Announcements

As part of a leading research university, Syracuse University College of Law combines a balanced academic commitment to scholarship, teaching, and research. Interdisciplinary programs at the College of Law partner our offerings with other schools and colleges to create initiatives that cross academic barriers - thus our students gain both a sound doctrinal legal education and practical hands-on experience in the real world. The College of Law includes nine academic interdisciplinary centers and institutes led by nationally recognized faculty.


Table of Contents

The Science Charade in Species Conservation

Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, PERC - Property and Environment Research Center

Sex, Sea Turtles, and Missed Opportunities: Biodiversity-Related Provisions in the Paris Agreement

Ed Couzens, The University of Sydney Law School

A Historical Reassessment of Congress's 'Power to Dispose of' the Public Lands

Jeffrey M. Schmitt, University of Dayton - School of Law

The Old ‘New’ Dignitarianism

Raffael Nicolas Fasel, University of Cambridge, Students


ANIMAL LAW eJOURNAL
Sponsored by Syracuse University College of Law

"The Science Charade in Species Conservation" Free Download
24 Supreme Court Economic Review, (2017 Forthcoming)
Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-18

JONATHAN H. ADLER, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, PERC - Property and Environment Research Center
Email:

Debates over implementation and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) often focus on the use of science. The debate over the use of science under the ESA is part of the “science charade? that clouds substantive policy debate about species conservation. What typically divides competing interest groups is not a devotion to science, but sharply divergent policy preferences dressed up in scientific garb. The political debate over the use of science under the ESA tends to obscure the dividing line between science and policy and undermines the development of more effective and equitable conservation strategies. Further, efforts to reform the ESA by mandating additional scientific procedures or increasing judicial scrutiny of the use of science by federal agencies will do little to address the ESA’s underlying problems or make species conservation efforts more effective.

"Sex, Sea Turtles, and Missed Opportunities: Biodiversity-Related Provisions in the Paris Agreement" Free Download
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW-MAKING AND DIPLOMACY REVIEW 2015, E. Couzens, T. Honkonen, M. Lewis, eds, University of Eastern Finland, Finland, 2017
Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 17/76

ED COUZENS, The University of Sydney Law School
Email:

Would the loss of a species due to climate change qualify as a ‘climate change-related disaster’? This paper considers the statuses of the seven species of sea turtle and the numerous and inter-related threats that they face from climate change. In particular, warming temperatures threaten to have a disrupting effect on the ratios of male to female turtles, given that turtles have temperature-dependent sex determination. The paper considers the climate change-related threats to sea turtle reproduction as an intense example of the sorts of disruption that climate change may have on biodiversity generally. It is argued that this is the level of informed understanding with which negotiators should approach drafting and adopting international environmental instruments. The paper then considers the extent to which biodiversity-related considerations are reflected in the Paris Agreement of 2015, concluding that far more could and should have been done to include these.

"A Historical Reassessment of Congress's 'Power to Dispose of' the Public Lands" Free Download
Harvard Environmental Law Review, 2018 Forthcoming

JEFFREY M. SCHMITT, University of Dayton - School of Law
Email:

The Property Clause of the Constitution grants Congress the “Power to Dispose? of federal land. Congress uses this Clause to justify permanent federal landownership of approximately one-third of the land within the United States. Legal scholars, however, are divided as to whether the original understanding of the Clause supports this practice. While many scholars argue that the text and intent of the framers show that Congress has the power to permanently own land within the states, others contend that these sources demonstrate that Congress has a duty to dispose of all federal land not held pursuant to another enumerated purpose. This scholarly debate has become increasingly important in recent years, as a popular movement for state ownership of federal land has reemerged in the West.

This Article argues that the debate over the history of the Property Clause should move beyond the Founding. The original public meaning of the text, intent of the framers, and precedent of the early Supreme Court simply do not resolve the issue of whether Congress’s Duty to Dispose includes the power to permanently retain land within the states. This Article therefore provides the first detailed examination of how Congress’s Power to Dispose has been understood since the Founding. It concludes that, although western extremists have repeatedly challenged Congress’s power when federal land policy has restricted western development, dominant opinion has always supported a broad construction of Congress’s power. In fact, those who favor federal land ownership have long argued that giving land to individual states would violate a constitutional obligation for Congress to use the land for the common benefit. When constitutional history is properly applied to Congress’s Power to Dispose, it therefore strongly supports federal land ownership.

"The Old ‘New’ Dignitarianism" Free Download

RAFFAEL NICOLAS FASEL, University of Cambridge, Students
Email:

Recent times have witnessed a resurrection of human dignity. In an effort to counter the challenges to human uniqueness posed by advances in the biotechnologies, zoological findings about the striking similarities between humans and other animals, as well as developments in artificial intelligence, a movement referred to as the ‘new dignitarianism’ has reclaimed the special dignity of the human. By drawing on an Enlightenment debate between two philosophers, this article shows that there is hardly anything new about the ‘new’ dignitarians. The main purpose of the article is not historical, however. To analyse why contemporary arguments are in many ways a reiteration of this Enlightenment debate, I propose to understand them as representative of two streams of thinking: dignitarianism and naturalism. After examining the three core tenets of these conceptions, I argue that they stake out a spectrum of approaches with the aid of which we can analyse the strengths and weaknesses of naturalist and egalitarian theories, past and present. The article thus makes two main claims: first, the dignitarian response to naturalist challenges is not new, and second, understanding the core tenets of these views allows us to better evaluate arguments made on the spectrum between naturalism and dignitarianism.

^top

About this eJournal

Sponsored by: Syracuse University College of Law.


This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts on legal, policy and jurisprudential issues relating to animals.

It includes within its scope wildlife, domestic animals, and farm animals. Subject matter includes, but is not limited to torts, tax, public heath, family law, commercial transactions, contracts, agricultural law, law and rhetoric, international business transactions and international trade, constitutional law, criminal law, property, insurance, estates and trusts, comparative law, foreign law, or other areas of the law, as they relate to animals. Abstracts are welcomed which broadly approach the area, including discourses regarding the jurisprudence of animal rights and animals as sentient beings. We welcome abstracts on practice, theory, and empirical research as related to the topic.

Editors: Hannah R. Arterian, Syracuse University, and Deborah S. Kenn, Syracuse University

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.