Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Alison HutchinsonORCiD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
As the global biodiversity crisis continues, it is important to examine the legislative protection that is in place for species around the world. Such legislation not only includes environmental or wildlife law, but also trade law, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which gets transposed into national legislation. This commentary analyses legislative definitions of wildlife, whether or not that includes fish, which has implications for fish welfare, use of fish for food security, and biodiversity conservation when fish, or other wildlife, are excluded. Through a legislative content analysis of the 183 parties’ legislation of CITES, we explore whether fish are afforded the same protections as other species by being included in legal definitions of wildlife. We found that while a majority of CITES parties’ legislation appear to define fish as wildlife, there are a number of instances where this is unclear or not the case, and this could have significant ramifications for the welfare of non-human animals, their use, and conservation.
Author(s): Wyatt T, Friedman K, Hutchinson A
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Liverpool Law Review
Year: 2021
Volume: 42
Pages: 485-492
Print publication date: 01/10/2021
Online publication date: 12/07/2021
Acceptance date: 03/07/2021
Date deposited: 22/03/2024
ISSN (print): 0144-932X
ISSN (electronic): 1572-8625
Publisher: Springer
URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-021-09285-0
DOI: 10.1007/s10991-021-09285-0
Data Access Statement: The datasets compiled for this article and its analysis can be obtained by contacting the authors.
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
