Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42021118›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026

The entanglement between the IUCN Red List and international biodiversity law.

Rens Claerhoudt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The entanglement between the IUCN Red List and international biodiversity law.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Rens ClaerhoudtTilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3176-6160

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (red list) is of fundamental importance for nature conservation and biodiversity protection. I considered the interaction between the red list and international biodiversity law (IBL), the legal regime that aims to protect biodiversity at a global level. The red list is deeply embedded in each of the five global biodiversity treaties. As the most authoritative database on species conservation status, the red list often displays a supra-legal character: its species designations effectively dictate policy makers to act accordingly. In some cases, species designations even create legal facts, a phenomenon I call auto-legality. The entanglement between the red list and IBL makes pertinent the negative critique of the list regarding species bias and interhuman inequalities. The IUCN sets rigorous assessment criteria but refrains from directing who makes the assessments. This results in the red list containing a bias in favor of vertebrate species and a Global North ecovision. Addressing these persistent problems would improve the merit of the close relation between the IUCN Red List and IBL. Species experts must come to terms with the political nature of their work and use it to the benefit of species conservation. Policy makers should invest in a better understanding of the IUCN Red List to optimize its potential for legal species protection.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesInternational LawAnimalsderecho internacional para la biodiversidaddesigualdadinequalityinteracción ciencia‐legislacióninternational biodiversity lawIUCN Red ListLista Roja de la UICNscience–law interactionsesgo por especiespecies biassupralegalidadsupra‐legality

Identifiers

PMID42021118
PMCPMC13392794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.