北极熊运动狩猎:加拿大对国际北极熊协议的错误解释

M. Simpson
{"title":"北极熊运动狩猎:加拿大对国际北极熊协议的错误解释","authors":"M. Simpson","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1654198","DOIUrl":null,"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":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1654198\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1654198","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Polar Bear Sports Hunting: Canada’s Flawed Interpretation of the International Polar Bear Agreement
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
期刊最新文献
Lost in Translation? Why Outdated Notions of Normativity in International Law Explain Germany’s Failure to Give Effect to the Ramsar Convention of 1971 Wild Things: Animal Rights in EU Conservation Law Addressing Illegal Transnational Trade of Totoaba and Its Role in the Possible Extinction of the Vaquita Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
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
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
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
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