Our Limitations
All information presented in the Biodiversity Legal Database is the result of research conducted by the International and Comparative Law Research Center and the Database contributors. The sources relied upon are publicly available materials such as official websites of international organizations, government and judicial portals, and legal databases. All entries undergo internal review by ICLRC experts to ensure consistency and reliability. The Database is under active development and is being expanded on a rolling basis. We note that selection necessarily involves a degree of researcher discretion.
In the sections that follow, we set out the principal limitations of the Biodiversity Legal Database. For clarity, these are grouped into three categories: (i) completeness of coverage; (ii) accuracy and interpretive precision; and (iii) current legal status and subsequent developments. Each category is described below.
(i) Completeness of coverage
We aim to identify and include as many relevant instruments and cases as possible; however, not all can be incorporated. Constraints include limitations in public access to documents, the absence of digital versions of certain materials, restricted access to data, language barriers (e.g., many national decisions lack official translations into English or languages known to our researchers), and differing levels of transparency across legal systems. As a result, coverage is not uniform across jurisdictions. The absence of cases from a particular jurisdiction should not be understood as evidence that biodiversity-related litigation is not occurring there.
(ii) Accuracy and interpretive precision
While we strive to cite the original or most authoritative source for each material, some information may be absent or inaccurate for reasons outside our control, including errors introduced during digitization and difficulties in verifying the status of an instrument or case through reliable sources. In addition, our familiarity with particular jurisdictions and their legal systems varies. Differences in court structure and procedural rules, as well as language barriers, can affect how we interpret and present materials. Many decisions and instruments are available only in the original language; where full official texts or official translations are not publicly available, entries may rely on summaries, secondary sources, or working translations. In such cases, we identify the sources relied upon, indicate the documentation accessible to us and the language of those sources. Each entry is prepared with care and reviewed internally, but interpretive descriptions remain those of the researchers.
(iii) Current legal status and subsequent developments
Our ability to determine the full procedural history or current status of certain cases may be limited. In some legal systems it can be difficult, if not impossible, to confirm whether a decision has been appealed, modified, vacated, or overturned. Entries reflect the information available at the time of publication and may not fully capture later developments. And in the event that we are aware of recent updates to an instrument or a case it takes us time to update the Database accordingly. We strive to keep the Database current, but the constraints described above may hinder regular updates to all entries.
The Biodiversity Legal Database is provided for research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for official publications or professional advice. Users should consult the official texts and, where appropriate, seek qualified counsel.
If you come across new or more accurate information related to materials published in the Database, please use the “Suggest a correction” button in the upper-right corner of the webpage.
