Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:24:51.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems Related to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Paul Matthews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has become one of the better-known environmental treaties, partly as a result of the considerable attention it received in connection with the restrictions it imposed on the ivory trade. Despite its successes, however, the text of the treaty has not kept pace with developments since it was first approved in 1973. It remains, for instance, an environmental treaty with some of the characteristics of a trade treaty, drafted as if it were to operate in a hostile world of non-parties. Instead, in contrast, it has been signed by 128 parties1 and functions at a time when public and political concern about the environment has never been greater.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 421 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. CITES had 128 parties as of 28 02. 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Art.II(1).

3. Ibid..

4. Art.IX(1).

5. Art.III.

6. Art.II(2) and (3).

7. Arts.IV and V.

8. Arts.III(2)(a) and IV(2)(a).

9. See infra.

10. Art.VIII(1).

11. “Safari Firms Shun Stricken Game Park”, Sunday Times, 19 Jan. 1992.

12. Art.XV.

13. Conf. 1.1 (copies of the proceedings of all conferences of the parties are available from the CITES Secretariat).

14. Conf.9.24.

15. See infra.

16. Uplisting a species from Appendices II or III to Appendix I effectively results in a ban on international trade in that species with a party to CITES.

17. Ivory prices in Zaire peaked in June 1989 even though the ban only became effective in Jan. 1990, Traffic Bulletin, 1990, p.54. (Traffic Bulletin is the journal of the Traffic Network, which is part of the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit funded by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)).

18. Art.XV(1)(c).

19. Traffic Bulletin, 1990, p.23.

20. This was the policy adopted in Dubai where local ivory traders were compensated for the confiscation of their ivory stocks.

21. Art.VII(1).

22. Japan was estimated to consume between 40% and 75% of all ivory production at the time of the ban on the international ivory trade: “Banning the Ivory Trade, An Attempt to Save the African Elephant from Extinction” (1989) 5 Florida J.Int.L. 111, 118.

23. David, Favre, The International Trade in Endangered Species (1987), p. 130.Google Scholar

24. Traffic Bulletin, 1987, p.36.

25. See report prepared by the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit and submitted to the conference of the parties in Gaborone, Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Doc.4.18, pp.435–448.

26. Conf.4.11 approved such a definition but was subsequently revoked by Conf.5.11.

27. Sands, P. and Bedecarre, A., “The Role of PINGOs in Ensuring the Effective Enforcement of the Ivory Trade Ban” (1989–90) 17 Boston College Environmental Affairs Reviews 799, 814.Google Scholar

28. The first draft of the treaty was prepared by the IUCN, an independent international organisation with membership comprising governments, government agencies and nongovernmental organisations.

29. The treaty expressly permits the CITES Secretariat to make official recommendations to the parties on the basis of the findings of non-governmental organisations, Art.XII(1). A similar provision exists in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946, Art.IV.

30. Art.XII.

31. Art.IV(2)(a).

32. Eestes, and Palmisano, . “Sea Otters: Their Role in Structuring Near-Shore Communities” (1974) 185 Science 1058.Google Scholar

33. The Rio Treaty on Biological Diversity, for instance, specifically makes reference to the importance of ecosystems in its preamble.

34. Consider the campaign to protect the elephant by banning trade in ivory which involved the formation of groups such as Elefriends.

35. “Appendix II shall include … other species which must be subject to regulation in order that trade in specimens of certain listed species … may be brought under effective control.”

36. Arts.III(2)(a) and IV(2)(a).

37. Conf.8.8.

38. US, China, Japan, Russia, India, UK, Kenya, South Africa and Brazil are all parties to CITES.

39. Although under public international law reservations are possible only on signature or ratification of a treaty, the entering of objections to the listing of a species under Arts.XV (3), XVI(2) and XXIII of CITES is generally referred to as making a “reservation”.

40. This was the case with South Korea and Taiwan, which as non-parties could provide the location for ivory stocks moved from Hong Kong after the ban on the ivory trade came into effect. They were then used as bases for continued illegal ivory trade with large consumers such as Japan and China. See Traffic Bulletin, 1990, p.61 and “Halting the Elephant Ivory Trade: A True Test For International Law” (1990) 9 Wisconsin Int.L.J. 227, 243.

41. Sand, , “Luxury at Any Cost” (1980) Naturopa 59 No.34/35.Google Scholar

42. Council Reg.3626/82 (1982) O.J. L384/31.

43. McFadden, E., “Asian Compliance with CITES” (1987) 5 Boston U.Int.L.J. 311, 314.Google Scholar

44. Idem, p.315.

45. Traffic Bulletin, 1990, p. 19.

46. The Economist, 2 Mar. 1991, p.64.

47. Kosloff, L. and Trexler, M., “CITES: Enforcement Theory and Practice in the United States” (1987) 5 Boston U.Int.L.J. 327,358.Google Scholar