The International Legacy of the United States Endangered Species Act of 1973

Abstract

December 2023 will mark the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 1973 Endangered Species Act of the United States. This landmark Act by the US Congress was made possible through strong bipartisan political cooperation on environment protection, capping off a string of progressive legislative victories that would set the tone for US environmental policy at local, state, and federal government levels for decades. Beyond its domestic significance, the 1973 Endangered Species Act had a clear and recognizable impact on global environmentalism by influencing and inspiring endangered species legislation in other nations as well as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. At the time of its passage, the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) was far and away the most comprehensive piece of legislation ever enacted to halt and reverse rising rates of species extinction and biodiversity loss. Other nations emulated the ESA in past and present endangered species laws and regulations, even as late as 2019, leading to the eventual emergence of a set of global standard practices for species and habitat protections that endure to this day, practices with clear American roots. This study explores the degree to which the past and present endangered species laws of other English-speaking jurisdictions borrowed from or mimicked the US Endangered Species Act in purpose, style, form, and function. Further analysis is undertaken to reveal the extent to which Japan’s own endangered species protection statute is likely influenced by the US ESA. The ESA’s influence on global environmental norms and wildlife protection practices is first explored through the lens of international relations theory, in particular the ‘constructivist’ school of thought that helps explain recognized patterns in global environmental cooperation. The study demonstrates how the 1973 Endangered Species Act essentially became a template for other national and provincial governments to model and even mimic when these governments were designing and enacting their own endangered species management protection programs. Historically, the ESA’s passage and its emulation by other polities are indicative of the degree to which the United States has impacted and continues to greatly impact and influence global wildlife law and policy.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (adopted 3 March 1973, entered into force 1 July 1975, amended 30 April 1983) 993 UNTS 243.

2 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79.

3 J Methorst et al, ‘The Importance of Species Diversity for Human Well-Being in Europe’ (2021) 181 Ecological Economics 106917.

4 Ibid.

5 Section 2(a)(3).

6 R Waples et al, ‘A Tale of Two Acts: Endangered Species Listing Practices in Canada and the United States’ (2013) 63 BioScience 723.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 E Ward, The Gray Wolf Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): A Case Study in Listing and Delisting Challenges (Washington DC, Congressional Research Service, 2020).

10 Waples (n6).

11 K O’Neill, The Environment and International Relations (second edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2017).

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3.

19 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (adopted 22 March 1989, in force 5 May 1992) 1673 UNTS 57.

20 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (adopted 23 November 1972, in force 17 December 1975) 1037 UNTS 151.

21 S Bernstein, ‘The Absence of Great Power Responsibility in Global Environmental Politics’ (2020) 26 European Journal of International Affairs 8.

22 Sec.2.a Findings, (4)(A–G).

23 Sec. 4.a General, (1).

24 Sec.4.a General, (2)(A).

25 Sec.4.a General, (3)(A)(i).

26 Sec.4.a General, (3)(B)(i).

27 Sec.4.b Basis for Determinations, (3)(A).

28 Sec.4.b Basis for Determinations, (3)(B).

29 Waples (n6).

30 Section 7(1).

31 Section 8(1).

32 Section 8.1.

33 Section 14.

34 Ibid.

35 Section 15.

36 Section 18(1).

37 Section 23(1).

38 Section 22(1).

39 Sections 6(2) and 6(3).

40 Section 8(1).

41 Section 12.1(1).

42 Section12.5(1).

43 JCZ Woinarski and A Fisher, ‘The Australian Endangered Species Protection Act 1992’ (1999) 13 Conservation Biology 959, 959.

44 Section 3(2)(e).

45 Section 14.

46 Section 18.

47 Section 25.

48 Section 31.

49 Section 36.

50 Section 24.

51 Section 11-1.

52 Sections 12-1 and 13-1.

53 Section 4.

54 Section 22.

55 Section 22(d).

56 Section 25.

57 Section 4(f).

58 Section 4(g).

59 Section 5(1).

60 Section 6(1).

61 Section 8(1).

62 Section 9(b).

63 Section 44(5).

64 Section 46(1).

65 Section 46(3).

66 Section 47(2).

67 Section 49(b)(iii).

68 Section 49(b)(ii).

69 Section 22(2). ‘Bioprospecting’ is defined in Section 3(1) as ‘the exploration of biodiversity for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources’.

70 Guyana’s population is approximately 800,000, according to the United Nations Population Fund.

71 Section 4.

72 Section 6(f).

73 Section 6(h).

74 Section 6(i).

75 Section 3(3).

76 Section 9.

77 Section 3.

78 Section 34(3).

79 絶滅の恐れのある野生動植物の種の保存に関する法律。平成四年法律第七十五号、日本国 (Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Act No. 75 of 1992, Japan).

80 See further T Sekiyama, ‘Coordination, Compromise, and Change: A Case of US–Japan Conflict Over Commercial Whaling’ (2014) 2 International Relations and Diplomacy 310; M Nishikawa, ‘The Origin of the U.S.–Japan Dispute over the Whaling Moratorium’ (2020) 44 Diplomatic History 315.

81 Article 2(1).

82 Article 5(1).

83 Article 5(3) and (4).

84 Article 36(2).

85 Article 36(4).

86 Article 36(5).

87 Article 51(1).

88 Article 53(2).

89 Article 36(5).

90 Sec. 8A.

91 P Willets, ‘Who Cares about the Environment?’ in J Vogler and M Imber (eds), The Environment and International Relations (London, Routledge, 1996) 130.

92 Ibid 137.