Towards Bridging the Accountability Gap for International Wildlife Trafficking: The Efforts of the Wildlife Justice Commission

Elodie Théobald

doi:10.37974/alf.310

Abstract

Over the past years, states have sought increased accountability through the development of monitoring review and non-compliance management mechanisms enshrined in a number of international conventions. Civil society has also contributed to this goal by setting up so-called Opinion Tribunals. This article primarily focuses on initiatives regarding International Environmental Law, and especially international wildlife trafficking. In particular, this opinion piece presents the model developed by the Wildlife Justice Commission (WJC) as one avenue towards increased accountability at the international level for wildlife crimes.

Highlights

There is an increasing need for more accountability in the international sphere
When the responsibility regimes do not constitute an effective means to ensure the enforcement of International Environmental Law, states have relied on a multitude of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) in order to adopt mechanisms designed to induce compliance and increase accountability towards other state parties and institutions established by these MEAs.[29]
The Wildlife Justice Commission (WJC)’s objective is to contribute to filling in the accountability gap for states and individuals when it comes to wildlife trafficking

Summary

Introduction

In the field of International Environmental Law, this is all the more the case in that the two traditional regimes of responsibility, for states and individuals, namely state responsibility and international criminal responsibility, are largely ill-equipped to address violations of this body of law.[1] Both states and civil society have come forward with other mechanisms to hold states and/or individuals accountable Accountability in this context is ‘the justification of an actor’s performance vis-à-vis others, the assessment or judgement of that performance against certain standards, and the possible imposition of consequences if that actor fails to live up to applicable standards’.2. This paper will analyse the particular challenges linked to the implementation of the traditional regimes of responsibility in the realm of International Environmental Law, with special focus on wildlife trafficking (I) It will study the solution offered by the Non-Compliance Procedure established by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES),[7] the main international legal instrument addressing wildlife trafficking crimes (II). It will explain how the mechanism set up by the WJC participates in bridging the accountability gap for wildlife trafficking (III)

State Responsibility

Wrongful acts and attribution

The rules of invocation

International Criminal Responsibility

Wildlife Trafficking and CITES’ Autonomous Institutional Arrangements

III.1 The Mechanism of the Wildlife Justice Commission

III.1.1. Past similar efforts in the area of human rights

III.1.2. The WJC: an innovative approach

III.2.1. Accountability for wildlife trafficking

III.2.2. Bridging the accountability gap

Conclusion