Can endangered species of the world rely on the international law for their safety? Discuss

This essay will attempt to discuss how the international law protects endangered species of the world. Using academic commentary and legislation it will also review the ethical, philosophical, economical and moral aspects of this area of law. The essay will also draw attention to the current issue, which has been a controversy in the preservation of endangered species of the world, but will particularly pay more attention to the protection of whales.
Ever since the days of illustrious philosophers such Plato, Aristotle, Descartes to the modern scientists there has been a lengthy wait in fighting for laws and acts to protect animals in keeping them in good health and their populations high in numbers. Long ago, most animals became extinct because of natural events, like earthquakes or volcano eruptions. Climatic changes were also a threat i.e. like the ‘beginning of the Ice Age which also led to the disappearance of certain species’ . Today, animals are in danger mostly because of human beings. In the 17th century Descartes and Plato both portraying animals as mere objects, held that ‘animals have no conscience and humans should have no moral obligation’ towards them.
However, through the advancement of technology and science Charles Darwin came up with his theory of evolution, bringing new developments and protection to endangered species, with his effort in his work there was evidence connecting humans and other species . Modern philosophers such as Tom Regan, Richard Ryder and Peter Singer all agree to the principle of ‘suffering of any other being should be counted for equally.’ Peter Singer, the utilitarian, once wrote that, ‘the most common encounter humans have with other animals is on their dinner plates.’
Academic commentators such as Peter Singer have been very influential towards the protection for animal rights, which in some way has developed considerably. The UK was the first country in the world to implement laws protecting animals. ‘In 1822 an Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle was passed by Parliament.’ However it is the 20th century that has made a crucial impact on the protection of endangered species of the world. The first general animal protection law, called the Protection of Animals Act was introduced in 1911 and has been updated several times since. Although they weren't that effective, the ‘Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the Endangered Species Conservation act of 1969’ was to demonstrate the stress on trying to protect endangered species. The convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was amended in 1975. As of 1993, it was signed by ‘120 countries and lists 675 species that cannot be commercially traded as live specimens or wildlife products because they are endangered or threatened.’ Another recent act is the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. The US congress passed this to provide resources to conservations programs focused on saving these endangered species.
CITES is the backbone for the legislation on the protection of endangered species of the world. Based on the needs of the species they are protecting, it is divided into three sections, called appendices. The species listed in the first appendix are those that are most endangered, and trading of these animals only takes place in special circumstances. Those in appendix II ‘are not necessarily in danger, though they must be monitored and controlled to prevent them from moving to appendix I’ . Those in the third list are species that have been asked for control and regulation by at least one of the countries involved in CITES. Enforcing the law is a difficult problem, ‘especially when officials responsible for the enforcement don't take it seriously, as this happens too often.’ Yet CITES does not have a Law Enforcement Working Group. It is expensive to enforce a law and yet a law is useless unless it can be enforced. However, adding further assistance to CITES is the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW), which is a ‘multi agency body comprising representatives of the organisations involved in wildlife law enforcement in the UK.’
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was formed in the year 1995. The main goal of WTO is to help the trading industry to become smooth, fair, and free and promote a more liberal trade on a global basis. It was organized to ‘become the administrator of multilateral trade and business agreements between its member nations.’ It supports all occurring negotiations for latest agreements for trade. WTO also tries to resolve trade disputes between member nations. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is also concerned about the protection of endangered species of the world and further aids CITES. The IUCNs central mission is conserving biodiversity and to ‘deliver conservation and sustainability at both the global and local level.’
In relation to international law and how it protects the endangered species of the world it is important to consider how CITES is efficient and how it is the mainly ‘significant in its regulatory system for controlling the international trade in wildlife.’ Nevertheless, the Convention has to act systematically if it was violated. The regulations give no choice to the international law but to act in accordance to its full capacity to protect endangered species of the world. The Articles in the convention are strict showing their authority is not to be taken lightly i.e. ‘Art XIV illustrates that the Convention shall in no way affect the right of Parties to adopt stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions for trade, taking, possession or transport of specimens of species included in Appendices I, II and III.’ In significance to endangered species being protected it emerges that ‘CITES has proved to be effective and though some misleading claims of CITES stating they are working perfectly,’ they are doing a satisfying job trying to protect endangered species of the world.
CITES has become one of the better known environmental treaties, partly as a result of the considerable attention it received in connection with the restrictions it imposed on the ivory trade. Despite its successes, however, ‘the text of the treaty has not kept pace with developments since it was first approved in 1973.’ CITES is no exception and although it requires parties to impose sanctions on individuals who violate its provisions it does not specify what form those sanctions should take other than that they be ‘appropriate’ . CITES exempts specimens in transit through the territory of a party ‘from the regulatory provisions of the treaty.’ In theory this prevents the unnecessary checking of wildlife products whenever they cross a border creating a loophole for smugglers, who are able to launder their goods by acquiring the necessary documentation from a party with poor enforcement and transport the goods without further inspection until they reach their final destination.
In addition, Far Eastern States which are huge markets for wildlife products have been particularly careless in regards to transport inspection. For instance, Japan was estimated to consume between ‘40% and 75% of all ivory production at the time of the ban on the international ivory trade.’ The entering of objections to the listing of a species under Arts.XV (3), XVI(2) and XXIII of CITES is generally referred to as making a ‘reservation.’
Hence, when a reservation is made the provisions of the treaty relating to the particular species do not apply as this contributes to illegal trade, making it hard even for the customs to determine the species being imported. Illegal trade nonetheless will continue due to the failure of regulatory systems and the flaw in the international protection of endangered species under CITES.
Albeit CITES protect endangered species of the world, it could be argued by focusing just on the issue of whaling, CITES failure in preventing Japanese whaling, leaving the question of whether international law may be failing to protect whales. ‘Whales have been hunted for centuries because of their oil and blubber.’ The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was formed by the signing of the document on International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in December of 1946. At that time there was great concern on the whaling industry's actions that had pushed most of the whales in the world to the brink of extinction. The IWC's responsibilities were to oversee the problem and regulate whaling and all of the laws and treaties which relate to the industry. Still, The IWC is not a ‘protectionist treaty’ but rather an ‘implementation of the Convention,’ which was limited and cannot prevent hunting. These criticisms indicate that the international law are trying to do what they were designed to do, saving endangered species.
Further to the near demise of whales, a fact to be stated that is that the number of whales has radically been reduced from 5million to 1.8million because of commercial whaling, 22% is now left. Also, around ‘100.00 dolphins annually get drowned in nets set by tuna fishing boats.’ In 1986 the IWC finally passed a moratorium on whaling which placed a ban on commercial whaling in all international waters. Along with this measure, most countries also created national laws that made whaling illegal within their waters. Numerous conservation attempts are underway to try and save the killer whale population. The whales are protected by both the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 1972 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1973.

In addition, as there is no contemporary legislation to protect whales, putting whales near to extinction, indicating that change is unlikely, the Japanese are making it bad to worse by refusing to shutdown the whaling industry. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was set up to provide for the proper ‘conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.’ Thus it can be disputed that there are deficiencies to protect cetaceans against whaling and the ICRW no longer fulfil its objectives and the IWC, being created by ICRW for the sole purpose of protection of the whales, are slow and not adequate enough to help.

Nonetheless, viewing it morally and ethically, killing of a being is justified as wrong and inexcusable. The issue of killing animals has been employed for centuries and Charles Darwin emphasizes that ‘The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.’ From the late eighteenth century, doctrine systematized by Jeremy Bentham is properly considered the father of modern Utilitarianism. It was he who made the Utilitarian principle ‘serve as the basis for a unified and comprehensive ethical system that applies, in theory at least, to every area of life.’ To the modern philosopher Peter Singer, both show their understanding and the connection between and animals and humans. There upon, the comparable comments indicate that the killing of whales is morally and ethically unjustifiable and it is of importance that Japan, out of most countries, need to acknowlege this. It has also been studied that the the cetacean brain being fully developed, whales may have an emotional life. Comparing to humans ‘a whales nervous system is similar to humans therfore there is no doubt whales don’t experience pain.’

Moreover, religious and economical basics demonstrate that the protection of whales, countries such as Japan will not change the viewings of whales and will continue to ignore the prevention of whaling. Similarly to whales, once lived throughout Africa the African elephants, ‘is now in the endangered species list due to profuse hunting by humans for ivory.’ Animal conflict has been observed more significantly by humans for the treatment towards elephants. Elephant hunters, prize African Elephants for their ivory tusks, which fetch a large premium in the underground ivory trade. This has led to a dramatic decrease in elephant population. In the 1980s, for example, there were about 1,000,000 wild African Elephants. ‘Yet with a poaching death rate of approximately 7%, or about 70,000 deaths each year, the existing population now numbers less than 600,000.’ Decisively under the African law there have been strict sanctions for the protection of the African elephants, but still illegal trade continues, signaling the weakness of the national law forcing the international to overlook their protection for African elephants.
Although extremely unsuccessful in attempting to stop the black rhino from slipping into the history books, CITES attempts to stop the eradication of species by trying to prevent the sale of their body parts. There are three appendices in which plants and animals are listed within CITES. ‘In 1976, the African elephant was placed on Appendix III, and not long after that was moved up to Appendix II.’ In October 1989, after a very heated two week battle by the CITES members, the transfer of the African elephant from Appendix II to Appendix I was then conducted. The date this went into effect was January 1990. Also, other organisations such as, the Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) work together assisting CITES to maintain and improve the protection of elephants. The African Elephant Conservation Act 1989 was provided for additional protection for the African elephant. The Act establishes an assistance program to elephant producing countries of Africa and provides for the establishment of an African Elephant Conservation Fund. In addition, the ‘Act places a moratorium on the importation of raw or worked ivory from African elephant producing countries’ that do not meet certain criteria found in the Act.

Moreover, the protection of animals has been further assisted by the link between animals and humans, with reference specifically to primates. During the last four decades of the 20th century, scientists gained a greater understanding of apes than ever before, identifying apes possess self-awareness, remarkable intelligence and an ability to communicate with signs and symbols. Geneticists startled the world by announcing that ‘chimpanzees and bonobos share 98.4 per cent of our DNA, gorillas 97.7 per cent and orangutans 96.4 per cent.’ It was also the likes of the philosophers that brought more protection for the animals, for instance Peter Singer demonstrated the importance for animal protection. Singer’s work demonstrated the development in the modern animal protection movement, which further showed the value of philosophical ideology. The Great Ape Project (GAP), co-founded by Singer, improves the protection for primates and also aims to give rights to primates. There is a little hope for primate’s survival as more organisations are coming to their aid i.e. CITES, as they are beginning to be recognised.
It has to be evidently said that endangered species of the world are not protected by international law to its full potential. Further looking at the protection of birds, the relevant case law suggest that mankind has not been nice to birds either. In R v Jungthiraparvich (peera) the Court of Appeal sentenced the defendtant to 15months of imprisonments for smuggling endangered birds. Similarly in R v Humphrey and R v Sperr the Court of Appeal sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for importing endangered birds. The Courts are doing what they do best and punishing the wrongdoer, showing that illegal tradeing with endangered animals will not be acceptable in the Court of law. However quoted by Mr Justice Gray in R v Humphrey as the ‘despicable trade’ with contrast to the lenient prison sentences and the large profits that are being made.