Collaboration at the Front Line: INTERPOL and NGOs in the Same NEST

  • David Higgins
  • Rob White
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology book series (PSGC)

Abstract

At the international level INTERPOL is a central player in global environmental law enforcement. In 2010, at the 79th INTERPOL General Assembly, the Chiefs of Police from, its then, 188 member countries adopted an Environment Enforcement Resolution. This resolution acknowledges that:

Environmental law enforcement is not always the responsibility of one national agency, but rather, is multi-disciplinary in nature due to the complexity and diversity of the crime type which can encompass disciplines such as wildlife, pollution, fisheries, forestry, natural resources and climate change, with reaching effect into other areas of crime. (INTERPOL and UNEP, 2012: 2)

Keywords

Harness Peru 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayling, J. (2013), ‘Harnessing Third Parties for Transnational Environmental Crime Prevention’, Transnational Environmental Law, 2(2), 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, I. and Braithwaite, J. (1992), Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bergin, A. and Allen, R. (2008), ‘The Thin Green Line: Climate Change and Australian Policing’, ASPI Special Report- Issue 17. Canberra: Australian Strategic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Braithwaite, J. and Drahos, P. (2000), Global Business Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) (2012), The International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime. Available at http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/iccwc.php (accessed 6 September 2012).
  6. Environmental Investigation Agency (2008), Environmental Crime: A Threat to Our Future. London: EIA.Google Scholar
  7. Garriott, W. (2013), ‘Introduction Police in Practice: Policing and the Project of Contemporary Governance’, in W. Garriott (ed.), Policing and Contemporary Governance: The Anthropology of Police in Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gunningham, N. and Grabosky, P. (1998), Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. INTERPOL (2012), National Environmental Security Task Force: Bringing Compliance and Enforcement Agencies Together to Maintain Environmental Security. Lyon, France: INTERPOL.Google Scholar
  10. INTERPOL and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2012), Summit Report: International Chiefs of Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. Lyon, France: INTERPOL and UNEP.Google Scholar
  11. Pink, G. (in press), ‘INTERPOL’s NEST: Building Capability and Capacity to Respond to Transnational Environmental Crime’, in L. Elliott and W. Schaedla (eds), Transnational Environmental Crime Handbook. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Sheptycki, J. (2004), ‘The Accountability of Transnational Policing Institutions: The Strange Case of INTERPOL’, Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 19(1), 107–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) (2011), Transnational Organized Crime in the Fishing Industry. Vienna: United Nations.Google Scholar
  14. White, R. (2011), Transnational Environmental Crime: Toward an Eco-global Criminology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. White, R. (2012), ‘NGO Engagement in Environmental Law Enforcement: Critical Reflections’, Australasian Policing: A Journal of Professional Practice and Research, 4(1), 7–11.Google Scholar
  16. Wyatt, T. (2013), Wildlife Trafficking: A Deconstruction of the Crime, the Victims, and the Offenders. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© David Higgins and Rob White 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Higgins
  • Rob White

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations