Wildlife exploitation. (i) Victim status and participation For wildlife exploitation, the perpetrators could be prosecuted under several substantive provisions, including for the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts under article 7(1)(k),1313 or as an indirect result of the crime of pillage under article 8(2)(b)(xvi) or possibly the destruction or appropriation of protected property under article 8(2)(a)(iv), among other crimes. These are all anthropocentric in focus.1314 To qualify as victims, individuals would have to show that they were personally affected by the misuse of the species in question, whether directly or indirectly.1315 The direct victims of wildlife exploitation are usually the species themselves. Such circumstances could arise where for example the species were a sacred religious symbol for the people in question and their mental health would be affected by its disappearance. For organizations, it would have to be shown that the species was the property of the organization and therefore the organization suffered harm as a result of the acts in question.1316 This is conceivable, for example if the organization were a collective of tribes that relied on the medicinal property of a certain species for physical and or mental well- being. Arguments have been made that the illicit trade of endangered species can harm humans due to the possibility of the promised medicinal effects of rare animals not being effective in curing human diseases, or because of humans eating bad meat from unlawfully traded 1311 Fines in Magistrates’ Court for wildlife offences were on average £5,000; whereas for environmental offences it was £50,000; WWF Report, Sentencing Wildlife Trade Offences in England and Wales Consistency, Appropriateness and the Role of Sentencing Guidelines, September 2016 (“WWF (2016)”), p.75. 1312 Xxxxxxxxxxxx (2009), p.108. 1313 Rome Statute, article 7(1)(k). See also Statute of the ICTY Article 5(i); Statute of the ICTR Article 3(i) (for the analogous provisions). 1314 See infra Chapter II(D)(3). 1315 Rule 85(a). 1316 Rule 85(b). species.1317 The former type of harm would not qualify the natural person as a victim, as they would themselves have contributed to the underlying criminal harm (the trading and killing of the protected species) by purchasing the supposedly medicinal goods.1318 The latter type of harm could potentially qualify a natural person as a victim, although it would have to be shown that they were not complicit in the provision of ille...
Wildlife exploitation. While there is no universally accepted definition of wildlife and forestry offences,641 for the purposes of this analysis, the term wildlife crime describes “the illegal taking, possession, trade or movement of animals and plants or their derivatives in contravention of international, regional, or national legislation.”642 It also includes the destruction of animals and/or plants or their derivatives. Wildlife exploitation can occur within or outside of armed conflict. It is often perpetrated by armed criminal groups or non-state actors including rebel armed forces and criminal networks.
Wildlife exploitation as crimes against humanity Critical to prosecuting wildlife exploitation as crimes against humanity would be the context in which the offences occurred.652 It would have to be demonstrated that the wildlife exploitation took place as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population pursuant to or in furtherance of a state or organisational policy. It would not be necessary to show that the wildlife exploitation was such an attack in and of itself, but a mere coincidence in time would not be sufficient. Wildlife exploitation could be perpetrated pursuant to a policy if it were conducted in an organized manner, as required under article 7(2)(a) of the Rome Statute. This would include circumstances where the State or organisation in question repeatedly failed to respond to the wildlife exploitation, despite its responsibility to do so, demonstrating its tacit support for the illegal acts. At the same time, inaction by the State or organisation would not be sufficient in and of itself to infer such a policy, without some additional indication in the evidence demonstrating the existence of a policy.653 Purely private poaching by unorganised 649 History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War 496 (Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1948) (discussing Case No. 7150); cited in Schwabach 2004, p.17. 650 Rome Statute, article 6. 651 There are reports that the Janjaweed militia, which is allegedly used by Sudanese President Xxxx Xx-Xxxxxx to conduct genocide in Darfur, is involved in elephant poaching in Chad, though it is unclear if this is connected in any way with the facts giving rise to the ICC allegations; Rose (2014), p.17. 652 Rome Statute, article 7(2)(a). 653 Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, Introduction to Crimes Against Humanity, p.5 (“A policy which has a civilian population as the object of the attack would be implemented by State or organizational action. Such a policy may, in exceptional circumstances, be implemented by a deliberate failure to take action, which is consciously aimed at encouraging such attack. The existence of such a policy cannot be inferred solely from the absence of governmental or organizational action.”). individuals or small bands of outlaws would be unlikely to meet the State or organisational policy requirement. Large-scale wildlife exploitation is likely to be motivated by financial incentives. That would not prevent it qualifying as a crime against humanity, as ...
Wildlife exploitation
