Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:38:21.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adversarial Legalism and Biodiversity Protection in the United States and the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2018

Yaffa Epstein
Yaffa Epstein*
Affiliation:
Uppsala University, Faculty of Law, Uppsala (Sweden). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article compares the use of litigation to enforce species protection law in the European Union (EU) with that of the United States (US). Recent legal disputes over wolf hunting on both continents offer useful case studies. Focusing on three aspects of litigation – namely, (i) against whom claims are brought, (ii) who can bring claims, and (iii) the types of claim that can be brought – the analysis contrasts US-style adversarial legalism with its European counterpart, or ‘Eurolegalism’, and assesses what each approach is able to deliver in terms of the legal protection of wolves. It is argued that Eurolegalism helps to explain the development of species protection law in the EU and its similarities to and differences from the American experience.

Keywords

EU Habitats DirectiveUS Endangered Species ActWolfFederalismEurolegalismAdversarial legalism
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , November 2018 , pp. 491 - 513
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

Thanks are owed to Jan Darpö, Anna Jonsson Cornell, Brad Karkkainen, Gabriel Michanek, Ylva Arvidsson, Sanja Bogojević, Melina Malafry, Dorota Leczykiewicz, Anna-Sara Lind, Agnes Hellner, Chris Hilson, Andreas Hofmann, and the participants in the Uppsala University American Studies Higher Research Seminar and the Uppsala University Environmental Law Higher Seminar, as well as two anonymous reviewers, for very helpful comments. This research was supported by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.

References

1 Babcock, H.M., ‘The Sad Story of the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Reintroduction Program’ (2013) 24(1) Fordham Environmental Law Review, pp. 25–62 Google Scholar, at 48; Epstein, Y., ‘Population-Based Species Management across Legal Boundaries: The Bern Convention, Habitats Directive, and the Gray Wolf in Scandinavia’ (2013) 25 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, pp. 549–587 Google Scholar, at 577.

2 Williams, M., ‘Lessons from the Wolf Wars: Recovery v. Delisting under the Endangered Species Act’ (2015) 27(1) Fordham Environmental Law Review, pp. 106–156 Google Scholar, at 131; Epstein, Y., ‘Favourable Conservation Status for Species: Examining the Habitats Directive’s Key Concept through a Case Study of the Swedish Wolf’ (2016) 28(2) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 221–244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 223–5.

3 E.g., Fitzgerald, E.A., Wolves, Courts & Public Policy: The Children of the Night Return to the Northern Rocky Mountains (Lexington Books, 2015)Google Scholar; Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, Request for a Preliminary Ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, HFD:2017:182 (seeking answers to questions on when wolves may be hunted under the Habitats Directive, n. 5 below).

4 E.g., Sierra Club v. Clark, 577 F. Supp. 783, 786 (1984) (involving a request from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to allow a wolf hunting season with a bag limit of 50 wolves, which was rejected by federal officials); European Commission, Motiverat yttrande till föjld av landets underlåtenhet att uppfylla sina skyldigheter enligt artiklarna 12 och 16 i direktiv 92/43/EEG om bevarande av livsmiljöer samt vilda djur och växter (Reasoned Opinion pertaining to the Country’s Failure to Fulfil its Obligations according to Articles 12 and 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora) in Infringement Proceeding 2010/4200 (2011) (criticizing Sweden’s policies on wolf hunting for violating EU law).

5 [1992] OJ L 206/7.

6 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (1973); Pub. L. 93-205 (28 Dec. 1973).

7 However, see Vogel, D., Toffel, M. & Post, D., ‘Environmental Federalism in the European Union and the United States’, in F. Wijen, K. Zoeteman & J. Pieters (eds), A Handbook of Globalisation and Environmental Policy: National Government Interventions in a Global Arena (Edward Elgar, 2012), pp. 321–361 Google Scholar. The proposition that the US maintains more centralized control than the EU has, counter-intuitively, been shown to be false in several areas of environmental law, in particular climate change and the regulation of waste packaging.

8 Ruhl, J.B., ‘The ESA’s Fall from Grace in the Supreme Court’ (2012) 36(2) Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 487–532 Google Scholar, at 496; Schwartz, M.W., ‘The Performance of the Endangered Species Act’ (2008) 39 Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, & Systematics, pp. 279–299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Glitzenstein, E.R., ‘Citizen Suits’, in D. Baur & Wm R. Irvin (eds), Endangered Species Act: Law, Policy and Perspectives (American Bar Association, 2010), pp. 260–291 Google Scholar, at 276–7.

10 Faure, M.G. & Johnston, J.S., ‘The Law and Economics of Environmental Federalism: Europe and the United States Compared’ (2009) 27(3) Virginia Environmental Law Journal, pp. 205–274 Google Scholar, at 217.

11 Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html.

12 Kagan, R., Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law (Harvard University Press, 2001), pp. 3, 11 Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., p. 9.

14 Ibid., p. 3.

15 Ibid., pp. 19–25.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., p. 27.

18 Ibid., p. 9.

19 Ibid., p. 218.

20 Kelemen, R.D., Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union (Harvard University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Kelemen, R.D., The Rules of Federalism: Institutions and Regulatory Politics in the EU and Beyond (Harvard University Press, 2004), pp. 1, 23 Google Scholar.

22 Kelemen, n. 20 above, pp. 1–4, 8.

23 Kelemen, n. 21 above, p. 52.

24 Ibid., p. 53.

25 Trouwborst, A., ‘Living with Success – and with Wolves: Addressing the Legal Issues Raised by the Unexpected Homecoming of a Controversial Carnivore’ (2014) 23(3) European Energy & Environmental Law Review, pp. 89–101 Google Scholar, at 90.

26 E.g., Italy, France and the United Kingdom (UK): see Chichowski, R.A., The European Court and Civil Society: Litigation, Mobilization and Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 E.g., Case C-530/11, European Commission v. United Kingdom, EU:C:2014:67.

28 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1).

29 Price v. United States, 174 U.S. 373, 375–76 (1899).

30 Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (2013).

31 Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2011).

32 May, J.R., ‘Now More Than Ever: Trends in Environmental Citizen Suits at 30’ (2003) 33(9) Widener Law Review, pp. 1–48 Google Scholar, at 2.

33 US Constitution, Amend. XI; Melious, J.O., ‘Enforcing the Endangered Species Act against the States’ (2001) 25(3) William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, pp. 605–674 Google Scholar, at 673.

34 Melious, ibid.

35 S. George & W.J. Snape III, ‘State Endangered Species Acts’, in Baur & Irvin, n. 9 above, pp. 344–59, at 351.

36 [2006] OJ L 264/13.

37 Schoukens, H., ‘Balancing On or Over the Edge of Non-Compliance’ (2016) 25(6) European Energy and Environmental Law Review, pp. 178–195 Google Scholar.

38 Case C-240/09, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie v. Slovak Republic [2011] ECR I-1285, EU:C:2011:125, para. 50.

39 Cases C-404/12 and C-405/12, Council and Commission v. Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe [2015] EU:C:2015:5; Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P, Council, Parliament and Commission v. Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht [2015] EU:C:2015:4.

40 Krämer, L.. ‘Access to Environmental Justice: The Double Standards of the ECJ’ (2017) 14(2) Journal of European Environmental & Planning Law, pp. 159–185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, Draft Findings and Recommendation of the Compliance Committee with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2008/32 (2017); Aarhus Convention Bureau, Draft Decision VI/8f concerning Compliance by the European Union with its Obligations under the Convention, ECE/MP.PP/2017/25 (2017).

42 16 U.S.C. § 1540(e)(1).

43 E.g., Case C-103/00, Commission v. Greece [2002] ECR I-04711, in which Greece prohibited disturbance to sea turtle habitat but did not adequately enforce its prohibitions.

44 The enforcement of EU law in general is achieved largely through private litigation in the national courts: Blauberger, M. & Kelemen, R.D., ‘Can Courts Rescue National Democracy? Judicial Safeguards against Democratic Backsliding in the EU’ (2017) 24(3) Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 321–336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 326–7.

45 16 U.S.C. § 1540.

46 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

47 Ibid., p. 561.

48 Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-500 (18 Oct. 1972); 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.

49 Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167, 180–83 (2000).

50 Buzbee, W.W., ‘Expanding the Zone, Tilting the Field: Zone of Interests and Article III Standing Analysis after Bennett v. Spear’ (1997) 49(4) Administrative Law Review, pp. 763–824 Google Scholar, at 778–9.

51 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 152, 158–59 (1997).

52 Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, n. 49 above, p. 181.

53 But see Sunstein, C.R., ‘Standing for Animals (with Notes on Animal Rights)’ (2000) 47(5) UCLA Law Review, pp. 1333–1368 Google Scholar, at 1342–52 (arguing that basing standing on human injury makes protection of some species more difficult).

54 Humane Society v. Jewell, 76 F.Supp.3d 69, 105 (D.D.C., 2014). This case was partially overturned on other grounds in Humane Society v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir., 2017), discussed below.

55 Humane Society v. Jewell, ibid., pp. 105–6.

56 Ibid., p. 106.

57 Ibid.

58 J. Darpö, ‘Effective Justice? Synthesis Report of the Study on the Implementation of Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention in the Member States of the European Union’, European Commission, 2013-10-11/Final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/synthesis%20report%20on%20access%20to%20justice.pdf.

59 Ibid., p. 12.

60 Schwerdtfeger, A., ‘Schutznormtheorie and Aarhus Convention: Consequences for the German Law’ (2007) 4(4) Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, pp. 270–277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 276; Environmental Remedies Act (Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz).

61 Darpö, n. 58 above, p. 13.

62 Art. 9 Aarhus Convention.

63 Art. 2(5) Aarhus Convention.

64 Case C-240/09, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v. Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej Republiky, EU:C:2011:125.

65 Ibid., para. 50.

66 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] C 326/391.

67 Case C-243/15, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v. Obvodný úrad Trenčín, EU:C:2016:838.

68 Darpö, J., ‘Biological Diversity in the Public Interest’, in Dahlberg, M. (ed.), De Lege (Iustus Förlag, 2009), pp. 201–236 Google Scholar, at 203.

69 Ibid., p. 203.

70 Reichel, J., ‘Judicial Control in a Globalised Legal Order: A One Way Track? An Analysis of the Case C-263/08 Djurgården-Lilla Värtan’ (2010) 3(2) Review of European Administrative Law, pp. 69–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 69.

71 Environmental Code (1998:808), Ch. 16, s. 13.

72 Reichel, n. 70 above, p. 70.

73 Case C-263/08, Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v. Stockholms Kommun [2009] EU:C:2009:631, para. 45.

74 Epstein, Y. & Darpö, J., ‘The Wild Has No Words: Environmental NGOs Empowered to Speak for Protected Species as Swedish Courts Apply EU and International Environmental Law’ (2013) 10(3) Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, pp. 250–261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 256.

75 Ibid., p. 255.

76 Jaktförordning [Hunting Regulation] (1987:905), s. 23(a) and (c).

77 Ibid., s. 23(a).

78 Ibid., s. 23(c).

79 Epstein & Darpö, n. 74 above, p. 255.

80 Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen v. Naturvårdsverket [Swedish Society for Nature Conservation v. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency], Cases 23206-11 & 21255-11, Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm [Stockholm Administrative Court] (2011).

81 J. Gustafsson, ‘The Kynna Wolf’, The Anthropocene: A History of the World, 24 Feb. 2015, available at: http://anthropocene.name/student-hub/artifacts/kynna_wolf.

82 Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen v. Naturvårdsverket [Swedish Society for Nature Conservation v. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency], Case 2687-12, Högsta Förvaltningsdomstol [Supreme Administrative Court] (2012).

83 Cases 4390-12 & 4396-12, Kammarrätten i Stockholm [Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal] (2013).

84 Darpö, J. & Epstein, Y., ‘Thrown to the Wolves: Sweden Once Again Flouts EU Standards on Species Protection and Access to Justice’ (2015) 1 Nordic Environmental Law Journal, pp. 7–20 Google Scholar, at 8–9.

85 Ibid., p. 9.

86 Ibid. In accordance with the EU legal doctrine of indirect effect, broad and opaque national provisions should be interpreted harmoniously with corresponding EU legal provisions to the fullest extent possible, but national courts cannot be expected to effectively change the content of a national provision that explicitly contravenes EU law: see D. Chalmers, G. Davies & G. Monti, European Union Law, 3rd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 316–25.

87 Ref. 79, Högsta Förvaltningsdomstol [Supreme Administrative Court] (2015).

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid.

90 Swedish National Veterinary Institute, ‘Licensjakt varg 2016’ [‘Licensed Hunting of Wolves 2016’], 12 Feb. 2016, available at: http://www.sva.se/djurhalsa/vilda-djur/stora-rovdjur/licensjakt-pa-varg/vargjakt-2016 (in Swedish).

91 Länsstyrelsen i Värmlands län v. Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen [Värmlands County Board v. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation], Cases 2406-2408-16 and 2628-2630-16 (2016).

92 Ref. 89, Högsta Förvaltningsdomstol [Supreme Administrative Court] (2016).

93 Swedish National Veterinary Institute, ‘Licensjakt på varg 2018’ [‘Licensed Hunting of Wolves 2018’], available at: http://www.sva.se/djurhalsa/vilda-djur/stora-rovdjur/licensjakt-pa-varg/licensjakt-pa-varg-2018 (in Swedish).

94 Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P, Council, Parliament and Commission v. Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht, n. 39 above; Cases C-404 and 405/12, Council and Commission v. Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe, n. 39 above.

95 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(a).

96 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(c); Glitzenstein, n. 9 above, p. 261.

97 Art. 2(1) Habitats Directive.

98 16 U.S.C § 1531(b).

99 Art. 2(2) Habitats Directive.

100 Goble, D.D., ‘The Endangered Species Act: What We Talk About When We Talk About Recovery’ (2009) 49(1) Natural Resources Journal, pp. 1–44 Google Scholar.

101 Epstein, n. 2 above; Williams, n. 2 above.

102 Epstein, n. 2 above; Williams, n. 2 above.

103 16 U.S.C § 1532(3). In other words, no longer endangered or threatened according the criteria set out in 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1).

104 Goble, n. 100 above, p. 3.

105 16 U.S.C. § 1532(15).

106 16 U.S.C. § 1535.

107 D.C. Baur & Wm R. Irvin, ‘Overview’, in Baur & Irvin, n. 9 above, pp. 1–7.

108 16 U.S.C. § 1533.

109 Goble, n. 100 above; Bruskotter, J.T. et al., ‘Removing Protections for Wolves and the Future of the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1973)’ (2013) 7(4) Conservation Letters, pp. 401–407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 402–3.

110 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

111 Humane Society v. Jewell, n. 54 above, citing Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Brock, 823 F.2d 626.

112 E.g., Williams, n. 2 above, pp. 147–8; Fitzgerald, n. 3 above, pp. 86–95.

113 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16).

114 Policy regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act, 61 Fed. Reg. 4722, 4722 (7 Feb. 1996).

115 Fitzgerald, n. 3 above, pp. 86–100.

116 Humane Society v. Zinke, n. 54 above; Humane Society v. Jewell, n. 54 above, p. 100.

117 Humane Society v. Jewell, n. 54 above, p. 110.

118 Humane Societyv. Zinke, n. 54 above, p. 600.

119 Art. 2(1) Habitats Directive.

120 Trouwborst, A., Boitani, L. & Linnell, J.D.C., ‘Interpreting “Favourable Conservation Status” for Large Carnivores in Europe: How Many are Needed and How Many are Wanted?’ (2017) 26(1) Biodiversity and Conservation, pp. 37–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 European Commission, Additional Reasoned Opinion in Infringement Proceeding 2010/4200 (Swedish), 19 June 2015, pp. 10–2; see, e.g., Överklagande av Länsstyrelsens i Gävleborgs län beslut om utökad tilldelning för licensjakt efter varg i Gävleborgs län 2016, länsstyrelsens dnr 218-743-16 [Appeal of the County Board in Gävleborg County’s Decision on Increased Bag Limit for the Licensed Wolf Hunt in Gävleborg County 2016], 4 Feb. 2016, p. 2 (in Swedish) (describing the appellant’s argument that wolves had not reached favourable conservation status), available at: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i-miljoarbetet/rattsinformation/beslut/varg/2016-overprov-licens/beslut-inhibition-licenssjakt-gavleborg-20160204.pdf.

122 European Commission, n. 4 above, p. 8.

123 Epstein & Darpö, n. 74 above, p. 252.

124 Darpö & Epstein, n. 84 above, p. 11.

125 A.J. McConville & G.M. Tucker, ‘Review of Favourable Conservation Status and Birds Directive: Article 2 Interpretation within the European Union’, Natural England Commissioned Reports, NECR176, 17 Mar. 2015, p. 97; ‘En hållbar rovdjurspolitik: Regeringens proposition’ [‘A Sustainable Carnivore Policy: Government’s Proposition’] 2012/13:191 (2013), p. 36.

126 En hållbar rovdjurspolitik: Regeringens proposition, ibid., p. 36.

127 European Commission, n. 121 above, pp. 11–2.

128 Ibid., p. 12.

129 Länsstyrelsen i Värmlands län v. Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen, n. 91 above.

130 Ibid., p. 49.

131 Darpö, J., ‘The Commission: A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing? On Infringement Proceedings as a Legal Device for the Enforcement of EU Law on the Environment, Using Swedish Wolf Management as an Example’ (2016) 13(3–4) Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, pp. 270–293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

132 16 U.S. Code § 1533 (c).

133 US Fish and Wildlife Service, Delisting Report, available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/delisting-report.

134 Scott, J.M. et al., ‘Recovery of Imperiled Species under the ESA: The Need for a New Approach’ (2005) 3(7) Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, pp. 383–389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

135 Art. 19 Habitats Directive.

136 European Commission, Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, Feb. 2007, pp. 14–5, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/guidance/pdf/guidance_en.pdf .

137 16 U.S.C. § 1533; Art. 19 Habitats Directive.

138 16 U.S.C. § 1533.

139 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2)(A).

140 J.B. Ruhl, ‘Listing Endangered and Threatened Species’, in Baur & Irvin, n. 9 above, pp. 16–39, at 27.

141 Environmental Conservation Online System, ‘U.S. Federal and Endangered and Threatened Species by Calendar Year’, available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listings-count-by-year-report.

142 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(A).

143 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(a).

144 Olson, E.R. et al., ‘Pendulum Swings in Wolf Management Led to Conflict, Illegal Kills, and a Legislated Wolf Hunt’ (2015) 8(5) Conservation Letters, pp. 351–360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 352.

145 Ibid.

146 Proposal to Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portion of the Coterminous United States; Proposal to Establish Three Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves, 65 Fed. Reg. 43450 (12 July 2000).

147 E.g., Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, ‘Minnesota Wolf Management Plan’, Feb. 2001, available at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/stateplans/pdf/mn-wolf-plan-01.pdf.

148 Final Rule to Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Establishment of Two Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves, 68 Fed. Reg. 15804 (1 Apr. 2003).

149 Defenders of Wildlife v. US Department of the Interior, 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D.Or., 2005); National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D.Vt., 2005).

150 Final Rule to Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and to Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 74 Fed. Reg. 15123 (2 Apr. 2009).

151 Williams, n. 2 above, pp. 138–9.

152 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, ‘The 2009 Montana Wolf Hunting Season’, 29 Dec. 2009, available at: http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=41454; Idaho Fish and Game, ‘Wolf Management/Status Timeline’, available at: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/wolves/?getPage=161.

153 Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D.Mont., 2010).

154 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10, s. 1713, 125 Stat. 38 (2011).

155 Perry, S., ‘The Gray Wolf Delisting Rider and State Management under the Endangered Species Act’ (2012) 39(2) Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 439–473 Google Scholar, at 452.

156 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, n. 154 above. The provision was upheld in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar, 672 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir., 2012).

157 P. Taylor, ‘Wolf Delisting Survives Budget Fight as Settlement Crumbles’, The New York Times, 11 Apr. 2011, available at: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/11/11greenwire-wolf-delisting-survives-budget-fight-as-settle-61474.html?emc=eta1&pagewanted=print.

158 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population’s Status as an Experimental Population, 77 Fed. Reg. 55530 (10 Sept. 2012).

159 Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, 68 F.Supp.3d 193 (D.D.C., 2014).

160 Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, No. 14-5300 (DC.Cir., 2017).

161 Perry, n. 155 above.

162 J. Hayden, ‘2015 Idaho Wolf Monitoring Progress Report’, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Mar. 2016, available at: https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/idaho-wolf-monitoring-progress-report-2015.pdf.

163 Olson et al., n. 144 above, p. 352.

164 Art. 19 Habitats Directive.

165 Ibid.

166 Hochkirch, A. et al., ‘Europe Needs a New Vision for a Natura 2020 Network’ (2013) 6(6) Conservation Letters, pp. 462–467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 463; Pillai, A. & Heptinstall, D., ‘Twenty Years of the Habitats Directive: A Case Study on Species Reintroduction, Protection and Management’ (2013) 15(1) Environmental Law Review, pp. 27–246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 42–3; Cardoso, P., ‘Habitats Directive Species Lists: Urgent Need of Revision’ (2011) 5 Insect Conservation & Diversity, pp. 169–174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

167 European Commission, ‘Enlargement and Nature Law’, 6 Oct. 2016, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/enlargement/index_en.htm.

168 Environmental Conservation Online System, n. 141 above.

169 Environmental Conservation Online System, ‘Delisted Species’, available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/delistingReport.jsp.

170 Greenwald, D.N., Suckling, K.F. & Taylor, M., ‘The Listing Record’, in D.D. Goble, J.M. Scott & F.W. Davis (eds), The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Vol. 1 – Renewing the Conservation Promise (Island Press, 2006), pp. 51–67 Google Scholar; M. Wines, ‘Endangered or Not, but at Least No Longer Waiting’, The New York Times, 6 Mar. 2013, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/science/earth/long-delayed-rulings-on-endangered-species-are-coming.html (noting several species had been candidates for protection for 20 to nearly 40 years).

171 J.B.C. Harris et al., ‘Conserving Imperiled Species: A Comparison of the IUCN Red List and U.S. Endangered Species Act’ (2012) 5(1) Conservation Letters, pp. 64–72, at 65; Wines, n. 170 above.

172 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Coterminous United States; Proposal to Establish Three Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves, 65 Fed. Reg. 43457 (13 July 2000); Perry, n. 155 above, pp. 449–50.

173 Baier, L.E., Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act (Rowman and Littlefield, 2015), pp. 178 Google Scholar, 277–8.

174 Kagan, n. 12, pp. 207–28.

175 Nathanson, K., Lundquist, T.R. & Bordelon, S., ‘Developments in ESA Citizen Suits and Citizen Enforcement of Wildlife Laws’ (2015) 29(3) Natural Resources & Environment, pp. 15–18 Google Scholar.

176 Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, n. 154 above.

177 Bray, Z., ‘The Hidden Rise of “Efficient” (De)listing’ (2014) 73(2) Maryland Law Review, pp. 389–457 Google Scholar.

178 Verschuuren, J., ‘Effectiveness of Nature Protection Legislation in the European Union and the United States: The Habitats Directive and the Endangered Species Act’, in M. Dieterich & J. van der Straaten (eds), Cultural Landscapes and Land Use: The Nature Conservation: Society Interface (Springer, 2004), pp. 39–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 65.

179 Kelemen, n. 20 above, p. 24.

180 Ibid., p. 92.

181 Ruhl, J.B., ‘Cooperative Federalism and the Endangered Species Act: A Comparative Assessment and Call for Change’, in K. Arha & B.H. Thompson, Jr. (eds), The Endangered Species Act and Federalism: Effective Conservation through Greater State Commitment (RFF Press, 2011), pp. 35–54 Google Scholar.

182 Ibid., pp. 44–5.

183 Ibid., p. 45.

184 Ibid., pp. 45–6.

185 Hilson, C., ‘The Impact of Brexit on the Environment: Exploring the Dynamics of a Complex Relationship’ (2018) 7(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 89–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 96, 102–3 (in which Hilson argues that while immediate large-scale post-Brexit change in environmental policy is unlikely, the loss of EU enforcement and accountability mechanisms may lead to a reduction in environmental protection).

186 Art. 1, Treaty on European Union (TEU), Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009 [2010] OJ C 83/13, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXT.

187 V. Gravey, Does the European Union Have a Reverse Gear? Environmental Policy Dismantling: 1992–2014 (PhD dissertation, University of East Anglia, 2016), available at: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/59419; Gravey, V. & Jordan, A., ‘Does the European Union Have a Reverse Gear? Policy Dismantling in a Hyperconsensual Polity’ (2016) 23(8) Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 1180–1198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

188 Trouwborst, A. et al., ‘Europe’s Biodiversity Avoids Fatal Setback’ (2017) 355(6321) Science, p. 140 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

189 Darpö, n. 131 above.

190 A. Hofmann, ‘Left to Interest Groups? On the Prospects for Enforcing Environmental Law in the European Union’, conference paper, ‘The Future of Environmental Policy in the European Union’ workshop, 19–20 Jan. 2017, University of Gothenburg (Sweden), available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312951147_Left_to_interest_groups_On_the_prospects_for_enforcing_environmental_law_in_the_European_Union.

191 C. Hilson, ‘The Visibility of Environmental Rights in the EU Legal Order: Eurolegalism in Action?’ (2018, forthcoming) Journal of European Public Policy, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1329335.

192 Ibid., p. 16.

193 Ibid., p. 18.