1. Introduction

Cross-Border De-Extinction Governance refers to the legal, institutional, scientific and ethical framework governing the recreation, restoration or reintroduction of extinct species across national boundaries.

De-extinction involves using advanced biotechnology to recreate organisms resembling extinct species through techniques such as:

Genome reconstruction using ancient DNA.

CRISPR-Cas gene editing.

Cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Selective breeding and back-breeding.

Synthetic biology and genome engineering.

Reproductive technologies involving living surrogate species.

Examples of proposed de-extinction projects include the woolly mammoth, thylacine, passenger pigeon and dodo.

De-Extinction Breakthrough: Unveiling the Woolly Mammoth Genome With Groundbreaking DNA Technology

Tasmanian Tiger Thylacinus cynocephalus illustration 1896

Finished Work — Science and Nature Illustration by Savannah Hoskinson

7

The cross-border dimension arises when genetic material, embryos, reproductive cells, laboratory technologies, research data, surrogate animals or recreated organisms move between countries.

For example, a research institution in one country may reconstruct the genome of an extinct species using DNA samples obtained from another country, produce embryos in a third country and seek to introduce the resulting organisms into a fourth country's ecosystem.

This creates difficult questions concerning:

Sovereignty over genetic resources.

International biodiversity protection.

Access and benefit-sharing.

Biosafety and biosecurity.

Animal welfare.

Indigenous and local community rights.

Transboundary environmental liability.

Intellectual property ownership.

International trade and wildlife regulation.

Important legal distinction: There is currently no comprehensive international treaty exclusively regulating de-extinction. Its governance must therefore be understood through existing biodiversity, biotechnology, wildlife, environmental, trade and animal-protection laws.

2. Meaning and legal nature of de-extinction

De-extinction does not necessarily recreate an extinct species in its original genetic form.

Three important legal and scientific categories should be distinguished.

A. Genetic resurrection

This involves reconstructing an organism using preserved genetic material, cloning or other reproductive technologies.

The legal questions include:

Who owns or controls the biological samples?

Was the original genetic material lawfully collected?

Does the research require special biosafety approval?

Are there restrictions on transferring genetic material internationally?

B. Genetic proxy creation

Scientists modify the genome of a living relative to produce an organism with selected characteristics of an extinct species.

For example, gene editing of an elephant genome to introduce selected mammoth-associated traits would produce a genetically modified proxy rather than necessarily recreating an authentic woolly mammoth.

This raises questions concerning genetically modified organism regulation, species classification and the applicability of wildlife protection laws.

C. Ecological restoration

This concerns introducing recreated organisms into ecosystems to restore ecological functions previously performed by extinct species.

The legal issues include:

Environmental impact assessment.

Ecosystem disturbance.

Disease transmission.

Competition with existing species.

Transboundary migration.

Liability for ecological damage.

The distinction is important because an organism may be genetically engineered, ecologically novel and legally classified differently under different national systems.

3. International legal framework governing cross-border de-extinction

A. Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is one of the most important international instruments relevant to de-extinction.

Its principal objectives are:

Conservation of biological diversity.

Sustainable use of biological resources.

Fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources.

Relevant provisions

Application to de-extinction

Suppose an extinct species originally existed in India, but its preserved DNA is held in a European museum. A biotechnology company in the United States uses that DNA to reconstruct the genome and creates a genetically modified organism.

Questions arise:

Does the original genetic material qualify as a genetic resource subject to access restrictions?

Is prior informed consent necessary?

Must benefits be shared with the country providing the resource?

Does the project affect biodiversity conservation?

Can the organism be introduced into its historical habitat without environmental approval?

The CBD provides the general framework for addressing these questions.

An important qualification is that the CBD does not automatically confer ownership over every historical specimen or sequence on the country where an extinct animal once lived. The applicable rules depend on the origin, collection history, date of access, domestic implementation and relevant agreements.

B. Nagoya Protocol, 2010

The Nagoya Protocol establishes rules concerning access to genetic resources and fair and equitable benefit-sharing.

Its relevance is particularly strong where de-extinction research uses genetic resources obtained from another country.

Important legal principles include:

Prior informed consent, where required by the provider country's law.

Mutually agreed terms.

Benefit-sharing.

Compliance with domestic access legislation.

Monitoring of genetic-resource utilization.

Example

A biotechnology company obtains preserved biological material from a country that has established access and benefit-sharing requirements. The company subsequently develops a commercially valuable de-extinction technology.

The company may face benefit-sharing obligations depending on the applicable legal framework and the material's status.

A difficult question concerns digital sequence information (DSI). Researchers may download an ancient genome sequence from an international database without physically transferring any biological sample.

The CBD's 2024 decision 16/2 and subsequent 2025 implementation decisions concerning DSI are important developments in this area. They establish a multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism for qualifying uses of digital sequence information, including the Cali Fund framework.

Convention on Biological Diversity+2

C. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2000

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is particularly important when de-extinction produces genetically modified living organisms.

Its principal purpose is to ensure adequate protection against potential adverse effects of living modified organisms (LMOs) on biodiversity, taking human-health risks into account.

Important provisions

bch.cbd.int+2

Example

A laboratory creates a mammoth-like organism through genome editing and intends to transport it to another country for ecological release.

If it qualifies as an LMO under the Protocol, the applicable biosafety procedures may require advance notification, risk assessment and authorization before the relevant transboundary movement.

However, the classification must be examined carefully. Not every organism described as a de-extinction product necessarily falls within the Protocol's definition of an LMO. The organism must satisfy the relevant treaty definitions.

D. Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol, 2010

This Supplementary Protocol addresses liability and redress for damage resulting from living modified organisms within its scope.

Its importance arises when a de-extinction organism causes biodiversity damage after an international transfer.

Possible examples include:

Destruction of native vegetation.

Competition with endangered species.

Transmission of pathogens.

Genetic contamination of related populations.

Ecological disruption following escape from containment.

The Protocol provides a framework for response measures, including measures to prevent, minimize, contain or restore biodiversity damage.

It should not be treated as a universal compensation regime for every ecological consequence of de-extinction. Its application depends on the instrument's scope and the domestic measures adopted by participating countries.

E. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), 1973

The CITES regulates international trade in specimens of species listed in its Appendices.

De-extinction creates difficult classification questions.

For example:

Would a recreated thylacine be treated as the extinct taxon?

Would a genetically modified proxy be treated as a living relative?

Would its embryos, tissues or reproductive cells qualify as regulated specimens?

Could commercial trade be restricted because of the conservation risks associated with the organism?

CITES does not automatically regulate every organism merely because it resembles an extinct animal. The relevant taxonomic listing, specimen definitions and applicable rules must be examined.

F. Convention on Migratory Species

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals may become relevant when a recreated organism belongs to a migratory species or when its ecological movements cross national borders.

The principal legal concerns include:

International habitat protection.

Cooperation between range states.

Migration corridors.

Population monitoring.

Coordinated conservation strategies.

A recreated migratory organism should not be released without examining the ecological and legal implications for all potentially affected countries.

4. Major legal issues in cross-border de-extinction

A. Sovereignty over genetic resources

Genetic resources may originate in one country, be stored in another, sequenced in a third and commercially utilized elsewhere.

This creates competing claims involving:

Countries of origin.

Museums and biobanks.

Indigenous communities.

Universities.

Private biotechnology companies.

International research collaborations.

The CBD recognizes sovereign rights over natural resources, while the Nagoya Protocol establishes access and benefit-sharing obligations within its scope.

However, sovereignty over genetic resources should not be confused with absolute ownership of every specimen, genetic sequence or invention derived from it.

B. Cross-border transfer of biological material

De-extinction projects may require the international transfer of:

Ancient DNA samples.

Preserved tissues.

Cell cultures.

Embryos.

Reproductive material.

Genetically modified organisms.

Living surrogate animals.

Different legal regimes may govern each category.

For example, the transfer of non-living ancient DNA is legally different from the export of a living genetically modified embryo.

A country may impose customs controls, research permits, biosecurity requirements, quarantine procedures and export restrictions.

C. Environmental impact assessment

One of the most significant legal challenges is determining whether the reintroduction of an extinct organism could damage an existing ecosystem.

A recreated animal may not possess exactly the same behaviour, ecological role or genetic characteristics as its extinct counterpart.

A proper environmental assessment should examine:

Habitat suitability.

Population carrying capacity.

Food-chain consequences.

Disease risks.

Competition with existing wildlife.

Predatory behaviour.

Hybridization.

Climate change.

Potential cross-border ecological effects.

Under CBD Article 14 and general international environmental law, environmental assessment becomes especially important where there is a risk of significant adverse transboundary impact.

D. Transboundary ecological liability

Suppose Country A releases genetically engineered extinct-animal proxies near its border. The animals migrate into Country B and damage native biodiversity.

Legal questions include:

Was the release authorized?

Was the ecological risk reasonably foreseeable?

Did Country A perform an adequate environmental assessment?

Did Country A notify Country B?

Who bears the cost of containment and restoration?

Can affected communities claim compensation?

Liability may arise under domestic environmental legislation, biosafety laws, applicable treaties or general international law, depending on the circumstances.

E. Indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge

De-extinction may involve genetic material, historical knowledge and ecological information associated with Indigenous peoples.

Potential concerns include:

Unauthorized use of traditional knowledge.

Cultural objections to recreating particular species.

Commercial exploitation of genetic resources.

Exclusion from conservation decisions.

Failure to consult affected communities.

The CBD and Nagoya framework, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, provide relevant principles concerning participation, traditional knowledge and benefit-sharing.

The extent of legally enforceable consent requirements depends on the applicable national and international legal provisions.

F. Intellectual property rights

De-extinction may produce inventions involving:

Reconstructed genomes.

Gene-editing techniques.

Cloning methods.

Synthetic DNA.

Embryonic technologies.

Reproductive techniques.

Patent protection raises questions about inventorship, patentability, biological material, public policy and access to technology.

The patentability of a technique does not necessarily establish ownership over the original species or the ecosystem into which it may be introduced.

G. Biosecurity and public health

A recreated organism could potentially introduce unfamiliar pathogens or interact with contemporary pathogens in unexpected ways.

Cross-border biosecurity governance therefore needs:

Quarantine standards.

Pathogen screening.

Secure transportation.

Laboratory containment.

Veterinary supervision.

Emergency notification.

Long-term surveillance.

The risk must be assessed scientifically rather than assumed merely because the organism is recreated.

5. Important case laws and judicial precedents

There are currently no established leading court judgments specifically deciding the legality of de-extinction. Nevertheless, several international and domestic environmental judgments provide important legal principles that can be applied to de-extinction projects.

The following cases are particularly relevant.

Case 1. Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada), 1938 and 1941

Important international precedent

Facts:

A Canadian smelting facility emitted sulphur dioxide fumes that crossed the border and caused damage to agricultural land, forests and other property in the United States.

The United States initiated proceedings against Canada.

Legal issue:

Whether a country could permit activities within its territory that caused serious environmental injury in another country.

Decision:

The arbitral tribunal recognized the principle that a State cannot use or permit the use of its territory in a manner that causes serious transboundary environmental injury to another State.

Application to de-extinction:

Suppose Country A releases a recreated extinct predator into a border ecosystem. The animal migrates into Country B and damages endangered wildlife populations.

Country A could face international responsibility if the applicable legal requirements for State responsibility and transboundary environmental harm are established.

Legal principle: States must exercise appropriate control over activities within their jurisdiction that risk causing serious environmental harm beyond their borders.

ICLRC Biodiversity Legal Database+1

Case 2. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), ICJ, 2010

Environmental impact assessment precedent

Facts:

Uruguay authorized the construction of pulp mills near the River Uruguay, which forms part of the boundary between Uruguay and Argentina.

Argentina challenged the project, alleging violations of environmental obligations and failures to follow prior notification and consultation procedures.

Legal issue:

Whether Uruguay had complied with its obligations concerning environmental protection, notification and cooperation.

Decision:

The International Court of Justice found that Uruguay had violated procedural obligations concerning notification and cooperation under the applicable river treaty.

However, the Court did not find sufficient evidence establishing the alleged substantive environmental damage.

The Court also recognized that environmental impact assessment is required under general international law where a proposed industrial activity risks significant adverse transboundary impact.

Application to de-extinction:

Before introducing a recreated organism into a shared ecosystem, the releasing State should assess possible consequences for neighbouring countries.

It should consider:

Migration beyond national boundaries.

Changes in food chains.

Transmission of disease.

Genetic interaction with existing populations.

Damage to protected habitats.

Legal principle: Environmental assessment and international cooperation are important procedural obligations when significant transboundary environmental risks exist.

International Court of Justice+2

Case 3. Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), ICJ, 2015

Facts:

Nicaragua undertook activities in a disputed border region involving excavation and construction works affecting environmentally sensitive wetlands.

Costa Rica challenged the activities, raising issues of territorial sovereignty and environmental protection.

Legal issue:

Whether activities undertaken by a State in a border region violated the territorial and environmental rights of another State.

Decision:

The ICJ found that Nicaragua had violated Costa Rica's territorial sovereignty through certain activities in the disputed territory.

The judgment also addressed environmental obligations in the joined proceedings concerning Costa Rica's road construction. The Court held that an environmental impact assessment was required where there was a risk of significant transboundary harm.

Application to de-extinction:

A State cannot treat an ecological restoration project as exclusively domestic if its effects may extend into another country's territory.

For example, a recreated migratory species could move into neighbouring protected wetlands, affecting the ecological balance.

Legal principle: Territorial sovereignty must be exercised consistently with international environmental obligations.

International Court of Justice+1

Case 4. Certain Activities (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Compensation Judgment, ICJ, 2018

Facts:

Following its earlier judgment, the ICJ had to determine compensation for environmental damage caused by Nicaragua's unlawful activities.

Legal issue:

Whether environmental damage itself could be compensated under international law, including the loss of ecosystem services.

Decision:

The Court recognized that environmental damage, including impairment or loss of environmental goods and services, could be compensated.

It awarded Costa Rica compensation for environmental damage and restoration-related costs.

Application to de-extinction:

Suppose a recreated organism causes damage to a neighbouring country's wetland, forests or endangered species.

Compensation could potentially include:

Restoration of damaged habitats.

Recovery of affected wildlife populations.

Monitoring expenses.

Loss of ecosystem services.

Reasonable remediation costs.

The necessary causal connection and applicable rules of responsibility must still be established.

Legal principle: Environmental injury is not limited to physical damage to private property; damage to ecological functions can also be legally compensable.

ICLRC Biodiversity Legal Database+1

Case 5. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647

Important Indian precedent

Facts:

The case concerned pollution caused by tanneries in Tamil Nadu, which discharged untreated industrial waste and damaged agricultural land and water resources.

Legal issue:

Whether industrial development could continue at the expense of environmental protection and public health.

Decision:

The Supreme Court of India recognized the precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle as essential components of Indian environmental law.

Application to de-extinction:

If a biotechnology company proposes to release a recreated organism without adequate scientific evidence concerning its ecological safety, regulators may require additional assessment and preventive measures.

Where serious or irreversible environmental harm is threatened, scientific uncertainty cannot automatically justify proceeding with the release.

Legal principle: Prevention of serious environmental damage is an essential part of sustainable development.

Sci API+1

Case 6. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718

Facts:

The dispute involved environmental clearance and the proposed location of an industry near a drinking-water source.

Legal issue:

How should courts and regulators deal with scientific uncertainty in environmental decision-making?

Decision:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of scientific expertise and the precautionary principle in environmental adjudication.

Application to de-extinction:

De-extinction involves scientific uncertainties relating to:

Genetic stability.

Reproductive health.

Disease susceptibility.

Behavioural differences.

Ecosystem compatibility.

Regulatory authorities should obtain independent scientific assessments before approving environmental release.

Legal principle: Environmental decisions involving scientific uncertainty require competent expert evaluation and precautionary decision-making.

Case 7. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212

Facts:

The case concerned industrial pollution and serious environmental damage caused by chemical industries.

Legal issue:

Whether polluting industries could be required to bear the financial burden of restoring the damaged environment.

Decision:

The Supreme Court applied the polluter-pays principle and emphasized that those responsible for pollution must bear the costs of remediation.

Application to de-extinction:

If a company releases an organism that damages an ecosystem, the company may be required under applicable domestic law to finance containment, rehabilitation and restoration.

Legal principle: Environmental protection costs should not automatically be transferred to the public.

Case 8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), (1987) 1 SCC 395

Facts:

An industrial gas leak in Delhi caused serious public harm.

Legal issue:

Whether enterprises engaged in hazardous activities could escape liability through traditional negligence-based standards.

Decision:

The Supreme Court developed the doctrine of absolute liability for enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities.

Application to de-extinction:

Where a de-extinction biotechnology operation qualifies as an inherently hazardous activity under the applicable Indian legal framework, questions may arise concerning strict or absolute liability for resulting harm.

This is particularly relevant to:

Dangerous biological containment failures.

Hazardous laboratory operations.

Unsafe handling of genetically modified organisms.

Serious environmental consequences.

The doctrine should not automatically be extended to every de-extinction research activity; its application depends on the nature of the activity and the legal requirements.

Case 9. Confédération paysanne and Others v. Premier ministre and Ministre de l'Agriculture, C-528/16, CJEU, 2018

Facts:

The case concerned organisms obtained through modern mutagenesis techniques and whether they were covered by the European Union's GMO regulatory framework.

Legal issue:

Whether organisms produced through newer genetic-engineering techniques could be excluded from GMO regulation.

Decision:

The Court of Justice of the European Union held that organisms obtained through mutagenesis fall within the GMO Directive's scope, subject to the exemptions specified in the Directive.

Application to de-extinction:

A genetically engineered proxy of an extinct species may fall within GMO regulatory requirements, depending on the technology used and the applicable statutory definitions.

This is particularly important for determining:

Authorization requirements.

Environmental risk assessment.

Labelling.

Monitoring.

Release restrictions.

Legal principle: The legal classification of genetically engineered organisms depends on the applicable statutory definitions and cannot be determined solely by the desired characteristics of the organism.

This is an analogous biotechnology precedent, not a decision about de-extinction itself.

6. Comparative national governance

Different countries may regulate the same de-extinction project through different combinations of environmental, wildlife and biotechnology legislation.

Indian legal position

India has particular relevance because it possesses extensive biodiversity and numerous historically documented extinct and endangered species.

The following legislation may become important.

1. Biological Diversity Act, 2002

Relevant to access to biological resources, associated knowledge and benefit-sharing.

The 2023 amendment changed parts of the statutory framework. The precise approval and compliance requirements depend on the person involved, the resource and the applicable statutory provisions.

2. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Provides broad environmental regulatory powers, including the framework for regulating hazardous substances and genetically engineered organisms.

3. Rules, 1989 concerning hazardous microorganisms and genetically engineered organisms or cells

These rules are relevant to activities involving genetically engineered organisms, subject to their definitions and scope.

4. Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

May become relevant to the protection, possession, transport and trade of wildlife and specimens, depending on the classification and circumstances.

5. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, as amended and renamed in 2023

The Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam may become relevant where de-extinction projects involve regulated forest land or associated activities.

6. Constitution of India

Important provisions include:

Article 21: Right to life, interpreted to include environmental protection.

Article 48A: State responsibility to protect the environment and wildlife.

Article 51A(g): Fundamental duty to protect the natural environment and show compassion for living creatures.

The combined effect of these provisions supports environmental scrutiny of projects involving the creation and release of novel organisms.

7. International institutional governance

Cross-border de-extinction requires cooperation between several international institutions.

The IUCN's conservation translocation guidelines are especially useful when considering whether a recreated organism should be introduced into the wild.

A conservation authority should distinguish between:

Reintroducing a species into its indigenous range.

Introducing a species outside its historical range.

Replacing an extinct species with a genetically modified proxy.

Releasing an organism for ecological engineering.

These activities can have very different ecological and legal consequences.

8. Major regulatory challenges

A. Absence of a uniform international definition

Different countries may classify a recreated organism as:

A genetically modified organism.

A wildlife specimen.

A novel biological organism.

A conservation-reintroduced species.

A genetically modified animal.

This creates regulatory uncertainty.

B. Conflict between national sovereignty and global biodiversity

A country may authorize de-extinction within its territory, but the consequences may extend into neighbouring countries.

The releasing State's domestic authorization cannot automatically override another State's environmental interests.

C. Genetic ownership disputes

A de-extinction project may use genetic material originating from several countries.

Disputes may arise concerning access rights, patent ownership, commercial benefits and traditional knowledge.

D. Scientific uncertainty

The reconstructed organism may differ significantly from its extinct counterpart.

Even successful genetic reconstruction does not establish that the animal will have identical behaviour, physiology or ecological functions.

E. Regulatory arbitrage

Companies may select countries with relatively permissive biotechnology regulations to undertake research or conduct experimental releases.

This creates the possibility of cross-border regulatory evasion.

F. Long-term monitoring difficulties

Some organisms may reproduce, migrate and establish populations over many generations.

Consequently, the environmental consequences may emerge decades after the initial release.

A regulatory system based solely on pre-release authorization would therefore be inadequate.

9. Proposed international governance model

A comprehensive international framework could be developed through cooperation under the CBD and its relevant protocols.

The following model would provide a structured regulatory approach.

Proposed cross-border de-extinction approval framework

Stage 1: Scientific identification

Establish whether the proposed organism is a genetic reconstruction, proxy organism or modified living relative.

Stage 2: Genetic-resource authorization

Verify the lawful origin of biological samples, access permissions, applicable consent requirements and benefit-sharing obligations.

Stage 3: Biosafety classification

Determine whether the organism qualifies as an LMO and identify the applicable domestic and international requirements.

Stage 4: Independent risk assessment

Assess ecological, genetic, reproductive, veterinary and biosecurity risks.

Stage 5: Transboundary consultation

Notify and consult potentially affected States where significant transboundary environmental risks arise.

Stage 6: Conditional authorization

Approve contained research or limited experimental release subject to enforceable safeguards.

Stage 7: Monitoring and liability

Require continuous monitoring, emergency response arrangements, financial guarantees and ecological restoration measures.

Proposed legal safeguards

A future international instrument should consider the following safeguards:

Mandatory identification and registration of de-extinction organisms.

Internationally coordinated environmental impact assessments.

Prior notification for qualifying transboundary LMO movements.

Access and benefit-sharing arrangements for genetic resources.

Consultation with Indigenous and local communities.

Independent scientific review.

Long-term ecological monitoring.

Liability and compensation mechanisms.

Emergency containment and recovery procedures.

International cooperation in disease surveillance.

These are proposed regulatory reforms, not a statement that all ten obligations already exist under current international law.

10. Critical legal questions for future litigation

The development of de-extinction technology may generate several new categories of litigation.

11. Relationship between de-extinction and animal welfare

De-extinction is not simply a biodiversity issue. It also creates animal welfare concerns.

The creation of an organism may involve:

Repeated unsuccessful embryo implantation.

Surrogate pregnancy.

Genetic abnormalities.

Developmental complications.

Reproductive failure.

Captive breeding.

Experimental animal procedures.

The legal framework should therefore examine the welfare of both the recreated organisms and the living animals used in the research.

The fact that an animal belongs to a recreated extinct lineage should not automatically deprive it of applicable animal welfare protections.

12. Relationship between de-extinction and conservation policy

An important legal controversy concerns whether financial resources should be directed towards recreating extinct species or protecting currently endangered species.

Two competing approaches can be identified.

Conservation restoration approach

De-extinction may potentially restore lost ecological functions, increase scientific knowledge and support biodiversity recovery.

Conservation precaution approach

Resources could instead be allocated to habitat protection, endangered-species recovery, anti-poaching programmes and existing biodiversity conservation.

A legal approval system should require applicants to demonstrate the project's conservation objectives, ecological feasibility and compatibility with existing conservation priorities.

De-extinction should not be treated as a substitute for protecting living endangered species.

13. Conclusion

Cross-Border De-Extinction Governance represents an emerging field at the intersection of international environmental law, biotechnology law, biodiversity protection, intellectual property and biosecurity.

Its central legal challenge is that the creation of a recreated organism may occur in one jurisdiction while its ecological, genetic and economic consequences extend across several others.

The CBD, Nagoya Protocol, Cartagena Protocol, CITES and general international environmental law already provide important legal foundations. Judicial decisions such as Trail Smelter, Pulp Mills, Certain Activities (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum provide relevant principles concerning transboundary harm, environmental assessment, cooperation, precaution and restoration.

However, these precedents do not directly establish a complete legal regime for de-extinction.

The future regulatory framework must address not merely whether scientists can recreate an extinct organism, but also whether they can lawfully transport, reproduce, commercially exploit and release that organism without violating biodiversity obligations or the environmental rights of other States.

The fundamental principle is that scientific capability to recreate extinct life does not automatically create a legal entitlement to release that life into the natural environment.

14. Important legal instruments and case-law reference list

International instruments

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992.

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2000.

Nagoya Protocol, 2010.

Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol, 2010.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, 1973.

Convention on Migratory Species, 1979.

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007.

Principal judicial authorities

Useful primary legal resources

Convention on Biological Diversity – Full Text

Cartagena Protocol – Full Text

Nagoya Protocol – Full Text

CITES – Convention Text

ICJ – Pulp Mills Judgment

ICJ – Costa Rica v. Nicaragua

Supreme Court of India – Precautionary Principle

Research qualification: The cases discussed above are analogous precedents establishing relevant legal doctrines. They should not be cited as judgments that have directly adjudicated the legality of de-extinction.