Search

This paper examines the changes of the papal bullae between around 1100 and 1530. Pope Paschal II (1099-1118) was the first to use a leaden bulla showing all the elements that were to become common in the period before 1464. However, Paschal II and his successor Calixtus II still used another dies for a more elaborate seal until 1124. After that time, the bullae remained almost unchanged, but the lettering of the popes' names was increasingly modernised, especially in the decade after 1281. A first example showing heraldic patterns appeared when Pope Clement VI (1342) had his name framed by little roses that resemble his coat of arms. Urban VI (1378) even had two different bullae showing heraldic eagles imported from his coat of arms, whereas his opponent Clement (VII.) used a fleurde- lys pattern, probably hinting at his French royal ancestry. Later, seals became more sober, only Gregory XII had little eyes placed around his name. For a time after the Great Schism a rather traditional bulla was used but then some details were modernised. In 1464 Paul II radically changed the whole seal, but his successors returned to the old pattern in a new style. Obviously, Renaissance medallists reintroduced the papal arms in the bullae in 1503, but on the apostels' side. For Hadrian VI, there are first clues for a gilded leaden seal and his successor Clement VII used two different types of golden bullae. In addition to this, the paper identifies some counterfeit examples, and written sources regarding the bullae, like critical views on the innovations or texts on their making, are examined as well. All attempts to introduce new patterns into the bullae were constrained or at least perceptibly decelerated by the recipients, who preferred the traditional appearance. Thus, the development of papal seals as a means for legitimation was controlled by the external expectations of the outward world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution is an introductory survey and preliminary evaluation of the conservation status of eagles in South African law. The methodology is primarily an interdisciplinary literature study of legal texts and texts from the natural sciences. Eagles are some of the largest and most powerful avian predators, and the human response to their presence is dualistic and polarised. At the one extreme, many people admire eagles, while at the other extreme they are perceived as a threat to economic and other interests, and may even be actively persecuted in a conviction that they are vermin. This duality in the human perception of eagles is also prevalent in South Africa and complicates their conservation. The mobility of eagles and other birds of prey means that they cannot be restrained by fencing national parks and other protected areas, and this heightens the likelihood of their entering into conflict with human interests. The conservation problems faced by eagles in South Africa can broadly be divided into direct and indirect threats. Direct threats include the intentional killing of eagles, and trade in eagles and their eggs. Indirect threats include non-targeted poisoning (where poisoned bait is used to control other predators, but eagles find the bait, feed on it, and succumb); habitat loss; mortality induced by dangerous structures; and disturbance. The legal status of eagles is influenced by a large body of legislative provisions, ranging from international and regional legal instruments, through national legislation, to provincial legislative measures. An overview of these provisions is given, with concise explanations of how they apply to the legal status of eagles and other birds of prey in South Africa. The conservation status of eagles in South African law is subsequently evaluated by considering the contribution of the applicable laws to three main types of conservation interventions. In respect of the first, habitat preservation, the relevant legal provisions contribute to an impressive array of conserved habitats in national parks and other protected areas. However, the mobility of eagles, and the fact that some species occur mainly outside protected areas, make it imperative for eagles also to be afforded legal protection outside of protected areas. In respect of the second type of intervention, namely management activities to conserve the species in their habitats, an inquiry is made into how the law addresses the threats of the intentional killing of eagles; trade in eagles and their eggs; non-targeted poisoning; mortality induced by dangerous structures; and disturbance. The protection is found to be sound in principle. In respect of the third and most intensive intervention, captive breeding, a regulatory framework is in place, but no such intervention on eagle species is known to be operative in South Africa. In conclusion a number of recommendations are made. The existing laws can be improved by aligning the legal status of species with their Red List status; listing all bird of prey species that are not Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable, as Protected for the purpose of national environmental legislation; and, in the medium rather than the short term, considering the imposition of legal obligations on electricity suppliers to implement measures that will mitigate mortalities on electricity structures. Better application of the existing laws could be achieved by improving compliance and enforcement, and by facilitating the optimal use of Biodiversity Management Plans, environmental research, and environmental education.