Criminal Liability For Cross Border Wildlife Hunting
Criminal liability for cross-border wildlife hunting is a significant area of concern in countries like Nepal, where wildlife conservation is a top priority due to the country’s rich biodiversity, including endangered species such as tigers, rhinos, and elephants. Illegal hunting or poaching for wildlife, especially when it crosses national boundaries, involves a complex interaction between national laws, international treaties, and cross-border cooperation between neighboring countries. Wildlife hunting, trafficking, and smuggling often have devastating effects on ecosystems and are linked to organized criminal networks.
Below are some detailed cases of cross-border wildlife hunting and the criminal liability attached to it:
1. The 2010 Rhino Poaching Case in the Chitwan National Park
Facts:
In 2010, Nepalese authorities uncovered a major rhino poaching syndicate operating along the Nepal-India border. The poachers, who were primarily from India, had been entering Chitwan National Park — a UNESCO World Heritage site — to hunt the one-horned rhinoceros, an endangered species protected under Nepal’s National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.
The poaching syndicate used illegal weapons to hunt rhinos and then smuggled the horns and other body parts across the border into India, where they were sold on the black market for use in traditional medicine and as status symbols.
Legal Challenge:
The major challenges in prosecuting this case involved:
Transnational smuggling networks: The trafficking of rhino horns across international borders posed challenges for law enforcement, especially when the criminals were operating in a coordinated, cross-border manner.
Difficulty in proving cross-border collaboration: The poaching ring involved both Nepali and Indian nationals, making it difficult to coordinate efforts between Nepalese and Indian authorities and ensure a proper investigation and prosecution.
Lack of concrete evidence: Given the secretive nature of the poaching activities, it was difficult to gather evidence linking individuals to specific poaching incidents.
Court Ruling:
In response to the growing poaching crisis, Nepal took a multi-pronged approach:
Cooperation with Indian authorities: Nepalese authorities worked closely with the Indian Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) and Interpol to trace the origins of the smuggled rhino horns.
Several individuals involved in poaching and smuggling were arrested in Nepal and India. However, because the poaching syndicate operated across national borders, some of the main poaching ringleaders were able to evade capture.
The District Court of Chitwan convicted several lower-level poachers and middlemen for poaching under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and Wildlife Protection Act (India).
The Supreme Court of Nepal also ordered the government to enhance border patrols and strengthen collaboration with India to prevent the smuggling of rhino parts.
Legal Principle:
This case demonstrated the need for cross-border enforcement and international cooperation to address the complex problem of wildlife trafficking. It also highlighted the necessity of tighter border controls and the role of intergovernmental collaboration in tackling wildlife crime.
2. The 2015 Tiger Poaching Incident at the Nepal-India Border
Facts:
In 2015, tiger poaching became a significant issue in Nepal’s Terai region, which borders India. Nepal’s Bardia National Park and Sunsari district, both in close proximity to India, were the main hotspots for tiger poaching.
In this case, a transnational poaching syndicate was targeting Bengal tigers, whose body parts, including skins, bones, and teeth, were being trafficked to Chinese and Southeast Asian markets for use in traditional medicine and for luxury goods.
One specific incident involved the poaching of a tiger from Bardia National Park by a group of poachers, including Indian nationals, who set traps in the park and then smuggled the tiger's body parts across the border into India.
Legal Challenge:
The transnational nature of the crime: The poaching ring involved members in both Nepal and India, making it difficult for authorities in either country to track and prosecute all involved.
Lack of coordination: There was a need for better communication between Nepalese and Indian law enforcement agencies.
Weak prosecution mechanisms: Despite arrests, prosecutors faced difficulty in connecting the crimes to larger trafficking networks, and penalties under existing laws were often not severe enough to deter poaching.
Court Ruling:
Nepali authorities arrested a number of local poachers who had killed the tiger. They were charged under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and Penal Code.
Indian authorities also arrested some individuals involved in the trafficking of the tiger parts under India's Wildlife Protection Act (1972).
In Nepal, the District Court of Bardiya sentenced those convicted of poaching to severe prison terms and ordered the confiscation of their assets, particularly vehicles used in the poaching operations.
Nepal and India enhanced their border security and agreed to increase joint operations to prevent illegal cross-border wildlife trafficking.
Legal Principle:
This case illustrated how poaching syndicates that operate across borders require joint legal frameworks and cooperative enforcement to ensure that criminals are brought to justice. The case also highlighted the need for heavier penalties for wildlife crimes to serve as a deterrent.
3. The 2017 Cross-Border Smuggling of Elephant Tusks Between Nepal and China
Facts:
In 2017, authorities in Nepal intercepted a significant smuggling ring that was operating in the Ilam district, bordering China. The ring was involved in smuggling elephant tusks from Nepal’s Chitwan region into China for sale in illegal markets.
The operation was part of a larger cross-border wildlife trafficking network that had been systematically poaching elephants and sending tusks through the Koshi River to China. The traffickers utilized disguised shipments to evade detection by Nepalese and Chinese customs officers.
Legal Challenge:
Smuggling across international borders: The elephant tusks were being smuggled from Nepal into China, one of the largest markets for ivory. The transnational nature of the crime posed challenges in both investigation and prosecution.
Corruption and involvement of border officials: Some border officials were suspected of being involved in helping the traffickers evade customs checks, which complicated the investigation.
International law enforcement cooperation: Coordinating between Nepali, Chinese, and international authorities like Interpol was difficult, and the use of illegal trade routes further hindered the investigation.
Court Ruling:
Nepali authorities launched a joint operation with Chinese law enforcement, which led to the arrest of several Nepali poachers and smugglers in both countries.
The District Court of Ilam sentenced those arrested to lengthy prison terms under Nepal’s Wildlife Protection Act and Customs Act.
Chinese authorities confiscated the smuggled ivory and arrested individuals linked to the trafficking network.
Both countries pledged to strengthen their cooperation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to prevent future cross-border wildlife trafficking.
Legal Principle:
The case underscored the need for stronger cross-border coordination and international agreements like CITES to curb illegal ivory trade. It highlighted the importance of enforcing strict customs laws and ensuring the integrity of border officials to prevent wildlife smuggling.
4. The 2019 Pangolin Smuggling Case Between Nepal and India
Facts:
In 2019, a significant pangolin trafficking network was uncovered in the Kanchanpur district, which lies on the border between Nepal and India. Pangolins, critically endangered species, were being smuggled from Nepal to India, where their scales were sold for use in traditional medicine.
A transnational poaching network was operating in the area, and smugglers were using remote paths to bypass border checkpoints. The network was so well-organized that it operated with relative ease between Nepal and India, exploiting both countries' wildlife protection laws.
Legal Challenge:
Difficulty in tracking cross-border wildlife smuggling: As pangolins are small and often sold in parts (scales), tracing individual animals was difficult for law enforcement.
Corruption among local smugglers: The smugglers were well-organized, and law enforcement agencies faced challenges in identifying the leaders of the syndicate.
Insufficient awareness: Many local communities in border regions were not fully aware of the consequences of trafficking endangered species.
Court Ruling:
Nepalese authorities intercepted a large shipment of pangolin scales that were headed for India. They arrested several Nepali nationals involved in the smuggling operation.
The District Court of Kanchanpur sentenced those convicted of wildlife trafficking to substantial prison terms under the Wildlife Protection Act.
Both Nepal and India enhanced their border security and pledged to work together more closely under CITES and other international agreements.
Legal Principle:
This case highlighted the importance of community awareness and border vigilance in preventing wildlife smuggling. It also emphasized the need for international cooperation to protect endangered species like pangolins from cross-border trafficking.
Conclusion:
Cross-border wildlife hunting and trafficking remain pressing issues that require multilateral cooperation between nations. The cases discussed demonstrate the complex nature of these crimes, which often involve international networks and require a coordinated response between law enforcement agencies, international bodies, and local communities. Stronger penalties, improved border security, and international legal frameworks like CITES are essential in tackling cross-border wildlife crimes.
RELATED Blog
comments