Enhancing Global Wildlife Protection: The Impact of Amendments to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species

Introduction

The global protection of migratory species has emerged as a critical pillar of international environmental law, reflecting the shared responsibility of nations to safeguard biodiversity across borders. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), also known as the Bonn Convention, represents a cornerstone of this effort, aiming to conserve terrestrial, aquatic, and avian migratory species throughout their ranges since its inception in 1979 (CMS, 1979). Over the years, amendments to the CMS and its appendices have played a pivotal role in adapting the treaty to emerging ecological challenges and expanding its scope to include additional species and conservation measures. This article examines the impact of amendments to the CMS on global wildlife protection, delving into the legal frameworks that govern treaty adoption and implementation, the monist and dualist approaches to international law, and the relevance of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCTL) of 1969. Through this analysis, the article seeks to elucidate how states can effectively engage with the CMS to enhance wildlife conservation on a global scale.

The amendments to the CMS have often focused on updating the appendices that list species requiring protection, as well as refining procedural and substantive provisions to strengthen cooperation among member states. These amendments are critical for addressing new threats such as climate change, habitat loss, and illegal trade in wildlife. However, the effectiveness of these amendments hinges on how they are incorporated into national legal systems and whether states adhere to their international obligations. This article also explores how a specific country (referred to herein as “the country” for generality, as no specific state was mentioned in the request) navigates the legal intricacies of treaty adoption, whether through a monist or dualist approach, and how its relationship with the VCTL 1969 informs its treaty-making practices.

The Evolution and Impact of Amendments to the CMS

The CMS was signed in Bonn, Germany, on June 23, 1979, and entered into force in 1983 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It is the only global intergovernmental organization exclusively dedicated to the conservation of migratory species, with 133 parties as of recent updates (CMS, 2020). The convention operates through two primary appendices: Appendix I lists species that are endangered and for which parties must provide strict protection, while Appendix II lists species with an unfavorable conservation status that require international cooperation through agreements (CMS Convention Text, 1979). Amendments to these appendices and the convention’s provisions are proposed and adopted during the Conference of the Parties (COP), which meets approximately every three years.

One of the most significant impacts of CMS amendments has been the inclusion of new species under protection. For instance, during the 13th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP13) held in Gandhinagar, India, in 2020, ten additional migratory species, including the Asian Elephant, Jaguar, and Great Indian Bustard, were added to the CMS appendices (UNEP, 2020). Such amendments reflect the convention’s adaptability to emerging conservation priorities and scientific findings. They also underscore the importance of international collaboration, as migratory species often traverse multiple jurisdictions, necessitating coordinated action to address threats like habitat destruction and poaching.

Moreover, amendments have facilitated the development of daughter agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) tailored to specific species or regions. Examples include the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) and the Sharks MoU, which provide detailed frameworks for conservation action (CMS, n.d.). These instruments, often spurred by amendments to the CMS framework, enhance the treaty’s practical impact by operationalizing broad commitments into actionable policies. The legal weight of these amendments, however, depends on their integration into national laws, a process that varies among parties based on their constitutional and legal systems.

Legal Framework for Treaty Adoption and the CMS

The ability of a state to enter into treaties such as the CMS is typically governed by its national constitution and international legal obligations. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume “the country” operates under a generalized constitutional framework, as specific details are not provided. Most national constitutions delineate the authority responsible for treaty-making, often vesting this power in the executive branch, with legislative approval required for ratification or implementation in certain cases (Aust, 2007). In the context of the CMS, states must adhere to the procedural requirements set forth in the treaty itself, particularly under Article XI, which governs amendments to the convention, and Article XII, which addresses the process for amendments to the appendices (CMS Convention Text, 1979).

Article XI of the CMS outlines that amendments to the convention’s text may be proposed by any party and must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of parties present and voting at the COP. Once adopted, amendments enter into force for accepting parties after a specified period, typically 90 days following acceptance by two-thirds of the parties at the time of adoption (CMS Convention Text, 1979). Similarly, Article XII specifies the procedure for amending the appendices, allowing for species to be added or removed based on scientific assessments and party consensus. For “the country” to legally enter into or accept these amendments, it must comply with these provisions and align them with its domestic legal requirements, which could involve executive action, parliamentary approval, or both, depending on its constitutional framework.

Monist vs. Dualist Approaches to Treaties

The integration of international treaties like the CMS into national law is influenced by whether a state follows a monist or dualist approach to international law. In a monist system, international law is automatically incorporated into domestic law upon ratification or accession to a treaty, without the need for additional legislative action (Cassese, 2005). This approach assumes a unity between international and national legal orders, often prioritizing international commitments in cases of conflict with domestic law. Conversely, a dualist system treats international and national law as separate spheres, requiring explicit legislative action to translate treaty obligations into enforceable domestic law (Shaw, 2017).

Assuming “the country” operates under a dualist system—a common approach among many common law jurisdictions—treaties such as the CMS do not automatically become part of national law upon ratification. Instead, the government must enact implementing legislation to give legal effect to CMS obligations and its amendments. For example, if “the country” ratifies an amendment adding a species to Appendix I, it would need to pass domestic laws prohibiting the hunting or trade of that species within its jurisdiction. Failure to do so could result in non-compliance with CMS obligations, even if the treaty is formally accepted at the international level. This dualist approach can sometimes delay or complicate the implementation of international commitments, as legislative processes may face political or bureaucratic hurdles (Brownlie, 2008).

In contrast, if “the country” adhered to a monist system, ratification of CMS amendments would suffice to make them directly applicable in domestic courts, provided the treaty provisions are self-executing (i.e., sufficiently clear and precise to be enforced without additional legislation). The distinction between monist and dualist approaches is crucial for understanding delays or variations in how CMS amendments impact wildlife protection at the national level. For “the country,” a dualist system would necessitate robust coordination between its executive and legislative branches to ensure timely and effective translation of CMS commitments into actionable policies.

Relationship with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCTL) of 1969 is a foundational instrument in international law, codifying the rules governing the formation, interpretation, amendment, and termination of treaties. Whether “the country” is a party to the VCTL 1969 significantly influences its approach to engaging with treaties like the CMS. The VCTL, adopted on May 23, 1969, and entered into force on January 27, 1980, provides a comprehensive framework for treaty-making, including provisions on consent to be bound (Articles 11-17), reservations (Articles 19-23), and amendments (Articles 39-41) (VCTL, 1969).

Assuming “the country” is a party to the VCTL 1969, its treaty-making processes, including those related to CMS amendments, are guided by the principles enshrined in the convention. For instance, under Article 39 of the VCTL, amendments to a multilateral treaty like the CMS must follow the treaty’s specific amendment procedures (as outlined in CMS Articles XI and XII) or, in their absence, require the consent of all parties. This ensures that “the country” adheres to internationally recognized standards when proposing, adopting, or ratifying CMS amendments. Additionally, Article 27 of the VCTL prohibits states from invoking internal law as justification for failing to perform treaty obligations, compelling “the country” to align its national laws with CMS commitments, regardless of whether it follows a monist or dualist approach (VCTL, 1969).

If “the country” is not a party to the VCTL 1969, it would still be bound by customary international law principles reflected in the convention, as many VCTL provisions are considered customary norms applicable to all states (Sinclair, 1984). However, non-party status might lead to variations in how “the country” interprets or applies treaty rules, potentially causing inconsistencies in its engagement with the CMS. For other countries, “the country’s” relationship with the VCTL can serve as a model or cautionary tale. States seeking to enter into treaties with “the country” regarding CMS amendments or related wildlife protection measures should ensure alignment with VCTL principles, even if “the country” is not formally bound by the treaty, to prevent legal disputes or misunderstandings.

The CMS itself does not explicitly reference the VCTL 1969, but its procedural mechanisms for amendment and ratification are consistent with VCTL standards. For other nations, engaging with “the country” on CMS-related matters requires an understanding of its treaty-making capacity and legal traditions. Countries with a strong commitment to the VCTL can encourage “the country” to adopt best practices in treaty negotiation and implementation, fostering a harmonized approach to global wildlife protection.

Implications for Global Wildlife Protection Strategies

The amendments to the CMS have far-reaching implications for global wildlife protection strategies, particularly in how they catalyze international cooperation and policy innovation. By continually updating the list of protected species and fostering agreements like AEWA, CMS amendments ensure that conservation efforts remain responsive to ecological realities (Bowman et al., 2010). However, the success of these amendments is contingent on effective national implementation, which varies based on legal systems, resources, and political will.

For “the country,” the process of translating CMS amendments into national law—whether through a monist or dualist approach—serves as a microcosm of the broader challenges facing global wildlife protection. In a dualist system, delays in legislative action could undermine conservation outcomes, particularly for species facing imminent threats. Conversely, a monist system might enable swifter action but could still falter if judicial or administrative mechanisms are not equipped to enforce treaty obligations. The country’s adherence to or divergence from VCTL principles further shapes its reliability as a partner in multilateral environmental agreements.

Globally, the CMS amendments highlight the need for capacity-building and technical assistance to support states in meeting their obligations. Developing countries, in particular, may struggle with the financial and institutional demands of implementing CMS commitments, even if they are parties to the VCTL and follow a monist approach. International organizations and donor states can play a crucial role by providing resources, training, and monitoring mechanisms to bridge these gaps (Sands & Peel, 2012).

Additionally, CMS amendments underscore the importance of public awareness and stakeholder engagement in wildlife protection. National laws implementing CMS obligations must be accompanied by education campaigns to ensure compliance from local communities, industries, and civil society. For “the country,” fostering such engagement could enhance the practical impact of CMS amendments, regardless of its legal approach to treaties.

Conclusion

The amendments to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals represent a dynamic tool for enhancing global wildlife protection, adapting to new challenges, and fostering international cooperation. Their impact, however, is mediated by the legal frameworks through which states like “the country” engage with and implement treaty obligations. Whether through a monist or dualist approach, the translation of CMS amendments into national law is a critical determinant of their effectiveness. Moreover, adherence to the principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) provides a standardized basis for treaty-making, offering lessons for states on how to navigate multilateral agreements like the CMS.

As the global community confronts escalating threats to biodiversity, the role of treaties like the CMS in coordinating conservation efforts cannot be overstated. The amendments to the CMS serve as both a catalyst for action and a test of states’ commitment to international law. By aligning national policies with CMS obligations and fostering collaboration across borders, nations can collectively safeguard migratory species for future generations. For “the country” and others, the path forward lies in strengthening legal and institutional mechanisms to ensure that international commitments translate into tangible conservation outcomes.

References

Aust, A. (2007). Modern Treaty Law and Practice. Cambridge University Press.

Bowman, M., Davies, P., & Redgwell, C. (2010). Lyster’s International Wildlife Law (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Brownlie, I. (2008). Principles of Public International Law (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Cassese, A. (2005). International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

CMS. (1979). Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Retrieved from https://www.cms.int/en/convention-text

CMS. (2020). CMS COP13 Concludes in India with Major New Actions for Migratory Species. UNEP Press Release. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/cms-cop13-concludes-india-major-new-actions-migratory-species

CMS. (n.d.). About CMS. Retrieved from https://www.cms.int/

Sands, P., & Peel, J. (2012). Principles of International Environmental Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Shaw, M. N. (2017). International Law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, I. (1984). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd ed.). Manchester University Press.

UNEP. (2020). CMS COP13 Outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/cms-cop13-concludes-india-major-new-actions-migratory-species

VCTL. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331.