{"title":"Climate Change in the Era of Post-Truth","authors":"C. Arboleda","doi":"10.15779/Z38W669857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38W669857","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67571727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Oceans have played a critical role in shielding Earth from some of the more serious impacts of climate change by absorbing approximately 30 percent of emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide. However, this has resulted in an approximate 26 percent increase in acidity of oceans since the industrial period. This not only presents the scientific challenge of addressing the problem of ocean acidification and its impacts on ocean marine life, but also presents many legal challenges. This Article will assess if the existing international legal framework provides the necessary foundation to address these legal challenges. Specifically, this Article will analyze whether two key global regimes, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, provide the necessary legal foundation to address ocean acidification. It concludes that while UNCLOS establishes the legal obligation of States to address ocean acidification, it does not by itself provide for the framework for taking the collective action needed for a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change regime appears to provide a better vehicle for the collective action necessary to mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide causing ocean acidification.
{"title":"Ocean Acidification: Falling Between the Legal Cracks of UNCLOS and the UNFCCC","authors":"Nilufer Oral","doi":"10.15779/Z38SB3WZ68","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38SB3WZ68","url":null,"abstract":"Oceans have played a critical role in shielding Earth from some of the more serious impacts of climate change by absorbing approximately 30 percent of emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide. However, this has resulted in an approximate 26 percent increase in acidity of oceans since the industrial period. This not only presents the scientific challenge of addressing the problem of ocean acidification and its impacts on ocean marine life, but also presents many legal challenges. This Article will assess if the existing international legal framework provides the necessary foundation to address these legal challenges. Specifically, this Article will analyze whether two key global regimes, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, provide the necessary legal foundation to address ocean acidification. It concludes that while UNCLOS establishes the legal obligation of States to address ocean acidification, it does not by itself provide for the framework for taking the collective action needed for a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. By contrast, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change regime appears to provide a better vehicle for the collective action necessary to mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide causing ocean acidification.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67548279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wolves are controversial carnivores whose management generates intense debate. That debate, and the response from wolf managers, often fails to adequately account for rural communities’ fears about wolves. These fears, if ignored, can lead to the frustration of conservation objectives and a disrespect for the law itself. In order to avoid these consequences, nongovernmental organizations and governments involved in wolf management must survey rural communities and implement wolf management strategies that account for rural concerns while honoring conservation objectives. This Note explores rural attitudes and their consequences in the United States and Europe, and proposes a new way forward in navigating the divide between rural stakeholders and wolf managers.
{"title":"Continental Divides: How Wolf Conservation in the United States and Europe Impacts Rural Attitudes","authors":"Holly Firlein","doi":"10.15779/Z38XS5JH2K","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38XS5JH2K","url":null,"abstract":"Wolves are controversial carnivores whose management generates intense debate. That debate, and the response from wolf managers, often fails to adequately account for rural communities’ fears about wolves. These fears, if ignored, can lead to the frustration of conservation objectives and a disrespect for the law itself. In order to avoid these consequences, nongovernmental organizations and governments involved in wolf management must survey rural communities and implement wolf management strategies that account for rural concerns while honoring conservation objectives. This Note explores rural attitudes and their consequences in the United States and Europe, and proposes a new way forward in navigating the divide between rural stakeholders and wolf managers.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67588243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In January 2017, the Second Circuit upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Water Transfers Rule (Rule), reversing a decision by the Southern District of New York to vacate the Rule and remand the matter to the EPA.1 The decision in Catskill IV was greeted as a victory by many western states and water management districts, but was a disappointment for environmental organizations and downstream states that had intervened as plaintiffs. As the second federal circuit affirming the validity of the Rule, the Catskill IV court further cemented the EPA’s decision to formalize the practice of exempting water transfers from the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) permitting system.2 Although the Second Circuit cited numerous alternative mechanisms for resolving pollution disputes outside of the CWA permitting system, these mechanisms are infrequently used, unpredictable, and in some cases unavailable to the states. As a result, the holding in Catskill IV leaves the regulation of water transfers almost exclusively in the hands of individual states where water transfers occur and leaves downstream states without effective mechanisms for protecting their waterways from unwanted pollution.
{"title":"Regulating Water Transfers in the Wake of Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. EPA: Examining Alternatives to NPDES Permits","authors":"Mary Rassenfoss","doi":"10.15779/Z386T0GW5M","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z386T0GW5M","url":null,"abstract":"In January 2017, the Second Circuit upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Water Transfers Rule (Rule), reversing a decision by the Southern District of New York to vacate the Rule and remand the matter to the EPA.1 The decision in Catskill IV was greeted as a victory by many western states and water management districts, but was a disappointment for environmental organizations and downstream states that had intervened as plaintiffs. As the second federal circuit affirming the validity of the Rule, the Catskill IV court further cemented the EPA’s decision to formalize the practice of exempting water transfers from the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) permitting system.2 Although the Second Circuit cited numerous alternative mechanisms for resolving pollution disputes outside of the CWA permitting system, these mechanisms are infrequently used, unpredictable, and in some cases unavailable to the states. As a result, the holding in Catskill IV leaves the regulation of water transfers almost exclusively in the hands of individual states where water transfers occur and leaves downstream states without effective mechanisms for protecting their waterways from unwanted pollution.","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67414644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Public Finance, Stormwater, and the California Constitution: Who Pays for Trash Cans at Bus Stops?","authors":"A. Flynn","doi":"10.15779/Z38RF5KG00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RF5KG00","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67540074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Climate change and associated ocean acidification present varied and complex threats to Antarctic fisheries, making conservation and sustainable management of these fisheries more challenging than ever. The ecosystem approach is generally considered to be the most effective way of enhancing the climate resilience of fisheries, and the Commission on the Conservation and Management of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is expressly charged with implementing that approach in achieving its conservation objective. Implementation of the ecosystem approach is, however, a complex and challenging matter, and the emerging need to graft climate change impacts onto the range of factors already to be considered exacerbates these difficulties. This Article examines the implications of climate change for Antarctic fisheries, focusing on issues of both ecosystem resilience and the institutional resilience of the Commission on the Conservation and Management of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. While the potential implications of climate change on the Antarctic marine ecosystem have been under general discussion in the Commission since 2002, the Commission still has a long way to go in moving to actively anticipate climate stressors, in absorbing their importance into its decision-making processes, and in reshaping its management measures to address climate-driven changes in the Antarctic marine ecosystem. (Less)
{"title":"Climate change and antarctic fisheries : Ecosystem management in CCAMLR","authors":"R. Rayfuse","doi":"10.15779/Z381834271","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z381834271","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change and associated ocean acidification present varied and complex threats to Antarctic fisheries, making conservation and sustainable management of these fisheries more challenging than ever. The ecosystem approach is generally considered to be the most effective way of enhancing the climate resilience of fisheries, and the Commission on the Conservation and Management of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is expressly charged with implementing that approach in achieving its conservation objective. Implementation of the ecosystem approach is, however, a complex and challenging matter, and the emerging need to graft climate change impacts onto the range of factors already to be considered exacerbates these difficulties. This Article examines the implications of climate change for Antarctic fisheries, focusing on issues of both ecosystem resilience and the institutional resilience of the Commission on the Conservation and Management of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. While the potential implications of climate change on the Antarctic marine ecosystem have been under general discussion in the Commission since 2002, the Commission still has a long way to go in moving to actively anticipate climate stressors, in absorbing their importance into its decision-making processes, and in reshaping its management measures to address climate-driven changes in the Antarctic marine ecosystem. (Less)","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67376003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 1972, in his dissent to the majority’s decision in Sierra Club v. Morton, Justice Blackmun posed a question: “Must our law be so rigid and our procedural concepts so inflexible that we render ourselves helpless when the existing methods and the traditional concepts do not quite fit and do not prove to be entirely adequate for new issues?” Forty years later, Aotearoa New Zealand’s parliament answered in the negative. Responding to the New Zealand Crown government’s historic failure to meet their treaty responsibilities with Māori iwi (tribes) and current fears of environmental degradation, the New Zealand Crown government found flexibility in their legal system to accommodate Māori views of nature as a living entity that cannot be owned and used as property. By transforming a former national park and an economically important river from property to legal persons under the guardianship of the interested Māori tribe, the New Zealand Crown government eschewed rigidity in order to meet their treaty obligations while also safeguarding the best interest of each natural feature as an ecological system. In the following Note, I borrow from feminist theory and environmental philosophy to examine how the categories of nature and personhood function within a cultural context to support the status quo of nature as property. I conduct a detailed examination of the case of Lavinia Goodell, a woman denied admittance to the bar in 1875, in order to show how cultural attitudes determine categorical boundaries, indicating that nature can gain legal personhood based on changing cultural norms. After considering different models of valuing and protecting nature in the United States and around the world, I argue that nature, like Lavinia Goodell, has intrinsic value and thus should be entitled to legal
1972年，在对塞拉俱乐部诉莫顿案(Sierra Club v. Morton)多数派裁决的异议中，布莱克蒙法官提出了一个问题:“我们的法律是否必须如此严格，我们的程序概念是否必须如此僵化，以至于当现有的方法和传统概念不太适合或不能证明完全适用于新问题时，我们就会束手无策?”40年后，新西兰议会的回答是否定的。新西兰皇家政府历来未能履行对Māori iwi(部落)的条约责任，以及目前对环境退化的担忧，为此，新西兰皇家政府在其法律体系中找到了灵活性，以适应Māori将自然视为一个活生生的实体，不能作为财产拥有和使用的观点。通过将一个前国家公园和一条具有重要经济意义的河流从财产转变为法人，在Māori部落的监护下，新西兰政府避免了僵化，以履行其条约义务，同时也保护了每个自然特征作为一个生态系统的最佳利益。在下面的注释中，我借用女权主义理论和环境哲学来研究自然和人格的类别如何在文化背景下发挥作用，以支持自然作为财产的现状。我对1875年被拒律师资格的女子拉维尼娅·古德尔(Lavinia Goodell)一案进行了详细的研究，以展示文化态度如何决定绝对界限，表明自然可以在不断变化的文化规范的基础上获得法律人格。在考虑了美国和世界各地不同的评估和保护自然的模式后，我认为自然，就像拉维尼娅·古德尔一样，具有内在价值，因此应该享有法律权利
{"title":"An Indivisible and Living Whole: Do We Value Nature Enough to Grant It Personhood?","authors":"A. K. Athens","doi":"10.15779/Z38251FK44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38251FK44","url":null,"abstract":"In 1972, in his dissent to the majority’s decision in Sierra Club v. Morton, Justice Blackmun posed a question: “Must our law be so rigid and our procedural concepts so inflexible that we render ourselves helpless when the existing methods and the traditional concepts do not quite fit and do not prove to be entirely adequate for new issues?” Forty years later, Aotearoa New Zealand’s parliament answered in the negative. Responding to the New Zealand Crown government’s historic failure to meet their treaty responsibilities with Māori iwi (tribes) and current fears of environmental degradation, the New Zealand Crown government found flexibility in their legal system to accommodate Māori views of nature as a living entity that cannot be owned and used as property. By transforming a former national park and an economically important river from property to legal persons under the guardianship of the interested Māori tribe, the New Zealand Crown government eschewed rigidity in order to meet their treaty obligations while also safeguarding the best interest of each natural feature as an ecological system. In the following Note, I borrow from feminist theory and environmental philosophy to examine how the categories of nature and personhood function within a cultural context to support the status quo of nature as property. I conduct a detailed examination of the case of Lavinia Goodell, a woman denied admittance to the bar in 1875, in order to show how cultural attitudes determine categorical boundaries, indicating that nature can gain legal personhood based on changing cultural norms. After considering different models of valuing and protecting nature in the United States and around the world, I argue that nature, like Lavinia Goodell, has intrinsic value and thus should be entitled to legal","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67382496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Martin’s Beach, a privately owned, rugged, photogenic strip of sand south of Half Moon Bay on California’s Pacific coast, has become a flashpoint for a changing state. When billionaire Vinod Khosla—new owner of the beach and abutting property—closed Martin’s Beach to the public in 2009, environmentalists, surfers, and local government joined forces to restore public access. Shrinking coastline due to sea-level rise, a growing and diversifying statewide population, and widening wealth disparities cast the fight for public access to Martin’s Beach in an almost existential light: Who really enjoys the right to go to the beach, and for how much longer? For generations, California’s world-famous beaches have been endemic to the culture of the state and the identity of its residents. The movement to protect the rights of all Californians to enjoy the beach culminated in the 1972 passage of Proposition 20, which mandated public access to the entire coast and sought to protect the beaches from encroaching development.1 Decades later, the fight to protect access has been renewed in the courtroom, as a handful of wealthy individuals up and down the coast have sought to limit public beach access and erode a fundamental part of California life.2 Recent decisions in two cases—the latest in an ongoing tangle of litigation—leave the right of Californians to access beaches in jeopardy. In Friends of Martin’s Beach v. Martin’s Beach 1, LLC (Friends I and Friends II), two separate courts found that there was no historical right of public access to
{"title":"Martin's Beach Litigation and Eroding Public Access Rights to the California Coast","authors":"Paul Balmer","doi":"10.15779/Z380Z70X0K","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z380Z70X0K","url":null,"abstract":"Martin’s Beach, a privately owned, rugged, photogenic strip of sand south of Half Moon Bay on California’s Pacific coast, has become a flashpoint for a changing state. When billionaire Vinod Khosla—new owner of the beach and abutting property—closed Martin’s Beach to the public in 2009, environmentalists, surfers, and local government joined forces to restore public access. Shrinking coastline due to sea-level rise, a growing and diversifying statewide population, and widening wealth disparities cast the fight for public access to Martin’s Beach in an almost existential light: Who really enjoys the right to go to the beach, and for how much longer? For generations, California’s world-famous beaches have been endemic to the culture of the state and the identity of its residents. The movement to protect the rights of all Californians to enjoy the beach culminated in the 1972 passage of Proposition 20, which mandated public access to the entire coast and sought to protect the beaches from encroaching development.1 Decades later, the fight to protect access has been renewed in the courtroom, as a handful of wealthy individuals up and down the coast have sought to limit public beach access and erode a fundamental part of California life.2 Recent decisions in two cases—the latest in an ongoing tangle of litigation—leave the right of Californians to access beaches in jeopardy. In Friends of Martin’s Beach v. Martin’s Beach 1, LLC (Friends I and Friends II), two separate courts found that there was no historical right of public access to","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67373650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Combatting Lake Invaders: A Proposal for Ballast Water Standards to Save the Great Lakes from Invasive Species","authors":"K. Sinclair","doi":"10.15779/Z385X25C8H","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z385X25C8H","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45532,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67407728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：