look back on this moment with great shame.”
6 This neglects the fact that the Polar
Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) of the IUCN along with other science-based
organisations did not support the proposed transfer.
7 In Chap. 8 we will delve
more deeply into the role of non-governmental organisations in shaping and
influencing marine mammal-related legal regimes.
In conclusion, CITES is a regime which plays an important role for the management of marine mammals, particularly whales and polar bears. While the management of international trade has a questionable impact on improving or maintaining
the conservation status of a species, it nevertheless sets important precedents for
public discourse. For instance, if CITES had after all decided to uplist the polar bear
to Appendix I and had thus banned all trade in polar bear products, also other fora
that deal either with climate change or species protection, along with fora dealing
with human rights, would have been impacted by this decision. On the one hand, it
might have strengthened the no-use public discourse, on the other it might have
negatively affected CITES itself since the human rights dimension might have led to
action from the Arctic’s indigenous peoples to challenge this decision. The cases
before the European Court of Justice to overturn the EU seal trade regime stand
exemplary in this regard (see Sect. 6.7.2). Another pathway might have been to splitlist the polar bear: only those sub-populations that are in fact declining could be
transferred to Appendix I while the others remain on Appendix II. This did occur in
the case of African elephants as well. However, these steps remain in the realm of
speculation. For the time being, polar bears remain on Appendix II while the ‘great
whales’ remain on Appendix I.
4.2.2 The Conservation of Migratory Species
The regulation of trade as a means to ensure a favourable conservation status of a
species is a rather uncertain method. Already the Stockholm conference of 1972
therefore also called for other means. While CITES is to a large extend based on
species occurring in a nation state’s sovereign territory, many animal species don’t
consider national borders, but migrate across them or are even primarily at home in
areas beyond national jurisdiction. These migratory species and species in international waters are those species that the Stockholm conference sought to protect.
8 In
1979 the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)
9 was adopted,
directly responding to this request. The convention currently has 127 parties. The
United States, Canada, China, Japan and the Russian Federation, amongst others, are
not party to the convention. While the operational and functional scope of the CMS
6 IFAW (2010).
7 PBSG (2013).
8 See United Nations (1972), Rec 32.
9 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 23 June 1979 (1651
UNTS 333).
4.2 Global Regimes of Relevance
61
6 This neglects the fact that the Polar
Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) of the IUCN along with other science-based
organisations did not support the proposed transfer.
7 In Chap. 8 we will delve
more deeply into the role of non-governmental organisations in shaping and
influencing marine mammal-related legal regimes.
In conclusion, CITES is a regime which plays an important role for the management of marine mammals, particularly whales and polar bears. While the management of international trade has a questionable impact on improving or maintaining
the conservation status of a species, it nevertheless sets important precedents for
public discourse. For instance, if CITES had after all decided to uplist the polar bear
to Appendix I and had thus banned all trade in polar bear products, also other fora
that deal either with climate change or species protection, along with fora dealing
with human rights, would have been impacted by this decision. On the one hand, it
might have strengthened the no-use public discourse, on the other it might have
negatively affected CITES itself since the human rights dimension might have led to
action from the Arctic’s indigenous peoples to challenge this decision. The cases
before the European Court of Justice to overturn the EU seal trade regime stand
exemplary in this regard (see Sect. 6.7.2). Another pathway might have been to splitlist the polar bear: only those sub-populations that are in fact declining could be
transferred to Appendix I while the others remain on Appendix II. This did occur in
the case of African elephants as well. However, these steps remain in the realm of
speculation. For the time being, polar bears remain on Appendix II while the ‘great
whales’ remain on Appendix I.
4.2.2 The Conservation of Migratory Species
The regulation of trade as a means to ensure a favourable conservation status of a
species is a rather uncertain method. Already the Stockholm conference of 1972
therefore also called for other means. While CITES is to a large extend based on
species occurring in a nation state’s sovereign territory, many animal species don’t
consider national borders, but migrate across them or are even primarily at home in
areas beyond national jurisdiction. These migratory species and species in international waters are those species that the Stockholm conference sought to protect.
8 In
1979 the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)
9 was adopted,
directly responding to this request. The convention currently has 127 parties. The
United States, Canada, China, Japan and the Russian Federation, amongst others, are
not party to the convention. While the operational and functional scope of the CMS
6 IFAW (2010).
7 PBSG (2013).
8 See United Nations (1972), Rec 32.
9 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 23 June 1979 (1651
UNTS 333).
4.2 Global Regimes of Relevance
61