ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
The entanglement between the IUCN Red List and international biodiversity law.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The entanglement between the IUCN Red List and international biodiversity law.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.