International Court of Justice finds Peru not guilty of poaching in Brazil

            In its first and second sessions, the International Court of Justice tip-toed around the issue of poaching by Peruvians in Brazilian territory, but was far more focused on the semantics of the case and what should actually be debated. Some allegations of fact were discussed and one count was mentioned. No resolutions have even begun to be discussed or written about, illustrating a clear stagnation of the legal process.

            In recent years, jaguar and macaw populations on the Pantanal Matogrossense National Park reserve have dwindled as a result of illegal poachers. The jaguar population has gone from 3,000 to 2,500 and the macaw population has gone from 5,000 to about 4,000 according to Brazil. Brazil and Peru are both parties to the Convention and International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and have both agreed to the UN Millennium Development Goals, which promote the security of environmental sustainability. Brazil is accusing Peru of failing to prevent poaching, and thus demanding compensation for the depleting jaguar and macaw populations. Since there is only one testimony regarding suspected Peruvian poachers by a Brazilian park ranger, there is a distinct lack of evidence that this crime was actually committed by Peruvian citizens at all.

            As the second session started, justices addressed the first count: violation of CITES. Almost immediately, there was a near unanimous concern over the lack of jurisdiction that the ICJ has over this matter. All the justices, with the exception of Brazil, believed that this matter would be best handled by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as designated by CITES.

Japan spoke up and expressed that, due to Brazil’s inability to effectively monitor the large park they are “dodging fire” of claims that they are not protecting their own preserves and “redirecting blame” onto Peru. Brazil responded by saying “We are not at fault at all because we are not turning a blind eye to it. If we were we wouldn’t be here debating it. If Peru is doing something wrong we shouldn’t have to finance their problem.”

Justice Beckford of Japan argues that Brazil is incapable of sufficiently monitoring Pantanal Matogrossense National Park.

As the representative from Peru, an environmental lawyer from the state, came to give testimony, he accused Brazil of attempting to manipulate the international order so as to coerce Peru into complying with its agenda. The representative further alleged that the Brazilian government was trying to unnecessarily acquire reparations for its own economic and political gain.

 There was continued debate as to whether or not either country was to blame and even more talk circulating of attempting to transfer this case to the PCA. As a result, there was a schism regarding opinions in the case and progress was frequently interrupted.

Eventually, however, the ICJ found Peru not guilty of both counts brought against them and encouraged Brazil and Peru to take this case to the PCA.

With count one no longer up for debate, the ICJ moved on to count two: Obstruction of the Millennium Development Goal 7, Target 7B.  Justices from France, New Zealand, Morocco, Portugal, and Slovakia submitted an opinion paper that found Peru not guilty on this count. It was agreed that Brazil had submitted insufficient evidence to convict Peru, and it would be wrong to condemn them in this instance without more credible evidence.

Surprisingly, the justices have also begun to entertain the idea that Brazil may be at fault and reparations to be paid by Brazil were being discussed, demonstrating that ICJ has a way of delivering justice in ways not necessarily preconceived.