• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
The roots of the legal systems of the United States, Australia and Canada spring from a common English heritage in which protection of property is a prominent feature. Within these societies, when government expropriates private property, there is a presumption and, in some cases, a constitutional compulsion to compensate the owner. In the 1920s, the United States Supreme Court deviated from the principle in American and English law that compensation is required only when a government acquires a legal interest in or takes possession of property. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, the Supreme Court found that regulating the use of property, in that case Pennsylvania Coal's mineral rights, may also require compensation if the regulation goes too far. Claims of regulatory taking did not become common, however, until the 1970s when land use and environmental regulation became pervasive. Property rights advocates, not only in the United States but also in Australia and Canada, sought more extensive protection when these regulations seriously devalued or limited the use of land. By the 1990s, cases in both Australia and Canada seemed to follow the lead of Mahon by requiring compensation for land use regulations that seriously devalued mineral rights. This paper surveys and compares the development of the concept of regulatory taking in the United States, Australia and Canada, and discusses each country's struggle to balance important public interests reflected in land use and environment regulation with protection of private property, and to develop a consistent theory of regulatory taking.

Abstract:
Early in the negotiations of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) there was widespread agreement that coastal states should exercise exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries in an extended economic zone (EEZ). A number of premises formed the basis for the Law of the Sea Convention's grant of exclusive fishery management authority to coastal states. The first was that coastal state jurisdiction could provide a more functional fisheries management regime. Most fisheries are located within 200 miles of a coast, making the 200-mile [EEZ] a rational area for management. Second, by placing these areas under exclusive jurisdiction of the coastal state, entry into fisheries would be controlled, thereby reducing both the potential for overfishing and for overcapitalization of fishing fleets. In addition, coastal states would have authority to enforce regulations against all vessels within the [EEZ] and not be dependent on the weak flag state enforcement that characterized regulation by international fisheries organizations. Finally, prevailing theories of fisheries management were presumed to be adequate to protect and maintain fisheries if jurisdictional control and effective enforcement authority were established. None of these premises turned out to be entirely valid.

This article discusses the continuing decline of the state of fisheries since coastal states were given virtually complete discretion in interpreting and implementing their duties under the LOS Convention and the failure of coastal states to meet their most fundamental obligation -the prevention of overexploitation of EEZ fish stocks. The future of EEZ management is discussed from the perspective of international law, focusing on the role of the LOS Convention, other international treaties and obligations, and relevant developments in international environmental law.

Abstract:
The Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act of Belize was enacted in 1998 and reflects the trend in legislation in Belize toward more accountability and transparency for government actions and more direct participation by the public in decision making, particularly concerning public resources. The legislation also recognizes that conservation and development of the coastal zone necessary to assure sustainable development requires an integrated approach to coastal zone management to deal with the complexities arising from the natural and human interactions in the area where land meets sea. The CZM Act relies, however, on diverse legislation and authorities for implementation, and much of the legislation is outdated and does not reflect the current situation in the country or address the present needs.

In Belize, as in most jurisdictions, a great deal of environmental, natural resources and land use legislation preceded the development of a coastal zone management program. And, as in most jurisdictions, coastal zone management has had to take into account these existing authorities. The purpose of this study is to review possibilities for better implementation of the CZM Act of 1998 through integration of sound coastal zone management policy into the planning, policy development and decision making of these authorities.

This first section of this paper reviews the laws and regulations of Belize relevant to integrated coastal zone management and discusses some of the perceived strengths and weaknesses, overlaps and gaps in the legislation or its implementation in the context of coastal management. General recommendations for improvement are also included in this discussion. The second part of the paper summarizes recommendations for legislation, regulations and policy development to better achieve integrated coastal zone management. Finally, specific amendments are provided for the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Act in Appendix I. Appendix II provides a draft proposed policy for Marine National Lands. Appendix III and IV include regulations for implementing several provisions of the CZM Act. Proposed modifications to the Fisheries Bill are included at Appendix V. Appendix VI includes the proposed Marine Dredging Management Policy. Appendix VII contains a review of the current law concerning citizen standing. Appendix VIII discusses a review and recommendations on marine environmental treaties. Appendix IX provides information on the consultation process used in developing this study.

Abstract:
The two recent national ocean policy studies considering the fate of United States' oceans in the twenty-first century, conducted by the Pew Oceans Commission and the United States Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP), were largely in agreement on some very fundamental issues. First, both commissions concluded that human activities have severely stressed ocean systems and that major changes in ocean management are needed to stop degradation of ocean resources and to restore and protect the oceans for future generations. Second, the commissions found that better management of the oceans required an ecosystem-based approach implemented through coordinated, regional mechanisms. But the jurisdictions of our federal and state governments are not organized to operate or take actions at regional levels. Any proposals to implement the goals of a regional, ecosystem-based approach to ocean management must therefore consider how regional mechanisms would be structured and how they would function in our federal system. This paper discusses the various regional governance structures and approaches to coordination and compliance that the reports, the executive level Ocean Action Plan, and the current legislative initiatives propose. It is clear from these responses that the widespread agreement that a regional approach is needed has not led to widespread consensus what kind of response is necessary to deal with the mismatch between governance structure and the need for eco-regional governance of the oceans.

Abstract:
Recent recommendations by national ocean policy studies for an ecosystem-based approach to management of marine activities and resources across sectors is a laudable, but extremely controversial and perhaps ultimately overwhelming goal if not approached incrementally. Problems of conflict and inconsistency which exist not only between sectors, but also within sectors, must be resolved. This article considers an approach to resolving conflicts within the sector of living marine resources management that could provide an incremental step toward more comprehensive ecosystem-based management. This article first provides a comparative analysis of the management regimes of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act - the primary statutes governing the management of living marine resources. The article then proposes a framework for a comprehensive management regime for living marine resources incorporating an ecosystem-based approach.

Abstract:
As sandy beach property has become more scarce and more expensive, the controversies between upland owners and public users of the beach have increased. The public has an absolute right under the public trust doctrine to use the beach below the mean high water line (MHWL) boundary that defines the limits of state lands and littoral ownership, but “knowing” where that ambulating line is at any given time is virtually impossible. This uncertainty exacerbates the tensions that in Florida are leading to clashes between private land owners and the public. Setting a fixed boundary would lead to more certainty and consequently less controversy, but both legal and policy issue arise concerning this approach. In once instance, however - setting a fixed boundary between upland owners and submerged, public trust lands for purposes of government restoration of critically eroding beaches - a fixed boundary with appropriate protections for littoral owners seems to address problems of certainty, as well as legal and policy concerns. The Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Act’s (BSPA) use of this approach has been challenged in the Florida Supreme Court and subsequently in the U.S. Supreme Court in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Protection. This article explores public and private interests in beaches and shores, and how the complexities of coastal boundaries contribute to controversies about the use of beaches. The article then looks at how the BSPA attempts to protect both the private and public interests in the coast through, among other provisions, establishing a fixed boundary for restored beaches. Finally, the challenges confronting Florida’s beach management that have arisen as a result of suits in the Florida Supreme Court and now in the U.S. Supreme Court are analyzed.

Abstract:
Evidence has piled up to support the proposition that marine reserves increase biomass of overfished stocks. But marine reserves can also perform other services to complement an ecosystem-based approach to management. Research on many marine reserves is showing a spillover effect in abundance of fish in adjacent areas. Designation of marine reserves protects some habitat from the direct effects of fishing and provides areas for recovery and restoration. Marine reserves provide baseline information on habitat to help distinguish natural variability from user impacts. Reserves can serve as experimental sites for ecosystem restoration and studying processes that may be operable throughout an ecosystem or region. Finally, a reserve may provide insurance against excessive exploitation in light of scientific indeterminacy and management uncertainty, and assure the survival of the ecosystem for future generations.

Abstract:
In the late I960s the environmental movement was budding in the United Stales, and a land ethic was quickly emerging. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1961 ushered in a decade of environmental legislation addressing numerous areas of the human environment. In the midst of this environmental awakening, a report entitled "Our Nation and the Sea" was issued in January 1969 by a presidentially-appointed commission. This report of the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources, commonly known as the Stratton Commission Report, provided the first comprehensive review and assessment of U.S. ocean policy. Because of its timing, people looking back often presume that the health of the nation's seas was the primary focus of the Stratton Commission Report. This was not the case.