关于环境犯罪的英文文献只要和法学相关的英文文献就行,要有作者,出处,中英文翻译,著录,标题

关于环境犯罪的英文文献只要和法学相关的英文文献就行,要有作者,出处,中英文翻译,著录,标题
关于环境犯罪的英文文献
只要和法学相关的英文文献就行,要有作者,出处,中英文翻译,著录,标题

关于环境犯罪的英文文献只要和法学相关的英文文献就行,要有作者,出处,中英文翻译,著录,标题
Environmental crime prevention
Environmental crime prevention encompasses a range of substantive considerations. It must deal with acts and omissions that are already criminalised and prohibited, such as illegal fishing or illegal dumping of toxic waste. It must also come to grips with events that have yet to be designated officially as 'harmful' but which show evidence of exhibiting potentially negative consequences. Environmental crime prevention likewise has to negotiate different types of harms, as these affect humans, local and global environments, and non-human animals.
The aims and objectives of environmental crime prevention are inseparable from eco-philosophy. That is, what it is we are trying to prevent is linked to how we view human interests, the needs and requirements of specific biospheres, and the rights of non-human animals (White 2007a; White 2008). Environmental crime prevention also therefore encapsulates particular visions of 'the good society'. Crime prevention of any type always has ramifications for the kind of world within which we live, and the balance we make between liberty and social control (Sutton, Cherney & White 2008). For example, a strong ecological stance could well justify the prohibition of people from going into any wilderness area whatsoever, on the basis of preventing human interference in such areas. Whether alternatives are possible or should be made available is exactly what the political deliberations over crime prevention would have to address. The answer depends upon the specific vision - the perceived relationship between 'nature', society and animals - which is seen as ideal at any particular point in time.
If humans are allowed into wilderness areas, then the next question is under what conditions. To prevent possible environmental harm perpetrated by humans in these areas, rules and regulations are needed (e.g. on burying human waste, on taking litter out of the areas with you as you go). Creative architecture and strategic planning can also ameliorate the impact of humans. For example, boardwalks and well-marked pathways can channel human traffic in certain directions and through certain areas. Providing toilets and lookouts might draw tourists and bushwalkers into particular settings and thus away from more pristine wilderness locations. Once general decisions are made about the nature-human interface, provisions can be introduced to prevent or minimise damage.
Theoretically, good environmental crime prevention should be as inclusive of human, environmental and animal interests as much as possible. To achieve this, we need to be clear as to what 'crime prevention' is actually intended to do. Balancing diverse human and non-human interests still means assigning some type of 'value' to the potential harm. Consider oil for example: is environmental crime prevention best served by ensuring that oil tankers are shipshape and tightly regulated in transporting oil? This would ensure a moderate quantity of harm minimisation. Or, should we eliminate the threat of oil spill by banning oil tankers outright? This would entail harm eradication. Clearly the type and extent of environmental crime prevention will be dictated by notions of human self-interest, as well as potential threats to environments, animals and livelihoods.
One mandate of green criminology is to foster greater attention, analysis and action regarding environmental harm. From the perspective of environmental crime prevention, the tasks are both instrumental and symbolic. We want to implement strategies to protect certain peoples, places and wildlife. At the same time, we want to signal to the community as a whole that this particular issue is significant and that it expresses collective values about 'what counts'. For example, the establishment of 'green zones' in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is important, not only because it excludes certain areas from human interaction, but also because it sends a strong message that ecological wellbeing does count in human calculations of marine interests. The choice of words is important, as is publicity surrounding these protected areas. To label certain areas 'green' implies natural and unspoiled; the word 'zone' connotes an area with clearly defined boundaries and purpose.
One of the key lessons from conventional crime prevention is that it should be based largely on a problem-solving, rather than policy-prescribed, model of intervention. Different types of places lend themselves to different types of environmental harm. Some issues are of a planetary scale (e.g. global warming) and others regional (e.g. oceans and fisheries). Some are national in geographical location (e.g. droughts in Australia) while others are local (e.g. specific oil spills). Perceptions and consciousness of harm are linked in part to the proximity of human habitation to the sources of harm. A toxic spill in the middle of a major city, or contamination of a major waterway, is more likely to capture public attention and government action than something that happens in a remote wilderness area or offshore.
Different types of harm likewise tend to call for different types of responses. For example, generally speaking, environmental issues can be categorised according to three different types of harm (White 2005). 'Brown' issues tend to be defined in terms of urban life and pollution (e.g. air quality), 'green' issues relate mainly to wilderness areas and conservation matters (e.g. logging practices), and 'white' issues refer to science laboratories and the impact of new technologies (e.g. genetically modified organisms). Conceptualising environmental issues in this way helps demonstrate the link between environmental action (usually involving distinct community and environmental groups) and particular sites (e.g. urban centres, wilderness areas, coastal regions). Some issues resonate more than others with the public; other issues generally only emerge if an accident or disaster brings it to the fore. This also affects the flow of resources to specific types of crime prevention endeavour.
A problem-solving approach to crime prevention demands a certain level of specificity. General pronouncements about the nature of harm need to be accompanied by particular site or harm analysis. To illustrate how this might occur, we can consider the issue of illegal fishing. Before doing so, it is important to note that fishing - both legal and illegal - is associated with a wide range of potentially harmful activity (White 2007b). Legal fishing, such as aquaculture and the 'scientific' harvesting of whales, can engender great harm. The distinction between legal and illegal may not be the best way to conceptualise harm or responses to harm.
Illegal fishing
For the sake of simplicity, this paper will only consider instances of illegal fishing. Even so, there are major variations in the specific nature of that illegality. Consider, for example, the following types of illegal fishing (White 2007b):
commercial fishing, which involves catches in excess of quota, false declarations and destruction of bycatch linked to marine pollution
recreational fishing, which involves unlicensed fishing and fishing in excess of quota
Indigenous fishing, which may involve fishing in traditional but foreign waters and fishing without a permit
large-scale illegal fishing, which also involves overexploitation of particular species such as sharks
specialist illegal fishing, which is designed to exploit endangered species for private fish collections or medicinal purposes.
Different scales, motivations and techniques underpin these types of illegal fishing. Environmental crime prevention has to address the specific nature of the phenomenon in question if it is to be appropriate to the circumstances. Different types of illegality require different types of responses, as they have quite different origins.
Conventional crime prevention emphasises the importance of undertaking scoping analysis before developing an intervention plan (Sutton, Cherney & White 2008). For example, it is useful to assess the key relationships and agencies involved in shaping targets, places and offending as they occur in a marine environment (e.g. fisheries management, marine park authorities, customs, navy, consumers). While general patterns of illegal fishing can be determined in this way, the structural or underpinning reasons for different types of illegal fishing still require close analysis. Indigenous or traditional fishing provides some indication of the complexities of the issues.
The first question to ask in considering traditional fishing - legal or illegal - is what is actually meant by the word 'traditional'. This can refer to different aspects of traditional fishing, such as:
who specifically (Indigenous Australian, Indigenous Indonesian, Papua New Guinean, Torres Strait Islander)
how specifically (methods, techniques and technologies)
where specifically (traditional fisheries for particular coastal groups).
Conflicts can arise when modern technologies are used for what used to be simply subsistence fishing. The use of motorboats, nets and fishing rods, and sonar equipment allows for overexploitation to occur. Overexploitation of resources may be due to employment of new technologies, perceptions of resources being boundless and where management is believed to be beyond human control (Caughley, Bomford & McNee 1996). Moreover, overexploitation may be generated in the new methods of production themselves. For example, the mobility, range and efficiency of traditional fishing are all enhanced through modern methods and technologies. Conversely, these technologies generate the need for cash to supplement subsistence, e.g. buying the boat and petrol for the boat. The net effect is pressure to fish beyond immediate consumption needs.
Conflicts can also occur with different notions of 'sustainability' and encroachment by other people into traditional fishing areas (Caughley, Bomford & McNee 1996). Different perceptions of sustainability translate into different purposes and scales of operation. For example, in an international context, traditional fishers are usually associated with small-scale fisheries that are labour-intensive and economically fragile (Hauck 2007). Large-scale commercial fisheries and large-scale illegal fishing operations put these traditional fishers in a perilous position. Not only are these large-scale operations export-oriented, but also the scale of fishing itself tends to put pressure on fishing stocks.
Overfishing in some waters has immediate and dire consequences for local traditional fishers, as fish is part of their staple diet. Moreover, overfishing in one place causes movement of large-scale fisheries and traditional fishers to other locations, thus impinging upon traditional rights and traditional owners in these areas. Conflict may occur not only between trawler operators and traditional fishers, but also among traditional fishers as they are forced further from their own traditional fishing waters to sustain a liveable catch. Thus, the problem is not simply one of noncompliance on the part of small-scale fishers (e.g. Indonesian fishers in Australian defined waters), but of food security and the reliance on increasingly declining fish stocks for survival. Hence, from a crime prevention perspective, a compliance approach will not work, as it does not address the diversity of issues that may be influencing non-compliant behaviour (Hauck 2007).
The complexities of traditional fishing are also manifest in the fact that a continuum exists between commercial and traditional fishing. Traditional fishing today often has an interface with the cash economy: fish to eat, and fish to sell to subsist (Altman, Bek & Roach 1996; Caughley, Bomford & McNee 1996).
One issue, mentioned above, is whether the activities of commercial (and indeed recreational) fishers adversely affect subsistence resources of traditional communities. Another issue is to what extent these communities must themselves rely upon commercialised fishing to gain sufficient subsistence resources. The former requires 'external' controls of some kind to dissuade overfishing and illegal fishing. These might include monitoring and surveillance, as well as moral persuasion, to desist from harmful behaviour. The latter might be responded to by employing incentive measures. An example of what this might look like is provided in a Canadian initiative:
In Canada, the Income Security Program (ISP) established for Cree hunters in north Quebec provides guaranteed income to allow the Cree to hunt. With the ISP, production is linked to people's need and there is no incentive to overexploit wildlife resources. Indeed there is a voluntary decrease in hunting in overused areas, and other wildlife conservation practices such as monitoring the numbers of certain game are recognised as hunting-related work under the ISP (Altman, Bek & Roach 1996).
Another type of incentive is to involve Indigenous people directly in co-management of the resource. In this approach, Indigenous fishing rights consist not only of a claim to a share of the harvest, but also a stake in the conservation and management of the resources. So, the right to fish can be regulated, but Indigenous people should be part of that regulation.
What this discussion of traditional fishing illustrates is the complexities of the issues and the need for thorough analysis before developing crime prevention options. Different types of fishing activities require different responses. While incentives might be crucial to forestalling illegal fishing by Indonesian traditional fishers in Australian waters, trade-related regulation would be more appropriate as a means to deal with large-scale illegal fishing (Lack 2007). In other instances, a variety of situational measures can be applied that have a distinct marine application (Smith & Anderson 2004).
We can envisage a wide range of techniques, approaches and strategies to environmental crime prevention regarding illegal fishing. While suggestive of possible interventions, drawing from such a list only makes sense and 'works' when put into specific fishing contexts. Studies of particular types of illegal fishing - such as abalone, lobster and toothfish - show great variation in motives, techniques, local cultures and scale of operation (Anderson & McCusker 2005; Lugten 2005; McMullan & Perrier 2002; Tailby & Gant 2002). As argued throughout this paper, the specificity of the harm should drive the type of intervention. In turn, this requires close analysis of the multiple facets of each type of harmful activity.
Conclusion
This paper concludes by briefly highlighting a few issues that confront criminologists in trying to understand environmental issues. In considering these, it is pertinent to consider the types of skills, capacities and organisational relationships needed if we are to prevent environmental harm.
Defining the problem
The question of how to define the problem is an intractable and necessary part of the development of environmental crime prevention. Many areas of harm to humans, the environment and non-human animals are presently not criminalised. This includes such destructive, degrading and dehumanising practices as clear-felling of old-growth forests, reliance upon battery hen egg and poultry production, and use of depleted uranium in weapons. From an analytical perspective, conceptualisation of harm should not rely upon the distinction between legal and illegal per se, especially as some of the world's most environmentally disastrous practices are still legal. Environmental crime prevention may entail the exposure of negative, degrading and hazardous practices as a prelude to the banning or close control of such practices. New concepts of harm, as informed by ecological sciences and environmental values, will inevitably be developed as part of this process. For example, an ecological perspective on planetary wellbeing looks at the world in terms of climate change, biodiversity and waste/pollution (UNEP 2007). Human activities covering these domains contribute to environmental deterioration, and are detrimental to specific humans, non-human animals and ecological systems. Criminalisation and regulation of such behaviour is crucial if ecological values are to prevail.
Prevention and precaution
Uncertainties surrounding future impacts and consequences mean that debate will occur over when preventative measures need to be introduced as a precautionary measure. The politics of ecological sustainability will collide with the interests of economic growth, as greater adherence to the precautionary principle will almost always lead to curtailment of existing profit-making enterprises. Environmental crime prevention must be forward-looking if human, biosphere and non-human interests are to be protected in the future. This means implementing interventions now to guarantee environmental wellbeing later.
For example, a study of lobster poaching in Canada found a complex underground economy, with alliances between outlaw poachers, hotels, restaurants, community groups and private citizens. This was in a social environment in which the taking of lobster was seen as the natural right (and yearly ritual) of locals (McMullan & Perrier 2002). A futures orientation means grappling with such entrenched practices through innovative thinking at both a policy and grounded intervention level.
Different opinions over future consequences can also mean that those who take action now (such as protesting) for the sake of future generations may be criminalised in the present. But the history of law reform is built precisely upon such tensions.