FOUNDATIONAL AND BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
1. Conventional vs. Customary International Law:
Question: How do conventional and customary international law intersect in the
regulation of trophy hunting of endangered species like the Royal Markhor?
Effective Answer: Conventional international law, derived from treaties such as CMS
and CITES, regulates specific obligations related to endangered species, including
hunting and trade restrictions. Customary international law complements these treaties by
establishing norms against unsustainable exploitation and by supporting Indigenous
rights. The interplay ensures that state actions, like Rishmak’s trophy hunting program,
must comply with both treaty obligations and evolving customary norms that recognize
Indigenous subsistence use.
2. Principles of Treaty Interpretation:
Question: How should CMS Article III be interpreted regarding exceptions to the
prohibition on taking Appendix I species, and what does this mean for Rishmak’s auction
process?
Effective Answer: According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, CMS
Article III should be interpreted in light of its context, object, and purpose—namely, the
conservation of migratory species while respecting Indigenous practices. Article III
permits exceptions when hunting enhances species survival or accommodates traditional
subsistence needs. Rishmak’s auction system aligns with these exceptions by channeling
funds into conservation efforts and fulfilling the economic subsistence needs of the Dione
Ginsu, thereby upholding the treaty’s purpose.
3. Customary International Law and Indigenous Rights:
Question: What role does customary international law play in recognizing Indigenous
hunting rights, and how does this apply to the Dione Ginsu’s involvement in the auction
process?
Effective Answer: Customary international law recognizes the rights of Indigenous
peoples to maintain cultural and subsistence practices, including hunting, which are
protected under instruments like UNDRIP. Although not binding, these norms influence
treaty interpretation and state practice. The Dione Ginsu’s participation in managing the
auction system, which funds their basic needs, respects their customary rights and reflects
global norms on Indigenous self-determination and sustainable use of natural resources.
4. Hierarchy of International Law Sources:
Question: How does the hierarchy of international law sources affect the interpretation of
the ARTA in the dispute between Astor and Rishmak?
Effective Answer: Article 38 of the ICJ Statute prioritizes treaties, customary law, and
general principles of law, followed by judicial decisions and scholarly teachings as
subsidiary sources. In interpreting ARTA, this hierarchy means that treaty obligations,
including CITES and CMS, must be considered foremost, while customary practices and
general principles guide areas not explicitly covered by the treaties.
5. Sustainable Use Principle in International Law:
Question: How is the sustainable use principle reflected in CITES, and how does it
support or undermine the legality of Rishmak’s trophy hunting program?
Effective Answer: The sustainable use principle in CITES allows regulated trade and
hunting when it benefits species conservation and local communities, provided it does not
threaten species survival. Rishmak’s program aligns with this principle by restricting
hunts to ten animals annually and using auction proceeds to finance Royal Markhor
conservation and community needs, demonstrating that the hunting is managed
sustainably and legally under CITES provisions.
6. State Sovereignty vs. International Obligations:
Question: How does state sovereignty influence Rishmak’s right to manage trophy
hunting within its territory under international law?
Effective Answer: State sovereignty permits Rishmak to manage its natural resources,
including implementing hunting programs. However, this sovereignty is tempered by
international obligations under treaties like CMS and CITES, which mandate the
protection of endangered species. Rishmak balances these obligations by adhering to
treaty exceptions that support species conservation and Indigenous rights, demonstrating
responsible exercise of its sovereignty in compliance with international law.
7. Exceptions under CMS Article III:
Question: What are the specific exceptions under CMS Article III, and how does
Rishmak justify its auction process within these exceptions?
Effective Answer: CMS Article III allows exceptions for the taking of Appendix I
species if the purpose is to enhance the species’ propagation or accommodate traditional
subsistence users. Rishmak’s auction system is justified as it funds conservation efforts
critical to the Royal Markhor’s survival and supports the economic needs of the Dione
Ginsu, who are traditional users of the species. This dual purpose aligns with the treaty’s
exceptions, providing a legal basis for the program.
8. Precautionary Principle and Its Application:
Question: How does the precautionary principle apply to Rishmak’s trophy hunting
practices, and is it consistent with international conservation objectives?
Effective Answer: The precautionary principle encourages measures to prevent
environmental harm even in the absence of complete scientific certainty. Rishmak’s
managed hunting, limited to a small portion of the population, and direct reinvestment in
conservation efforts align with this principle by mitigating potential risks to the Royal
Markhor while enhancing species management. This approach supports the conservation
objectives of CMS and CITES, demonstrating responsible environmental stewardship.
