Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:38:20.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

By
Erika Techera
Edited by
Vito Breda
Vito Breda
Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland
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
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.)

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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×