Naturally, in case of the ACPB, the nation state is the sovereign rights holder. After
all, the agreement was concluded in the early 1970s. But the conclusion of the other
agreements that directly refer to the ACPB shows that its interpretation is being done
in a way that puts great emphasis on aboriginal resource rights.
8.5
Non-governmental Influence
In contemporary international marine mammal law, the influence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) cannot be neglected. With the rise of the environmental movement in the 1960s, non-governmental actors have become part and parcel of
the international legal landscape for marine mammals. While they are not decisionmakers themselves since the realm of international law is that of nation states, they
are nevertheless important actors that have substantially shaped international marine
mammal law and international conservation law in general. For example, the 1972
Stockholm conference saw the first attendance of NGOs on a large scale:
170 organisations attended. 40 years later, at the Rio +20 Summit, almost 10,000
NGOs attended the meeting.
NGO-influence has been most prominent in the case of the regimes dealing with
international whaling, European Union sealing and trade in wildlife (CITES). In
general terms, two overall strategies have been applied by NGOs to influence
environmental decision-making: first, through observership and participation in
fora of international diplomacy, NGOs have the possibility for direct influence on
decision-makers and the generation and transmission of information that might
influence state behaviour. The next step includes becoming part of country
delegations or other bodies of decision-making. This strategy is referred to as ‘inside
advocacy’. A second strategy is that of influencing public opinion and discourse on
certain issues. Newspaper articles, social media presence or similar means are thus
tools to steer public opinion into a certain direction, which would in turn increase
pressure on domestic and international decision-makers. This strategy is referred to
as ‘outside advocacy.’
4
In the case of sealing, one such example of direct participation in the decisionmaking process beyond mere influence is that of Brian Davies. Brian Davies is the
founder of IFAW, an organisation which was formed to work against the commercial
seal hunt. While mainly focusing on outside advocacy, over the course of time,
Davis had become the principal advisor on seal issues for the Council of the
European Communities prior to the adoption of the 1983 Seal Pups Directive. This
means that IFAW was no longer just in the position to influence decision-makers, but
had taken up a position to directly consult in the decision-making process. Prior to
the adoption of the 2009 Seal Regime, IFAW and other organisations predominantly
focused on outside advocacy and the influencing of decision-makers of the
EU. Large demonstrations were staged in Brussels and Strasbourg, stuffed toy
4 Betzold (2013).
8.5 Non-governmental Influence
183
all, the agreement was concluded in the early 1970s. But the conclusion of the other
agreements that directly refer to the ACPB shows that its interpretation is being done
in a way that puts great emphasis on aboriginal resource rights.
8.5
Non-governmental Influence
In contemporary international marine mammal law, the influence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) cannot be neglected. With the rise of the environmental movement in the 1960s, non-governmental actors have become part and parcel of
the international legal landscape for marine mammals. While they are not decisionmakers themselves since the realm of international law is that of nation states, they
are nevertheless important actors that have substantially shaped international marine
mammal law and international conservation law in general. For example, the 1972
Stockholm conference saw the first attendance of NGOs on a large scale:
170 organisations attended. 40 years later, at the Rio +20 Summit, almost 10,000
NGOs attended the meeting.
NGO-influence has been most prominent in the case of the regimes dealing with
international whaling, European Union sealing and trade in wildlife (CITES). In
general terms, two overall strategies have been applied by NGOs to influence
environmental decision-making: first, through observership and participation in
fora of international diplomacy, NGOs have the possibility for direct influence on
decision-makers and the generation and transmission of information that might
influence state behaviour. The next step includes becoming part of country
delegations or other bodies of decision-making. This strategy is referred to as ‘inside
advocacy’. A second strategy is that of influencing public opinion and discourse on
certain issues. Newspaper articles, social media presence or similar means are thus
tools to steer public opinion into a certain direction, which would in turn increase
pressure on domestic and international decision-makers. This strategy is referred to
as ‘outside advocacy.’
4
In the case of sealing, one such example of direct participation in the decisionmaking process beyond mere influence is that of Brian Davies. Brian Davies is the
founder of IFAW, an organisation which was formed to work against the commercial
seal hunt. While mainly focusing on outside advocacy, over the course of time,
Davis had become the principal advisor on seal issues for the Council of the
European Communities prior to the adoption of the 1983 Seal Pups Directive. This
means that IFAW was no longer just in the position to influence decision-makers, but
had taken up a position to directly consult in the decision-making process. Prior to
the adoption of the 2009 Seal Regime, IFAW and other organisations predominantly
focused on outside advocacy and the influencing of decision-makers of the
EU. Large demonstrations were staged in Brussels and Strasbourg, stuffed toy
4 Betzold (2013).
8.5 Non-governmental Influence
183