Protecting Wanderers: The Role of the 1979 Convention on Migratory Species in Safeguarding Global Wildlife

Introduction

Migratory species, often referred to as “wanderers,” traverse vast distances across international borders, facing numerous threats such as habitat loss, climate change, and human-induced barriers. These species, including birds, mammals, fish, and insects, play crucial roles in maintaining ecological balance and biodiversity. Recognizing the global nature of their journeys, the international community came together under the 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), also known as the Bonn Convention, to provide a legal framework for their protection. Adopted on 23 June 1979 in Bonn, Germany, and entering into force in 1983, the CMS represents a pioneering effort to conserve migratory species and their habitats on a global scale (CMS, 1979).

This article explores the role of the CMS in safeguarding global wildlife, delving into its legal mechanisms, the processes by which countries can accede to the treaty, and the implications of its relationship with other international legal frameworks such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969. Furthermore, it addresses the broader implications of treaty incorporation into national law, examining the distinction between monist and dualist approaches to international law. While the CMS does not specify a particular country’s legal system for analysis in its text, this article will adopt a general perspective on treaty accession and implementation, providing a hypothetical framework for “this country” to illustrate the application of CMS provisions. The discussion aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how the CMS operates as a tool for international cooperation and informs states on how to integrate its obligations into their legal systems.

The Convention on Migratory Species: Legal Foundations and Objectives

The CMS was established under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to address the conservation challenges faced by migratory species whose ranges often span multiple jurisdictions. As of September 2020, the Convention boasts 131 member states, reflecting its status as the only global, UN-based intergovernmental organization dedicated exclusively to the conservation of terrestrial, aquatic, and avian migratory species (CMS, 2020). The CMS operates through a framework of cooperative agreements, policy development, and research initiatives to protect species listed in its two appendices: Appendix I for endangered migratory species requiring strict protection, and Appendix II for species that would benefit from international cooperation (CMS, 1979, Articles III and IV).

The primary objectives of the CMS, as outlined in Article II, include promoting international cooperation to conserve migratory species, protecting their habitats, and mitigating obstacles to migration. Parties to the Convention are obligated to take appropriate measures to ensure the conservation of these species and to cooperate in the development of specialized agreements for species listed under Appendix II (CMS, 1979, Article II). These legal obligations underscore the CMS’s role as a dynamic instrument that fosters collaboration among states, ensuring that migratory species are protected throughout their range states, defined as countries through which these species migrate or reside during parts of their life cycle (CMS, 1979, Article I).

Legal Mechanisms for Treaty Accession Under the CMS

The CMS provides a clear legal pathway for countries to become parties to the Convention, as articulated in its constitutional text. According to Article XI of the CMS, the Convention is open for signature by all States and regional economic integration organizations. Furthermore, Article XII outlines the process of accession, stating that after the Convention has entered into force, any State or regional economic integration organization that did not sign the Convention may accede to it at any time. Accession is formalized by depositing an instrument of accession with the Depositary, which is the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany (CMS, 1979, Article XII).

For a hypothetical “this country” seeking to enter into the CMS, the process involves several steps. First, the country must express its intent to become a party through diplomatic channels or internal decision-making processes consistent with its national legal framework. Following this, it prepares and submits an instrument of accession to the Depositary. Under Article XII(2), the Convention enters into force for the acceding state on the first day of the third month following the deposit of the instrument of accession (CMS, 1979, Article XII). This mechanism ensures that any state can join the CMS post its entry into force in 1983, promoting inclusivity and broadening the Convention’s global reach.

The CMS does not prescribe specific internal legal requirements for treaty accession, leaving such matters to the domestic laws of the acceding state. This flexibility allows countries with varying legal systems to participate, provided they adhere to the Convention’s procedural requirements for entry. However, the process of integrating CMS obligations into national law remains a critical consideration, shaped by whether a country adopts a monist or dualist approach to international law.

Monist vs. Dualist Approaches: Treaty Incorporation into National Law

The distinction between monist and dualist approaches to international law determines how treaties like the CMS are incorporated into a country’s legal system. In a monist system, international law is automatically part of domestic law upon ratification or accession to a treaty, requiring no additional legislative action for implementation. In contrast, a dualist system treats international law and domestic law as separate entities, necessitating specific national legislation to translate treaty obligations into enforceable domestic law (Brownlie, 2008).

For “this country,” the approach to treaty incorporation would depend on its constitutional framework. If it operates under a monist system, the CMS would become directly applicable upon accession, meaning its provisions could be invoked in domestic courts without further legislative action. For instance, obligations under Article III of the CMS to protect Appendix I species by prohibiting their taking would immediately bind national authorities (CMS, 1979, Article III). Conversely, in a dualist system, “this country” would need to enact specific legislation to give effect to CMS obligations. This might involve amending existing wildlife protection laws or introducing new statutes to align with CMS requirements, such as habitat conservation measures under Article V (CMS, 1979, Article V).

The choice between monism and dualism has significant implications for the speed and effectiveness of CMS implementation. In monist systems, the direct applicability of treaties can facilitate rapid compliance with international obligations, though it may raise concerns about sovereignty and the alignment of international norms with national priorities. In dualist systems, the requirement for domestic legislation allows for greater scrutiny and adaptation of treaty provisions to local contexts, but it may delay implementation due to legislative processes (Cassese, 2005). For “this country,” adopting a dualist approach might involve a comprehensive review by parliament or other legislative bodies to ensure that CMS obligations are harmonized with existing environmental laws, potentially incorporating public consultation to address local conservation needs.

Regardless of the approach, the CMS encourages parties to adopt measures that align with its objectives, as seen in Article VIII, which calls for the establishment of appropriate authorities and the adoption of national policies to support the Convention’s goals (CMS, 1979, Article VIII). This provision underscores the importance of internal legal and administrative structures in translating international commitments into actionable outcomes, whether through direct application in monist systems or legislative enactment in dualist ones.

Relationship Between CMS and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

A critical aspect of understanding the legal framework of the CMS lies in its relationship with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969, which codifies the rules governing the formation, interpretation, and implementation of treaties. The VCLT, often referred to as the “treaty on treaties,” provides the foundational principles for international agreements, including rules on treaty conclusion, entry into force, and state obligations (VCLT, 1969).

The CMS, adopted in 1979, postdates the VCLT, which entered into force in 1980. However, the CMS itself is not a party to the VCLT, as the VCLT applies to states and international organizations entering into treaties, not to treaties themselves. Treaties like the CMS are governed by the rules of the VCLT if the parties to the CMS are also parties to the VCLT or if customary international law, as reflected in the VCLT, applies (Sinclair, 1984). Many provisions of the VCLT, such as those on treaty interpretation (Articles 31-33) and pacta sunt servanda (Article 26, stating that treaties are binding and must be performed in good faith), are considered customary international law and thus apply universally, regardless of whether a state is a formal party to the VCLT (ICJ, 1997).

For states considering accession to the CMS, the VCLT provides essential guidance on how to properly enter into treaties. Article 11 of the VCLT specifies that a state may express consent to be bound by a treaty through signature, ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession, mirroring the mechanisms outlined in the CMS under Articles XI and XII (VCLT, 1969, Article 11; CMS, 1979, Articles XI-XII). Additionally, the VCLT’s provisions on reservations (Articles 19-23) offer a framework for states to modify their obligations under the CMS if certain conditions are met, provided that reservations are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty (VCLT, 1969, Articles 19-23). The CMS itself does not explicitly prohibit reservations, meaning that states may, in principle, rely on VCLT rules to tailor their commitments.

The interplay between the VCLT and CMS is particularly instructive for other countries seeking to join the Convention. The VCLT emphasizes the importance of formal procedures in treaty-making, ensuring clarity and legal certainty in international relations. For instance, a state must ensure that its instrument of accession is deposited with the CMS Depositary in accordance with both CMS Article XII and VCLT Article 16, which addresses the exchange or deposit of instruments as a means of establishing consent to be bound (VCLT, 1969, Article 16). Furthermore, the VCLT’s rule on good faith performance (Article 26) reinforces the need for states to implement CMS obligations sincerely, whether through monist or dualist mechanisms, fostering trust among parties (VCLT, 1969, Article 26).

While the CMS is not a “party” to the VCLT, its operation and the obligations of its member states are informed by VCLT principles. This relationship highlights the importance of adhering to established international legal norms when entering into environmental agreements. For countries new to the CMS, familiarity with VCLT rules can facilitate smoother integration into the Convention’s framework, ensuring that their accession is recognized as valid under international law and that their commitments are aligned with global standards of treaty practice.

The CMS in Action: Impact on Global Wildlife Conservation

Beyond its legal structure, the CMS has had a tangible impact on the conservation of migratory species worldwide. Through its appendices and associated agreements, the Convention has facilitated the protection of numerous species facing critical threats. For instance, Appendix I species, such as the Siberian Crane and the Hawksbill Turtle, benefit from strict protection measures that prohibit hunting and mandate habitat conservation across range states (CMS, 1979, Article III). Meanwhile, Appendix II has spurred the development of regional agreements, such as the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), which coordinates conservation efforts for waterbirds across 119 parties (AEWA, 1995).

The CMS also promotes scientific research and data-sharing, as mandated by Article IV(4), fostering an evidence-based approach to conservation (CMS, 1979, Article IV). Conferences of the Parties (COPs), held every three years, provide a platform for member states to review progress, propose amendments to the appendices, and adopt resolutions to address emerging challenges like climate change impacts on migration patterns. The CMS’s adaptability to evolving environmental threats is a testament to its effectiveness as a living instrument of international law.

However, challenges remain in ensuring uniform implementation across member states. Disparities in resources, political will, and legal frameworks can hinder the translation of CMS obligations into effective action. For “this country,” successful engagement with the CMS would require not only legal accession but also the allocation of resources for monitoring migratory species, enforcing protective measures, and collaborating with other range states. The Convention’s emphasis on cooperation, as outlined in Article V, highlights the necessity of multilateral partnerships in overcoming these challenges (CMS, 1979, Article V).

Broader Implications for International Environmental Law

The CMS serves as a model for international environmental governance, demonstrating how treaties can address transboundary issues through cooperative frameworks. Its relationship with the VCLT underscores the interconnectedness of international legal instruments, where general principles of treaty law reinforce the legitimacy and enforceability of specialized agreements like the CMS. For states, the CMS offers valuable lessons on balancing national sovereignty with global responsibilities, particularly in the context of shared natural resources.

Moreover, the CMS’s approach to treaty accession and implementation provides a blueprint for other environmental conventions. Its flexible provisions for entry, combined with the guiding principles of the VCLT, ensure that states can join the Convention regardless of their internal legal systems, provided they adhere to procedural norms. This inclusivity is crucial for achieving the universal protection of migratory species, as it encourages participation from diverse geopolitical contexts.

For “this country,” the decision to join the CMS represents an opportunity to contribute to global conservation efforts while aligning with international legal standards. Whether adopting a monist or dualist approach, the country must prioritize the development of robust domestic policies to support CMS objectives, ensuring that legal commitments translate into measurable outcomes for wildlife protection. Collaboration with existing CMS parties, facilitated by the Convention’s cooperative mechanisms, can further enhance its capacity to address the unique challenges faced by migratory species within its borders.

Conclusion

The 1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals stands as a cornerstone of international efforts to protect global wildlife, offering a legal and cooperative framework to safeguard the “wanderers” that transcend national boundaries. Through its provisions for treaty accession, as outlined in Articles XI and XII, the CMS enables states like “this country” to join a global network committed to conservation. The interplay between monist and dualist approaches to treaty incorporation highlights the diverse pathways through which CMS obligations can be integrated into national law, each with its own advantages and challenges.

While the CMS is not a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, its operation is informed by VCLT principles, providing a roadmap for states to engage with the Convention in a manner consistent with international legal norms. This relationship underscores the importance of adherence to procedural and substantive treaty-making rules, offering guidance to other countries on how to properly enter into agreements with the CMS. Ultimately, the CMS’s success lies in its ability to foster collaboration, adapt to emerging threats, and inspire states to prioritize the conservation of migratory species as a shared global responsibility.

References

• AEWA (1995). Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds. Retrieved from relevant online sources.
• 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. Bonn, Germany. Retrieved from https://www.cms.int/en/convention-text.
• CMS (2020). Membership Information. Retrieved from https://www.cms.int/.
• ICJ (1997). Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 7.
• Sinclair, I. (1984). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd ed.). Manchester University Press.
• VCLT (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from United Nations Treaty Collection.