Trade

Displaying 121 - 130 of 165
Titlesort descending Summary
THROWING CAUTION TO THE WIND: THE GLOBAL BEAR PARTS TRADE
Throwing Caution to the Wind: The Global Bear Parts Trade


A discussion of the scope of the bear parts trade around the world, and threats to bears caused by the demand for their gallbladders for use in traditional Chinese medicine. Discusses the failure of both international and domestic law to accurately address the problem, and the need for additional legislation.
Tiger Conservation in a "Globalized" World: Tying Humans, Forests, and Tigers Together


This Paper will discuss the current trends in tiger conservation and management. Part I will discuss the statutory protections afforded to tigers in India’s Wildlife Protection Act and the operation of CITES. Part II will cover the primary reasons for renewed concern over the fate of the tiger, focusing on the demand for Asian medicines and other tiger derivatives. This Part will also discuss the current state of conservation efforts in India, focusing on how nearby rural villages have been affected by the establishment of the tiger reserves and wildlife conservation areas in India. Finally, Part III will propose some ways to begin to curb some of the demand in the international tiger derivative market and to improve community involvement and enforcement of India’s current regulations, as well as exploring potential avenues for strengthening aid efforts from and within the United States.
TRADE IN AFRICAN ELEPHANT PRODUCTS
Tunisia - Cruelty - Animal Transport (in French)
TX - Trade - Shark Fins Effective July 1, 2106: a person may not buy or offer to buy, sell or offer to sell, possess for the purpose of sale, transport, or ship for the purpose of sale, barter, or exchange a shark fin regardless of where the shark was taken or caught. A person who violates Section 66.2161 or a proclamation adopted under that section commits an offense that is a Class B Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.
U.S. IVORY TRADE: CAN A CRACKDOWN ON TRAFFICKING SAVE THE LAST TITAN?
U.S. v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets


Plaintiff U.S. sought to forfeit the Defendant parakeets on the ground that they were imported in violation of Peruvian law and consequently, in violation of the Lacey Act.  The court held that, if even the "innocent owner" defense was available under the Lacey Act (which the court held it is not under the forfeiture provision of the statute), the claimant importer never attempted to independently confirm or verify that the parakeet species in question (brotogeris versicolorus) could be lawfully imported from Peru.  Thus, the court held the forfeiture valid where the U.S. established by probable cause to believe the Lacey Act was violated where the testimony at trial established that Peruvian Supreme Decree No. 934-73-AG prohibits from anywhere in the national territory the exportation of wild live animals coming from the forest or jungle region. 
U.S. v. Bengis


After two applications to seek compensation for South Africa were denied, the United States appealed the two orders and the 2nd Circuit held that South Africa (1) had a property interest in rock lobsters unlawfully harvested from its waters and (2) was a victim under the MVRA and VWPA. The 2nd Circuit therefore held that restitution was owed to South Africa and the case was remanded for the district court to calculate restitution.
U.S. v. Lewis


Defendant was convicted of a number of offenses related to his role in a wildlife smuggling operation. If trial did not begin within the requisite time period and defendant moved for dismissal prior to trial, the court had to dismiss the indictment, either with or without prejudice. The court held that the circumstances in the case, where it was clear that the delay in the trial caused the delay in the hearing, rather than the other way around, and where defendant repeatedly asked the court to set the case for trial and was otherwise ready to proceed to trial, plaintiff United States' pending pretrial motion could not serve as a basis for exclusion for a 117 day period. Because the delay violated the Speedy Trial Act, defendant's convictions had to be reversed, his sentences vacated, and his indictments dismissed.

Pages