Pub Date : 2019-04-03DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1639289
Milan Damohorský
In my article, presented at the 18th International Wildlife Law Conference in Tilburg, the Netherlands, in 2018, I focus on both theoretical and practical issues related to the protection of mega-species of mammals and birds in the law of Central European countries. The problem is topical; many of those species were either killed off or their populations were significantly decreased, if not decimated, in the past. Only in the past few years have they started to gradually move back to Central European nature from other regions, particularly from the north and east of Europe. This shows that the protection of mega-species of mammals and birds cannot be narrowed to a policy of deterrence contained in legal regulations; what also matters is economic motivation (compensation for damage caused by those species), as well as education and raising public awareness. All of this is, however, a quite difficult, demanding, and long process. What can serve as a model example is certainly the wolf and its return to the Central European wilderness.
{"title":"Protection of Charismatic Megafauna in the Law of Central European Countries","authors":"Milan Damohorský","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1639289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1639289","url":null,"abstract":"In my article, presented at the 18th International Wildlife Law Conference in Tilburg, the Netherlands, in 2018, I focus on both theoretical and practical issues related to the protection of mega-species of mammals and birds in the law of Central European countries. The problem is topical; many of those species were either killed off or their populations were significantly decreased, if not decimated, in the past. Only in the past few years have they started to gradually move back to Central European nature from other regions, particularly from the north and east of Europe. This shows that the protection of mega-species of mammals and birds cannot be narrowed to a policy of deterrence contained in legal regulations; what also matters is economic motivation (compensation for damage caused by those species), as well as education and raising public awareness. All of this is, however, a quite difficult, demanding, and long process. What can serve as a model example is certainly the wolf and its return to the Central European wilderness.","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":"75257990","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: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1638549
D. Challender, D. Macmillan
Abstract Non-state actors are playing an increasing role in global environmental governance. Elucidating the modalities and implications of this engagement is important to understanding international policy-making processes. CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, is the primary mechanism for regulating international wildlife trade. It functions by listing species in its Appendices with corresponding trade controls. Accurately listing species in the Appendices is therefore fundamental to the Convention’s effectiveness. We investigate the influence of non-state actors on amending the CITES Appendices using an established framework for assessing NGO influence in international environmental negotiations. We find that non-state actors have been successful in issue framing and agenda setting, and in influencing the position of other actors and final decisions. We also find evidence that NGOs have sought to abuse CITES in pursuit of “campaign” victories, including claiming unwarranted victories, thus undermining NGO legitimacy and accountability. We recommend that the CITES parties seek the most robust science to inform decision-making on proposed amendments to the appendices, which should be broadened to include socioeconomic and economic considerations in order that proposals are evaluated in their real-world context. We further recommend that NGOs should seek to fully understand decision-making in the Convention in order to maximise their legitimate contribution to CITES. Further research is needed to fully elucidate the influence of non-state actors in CITES.
{"title":"Investigating the Influence of Non-state Actors on Amendments to the CITES Appendices","authors":"D. Challender, D. Macmillan","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1638549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1638549","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Non-state actors are playing an increasing role in global environmental governance. Elucidating the modalities and implications of this engagement is important to understanding international policy-making processes. CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, is the primary mechanism for regulating international wildlife trade. It functions by listing species in its Appendices with corresponding trade controls. Accurately listing species in the Appendices is therefore fundamental to the Convention’s effectiveness. We investigate the influence of non-state actors on amending the CITES Appendices using an established framework for assessing NGO influence in international environmental negotiations. We find that non-state actors have been successful in issue framing and agenda setting, and in influencing the position of other actors and final decisions. We also find evidence that NGOs have sought to abuse CITES in pursuit of “campaign” victories, including claiming unwarranted victories, thus undermining NGO legitimacy and accountability. We recommend that the CITES parties seek the most robust science to inform decision-making on proposed amendments to the appendices, which should be broadened to include socioeconomic and economic considerations in order that proposals are evaluated in their real-world context. We further recommend that NGOs should seek to fully understand decision-making in the Convention in order to maximise their legitimate contribution to CITES. Further research is needed to fully elucidate the influence of non-state actors in CITES.","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":"88441149","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: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1629176
T. Le
Abstract As concern over various environmental issues has risen at the international level, questions regarding what constitutes “nature” and how it should be portrayed and treated have gained a greater sense of urgency. This paper explores varying concepts and attributes of nature articulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (“CITES”). Much of the research on CITES comes from the fields of policy and ecology, exploring matters of biodiversity, sustainability, enforcement, functionality, and evaluation of CITES as a “success” or “failure” of policy, with little focus on issues of cultural context and ambiguities. In contrast, within the social sciences, the contemporary literature is broadly dedicated to critiquing the static, dualistic ideas of nature upon which environmental regulations are based. However, what is often missing from this discourse is how environmental policies often have an implicit understanding that these static conceptions of nature are not accurate – that within the environmental legislation process, there is “an awareness, for example, of the messy, improvised character of knowledges about nature”. This paper explores CITES’s understanding of nature, how it characterizes nature, and how these conceptions become implemented in legislative practice. It illustrates CITES as a manifestation of what Krueger calls a regulatory process of “coded and recoded text with material implications” (p. 880), wherein a relatively unchanging set of legislation can create “multiple, even contradictory, outcomes coexisting simultaneously in the same system” (p. 872).
{"title":"CITES as Global Governance: Paths to Consensus and Defining Nature Through Uncertainty","authors":"T. Le","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1629176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1629176","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As concern over various environmental issues has risen at the international level, questions regarding what constitutes “nature” and how it should be portrayed and treated have gained a greater sense of urgency. This paper explores varying concepts and attributes of nature articulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (“CITES”). Much of the research on CITES comes from the fields of policy and ecology, exploring matters of biodiversity, sustainability, enforcement, functionality, and evaluation of CITES as a “success” or “failure” of policy, with little focus on issues of cultural context and ambiguities. In contrast, within the social sciences, the contemporary literature is broadly dedicated to critiquing the static, dualistic ideas of nature upon which environmental regulations are based. However, what is often missing from this discourse is how environmental policies often have an implicit understanding that these static conceptions of nature are not accurate – that within the environmental legislation process, there is “an awareness, for example, of the messy, improvised character of knowledges about nature”. This paper explores CITES’s understanding of nature, how it characterizes nature, and how these conceptions become implemented in legislative practice. It illustrates CITES as a manifestation of what Krueger calls a regulatory process of “coded and recoded text with material implications” (p. 880), wherein a relatively unchanging set of legislation can create “multiple, even contradictory, outcomes coexisting simultaneously in the same system” (p. 872).","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":"74709006","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: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1658379
C. Blattner
Abstract Since its inception, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has, in a rather self-evident manner, treated animals as objects of trade: Animals must be either goods or natural resources subject to the terms and conditions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). However, broader public and legal efforts to recategorize animals from goods to “sentient beings,” which are emerging across the world, are casting serious doubt on these assumptions. Using animals’ subjectivity as a starting point, a new and bourgeoning strand of anthropological, ethical, and political studies argues that animals should properly be recognized as working subjects. Be it guide dogs, truffle hogs, logging elephants, or dairy cows—working animals, they argue, are owed wholly new legal and ethical duties. This article builds on these arguments to examine the consequences of “animal labor” for trade law: Are animals wrongly classified as commodities or resources? Is there a need and room to recognize animals as service providers under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)? What are the legal consequences of this proposed change? This article sets out to answer these questions and argues that recognizing animals as workers in trade law is conceptually coherent and can play a crucial role in empowering states to protect animals effectively at the international level.
{"title":"Beyond the Goods/Resources Dichotomy: Animal Labor and Trade Law","authors":"C. Blattner","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1658379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1658379","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since its inception, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has, in a rather self-evident manner, treated animals as objects of trade: Animals must be either goods or natural resources subject to the terms and conditions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). However, broader public and legal efforts to recategorize animals from goods to “sentient beings,” which are emerging across the world, are casting serious doubt on these assumptions. Using animals’ subjectivity as a starting point, a new and bourgeoning strand of anthropological, ethical, and political studies argues that animals should properly be recognized as working subjects. Be it guide dogs, truffle hogs, logging elephants, or dairy cows—working animals, they argue, are owed wholly new legal and ethical duties. This article builds on these arguments to examine the consequences of “animal labor” for trade law: Are animals wrongly classified as commodities or resources? Is there a need and room to recognize animals as service providers under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)? What are the legal consequences of this proposed change? This article sets out to answer these questions and argues that recognizing animals as workers in trade law is conceptually coherent and can play a crucial role in empowering states to protect animals effectively at the international level.","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":"84122210","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1616379
D. Macdonald
Abstract I suggest here that the requirements for conservation evidence within regulation are cyclical in nature, and I describe the key stages in this cycle of conservation regulation. In particular, I focus on: (1) the type of evidence required (illustrated by the case of water voles disrupted by riverside development), (2) the clarity of evidence in terms of its implications for policy (illustrated by the harrowing case of the endangered Scottish wildcat hybridising with the pestilential feral domestic cat), (3) the actual impact such evidence has in practice (illustrated by the legal confusions arising from the changing taxonomy of protected species), and (4) the role of evidence in assessing regulatory efficacy (which returns us to point 1 in the cycle) (illustrated by evidence of the (in)humaneness of, for example, rodent traps, various instances of wildlife trade, and the efficacy of international conventions). The article concludes with a series of reflections on how conservation researchers might engage with legal experts and practitioners for the benefit of wildlife conservation in the twenty-first century: through transdisciplinary research, ethically informed and actively applied.
{"title":"Brushes with the Law: A Conservation Scientist’s Perspective on Legal Solutions and Impediments from Scottish Wildcats to African Lions*","authors":"D. Macdonald","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1616379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1616379","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I suggest here that the requirements for conservation evidence within regulation are cyclical in nature, and I describe the key stages in this cycle of conservation regulation. In particular, I focus on: (1) the type of evidence required (illustrated by the case of water voles disrupted by riverside development), (2) the clarity of evidence in terms of its implications for policy (illustrated by the harrowing case of the endangered Scottish wildcat hybridising with the pestilential feral domestic cat), (3) the actual impact such evidence has in practice (illustrated by the legal confusions arising from the changing taxonomy of protected species), and (4) the role of evidence in assessing regulatory efficacy (which returns us to point 1 in the cycle) (illustrated by evidence of the (in)humaneness of, for example, rodent traps, various instances of wildlife trade, and the efficacy of international conventions). The article concludes with a series of reflections on how conservation researchers might engage with legal experts and practitioners for the benefit of wildlife conservation in the twenty-first century: through transdisciplinary research, ethically informed and actively applied.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85178151","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1611217
H. Debella
Abstract Ethiopia’s wildlife history is at loggerheads with the theory of “environmental colonialism.” Ethiopia sets a center stage for the debate of what could have been the fate of African wildlife if Africa had not been colonized. In the 1960s, Ethiopia had a huge wildlife diversity. As of present, its wildlife is severely deteriorated, while that of the colonized countries are in much better condition. The disparity of conservation between the colonized countries and independent Ethiopia prompted this study. In the past 77 years, several wild species in Ethiopia have gone extinct, while some moved to threatened categories and their habitat vanished or deteriorated. Overall, Ethiopia currently hosts six critically endangered, 23 endangered, and 70 vulnerable species of wild animals. The numbers do not include plants, fungi, microorganisms, or invertebrates. This shows a clear pathology of the command and control policy of the wildlife conservation system of Ethiopia. The objectives of this article were to analyze previous legal documents published since 1944, up to the recent wildlife proclamation; to bring out strengths and weaknesses of these policies; and to propose possible alternative adaptive management strategies based on other similar studies. Policy instruments since 1944 were collected. This include the Imperial regime (1941–1974), the Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia (Derg) Regime (1974–1991), and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1991–2018). Documents were collected from two sources: the Internet and government printing press. Policy analysis involved a documentary analysis method on how Ethiopian governments’ policies addressed wildlife conservation of Ethiopia since 1944. To achieve the overall research objective, questions were formulated and guided the research direction. The analysis showed that there are good aspects of colonial wildlife conservation policies to learn from. Independence was not a guarantee for wildlife conservation. Existing national parks of East Africa including Ethiopia are the result of UNESCO missions to Africa.
{"title":"“Command and Control”: 75 Years of Quasi Wildlife Policy Analysis of Ethiopia","authors":"H. Debella","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1611217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1611217","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ethiopia’s wildlife history is at loggerheads with the theory of “environmental colonialism.” Ethiopia sets a center stage for the debate of what could have been the fate of African wildlife if Africa had not been colonized. In the 1960s, Ethiopia had a huge wildlife diversity. As of present, its wildlife is severely deteriorated, while that of the colonized countries are in much better condition. The disparity of conservation between the colonized countries and independent Ethiopia prompted this study. In the past 77 years, several wild species in Ethiopia have gone extinct, while some moved to threatened categories and their habitat vanished or deteriorated. Overall, Ethiopia currently hosts six critically endangered, 23 endangered, and 70 vulnerable species of wild animals. The numbers do not include plants, fungi, microorganisms, or invertebrates. This shows a clear pathology of the command and control policy of the wildlife conservation system of Ethiopia. The objectives of this article were to analyze previous legal documents published since 1944, up to the recent wildlife proclamation; to bring out strengths and weaknesses of these policies; and to propose possible alternative adaptive management strategies based on other similar studies. Policy instruments since 1944 were collected. This include the Imperial regime (1941–1974), the Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia (Derg) Regime (1974–1991), and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1991–2018). Documents were collected from two sources: the Internet and government printing press. Policy analysis involved a documentary analysis method on how Ethiopian governments’ policies addressed wildlife conservation of Ethiopia since 1944. To achieve the overall research objective, questions were formulated and guided the research direction. The analysis showed that there are good aspects of colonial wildlife conservation policies to learn from. Independence was not a guarantee for wildlife conservation. Existing national parks of East Africa including Ethiopia are the result of UNESCO missions to Africa.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87335129","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 : 2019-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2019.1602952
S. Jolivet
This article deals with the French experience in transboundary nature conservation and is based on some of the main outcomes of a book the author published in 2016. Transboundary conservation is one of the main challenges of contemporary international wildlife law, because, although wildlife knows no boundaries, public law is focused on boundaries. France is not necessarily an example to be followed in this respect, but its experience may be instructive on how transboundary conservation could develop (or not) in a country with the following attributes: a Western European country; a member state of the European Union; a unitary state; and a country (as far as metropolitan France is concerned) with eight terrestrial boundaries (with Andorra, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Spain, and Switzerland). In South America, the French department of Guyana also shares two terrestrial boundaries with Brazil and Suriname. As a consequence, about ten French protected areas are already adjacent to a foreign protected area across the border. The article will try to answer several questions: Why should (or must) France carry out transboundary conservation? Why should (if not must) France allow protected areas managers and local authorities to cooperate beyond boundaries? How to overcome barriers to transboundary cooperation between protected areas managers and/or local authorities? What are the new challenges to be faced by transboundary conservation at an infrastate level?
{"title":"Protected Areas Managers, Local Authorities, and Transboundary Conservation: The French Experience","authors":"S. Jolivet","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1602952","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1602952","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the French experience in transboundary nature conservation and is based on some of the main outcomes of a book the author published in 2016. Transboundary conservation is one of the main challenges of contemporary international wildlife law, because, although wildlife knows no boundaries, public law is focused on boundaries. France is not necessarily an example to be followed in this respect, but its experience may be instructive on how transboundary conservation could develop (or not) in a country with the following attributes: a Western European country; a member state of the European Union; a unitary state; and a country (as far as metropolitan France is concerned) with eight terrestrial boundaries (with Andorra, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Spain, and Switzerland). In South America, the French department of Guyana also shares two terrestrial boundaries with Brazil and Suriname. As a consequence, about ten French protected areas are already adjacent to a foreign protected area across the border. The article will try to answer several questions: Why should (or must) France carry out transboundary conservation? Why should (if not must) France allow protected areas managers and local authorities to cooperate beyond boundaries? How to overcome barriers to transboundary cooperation between protected areas managers and/or local authorities? What are the new challenges to be faced by transboundary conservation at an infrastate level?","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83419372","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 : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_4
Eric T. Freyfogle, D. Goble, Todd A. Wildermuth
With more than 60 percent of the United States in private hands, a great deal of the nation’s wildlife lives on privately owned land. A major challenge of wildlife law has been to prescribe the legal relationship between the private owner of land and publicly owned wildlife. We have already seen some of the legal principles that apply to private land. Other pieces, though, are required to complete the legal picture. What rights do landowners themselves have in such wildlife? What legal protections do landowners enjoy when engaged in wildlife-related activities? What can they do when wildlife causes harm? Finally, what legal issues arise when landowners allow outsiders to hunt on their lands? These issues are taken up here, leaving to chapter 8 a consideration of issues that arise most vividly in the context of private game reserves and captive breeding operations.
{"title":"Wildlife on Private Land","authors":"Eric T. Freyfogle, D. Goble, Todd A. Wildermuth","doi":"10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_4","url":null,"abstract":"With more than 60 percent of the United States in private hands, a great deal of the nation’s wildlife lives on privately owned land. A major challenge of wildlife law has been to prescribe the legal relationship between the private owner of land and publicly owned wildlife. We have already seen some of the legal principles that apply to private land. Other pieces, though, are required to complete the legal picture. What rights do landowners themselves have in such wildlife? What legal protections do landowners enjoy when engaged in wildlife-related activities? What can they do when wildlife causes harm? Finally, what legal issues arise when landowners allow outsiders to hunt on their lands? These issues are taken up here, leaving to chapter 8 a consideration of issues that arise most vividly in the context of private game reserves and captive breeding operations.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88158740","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 : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_2
Eric T. Freyfogle, D. Goble, Todd A. Wildermuth
{"title":"State Ownership and the Public Interest","authors":"Eric T. Freyfogle, D. Goble, Todd A. Wildermuth","doi":"10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78757060","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 : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_3
Eric T. Freyfogle, D. Goble, Todd A. Wildermuth
{"title":"Capturing and Owning","authors":"Eric T. Freyfogle, D. Goble, Todd A. Wildermuth","doi":"10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-915-9_3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85791853","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：