My academic background is in law, of which I have an LLB, LLM (Hons) and a Ph.D. My area of specialization is international environmental law. My academic work is buttressed by the publication of 7 books (with two more due out soon) and close to fifty academic, independently refereed, journal articles. The books can be seen at Amazon.com. In addition to a number of domestic awards, my internationally based academic awards include fellowships from the Rotary Foundation (used for my Ph.D in England); a Fulbright Fellowship (used for post-doctoral work at Columbia university in New York city); a Rockerfeller Fellowship (used for residency at the Bellagio Centre in Italy) and the NZ Law Foundation International Research Fellowship. In the last public assessment of all academics in NZ (the PBRF), I was awarded an ‘A’ grade. Less than 5% of all academics in NZ received this grade, which equated to acknowledgement of a highly recognized and successful international (not just domestic) status. In addition to being a professor at the University of Waikato,  I also lecture at a number of other overseas universities. For example, this year I have lecturered at Oxford, LSE and Queen Mary in London, and Ghent Law School in Belgium.
 
My work with NGOs can be traced to my long term (historic) relationship with Greenpeace, of which, most notable, was my working on the Rainbow Warrior when it was blown up in Auckland harbour in 1985. I have done a series of projects for, inter alia, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and the United Nations University, on climate change. I have worked with a number of different international environmental conventions, including, inter alia, the Conventions on Migratory Species (and associated subsidiary agreements); Biological Diversity; World Heritage; the trade in Endangered Species; and the International Whaling Commission.
 
In regard to the above  Conventions I have completed over 30 diplomatic missions for the NZ government since 1997, either as part of NZ delegations or independently, but acting under government authority. To facilitate this work, I am  accredited with a full diplomatic passport. I have also held a number of positions in international environmental forums. My latest position was as Rapporteur to the World Heritage Convention (this position ended in July 2006).   I also have strong working relationships with indigenous and local communities.

Our interview with Alexander Gillespie
1. Your area of specialisation is in international environmental law; however your work clearly impacts on animals.
a. What are the primary species that you have focussed on during the course of your work?
The species I have been involved with are cetaceans, turtles, various birdlife, and most of the other megafauna (although work on species such as the big cats, or great apes, is more at the academic level, as countries like NZ (and Australia) are limited by geographical range considerations, to how much say we have in these debates.

b.   Can you describe the nature of your involvement?
The nature of my work in int.env.law has been a combination of academic and diplomatic. Academic, in that I have written 8 books on int.env. topics, and close to 50 academic articles. Diplomatic, in that I have been on NZ delegations for close on ten years now, typically as a legal/policy advisor. My diplomatic work has also stretched to being utilised by a number of international organisations, such as being Rapporteur for the World Heritage Convention. I also assist a number of other governments, and a couple of NGOs.


2. Recently Australia has been criticised for objecting to Japan’s slaughter of whales and dolphins when one of the world’s greatest wildlife culls takes place on its own doorstep.
a. Do you think the Government’s support of the kangaroo industry impedes Australia’s moral authority when it comes to participation in international forums?
With regard to the slaughter of kangaroos, no. I do not think it makes Australia hypocritical, as you are not comparing the same species, the same environment, or even the same political context. The goal of the discussions on whale slaughter, is to reduce pain to the lowest possible level (and if this cannot be done, then there is a strong reason for the hunting not to proceed). Although Kangaroos and whales are not the same, the logic of this argument is the same (as in, both contexts should be aiming at lowest possible pain).

b.   Has New Zealand been subject to the same criticisms?
No, NZ has not been the subject to the same degree of criticism on this count. We have been in the past, but the criticism is often (but not always)  generated by pro-whaling front groups in reaction to how strong a country is anti-whaling. At the moment, Australia is at the forefront of the debate (NZ was a couple of years ago) and accordingly, they are getting a lot of pressure put on them.

3. Your past work has seen you work with a number of international conventions such as the Conventions on Migratory Species; Biological Diversity; World Heritage; the trade in Endangered Species; and the International Whaling Commission. Assuming that these conventions have played an important role in preserving the global environment:
a. do you think there is a role for conventions to protect animals;
I think there is a very strong role for conventions to protect animals. However, I am not in favour of anything like an ‘anti-cruelty’ convention. Rather, I prefer to see each convention, for each species, deal with all aspects of its life, of which cruelty is but one concern. This is also the most common way at the moment. That is, humane considerations are typically built in, at one level or another, into most treaties on international wildlife.

b. if so, what areas of animal law do you think the international community would most readily agree upon (eg food production standards, basic rights, the use of animals in scientific research etc)?   
With regard to new areas – on the topic of ‘basic rights’ – I cannot see that in my lifetime. We have recently seen a lot of good work done on the great apes, and this is covering many difficult aspects of their conservation. However, bar a few soft words and heavily nuanced words in the preambles to the new agreements, there is no considerations reflecting ‘rights’ types debates. This saddens me, as if we cannot stretch rights types debates to cover the most obviously related-to-us-and-our-rights species, then progress in other areas is likely to be very slow.

With regard to scientific testing – I doubt this will come about via an independent treaty. I have written about this topic, and it is now becoming a subset of most individual wildlife treaties (most notably, at the IWC).  Thus, in each individual context, the scientists and politicians get together to work out what the ethical limits to science are. Once you move outside of internationally covered wildlife (and the high seas) it becomes a domestic problem, more suited for individual countries to resolve for themselves (and most have been attempting to do so).

With regard to food production, I can only offer limited comment, as I do not work in this area. However, I expect that once food production standards start to become more heightened, and then the product is the subject to trade, we may see some strong debates about housing and killing standards evolve at the WTO.

4. Do you think one can be an environmentalist and animal protectionist or are the areas irreconcilable? For example, could it be said that environmental law focuses on protecting a community of animals whilst the focus of animal rights is the value of each individual?
I do not consider animal protection and environmentalism to be incompatible. This kind of argument saddens me, as the two should, 95% of the time, go hand-in-hand. Moreover, this is the common practice. Thus, when trying to save a species like the Albatross, right next to considerations of habitat, are methods to ensure humane considerations when dealing with the species. When the argument becomes about animal rights and environmentalism, then the problem becomes much more difficult.

I think you are correct that environmental policy/law – by its nature, tends to focus on the whole (and typically the ecosystem), but few people are so regimental that they exclude individual species within their calculations.  However, with some of the new problems, which have to be dealt with at the ecosystem level, such as climate change, the focus – due to the incredible size of the problem – has to be large (and not individualised between species).

5. Do you think that the evidence linking large-scale animal production to climate change will lead to an international convention on this issue? If so, can you suggest one or two provisions that it might include? 
I do not think that climate change will lead to a separate animals convention. All of the considerations dealing with animals are already being addressed in existing treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, CITES and the CMS. Species specific treaties and instruments will take this further.
   
6. Do you have any words of wisdom to share with Australia's budding animal lawyers?
Be strong. Realise that whilst we are ‘winning’ in some areas, these are a minority. There is a lot of work to be done. Do not be sloppy with your thinking. Engage with science, economics and  not just philosophy.  Attempt to see the big picture, and how each debate fits into it. Understand context, policy and diplomacy.  Do not be dogmatic.  Be strategic. Be professional. Use whatever intellectual tools you can to win your arguments. Understand that we are no-longer ‘basket-weavers’, or fringe hippies with a cause. The ethics of environment, wildlife and nature are the driving force for national and global debates in the future. Be strong.