Shark Sanctuaries as Vehicles for Transplanting Conservation Tools in Disparate Legal Jurisdictions

doi:10.1017/9781108605991.011

10 - Shark Sanctuaries as Vehicles for Transplanting Conservation Tools in Disparate Legal Jurisdictions

from Part III

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 June 2019

Erika Techera

Edited by

Vito Breda

Show author details

Vito Breda: Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Environmental law is of relatively recent origin having emerged as a genuine sub-field of law in the 1970s. Its evolution is top down, bottom up and transnational International environmental law developed rapidly in the wake of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, leading to a proliferation of treaties that set standards and new frameworks for environmental legal protection and biodiversity conservation. There is little doubt that this international environmental law has played a significant role in addressing global environmental problems by setting standards, assisting with capacity building, and providing a forum for discussion and sharing of ideas. Nevertheless, national and sub-national legal responses to local environmental impacts and problems pre-existed international environmental law, but the environmental movement and public demand for action fuelled their expansion. Transboundary environmental concerns have also led governments to adopt regional and transnational environmental law to achieve common goals.

Type: Chapter
Information: Legal Transplants in East Asia and Oceania , pp. 233 - 255

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108605991.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

VII Bibliography

Affolder, N., ‘Looking for Law in Unusual Places: Cross-Border Diffusion of Environmental Norms’ Transnational Environmental Law (2018) https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102518000080, 1–25.Google Scholar

Atlas of Marine Protection, Global Marine Protection Agreements www.mpatlas.org/progress/targets/ accessed 11 September 2018.Google Scholar

Atlas of Marine Protection, Shark Sanctuary, www.mpatlas.org/category/shark-sanctuary/ accessed 16 May 2018.Google Scholar

Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, opened for signature 22 March 1985, 26 ILM 1529 (entered into force 22 September 1988).Google Scholar

Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris), opened for signature 16 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151 (entered into force 17 December 1975).Google Scholar

Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature 5 June 1992, 1760 UNTS 79 (entered into force 29 December 1993).Google Scholar

Convention on Biological Diversity, COP 7 Decision VII/28, Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar

Convention on Biological Diversity, Aichi Biodiversity Targets, www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ accessed 11 September 2018.Google Scholar

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, opened for signature 3 March 1973, 993 UNTS 243 (entered into force 1 July 1975).Google Scholar

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals opened for signature 23 June 1979 19 ILM 15 (entered into force 1 November 1983).Google Scholar

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat opened for signature 2 February 1971 996 UNTS 245 (entered into force 21 December 1975).Google Scholar

Crawford, D., Shark (Reaktion Books, 2008).Google Scholar

Davidson, L. N. K., ‘Shark Sanctuaries: Substance or Spin?’, Science 338 (6114) (2012), 1538.Google Scholar

Dell’Apa, A., Chad Smith, M., and Kaneshiro-Pineiro, M. Y., ‘The Influence of Culture on the International Management of Shark Finning’, Environmental Management 54 (2014), 151.Google Scholar

Dudley, N. (ed.), Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 2008).Google Scholar

FAO, ‘International Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks: Regional Shark Measures’ www.fao.org/ipoa-sharks/regional-sharks-measures/en/ accessed 11 September 2018.Google Scholar

Ferreira de Souza Dias, B., and Garforth, K., ‘Historical perspectives on the challenge of biodiversity conservation’ in Morgera, E. and Razzaque, J. Biodiversity and Nature Protection Law (Edward Elgar, 2017).Google Scholar

Forsyth, A., The ‘Transplantability’ debate in comparative law and comparative labour law: Implications for Australian borrowing from European Labour Law (Working Paper No. 38, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, The University of Melbourne 2006).Google Scholar

Johannes, R. E., ‘Traditional Marine Conservation Methods in Oceania and Their Demise’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9 (1978), 349–64.Google Scholar

Techera, E. and Klein, N. International Law of Sharks (Brill, 2017).Google Scholar

Kahn-Freund, O., ‘The uses and misuses of comparative law’, Modern Law Review 37 (1) (1974), 1.Google Scholar

Kern, K., Jörgens, H., and Jänicke, M., The diffusion of environmental policy innovations: A contribution to the globalisation of environmental policy (Discussion Papers, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Forschungsschwerpunkt Technik – Arbeit – Umwelt, Abteilung Normbildung und Umwelt, 2001) http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-114964 accessed 13 September 2018.Google Scholar

Legrand, P., ‘The Impossibility of ‘Legal Transplants’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 4 (1997), 111.Google Scholar

Marinesque, S., Kaplan, D. M. and Rodwell, L. D., ‘Global implementation of marine protected areas: Is the developing world being left behind?’, Marine Policy 36 (3) (2012), 727.Google Scholar

Myers, R. A. and Worm, B., ‘Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities’, Nature 423 (2003), 280.Google Scholar

Myers, R. A., Baum, J. K., Shepherd, T. D., Powers, S. P. and Peterson, C. H., ‘Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean’, Science 315 (2007), 1846.Google Scholar

Niue Treaty on Cooperation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement in the South Pacific Region opened for signature, 9 July 1992, 32 ILM 136 (entered into force 20 May 1993).Google Scholar

Owen, D., Shark: In peril in the sea (Allen and Unwin, 2009).Google Scholar

Protected Planet, Marine Protected Areas www.protectedplanet.net/marine accessed 11 September 2018.Google Scholar

Protected Planet, Protected areas coverage in 2018 www.protectedplanet.net/marine accessed 11 September 2018.Google Scholar

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, opened for signature 16 September 1987, 26 ILM 154 (entered into force 1 January 1989).Google Scholar

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) UN Doc A/CONF.151/26 (14 June 1992).Google Scholar

Sand, P. H., Transnational Environmental Law: Lessons in Global Change (Kluwer Law International, 1999).Google Scholar

Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2006) Guidelines for developing national legislation for the protection of traditional knowledge and expressions of culture based on the Pacific Model Law 2002 www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/spc/spc001en.pdf accessed 7 September 2018.Google Scholar

Shark Research Institute, Global Shark Attack File www.sharkattackfile.net/incidentlog.htm accessed 11 September 2018.Google Scholar

Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, Sustainable Development Goal 14 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg14 accessed 11 September 2018.Google Scholar

Techera, E. J., ‘A review of Marine Protected Area legislation in Australia’ in Fitzsimons, J. and Wescott, G. (eds.), Big, Bold and Blue: Lessons from Australia’s Marine Protected Areas (CSIRO Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar

Techera, E., ‘Marine Protected Areas: contemporary challenges and developments’ in Hussain, D. and Karim, M. S. (eds.), International Marine Environmental Law and Policy (Routledge, 2018).Google Scholar

Techera, E. J., ‘Protected Area Management in Vanuatu’, Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law 2 (2) (2005), 107.Google Scholar

Techera, E., ‘Safeguarding Indigenous Bio-Cultural Heritage in the South Pacific Small Island States’, Policy Matters 17 (2010), 29.Google Scholar

The Pew Charitable Trust, Pacific Islands Collaborate to Enforce World’s First Regional Shark Sanctuary www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2016/04/21/pacific-islands-collaborate-to-enforce-worlds-first-regional-shark-sanctuary accessed 11 September 2018.Google Scholar

The Pew Charitable Trusts, Shark sanctuaries around the world www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2016/03/shark-sanctuaries-around-the-world accessed 11 September 2018.Google Scholar

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3 (entered into force 16 November 1994).Google Scholar

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 9 May 1992, 1771 UNTS 107, art. 3 (1) (entered into force 24 March 1994)Google Scholar

Ward-Paige, C. and Worm, B., ‘Global evaluation of shark sanctuaries’, Global Environmental Change 47 (2017), 174.Google Scholar

Warner, R. and Marsden, S., Transboundary Environmental Governance: Inland, Coastal and Marine Perspectives (Ashgate Publishing, 2013).Google Scholar

Watson, A., ‘Comparative Law and Legal Change’, Cambridge Law Journal 37 (1978), 313.Google Scholar

Watson, A., Legal Transplants (University of Georgia Press, 1993).Google Scholar

Wiener, J. B., ‘Something Borrowed for Something Blue: Legal Transplants and the Evolution of Global Environmental Law’, Ecology Law Quarterly 27 (2001), 1295.Google Scholar

Yang, T. and Percival, R. V., ‘The Emergence of Global Environmental Law’, Ecology Law Quarterly 36 (3) (2009), 615.Google Scholar