This article addresses the impacts of the carding system (green, yellow, red) of the European Union (EU) Regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing on the fisheries laws of third countries. Specifically, it analyzes Thailand's national legal reforms, which followed interactions between the EU and Thailand during the yellow card period. Building on past research on the EU's use of market power to exert regulatory influence on third countries, the article explores other factors that might encourage third countries to engage in national regulatory reforms: the EU's powers of expertise, monitoring, and agenda-setting. Finally, the article also considers the legitimacy of the EU's regulatory power over third countries.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a global problem, which threatens marine ecosystems in addition to putting food security and regional stability at risk. It is often linked to major human rights violations and even organized crime. Legal measures, such as introducing monitoring and surveillance systems or denying services to vessels engaged in IUU fishing, are often implemented at national and international levels to combat such practices. Academics and economists have suggested that IUU fishing might be discouraged equally well by taking the profit out of it. Building on this premise, this article analyzes the extent to which the availability of liability insurance contributes to the problem of IUU fishing. To this end, an empirical study has been carried out, which supports the contention that vessels suspected of involvement in IUU fishing have no serious difficulty in obtaining liability insurance from the market and insurance sector, thereby inadvertently facilitating IUU fishing. The authors conclude that to deter IUU fishing, access to insurance for those involved in it should be restricted. Some success can be achieved if certain steps are taken to improve the risk assessment procedures of underwriters. However, it is advocated that the most effective approach would be the reform of European Union or domestic legislation and putting providers of liability insurance under a clear positive obligation to refuse cover to those involved in IUU fishing.

This study is the first to provide data on the extent of illegal hunting practices in Jordan using posts on social media. During January 2015–January 2016 photographs from seven hunter groups on Facebook recorded the killing of 4,707 native animals of 59 species, of which birds constituted the majority, followed by mammals and reptiles. Flouting of Jordanian laws was widespread, with daily bag limits exceeded on many occasions, and in the case of chukar partridge Alectoris chukar, the most popular quarry, some hunters exceeded the limit by 3,000%. Of even greater concern, a total of 34 species with special protection under Jordanian law were killed, and the hunting of large mammals, especially ibex Capra nubiana and gazelles (Gazella spp.), with already depleted populations, was particularly excessive. It also appeared that a significant number of gazelles were shot by unlicensed hunters from Arabian Gulf countries. Overall, the survey indicates an alarming picture of overhunting of threatened species and ineffective enforcement of hunting laws, despite the efforts of key government and voluntary agencies. We recommend urgent action to address the causes of the problem and to improve the management of hunting through better collaboration, mobilization of resources and awareness raising.

The illegal trade in wild harvested plants and animals is a significant threat to populations and species worldwide. There is concern that in many countries sanctions for wildlife trade crimes are insufficient to act as a deterrent, and do not reflect the seriousness of offences. For these reasons it is important to understand professional and public opinions as to which aspects of such crimes make them more or less serious, and so deserving of a greater or lesser sentence. Conjoint analysis, a method used in marketing to understand which characteristics of a product are valued by consumers, was used to investigate which attributes of hypothetical wildlife trade offences (threat status and taxon of species involved, illegal profit, previous convictions and plea) UK-based conservation professionals, magistrates and the general public considered most important when sentencing wildlife criminals in the UK. Eighty-seven per cent of 682 respondents completed enough of the survey to be included in the analysis. Magistrates and the public considered illegal profit to be the single most important attribute, while conservationists considered the threat status of the species involved to be most important (considered second most important by magistrates and the public). Magistrates, when presented with adequate information, considered the threat status and corresponding legal protection afforded to wildlife when considering how serious a wildlife trade crime was, and doing so is in line with public opinion on sentencing such offences. This study highlights the importance of ensuring that judiciaries are presented with information concerning both the potential profit and conservation impact of wildlife trade crimes. Sentencing councils must develop appropriate guidelines to support judiciaries in their sentencing of wildlife crimes.