CITES, Globalization, and the Future of Animal Law

• Author: Thomas G. Kelch
• Pages: 269-291

269

Chapter 11:

CITES, Globalization, and

the Future of Animal Law

Thomas G. Kelch*

I. e CITES Trade Regulation Scheme .................................................271

A. e Conceptual Foundation of CITES .........................................271

B. e CITES Organizational Structure ...........................................272

C. e CITES Regulatory Scheme .................................................... 274

D. Enforcement of CITES ................................................................279

II. CITES Successes and Failures ..............................................................281

A. Successes ......................................................................................281

B. Failures ......................................................................................... 282

III. CITES and the Future of Animal Law.................................................284

Conclusion ................................................................................................... 290

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES)1 regulates trade within a world of interna-

tional crim inals who poach elephants with grenades and automatic

weapons2 for their ivory tusks, leaving lifeless bodies of countless elephants

to rot in the sun; a world where species are being lost at unprecedented rates

through the unbridled expansion of human population and development; a

world where climate change threatens species with temperature increases and

tempestuous weather conditions; a world where international trade is king,

and promises to deliver the poor from poverty; and a world where animals are

1. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, as amended June

22, 1979, 993 U.N.T.S. 14537 [hereinafter CITES].

2. Emily Hutchens, e Law Never Forgets: An Analysis of the Elephant Poaching Crisis, Failed Policies,

and Potential Solutions, 31 W. I’ L.J. 934, 935 (2014) (stating automatic weapons used in

elephant poaching); Brad Scriber, 100,000 Elephants Killed by Poachers in Just ree Years, Landmark

Analysis Finds, N’ G N, Aug. 18, 2014, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/

news/2014/08/140818-elephants-africa-poaching-cites-census/.

* I am greatly indebted to my research assistants, Lane Bogard, Caspar Miller, and Monet

Padilla, for their excellent research and cite checking work on this chapter. I also want to

thank Candace Lawrence for her invaluable editorial advice.

270 What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law?

commodities. Legal trade in wildlife is a multibillion dollar business with 13

million recorded legal trade transactions in CITES databases and these trans-

actions are increasing by a million a year.3 Illegal wildlife trade is estimated to

earn from $5 to $20 billion annually.4 Only the illegal drugs and arms trade

are more lucrative.5 Illegal wildlife trade is so protable it is thought that

the leaders of poaching operations are now crime syndicates that have fueled

wars in Africa, with the proceeds of poaching used for purchasing weapons

for these conicts.6

Despite this grim reality, CITES nevertheless is regarded as “one of

the most successful international environmental treaties in the world.”7

ere have been numerous successes under CITES, yet many animal law

professionals would likely attach little signicance to CITES and what it

has accomplished. CI TES is, after all, environmental law, not animal law.

CITES protects species; its relevance for the protection of individual animals

from pain, suering, and exploitation—the shimmering amulet of true ani-

mal law—is at best marginal. ose involved in both animal law and envi-

ronmental law can be viewed as promoting t his sort of thinking—t he idea

that there is some implacable ssure between the two disciplines. e dier-

ences between those focu sed on the environment and ecosystems, a nd those

focused on the protection and potential rights of a nimals, c an be v iewed as

resulting from distinct conceptual perspec tives. Environmental law focusses

on the systemic, the ecosystem, the species, the macro—the genera l deterio-

ration of the natural in our environment. Conversely, animal law focuses on

the individual, t he specic, the subjective, the micro—the suering, pain,

and distress of an individual anima l or group of animals. It seems, then, that

in some respect s, a wa ll has been constructed between environmental law

and animal law.

is chapter endeavors to knock a few bricks from this wal l so that we,

animal law yers and environmental lawyers a like, can cast a refocused eye

3. CITES, W W D, 3 M: H   S F, 7 (2014), availa ble

at http://ci tes.org/si tes/defaul t/files/i/ CITES_WWD_ Brochure201 4.pdf [hereinaf ter S-

 F ].

4. Id.

5. Christine Fuchs, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES)—Conservation Eorts Undermine the Legality Principle, 9 G L.J. 1565, 1588 (2008);

Elisabeth M. McOmber, Problems in Enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species, 27 B. J. I’ L. 673, 674 (2002).

6. Hutchens, supra note 2, at 947.

7. Fuchs, supra note 5, at 1565; see also McOmber, supra note 5, at 674; I W T:

A CITES S xi (Ginette Hemley ed., 1994) (stating that some commentators claim that

CITES is the most eective existing agreement on international wildlife conservation); Letter from

the Editor, CITES Is Successful, CITES W, July 2001, at 1, available at http://www.cites.org/

sites/default/les/eng/news/world/7.pdf [hereinafter CITES Is Successful].