Endangered Species, International Protection

Peter H Sand
MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (MPEPIL)
Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law
under the direction of Rüdiger Wolfrum

Vol. 3 (Oxford University Press 2012), pp. 423-429 (updated online, March 2017)
[cross-references within the encyclopedia are indicated in italics]

A. Introduction
1 Within the general context of international environmental law, designated natural fauna and
flora resources are internationally protected against the risks of over-exploitation and
extinction (Conservation of Natural Resources; Environment, International Protection).
However, unlike classical area-specific nature protection regimes (Nature, International
Protection; World Natural Heritage), species-specific protection is typically ‘a-territorial’; ie,
individual specimens and living populations of animals or plants are subject to the
international regime solely on the basis of their taxonomic identification as members of a
listed protected species, irrespective of their geographical location inside or outside national
territory. While any individual specimen of a protected species may thus be subject to the
territorial sovereign control of the State where it is located (Natural Resources, Permanent
Sovereignty over), that customary rule does not apply to the species itself; ie, the abstract
genotype to which the specimen belongs, biologically defined as ‘a population or series of
populations of organisms capable of freely interbreeding with one another under natural
conditions’ (Wilson). Hence, species that are authoritatively classified as ‘endangered’ (ie, at
a high risk of extinction in the wild) under international treaties may well be viewed as
common resources of humankind. Given the declared community interest in their long-term
conservation, the host States concerned share a distinct fiduciary accountability as ‘public
trustees’ for these global trust resources, vis-à-vis the ultimate beneficiaries of the trust; ie,
all people of the human species, including future generations (Intergenerational Equity).

2 Wild-living fauna and flora are considered renewable or ‘flow resources’, replenished by
natural reproduction/propagation. Characteristically, however, they have a ‘critical zone’
below which their depletion—from natural causes, or from human interference—may become
irreversible, and hence may lead to extinction. The worldwide human-induced loss of species
is now well documented as accelerating any losses inherent in the evolutionary process at
alarming rates (Biological Diversity, International Protection).

B. Sectoral/Regional Regimes
3 Historically, international action against over-exploitation of wildlife species already
prompted the 1893 Bering Sea Fur Seals Arbitration, followed by the Pacific Fur Seal
Treaties of 1911 and 1957 (the 1911 Convention Respecting Measures for the Preservation
and Protection of Fur Seals in the North Pacific Ocean; and the 1957 Interim Convention
[with Schedule] on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals; see also Bering Sea), and early
European agreements such as the 1902 Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to
Agriculture. Today, there is a wide range of bilateral and multilateral treaties for the
conservation of migratory wildlife species (Migratory Species, International Protection), as
well as for commercially exploited marine species (Marine Living Resources, International
Protection; see also Fisheries Agreements; Marine Mammals; Whaling), inland fisheries
(mainly under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
[FAO]), tropical forests (Forests, International Protection), and agriculturally used plants and
plant genetic resources (Plant Genetic Resources, International Protection).

4 On a regional basis, multilateral single-species agreements have been concluded, inter

alia, to protect polar bears in the Arctic Region (the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of
Polar Bears), terrestrial species such as the vicuña in South America (the 1979 Convention
for the Conservation and Management of Vicuña), and marine living resources
in Antarctica (the 1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources; and the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty).
Furthermore, lists of protected species are contained or foreseen in the annexes to a number
of general regional nature conservation conventions (including the 1940 Convention on
Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western Hemisphere; and the
1979 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats) and to
several regional seas protocols (including the 1985 Protocol on Protected Areas and on Wild
Fauna and Flora in the Eastern African Region; and the 1990 Protocol on Specially Protected
Areas and Wildlife in the Wider Caribbean Region; see also Regional Seas, Environmental
Protection).

5 One of the most active regional regimes in this field is the European Union, starting with its
1979 Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (as amended in 2006
by Council Directive 2006/105/EC [2006] OJ L363/368 and in 2013 by Council Directive
2013/17/EU [2013] OJ L158/193) and the 1992 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the
Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora(‘Habitats Directive’), as
interpreted by the European Court of Justice in several leading decisions involving protected
species (eg Cases C-103/00 and C-504/14 Commission v Greece [‘Caretta Cases’ 1 and
2]; European Union, Court of Justice and General Court), and further elaborated by the
European Commission in its 2007 Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal
Species of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

C. CITES: Wildlife Conservation and Sustainable Use

6 The total volume of legal world trade in wildlife (animals and plants, including forests and
fisheries) and their products has been estimated at US$332.5 billion annually (Engler). For
many developing countries in particular, exports of products harvested or collected from the
wild—such as furs, hides, timber, or medicinal plants—continue to provide a significant
source of income. National and international regulation of wildlife species therefore needs to
strike a balance between the ecological concerns of nature conservation, and legitimate
economic concerns of sustainable resource utilization (Trade and Environment).

1. Historical Development
7 Attempts at multilateral law-making for endangered species date back to the
1900 Convention Designed to Ensure the Conservation of Various Species of Wild Animals
in Africa which are Useful to Man or Inoffensive (‘First London Convention’), and the
1933 Convention relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural
State (‘Second London Convention’). Both treaties contained elements of a system to deal
with the problem of unsustainable exploitation of wildlife by the colonial powers (Colonialism),
through hunting restrictions for particular species listed in annexes; confiscation of illegally
taken ivory; and export licensing for specified wildlife products. While the First London
Convention never entered into force due to a lack of ratifications, the Second London
Convention became applicable to most of the colonial territories in Africa, the Indian
subcontinent, and Indonesia, but did not survive the era of decolonization.

8 Following several initiatives at the national level to restrict trade in wildlife species, the
matter was taken up from 1963 onwards in the Swiss-based non-governmental International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (‘IUCN’, now World Conservation
Union), which took the lead in preparations for a draft convention, endorsed by a
recommendation of the United Nations (UN) in the Action Plan of the 1972 Stockholm
Conference (Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment), and
finalized by a diplomatic conference at Washington DC on 3 March 1973 as the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (‘CITES’).

9 CITES entered into force on 1 July 1975, and currently has a near-universal membership of
182 States. A rectification protocol noting editorial mistakes in the authentic treaty texts (inter
alia, Arts III, XIV, and XVI CITES) was drawn up in the form of a procès-verbal by the Swiss
Government as depositary, communicated to States Parties and signatories on 19 March
1976, and endorsed by the Conference of the Parties (‘COP’), the supreme decision-making
body of CITES, at its first meeting (Conference [Meeting] of States Parties). A protocol
amending Art. XI CITES, adopted by an extraordinary meeting of the conference at Bonn on
22 June 1979, entered into force on 13 April 1987 (Bonn Amendment to the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). A further protocol to
amend Art. XXI CITES in order to admit the EU as a party was adopted by another
extraordinary meeting at Gaborone on 30 April 1983 and entered into force on 29 November
2013 (Gaborone Amendment to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; European Community and Union, Party to International
Agreements; Treaties, Amendment and Revision). While the Convention had already
unilaterally been transformed into directly applicable EU law in 1982 by Council Regulation
(EEC) 3626/82 [1982] OJ L384/1, as revised by Council Regulation (EC) 338/97 [1997] OJ
L61/1, the EU thus officially became a party on 8 July 2015.

10 Periodic authentic treaty interpretation is provided by resolutions of the COP, adopted by

a two-thirds majority at its triennial plenary meetings (Environmental Treaty
Bodies; International Law, Development through International Organizations, Policies and
Practice; Treaties, Declarations of Interpretation). There are 96 conference resolutions
currently in effect, available on the Convention’s website. Even though CITES resolutions
have occasionally—unsuccessfully—been challenged as mere recommendations ‘without
any legal effect’ (eg by France before the ECJ in Case C-182/89 Commission v
France [‘Bolivian Furskin Case’] at 4344), they are regularly sanctioned by collective trade
embargoes (see paras 17–18 below), which have made CITES demonstrably more effective
in practice than most other comparable treaty regimes (Environmental Compliance Control).

2. Treaty Structure and Institutions

11 CITES regulates global market access for wildlife specimens, live or dead animals and
plants as well as their parts and derivatives, by subjecting all border-crossing trade—
including trade with Non-Member States (Art. X CITES, elaborated in Res 9.5/1994 as
revised in 2013)—to mandatory licensing on the basis of permits issued by the exporting
country, and in exceptional cases to additional licensing by the importing country. Permits
are granted in accordance with standard criteria (formerly CITES Appendix IV, now laid down
in Res 12.3/2002 as revised in 2016), in light of an agreed ‘black list’ of species excluded
from trade (CITES Appendix I) and a ‘grey list’ of controlled tradable species (CITES
Appendix II). Furthermore, each country of origin may unilaterally add to the lists by entering
species in CITES Appendix III, or may notify other countries (through the CITES Secretariat)
of further national restrictions. All Member States have a duty to enact and enforce the terms
of the treaty by national laws (see para. 16 below), and to provide periodic trade data and
reports on national implementation (Art. VIII CITES, with standard criteria and guidelines laid
down pursuant to Res 11.17/2000 as revised in 2016; Reporting Systems). Reports are
electronically processed and compared by the CITES Secretariat to determine, inter alia,
whether trade data submitted by exporting and importing countries correspond with regard to
the species concerned.

12 CITES Appendices I and II are amended every three years by the COP in light of the
changing conservation and trade status of the species listed (Art. XV CITES) on the basis of
agreed listing criteria (Res 9.24/1994 as revised in 2016). Arguably the most controversial
illustration of this up-listing/down-listing procedure continues to be the status of elephants
and the qualified ban on ivory trade (Res 10.10/1997 as revised in 2016). A further measure
of flexibility is provided by reservations under Arts XXIII and XV(3) CITES, which allow
dissenting countries to opt out of species-listing decisions (Res 4.25/1983 as revised in
2007; Treaties, Multilateral, Reservations to); and by a number of specific exceptions that
were either built-in (eg for scientific exchanges, and for captive-bred or artificially propagated
specimens, under Art. VII CITES) or subsequently introduced by the conference (in particular
the quota system for limited trade in Appendix I-species, under Res 9.21/1994 as revised in
2004, Res 10.4/1997, and Res 13.5/2004 as revised in 2007).

13 Under the auspices of the omnipotent COP, new elected institutions not originally
anticipated in the convention evolved over time: in particular, the Standing Committee
(initially established by Res 2.2/1979) to which the conference delegated important treaty
management functions during the periods between plenary meetings; and the two sectoral
scientific committees (for animals and plants) which deal with most issues regarding the
listing and delisting of species, and which also meet intersessionally (Res 11.1/2000 as
revised in 2016).

14 While initial funding for CITES operations and meetings had been provided since 1975 by
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), responsibility for the convention’s
budget (currently about US$6 million annually) was transferred to the COP after formal treaty
amendment in 1979 and the establishment of a special CITES fund for this purpose, as one
of the trust funds under UNEP auspices, to which Member States make assessed
contributions based on the UN scale. Under Art. XII CITES, secretariat services are provided
by UNEP, with possible assistance from qualified other bodies. Initially entrusted to the
IUCN, the secretariat was formally taken over by UNEP in 1985, with an office now based in
Geneva, together with CITES trade and species databases managed by the UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge. Shared administrative competences for staff
recruitment, accommodation and supervision are laid down in a 2011 agreement between
the CITES Standing Committee and the UNEP Executive Director.

15 Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations (‘NGOs’) and civil society continues to

play an important role in the operation of the convention, through scientific advice from
volunteer specialist groups of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and other non-
governmental bodies. External monitoring is provided by the IUCN/WWF (World Wide Fund
for Nature) TRAFFIC (Trade Records Analysis for Fauna and Flora in Commerce)
programme (a non-governmental ‘watchdog’ network with national/regional offices in 16
countries worldwide), pursuant to two Memoranda of Understanding concluded in 1999
between the CITES Secretariat, IUCN, and TRAFFIC International (Memorandum of
Understanding between the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and IUCN; and Memorandum of
Understanding Concluded between TRAFFIC International, on Behalf of the TRAFFIC
Network, and the United Nations Environment Programme, Secretariat of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). The accreditation of
non-governmental observers at CITES conferences—admitting technically qualified NGOs
‘unless at least one-third of the Parties present object’, pursuant to Art. XI(7) CITES as
elaborated in Resolution 13.8/2004 (revised in 2013)—became a model for several
subsequent environmental treaties (Environment, Multilateral Agreements).

3. Implementation and Compliance Control

16 Like most treaty regimes for the regulation of business activities (International Economic
Law), CITES depends on national legislative and administrative measures to become
effective (International Law and Domestic [Municipal] Law). For domestic measures to be
considered in compliance with the convention, they must—as a minimum—provide States
Parties with the authority to a) designate at least one management authority and one
scientific authority; b) prohibit trade in specimens in violation of the convention; c) penalize
such trade; and d) confiscate specimens illegally traded or possessed (Art. VIII CITES;
and Res 8.4/1992 as revised in 2010). Since 1992, the COP has periodically evaluated the
national implementing legislation of Member States (ranking them according to their
compliance adequacy in three categories); provided advice, training and technical
assistance to countries still in default; and in case of persistent non-compliance,
recommended collective sanctions.

17 The innovative CITES system of economic sanctions for non-compliance was not
foreseen in the original treaty text but gradually evolved as a result of continuous practice by
the COP, re-stated and consolidated in Resolution 14.3/2007 on CITES Compliance
Procedures. Where a case of non-compliance cannot be resolved by direct communication
between the country concerned and the CITES Secretariat (under Art. XIII CITES) or the
Standing Committee (under delegation from the conference), the conference or the
committee may decide to recommend countermeasures in the form of a trade embargo; ie
‘the suspension of commercial or all trade in specimens of one or more CITES-listed species’
(Res 14.3/2007 para. 30). In State practice, the embargo is collectively enforced by Member
States exercising their right under Art. XIV(1)(a) CITES to adopt ‘stricter domestic measures
regarding the conditions for trade … or the complete prohibition thereof’ of CITES-listed
species with the country so targeted.

18 First used against Bolivia, collective trade suspensions have since been recommended by
the conference in more than 100 cases over the past three decades, both for treaty
infringements by Member States (eg Thailand in 1991, Italy in 1992, Greece in 1998, India in
2004) and against non-Member States failing to provide the ‘comparable documentation’
required under Art. X CITES and Resolution 9.5/1994 (revised in 2013) on trade with non-
Member States, thus resulting in significant third-country effects to discourage ‘free-riding’.
Given the economic consequences of an embargo, most of the countries targeted quickly
returned to compliance. The procedural safeguards of Resolution 14.3/2007—including prior
consultation, with rights of hearing and response for targeted countries—are fully compatible
with the corresponding rules on legitimate countermeasures developed by the International
Law Commission (ILC) in its 2001 (Draft) Articles on Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts, in particular Arts 48–54. Multilateral retorsion therefore seems
preferable to unilateral trade measures (such as the 1971 U.S. Act to Amend the
Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967 to Enhance the Effectiveness of International Fishery
Conservation Programs [‘Pelly Amendment’], invoked against alleged CITES infractions by
Japanese marine turtle imports in 1991), given that unilateral sanctions are wholly within the
executive discretion of individual governments (Japan Whaling Association v American
Cetacean Society) and remain open to challenge under the non-discrimination rules of
the World Trade Organization (WTO). The threat of a collective embargo under Resolution
14.3/2007 is also likely to be more effective in practice than recourse to adversarial dispute
resolution by arbitration under Art. XVIII CITES, which requires mutual consent for
submission and so far has never been used (Environmental Dispute Settlement).

19 The bulk of CITES implementation occurs at the domestic level, with national authorities
applying and enforcing international norms vis-à-vis individuals and corporate entities, ie the
phenomenon known as dédoublement fonctionnel. The convention also provides the
framework for inter-administrative co-operation to combat illegal trade in listed species (see
also Co-operation, International Law of). For this purpose, the CITES Secretariat has entered
into Memoranda of Understanding with the International Criminal Police Organization
(‘ICPO’; Interpol) and the World Customs Organization (WCO), and together with these
organizations, the World Bank and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (‘UNODC’)
formed the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (‘ICCWC’) in
2010. Resolutions 11.3/2000 (as revised in 2007) and 17.6/2016 call on Member States to
become parties to the UN conventions against transnational organized crime and corruption
(Corruption, Fight Against); and UNGA Res 69/314 on ‘Tackling Illicit Trafficking in Wildlife’ in
turn calls for universal participation in and effective implementation of CITES. National
CITES management authorities also participate in the voluntary International Network for
Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (‘INECE’).

20 At the regional level, six African countries concluded in Lusaka the 1994 Agreement on
Co-operative Enforcement Operations Directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and
Flora under UNEP auspices, followed by the 1999 Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law
Enforcement of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) adopted in Maputo.
Within the framework of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a regional
Wildlife Enforcement Network (‘ASEAN-WEN’) was established in 2005. Similarly, a North
American Wildlife Enforcement Group (‘NAWEG’) has been operating under the North
American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (1993) since 1995. The EU Committee
on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora also set up a permanent enforcement group in 1995,
composed of management authorities from EU Member States (European Community and
Union, Actor in International Relations). As a result of the incorporation of CITES into EU law
since 1982 (currently under Council Regulation 338/97/EC on the Protection of Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora by Regulating Trade Therein, as periodically amended), European
national management authorities may thus be said to exercise a kind of détriplement
fonctionnel, implementing national laws that implement EU regulations in turn implementing
CITES (European Community and Union Law and Domestic [Municipal] Law).

D. Interlinkages
21 Several external evaluations of CITES have confirmed the overall operational
effectiveness of the treaty in regulating legitimate international wildlife trade and curtailing
illegal trade. It should be kept in mind, however, that CITES is but one component of the
existing patchwork of global and regional conventions protecting wild fauna and flora. It is, by
definition, narrowly focused on the trade issue which is only one among the multiple threats
to wildlife resources—such as the inexorable loss of natural habitats; the impacts of global
pollution and climate change (see also Climate, International Protection); the consequential
or accidental spread of alien species; and unsustainable practices of economic exploitation.

22 One of the lessons learned is the continuous need for co-operation and synergy with
other nature protection regimes, whether species-oriented or area-oriented, especially the
biodiversity and migratory species treaties operating under UNEP auspices. This objective
has been acknowledged in CITES Res 10.4/1997, Res 13.2/2004, and Res 13.3/2004
(revised in 2007) and addressed through a ‘Liaison Group’ of seven biodiversity-related
conventions (established in 2004 under Decision VII/26 of the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention on Biological Diversity), and a series of Memoranda of Understanding with
their secretariats. At the same time, species conservation regimes must continue to maintain
a dynamic—and at times inevitably conflictual—discourse with the multitude of treaty
regimes for the sustainable management of living resources, such as whaling (addressed
by CITES Res 11.4/2000, revised in 2002); fisheries, as illustrated by the ‘tuna v dolphin’ and
‘shrimp v turtle’ disputes (GATT United States — Restrictions on Imports of
Tuna; WTO United States — Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
Products; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [1947 and 1994]; World Trade
Organization, Dispute Settlement); and forests (addressed by Res 14.4/2007 on co-operation
between CITES and the International Tropical Timber Organization). In this context, the
CITES Secretariat has also concluded specific inter-agency co-operation agreements with
the FAO, the WTO, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD).
 Select Bibliography
 SS Hayden, The International Protection of Wild Life: An Examination of Treaties and
Other Agreements for the Preservation of Birds and Mammals (Columbia University
Press New York 1942).
 A Flachsmann, Völkerrechtlicher Schutz gefährdeter Tiere und Pflanzen vor
übermäßiger Ausbeutung durch den internationalen Handel: Washingtoner
Artenschutzabkommen von 1973 (Schulthess Zürich 1977).
 S Lyster, International Wildlife Law: An Analysis of International Treaties Concerned
with the Conservation of Wildlife (Grotius Cambridge 1985).
 DS Favre, International Trade in Endangered Species: A Guide to CITES (Nijhoff
Dordrecht 1989).
 A Cassese, ‘Remarks on Scelle’s Theory of “Role Splitting” (dédoublement
fonctionnel) in International Law’ (1990) 1 EurJIntlL 210–31.
 MJ Glennon, ‘Has International Law Failed the Elephant?’ (1990) 84 AJIL 1–43.
 MC Maffei, La protezione internazionale delle specie animali minacciate (CEDAM
Padova 1992).
 C de Klemm, Guidelines for Legislation to Implement CITES (IUCN Gland 1993).
 S Charnovitz, ‘Environmental Trade Sanctions and the GATT: An Analysis of the
Pelly Amendment on Foreign Environmental Practices’ (1994) 9 AmUJIntlL&Pol 751–
807.
 G Hemley (ed), International Wildlife Trade: A CITES Sourcebook (World Wildlife
Fund Washington/DC 1994).
 P van Heijnsbergen, International Legal Protection of Wild Fauna and Flora (IOS
Press Amsterdam 1997).
 PH Sand, ‘Whither CITES? The Evolution of a Treaty Regime in the Borderland of
Trade and Environment’ (1997) 8 EJIL 29–58.
 A and J Schmidt-Räntsch, Leitfaden zum Artenschutzrecht (Bundesanzeiger-Verlag
Bonn 1998).
 JE Baker, ‘A Substantive Theory of the Relative Efficiency of Environmental
Compliance Strategies: The Case of CITES’ (1999) 2 Journal of International Wildlife
Law and Policy 1–45.
 M Bowman, ‘International Treaties and the Global Protection of Birds’ Part I and II
(1999) 11 JEL 87–119 and 281–300.
 D Kaniaru and E Mrema (eds), Enforcement and Compliance with MEAs: The
Experiences of CITES, Montreal Protocol and Basel Convention (UNEP Nairobi
1999).
 J Hutton and B Dickson (eds), Endangered Species: Threatened Convention: The
Past, Present and Future of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Earthscan London 2000).
 PH Sand, ‘A Century of Green Lessons: The Contribution of Nature Conservation
Regimes to Global Governance’ (2001) 1 International Environmental Agreements:
Politics, Law & Economics 33–72.
 M Yeater and J Vasquez, ‘Demystifying the Relationship between CITES and the
WTO’ (2001) 10 RECIEL 271–76.
 M Curlier and S Andresen, ‘International Trade in Endangered Species: The CITES
Regime’ in EL Miles, A Underdal, S Andresen, J Wettestad, JB Skjaerseth and EM
Carlin (eds), Environmental Effectiveness: Confronting Theory with Evidence (MIT
Press Cambridge/MA 2002) 357–78.
 R Reeve, Policing International Trade in Endangered Species: The CITES Treaty and
Compliance (Earthscan London 2002).
 PH Sand, ‘Sovereignty Bounded: Public Trusteeship for Common Pool Resources?’
(2004) 4 Global Environmental Politics 47–71.
 PH Sand, ‘Sanctions in Case of Non-Compliance and State Responsibility: Pacta
Sunt Servanda Or Else?’ in D Zaelke, D Kaniaru and E Kružíková (eds), Making Law
 Work: Environmental Compliance and Sustainable Development (Cameron May
London 2005) 259–71.
 C Epstein, ‘The Making of Global Environmental Norms: Endangered Species
Protection’ (2006) 6 Global Environmental Politics 32–54.
 R Reeve, ‘Wildlife Trade, Sanctions and Compliance’ (2006) 82 International Affairs
881–97.
 C Sobotta, ‘Artenschutz in der Rechtssprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs’
(2007) 29 NuR 642–49.
 M Engler, ‘The Value of International Wildlife Trade’ (2008) 22 TRAFFIC Bulletin 4–5.
 PH Sand, ‘Japan’s “Research Whaling” in the Antarctic Southern Ocean and the
North Pacific Ocean in the Face of the Endangered Species Convention (CITES)’
(2008) 17 RECIEL 56–71.
 PH Sand, ‘Scientific Whaling: Whither Sanctions for Non-Compliance with
International Law?’ (2008) 19 FinnishYBIL 93–126.
 C Wold, ‘World Heritage Species: A New Legal Approach to Conservation’ (2008) 20
GeoIntlEnvtlLRev 337–96.
 M Bowman, P Davies and C Redgwell, Lyster’s International Wildlife Law (2nd edn
Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2010).
 PH Sand, ‘Le rôle des conférences des parties aux conventions environnementales’
in Y Kerbrat, S Maljean-Dubois and R Mehdi (eds), Le droit international face aux
enjeux environnementaux (Pedone Paris 2010) 101–9.
 EO Wilson, The Diversity of Life (2nd edn Belknap Press of Harvard Univ Press
Cambridge/MA 2010).
 W Wijnstekers, The Evolution of CITES (9th edn International Council for Game and
Wildlife Conservation Budapest 2011).
 H van Asselt (ed), ‘Special Issue: CITES+40’ (2013) 22 RECIEL 219–76.
 R Adam, Elephant Treaties: The Colonial Legacy of the Biodiversity Crisis (University
of New England Press Hanover/NH 2014).
 E Couzens, Whales and Elephants in International Conservation Law and
Politics (Routledge London 2014).
 G Wandesforde-Smith, ‘Looking for Law in All the Wrong Places? Dying Elephants
and Empty Threats’ (2016) 19 Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 365–
81.
 J-L Lemahieu and A Me (eds), World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in Protected
Species (UNODC Vienna 2016).
 PH Sand, ‘Das Washingtoner Artenschutzabkommen (WA)’ (2016) 54 Archiv des
Völkerrechts 561–89.
 PH Sand, ‘International Protection of Endangered Species in the Face of Wildlife
Trade: Whither Conservation Diplomacy?’ (2017) 20 Asia Pacific Journal of
Environmental Law 5–18.

Select Documents
 Act to Amend the Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967 to Enhance the Effectiveness of
International Fishery Conservation Programs (Pelly Amendment) Pub L No 92-219,
85 Stat 786 (1971).
 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears (adopted 15 November 1973, entered
into force 26 May 1976) (1974) 13 ILM 13.
 Agreement on Co-operative Enforcement Operations Directed at Illegal Trade in Wild
Fauna and Flora (adopted 8 September 1994, entered into force 10 December 1996)
1950 UNTS 35.
 Bering Sea Fur Seals Arbitration (Great Britain v United States) (1893) 1 Moore
International Arbitrations 755.
 Bonn Amendment to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (adopted 22 June 1979, entered into force 13 April 1987).
 Case C-182/89 Commission v France [1990] ECR I-4337.
 Case C-103/00 Commission v Greece (Caretta Case 1) [2002] ECR I-1147.
 Case C-504/14 Commission v Greece (Caretta Case 2) [2016] ECLI:EU 847.
 Commission of the European Community ‘Guidance Document on the Strict
Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive
92/43/EEC’ (February 2007).
 Convention on Biological Diversity (adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force 29
December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79 (‘CBD’).
 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (concluded 20
May 1980, entered into force 7 April 1982) 1329 UNTS 47.
 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (adopted
19 September 1979, entered into force 1 June 1982) 1284 UNTS 209.
 Convention for the Conservation and Management of Vicuña (adopted 20 December
1979, entered in force 19 March 1982), in W Burhenne (ed), International
Environmental Law: Multilateral Treaties vol 6 (Erich Schmidt Berlin 1974, reprinted
by Kluwer London 1995) I/2000, 979:94/001.
 Convention Designed to Ensure the Conservation of Various Species of Wild Animals
in Africa which are Useful to Man or Inoffensive (signed 19 May 1900) (1900) 188
CTS 418.
 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(adopted 3 March 1973, entered into force 1 July 1975) 993 UNTS 243 (CITES); with
Appendices I–III (2 January 2017).
 Convention Respecting Measures for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals in
the North Pacific Ocean (signed 7 July 1911, entered into force 15 December 1911)
(1911) 214 CTS 80.
 Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western
Hemisphere (adopted 12 October 1940, entered into force 30 April 1942) 161 UNTS
193.
 Convention relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State
(adopted 8 November 1933, entered into force 14 January 1936) 172 LNTS 241.
 Convention for the Protection of Birds Useful to Agriculture (adopted 19 March 1902,
entered into force 20 April 1908) (1902) 191 CTS 91.
 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds
[1979] OJ L103/1.
 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats
and of Wild Fauna and Flora [1992] OJ L206/7.
 Council Regulation (EC) 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the Protection of Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora by Regulating Trade therein [1997] OJ L61/1.
 Decision VII/26 (2004) of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD ‘Cooperation with
Other Conventions and International Organizations and Initiatives’.
 Gaborone Amendment to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (adopted 30 April 1983, entered into force 29
November 2013).
 GATT United States—Restrictions on Imports of Tuna (3 September 1991) (1991) 30
ILM 1598.
 GATT United States—Restrictions on Imports of Tuna (16 June 1994) (1994) 33 ILM
842.
 Interim Convention (with Schedule) on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals
(signed 9 February 1957, entered into force 14 October 1957) 314 UNTS 105.
 International Tropical Timber Agreement (adopted 27 January 2006, entered into
force 7 December 2011) 2797 UNTS 75.
 Japan Whaling Association v American Cetacean Society United States Supreme
Court (30 June 1986) 478 US 221.
 Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretariat of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and IUCN
(signed 8 October 1999).
 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (adopted 4 October
1991, entered into force 14 January 1998) (1991) 30 ILM 1461.
 Protocol on Protected Areas and on Wild Fauna and Flora in the Eastern African
Region (adopted 21 June 1985, entered into force 3 March 1986) [1986] OJ C253/10.
 Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife in the Wider Caribbean Region
(adopted 18 January 1990, entered into force 18 June 2000) (1990) 1 YIntlEnvL 441.
 Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement (adopted 18 August 1999,
entered into force 30 November 2003) in W Burhenne (ed), International
Environmental Law: Multilateral Treaties (Erich Schmidt Berlin 1974, reprinted by
Kluwer London 1995) vol 8 (at I/2006) 992:62/E/001.
 Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at
Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972, UNGA A/CONF.48/14, 52 (recommendation 99/3).
 Resolution 14.3/2007 of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, ‘CITES Compliance
Procedures’ (2007) 46 ILM 1178.
 Resolution 16.3/2013 (revised 2016) of the Conference of the Parties to CITES,
‘CITES Strategic Vision: 2008–2020’.
 UN Convention against Corruption (adopted 31 October 2003, entered into force 14
December 2005) (31 October 2003) 2349 UNTS 41.
 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (adopted 15 November 2000,
entered into force 29 September 2003) 2225 UNTS 213.
 UNGA Res 69/314, ‘Tackling Illicit Trafficking in Wildlife’ (30 July 2015) GAOR
69th Session Supp 49 vol III, 103.
 UN ILC ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts’
(2001) GAOR 56thSession Supp 10, 43.
 UN ILC ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-Third
Session’ (23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001) GAOR 56th Session Supp 10,
324.
 WTO United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (12
October 1998) WT/DS58/AB/R.