{"title":"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","authors":"Y. Samant, Avani Gupta","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1702246","DOIUrl":null,"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":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-02\",\"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/10.1080/13880292.2019.1702246\",\"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/10.1080/13880292.2019.1702246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Legality of Delisting a Transboundary Ramsar Site to Combat HPAI Outbreak and the Adequacy Standards of Compensatory Sites
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.
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.