Rio + 20: What Difference Has Two Decades Made to State Practice in the Regulation of Invasive Alien Species?

Riley, S

Rio + 20: What Difference Has Two Decades Made to State Practice in the Regulation of Invasive Alien Species?

Riley, S

Permalink

Publisher:: Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary, c1994-
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 2014, 38 (2), pp. 371 - 424
Issue Date:: 2014-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published VersionAdobe PDF (713.12 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Riley, S https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8079-7069	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 2014, 38 (2), pp. 371 - 424	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1091-9724	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/31100
dc.description.abstract	ABSTRACT Invasive alien species (IAS) are alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or other species. Article 8(h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) requires the contracting parties to prevent the introduction of or control or eradicate those alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species. Members are also required to lodge National Reports with the Secretariat of the CBD, specifying how they are fulfilling their international obligations with respect to IAS. While the threats to biodiversity posed by IAS have been extensively documented,to date, no study has examined states perceptions of their IAS regimes. This Article collects and analyzes information available from the CBD National Reports to consider what members themselves have identified as their regulatory strengths and weaknesses. Against this backdrop, the Article evaluates the effectiveness of international environmental law in guiding domestic regimes, highlighting that where international law is imprecise or inconsistent, it can hinder the development of successful State practice.	en_US
dc.publisher	Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary, c1994-	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review	en_US
dc.title	Rio + 20: What Difference Has Two Decades Made to State Practice in the Regulation of Invasive Alien Species?	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	38	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.volume	38	en_US

Abstract:

ABSTRACT Invasive alien species (IAS) are alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or other species. Article 8(h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) requires the contracting parties to prevent the introduction of or control or eradicate those alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species. Members are also required to lodge National Reports with the Secretariat of the CBD, specifying how they are fulfilling their international obligations with respect to IAS. While the threats to biodiversity posed by IAS have been extensively documented,to date, no study has examined states perceptions of their IAS regimes. This Article collects and analyzes information available from the CBD National Reports to consider what members themselves have identified as their regulatory strengths and weaknesses. Against this backdrop, the Article evaluates the effectiveness of international environmental law in guiding domestic regimes, highlighting that where international law is imprecise or inconsistent, it can hinder the development of successful State practice.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/31100