| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
152696
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
080572
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While other forms of transnational crime in the Asia Pacific have been securitized - that is, represented by policy elites and security actors as crucial or existential threats to national and regional security - transnational environmental crime has been un(der)securitized. It warrants little mention in regional security statements or the security concerns of individual countries. Yet the consequences of activities such as illegal logging and timber smuggling, wildlife smuggling, the black market in ozone-depleting substances and dumping of other forms of hazardous wastes and chemical fit the (in)security profile applied to other forms of transnational crime. This article surveys the main forms of transnational environmental crime in the Asia Pacific and assesses the 'fit' with a 'crime as security' framework. It shows that transnational environmental crime generates the kinds of 'pernicious effects on regional stability and development, the maintenance of the rule of law and the welfare of the region's people' that the ASEAN Declaration on Transnational Crime identified as matters of serious concern. The analysis draws on securitization theory to understand the lack of a 'securitizing move' and to explain why security elites do not believe the problem warrants serious attention. The possibilities explored here include intellectual inertia, confusion about referent objects, institutional incapacity, mixed policy signals and the exclusion of environmental expertise from a closed community of security elites
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
097083
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The Wiwa cases are important in how they relate to the US Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and have been considered landmark cases by some scholars because the plaintiffs received compensation through a settlement reached with the defendants out of court. However, the question remains as to whether the plaintiffs can accept compensation or receive favourable judgments in a lawsuit for which the cause of action is that the environment has been destroyed and that environmental rights have been violated under the US ATCA. In my view, the possible judgments would not be satisfactory under the circumstances that environmental rights are still not regarded as a kind of human right and that environmental crime has been confined to wartime environmental destruction until now. Therefore, the role played by extraterritorial jurisdiction of the US Court under the ATCA concerning overseas environmental protection would still be limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|