Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 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.”
{"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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-02DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-02DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2019-10-02DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 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}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2019-04-03DOI: 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.
{"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}
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：