This article compares the use of litigation to enforce species protection law in the European Union (EU) with that of the United States (US). Recent legal disputes over wolf hunting on both continents offer useful case studies. Focusing on three aspects of litigation – namely, (i) against whom claims are brought, (ii) who can bring claims, and (iii) the types of claim that can be brought – the analysis contrasts US-style adversarial legalism with its European counterpart, or ‘Eurolegalism’, and assesses what each approach is able to deliver in terms of the legal protection of wolves. It is argued that Eurolegalism helps to explain the development of species protection law in the EU and its similarities to and differences from the American experience.

中文翻译：

---

美国和欧盟的对抗法主义和生物多样性保护

本文比较了欧盟 (EU) 和美国 (US) 使用诉讼来执行物种保护法的情况。最近两个大陆上关于猎狼的法律纠纷提供了有用的案例研究。该分析侧重于诉讼的三个方面——即（i）向谁提出索赔，（ii）谁可以提出索赔，以及（iii）可以提出的索赔类型——分析对比了美国式的对抗性法律主义与其欧洲对应物或“欧洲法律主义”，并评估每种方法在狼的法律保护方面能够提供什么。有人认为，欧洲法律主义有助于解释欧盟物种保护法的发展及其与美国经验的异同。