获取动物有关。然而,这一规定与AEWA法律文本的其他方面之间的明显不一致,导致了AEWA缔约方在允许获取某些受保护物种时可能援引的豁免理由方面的各种法律不确定性,以及未来进一步发展AEWA豁免制度的可能性。本文探讨了AEWA相关条款与CMS之间的相互作用,对这些条款的可能解释提出了建议,并确定了这些解释的现实意义。
{"title":"Deciphering the Complex Relationship between AEWA's and the Bonn Convention’s Respective Exemptions to the Prohibition of Taking","authors":"M. Lewis","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1672945","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1672945","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores several interpretive complexities associated with Article III(2)(a) of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA). Article III(2)(a) attempts to avoid incongruity between AEWA and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)—specifically, in relation to the Convention’s prohibition on the taking of animals from certain species. However, an apparent misalignment between this provision and other aspects of AEWA’s legal text results in various legal uncertainties regarding the grounds of exemption that AEWA parties may invoke to allow the taking of certain protected species, as well as the potential for further developing AEWA’s exemptions regime in the future. The article investigates the interplay between relevant provisions of AEWA and the CMS, makes suggestions regarding the possible interpretations of these provisions, and identifies the practical implications of these interpretations.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84433863","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
Verification of Legal Acquisition under the CITES Convention: The Need for Guidance on the Scope of Legality 《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》下合法取得的核查:合法性范围指导的必要性
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1695718
Sebastien Korwin, L. Denier, S. Lieberman, R. Reeve
Abstract The two main prerequisites for legal international trade under CITES are the non-detriment finding, or NDF, in which a scientific authority certifies that the export of a given Appendix I or Appendix II species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild, and verification by the Management Authority that species are not being traded in contravention of the laws of that state for the protection of fauna and flora. This is referred to as a legal acquisition finding, or LAF. Verifying legal acquisition through an LAF is a fundamental requirement of CITES and underpins the legitimacy of the entire system of international trade under the Convention. When an international shipment of specimens of CITES-listed species is accompanied by a permit, it is seen as certification by the exporting country that the shipment is legal in every sense. However, it is widely recognised that this obligation is implemented inconsistently, leading to illegally acquired CITES-listed species entering the market and undermining the credibility and effectiveness of CITES permits. This inconsistent implementation is partly due to differing understanding of what can reasonably be said to constitute laws “for the protection of flora and fauna,” i.e., the scope of legality of legal acquisition verifications under CITES. This article explores the scope of legality of legal acquisition verifications under CITES as well as recent developments leading to the adoption of guidance on Legal Acquisition Findings at the 18th Conference of the Parties (CoP18) in August 2019. It draws from the experience of the EU Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process, whose understanding of legality extends beyond the scope of laws directly related to the extraction and trade of timber to include laws pertaining to environmental quality, biodiversity conservation, land tenure (access and ownership), and other considerations relevant to the long-term sustainability of trade in a natural resource such as timber. The article argues that there is much to be gained from establishing a collaborative process within CITES to develop a shared understanding of the range of laws that ought to be considered and complied with when determining legal acquisition, ultimately contributing to better implementation of CITES.
根据《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》进行合法国际贸易的两个主要先决条件是非损损性发现(NDF),即科学机构证明某一特定附录I或附录II物种的出口不会损害该物种在野外的生存,以及管理机构核实该物种的贸易没有违反该国保护动植物的法律。这被称为合法收购发现,或LAF。通过LAF核查合法获取是CITES的一项基本要求,并巩固了公约下整个国际贸易体系的合法性。当cites所列物种标本的国际运输附有许可证时,它被视为出口国证明该运输在任何意义上都是合法的。然而,人们普遍认为,这一义务的执行并不一致,导致非法获取的CITES清单物种进入市场,破坏了CITES许可证的可信度和有效性。这种不一致的执行部分是由于对什么可以合理地说构成“保护动植物”的法律的不同理解,即CITES规定的合法获取核查的合法性范围。本文探讨了CITES下合法获取核查的合法性范围,以及导致2019年8月第18届缔约方大会(CoP18)通过《合法获取调查结果指南》的最新发展。它借鉴了欧盟森林执法、治理和贸易(FLEGT)过程的经验,该过程对合法性的理解超出了与木材开采和贸易直接相关的法律范围,包括与环境质量、生物多样性保护、土地权属(获取和所有权)以及与木材等自然资源贸易的长期可持续性相关的其他考虑因素有关的法律。这篇文章认为,在CITES内部建立一个合作过程,对确定合法取得时应该考虑和遵守的法律范围达成共识,最终有助于更好地实施CITES,将大有裨益。
{"title":"Verification of Legal Acquisition under the CITES Convention: The Need for Guidance on the Scope of Legality","authors":"Sebastien Korwin, L. Denier, S. Lieberman, R. Reeve","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1695718","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1695718","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The two main prerequisites for legal international trade under CITES are the non-detriment finding, or NDF, in which a scientific authority certifies that the export of a given Appendix I or Appendix II species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild, and verification by the Management Authority that species are not being traded in contravention of the laws of that state for the protection of fauna and flora. This is referred to as a legal acquisition finding, or LAF. Verifying legal acquisition through an LAF is a fundamental requirement of CITES and underpins the legitimacy of the entire system of international trade under the Convention. When an international shipment of specimens of CITES-listed species is accompanied by a permit, it is seen as certification by the exporting country that the shipment is legal in every sense. However, it is widely recognised that this obligation is implemented inconsistently, leading to illegally acquired CITES-listed species entering the market and undermining the credibility and effectiveness of CITES permits. This inconsistent implementation is partly due to differing understanding of what can reasonably be said to constitute laws “for the protection of flora and fauna,” i.e., the scope of legality of legal acquisition verifications under CITES. This article explores the scope of legality of legal acquisition verifications under CITES as well as recent developments leading to the adoption of guidance on Legal Acquisition Findings at the 18th Conference of the Parties (CoP18) in August 2019. It draws from the experience of the EU Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process, whose understanding of legality extends beyond the scope of laws directly related to the extraction and trade of timber to include laws pertaining to environmental quality, biodiversity conservation, land tenure (access and ownership), and other considerations relevant to the long-term sustainability of trade in a natural resource such as timber. The article argues that there is much to be gained from establishing a collaborative process within CITES to develop a shared understanding of the range of laws that ought to be considered and complied with when determining legal acquisition, ultimately contributing to better implementation of CITES.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90317324","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
Polar Bear Sports Hunting: Canada’s Flawed Interpretation of the International Polar Bear Agreement 北极熊运动狩猎:加拿大对国际北极熊协议的错误解释
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2019-04-03 DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1654198
M. Simpson
Abstract In 1973 the five polar bear range states (Canada, Norway, Denmark, the United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) entered into the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and Their Habitat (“the Agreement”). The Agreement’s intention was to protect polar bears through conservation and management measures including, inter alia, prohibiting the taking of the carnivore. The implementation and enforcement of the Agreement was left to each individual country, resulting in differing management practices and legal frameworks among the signatory states. This is particularly stark in the context of sports hunting, with all nations except Canada outlawing the practice. Canada, striking out on its own, chose to interpret the provisions of Article III of the Agreement in such a way as to allow their provinces and territories to enact legislation to regulate the sports hunting of polar bears. This article argues that sports hunting is not a traditional right of Canada’s indigenous peoples and, therefore, Canada’s interpretation of the Agreement is critically flawed.
1973年,五个北极熊分布国(加拿大、挪威、丹麦、美国和苏维埃社会主义共和国联盟)签署了《保护北极熊及其栖息地国际协定》(以下简称《协定》)。该协定的目的是通过保护和管理措施来保护北极熊,其中包括,除其他外,禁止捕猎这种食肉动物。《协定》的实施和执行由每个国家负责,导致签署国之间的管理做法和法律框架各不相同。在体育狩猎的背景下,这一点尤为明显,除加拿大外,所有国家都禁止这种做法。加拿大选择以这样一种方式来解释《协定》第三条的规定,即允许其各省和地区颁布立法来管制北极熊的运动狩猎。本文认为,狩猎运动不是加拿大土著人民的传统权利,因此,加拿大对《协定》的解释存在严重缺陷。
{"title":"Polar Bear Sports Hunting: Canada’s Flawed Interpretation of the International Polar Bear Agreement","authors":"M. Simpson","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1654198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1654198","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 1973 the five polar bear range states (Canada, Norway, Denmark, the United States, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) entered into the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and Their Habitat (“the Agreement”). The Agreement’s intention was to protect polar bears through conservation and management measures including, inter alia, prohibiting the taking of the carnivore. The implementation and enforcement of the Agreement was left to each individual country, resulting in differing management practices and legal frameworks among the signatory states. This is particularly stark in the context of sports hunting, with all nations except Canada outlawing the practice. Canada, striking out on its own, chose to interpret the provisions of Article III of the Agreement in such a way as to allow their provinces and territories to enact legislation to regulate the sports hunting of polar bears. This article argues that sports hunting is not a traditional right of Canada’s indigenous peoples and, therefore, Canada’s interpretation of the Agreement is critically flawed.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72833302","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
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