Trade

Displaying 161 - 165 of 165
Titlesort descending Summary
WA - Shark - 77.15.770. Unlawful trade in shark fins--Penalty Under this Washington statute, it is unlawful to trade in shark fins, with exceptions. A person is guilty in the second degree (gross misdemeanor) if s/he sells, purchases, or processes a shark fin for commercial purposes. A person is guilty of unlawful trade in shark fins in the first degree (class C felony) if the act involves shark fins with a total market value of $250 or more, or acted with knowledge that the shark fin originated from a shark that was illegally caught.
WA - Trade - 77.15.260. Unlawful trafficking in fish, shellfish, or wildlife--Penalty This Washington statute pertains to unlawful trafficking in fish, shellfish, and wildlife. A person is guilty of unlawful trafficking in the second degree if s/he traffics in such animals with a wholesale value of less than $250 and the animals are unclassified or classified as game, food fish, shellfish, game fish, or protected wildlife. Unlawful trafficking in the first degree occurs when the animals have a value of $250 or more or the animals are classified as endangered or deleterious exotic wildlife.
WI - Import - 95.20. Import and movement of animals Under this Wisconsin statute, the importation or movement of animals may be prohibited or regulated if it is necessary to prevent the introduction or spread of a disease that threatens the health of animals or of humans.
Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc and Minister for Environment and Heritage and Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc and Animals Australia and Flinders Council


The respondent Minister made declarations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) that particular plans relating to Bennett's wallabies and Tasmanian pademelons were approved wildlife trade management plans. The applicant questioned whether the plans permitted the inhumane hunting of wallabies and treatment of joeys as well as the basis upon which the quotas were derived. The tribunal found both matters satisfactorily addressed though further monitoring measures were deemed to be prudent.
ZUCHTVIEH-EXPORT GMBH v. STADT KEMPTEN: THE TENSION BETWEEN UNIFORM, CROSS-BORDER REGULATION AND TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY In Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v. Stadt Kempten, the European Court of Justice ruled that a European Council regulation that protects animal welfare during transport applies to the stages of a journey outside of the European Union (EU), if that journey commenced within the EU. This ruling by the European Court of Justice has been praised as it improves animal transport conditions outside of the EU. However, transport companies and governments outside of the EU are less welcoming of the ruling. The ruling highlights the difficulty in determining when and how such a regulation should be applied abroad. It also raises the broader question of striking a balance between efficient and uniform regulation across borders and maintaining territorial sovereignty. As a solution to the issues raised in Zuchtvieh-Export, this Comment suggests the use of bilateral international agreements, which would reduce conflict between nations by protecting territorial sovereignty.

Pages