Search

From 2002 to 2022, waterfowl were surveyed at Mono Lake to evaluate the their response to lake-level changes under the State Water Resources Control Board's landmark Decision 1631, in which the public trust doctrine was first applied to water rights. From September through mid-November, the total numbers of Mono Lake's most numerous dabbling duck, the Northern Shoveler (Spatula clypeata), averaged 13,018 ± 1571 (standard error), ranging from a high of 27,400 in 2008 to a low of 2719 in 2018. Annual peak counts averaged 5562 ± 709, ranging from a low of 768 in 2018 to the highest single-day count of 13,793 in 2012. Annual totals were higher under conditions of monomixis than under the stratified condition of meromixis. In a generalized linear model, the combined effects of survey period, biomass of Mono Lake brine shrimp (Artemia monica), and regional drought explained 67.8% of the variation in Northern Shoveler numbers at Mono Lake, i.e., higher Artemia biomass and more severe drought in northeast California resulted in higher shoveler counts. Lake level, a key component of waterfowl-habitat restoration, showed no effect within the range of lake levels observed. These results suggest that food resources and regional drought have been the most important factors influencing Northern Shoveler use of Mono Lake, so far overriding any small-scale influences of habitat variation due to lake-level changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critics of the Supreme Court sometimes accuse the Justices of disrespecting or being unfaithful to precedent--of undermining certain precedents while leaving them formally in place. Yet it remains unclear what exactly these criticisms mean or why they point to anything objectionable. This Article proposes that critics are often drawing attention to a particular practice: obstructing precedent. A better grasp of what obstructing precedent is and when it is legitimate is important to understanding the Roberts Court's treatment of precedent in a range of cases. A court obstructs precedent when it refuses to cooperate with its prior self in building a coherent body of law. The court reaches a holding in the instant case that cannot be justified by the same rationale--the same weighting of values or purposes--that justified its holding in the precedent case. As a result, the same institution seems over time to speak not with one voice but with multiple discordant voices that reflect no unified political vision. Over the last few years, the Roberts Court has repeatedly obstructed precedent in this sense in cases spanning diverse areas of the law. Those who criticize the Justices for disrespecting or being unfaithful to precedent usually imply that the Justices have thereby acted illegitimately. But that conclusion is too quick. There is nothing inherently illegitimate about obstructing precedent, either legally or politically; obstructing precedent can be a salutary means of gradual change. At the same time, the Court's especially aggressive pattern of obstructing precedent in recent years is cause for concern, given how that pattern undermines the impersonality of the Justices' reasoning and risks further eroding public trust in the Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The search for rare minerals is taking us well beyond the bounds of national jurisdiction, and international law is struggling to keep up. In the 1970s states agreed that the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction was the "common heritage of mankind," a doctrine that was ultimately codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The common heritage doctrine has, from the outset, been something of a chimera. And fears over its association with redistributive economic policies led to the failure of an agreement regulating activities on the moon. Yet the doctrine exists as a going concern in international law. Deep seabed mining is on track to begin in 2024. The United Nations is presently considering international rules for asteroid and lunar mining. And efforts to protect marine biodiversity continue to rely on the idea that certain resources are our common heritage. If states are to deal productively with any of these issues, we need a revitalized approach to the common heritage doctrine. Instead of embodying a static set of legal precepts, I argue for a flexible understanding of the common heritage doctrine rooted in theories of commons property that is sensitive to the peculiarities of specific natural resources. A fruitful exemplar of such an approach is the public trust doctrine of U.S. property law. Sharing with the common heritage doctrine a common foundation in Roman principles of common property, the public trust doctrine recognizes that governments hold certain natural resources in trust for the beneficial use of their citizens. By imposing this duty, and by limiting the purposes for which governments can use these resources, the public trust doctrine is a prototypical example of property as a set of governance rules. Drawing on the public trust doctrine's rich common law and scholarly history, I propose a four-part framework for a public trust approach to the common heritage doctrine. To demonstrate the opportunities made available by this approach, I take outer space mining as a case study and I propose steps that states can take to incrementally govern resource extraction in a manner more likely to attract international consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Groundwater is a precious--and all too often scarce or polluted--resource. As groundwater withdrawals continue apace, challenges have emerged around groundwater quality and quantity. In the past several years, courts and legislatures have increasingly been called on to resolve disputes involving groundwater. One recourse is the public trust doctrine--the principle that certain natural resources are held in trust by the state for the benefit of the public. But is groundwater a public trust asset? Should it be? And what does a groundwater trust look like? This Article seeks to answer these questions, exploring the relationship between groundwater and the public trust doctrine. It makes three contributions: (1) a catalog of the recent state-level debates over whether groundwater is a public trust asset; (2) a normative case for why groundwater should be a public trust asset; and (3) an articulation of how to entrust groundwater. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The second edition of "Wildlife Management and Conservation: Contemporary Principles and Practices" provides an updated and comprehensive overview of wildlife management, endorsed by The Wildlife Society. The text covers a wide range of topics, from the history of wildlife conservation to human dimensions in wildlife management, structured decision making, biological principles, habitat, wildlife restoration, and climate change. While primarily focused on the United States, the book serves as an excellent resource for undergraduate students and wildlife professionals, offering case studies and in-depth research to teach key concepts in the field. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is the property of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Environmental & Social Management Journal / Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental is the property of Environmental & Social Management Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Under the public trust doctrine, the government holds public lands in trust for the public and cannot unreasonably restrict citizens from accessing them or otherwise breach its duties as a trustee. The public trust doctrine is often thought of as a state law doctrine. However, local governments own a significant portion of public land. Some local governments argue that the public trust doctrine does not apply to them because the state is the proper trustee under the public trust doctrine. This Comment argues that the public trust doctrine applies to local governments. State law preempts local government law on matters of statewide concern, and because the public trust doctrine is a matter of statewide concern, the public trust doctrine preempts local government action that contravenes the public trust doctrine. Similarly, as agents of the state, local governments may not take action that the public trust doctrine prohibits the state from taking. This Comment starts by discussing those principles of Local government law, and then examines Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego, a recent case in Oregon that demonstrates how one state supreme court overturned the appellate court decision that declined to apply the public trust doctrine to local governments. This Comment also surveys six jurisdictions that expressly apply the public trust doctrine to local governments. Litigants can use the courts' reasoning in these cases to expand the application of the public trust doctrine to local governments in other jurisdictions that have not yet decided the issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on improving public trust in the judiciary by enhancing transparency and engagement. Topics include the judiciary's need for better public communication about court functions, the importance of receiving and utilizing feedback for improvement, and the benefits of remote access to court proceedings for increasing public confidence and accessibility.

The article focuses on the need for increased transparency in the hiring and roles of judicial clerks to enhance public trust in the judiciary. Topics include recent controversies involving judicial clerks, such as the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion, allegations of racial bias in clerk hiring, and criticisms from high-profile figures like Donald Trump. Additionally, it examines how greater disclosure of clerks' identities could impact judicial accountability, and public confidence.

The article focuses on the recent adoption of a formal Code of Conduct by the U.S. Supreme Court, highlighting its significance despite being less robust than other judicial frameworks. Topics include the need for specific and transparent ethical standards, the challenges of defining and addressing the appearance of impropriety, and the importance of aspirational goals in maintaining public trust and judicial integrity.

The article focuses on the role of judicial conduct commissions (JCCs) in maintaining public trust in the judiciary. Topics include the historical development of judicial ethics standards, the dual mission of JCCs to investigate misconduct while respecting judicial independence, and the need for proper resources and training to enhance the effectiveness of these commissions.

In the last couple of decades, Chronic Wasting Disease (“CWD”) has become a topic of concern for conservationists, animal welfare advocates, and fair-chase hunters, alike. The untreatable nature of CWD combined with its long incubation time makes the disease a threat to the health and welfare of cervids, like deer and elk. Furthermore, the rise of the cervid breeding industry has coincided with and exacerbated the spread of CWD through- out the United States and Canada. On top of this, the outsized representation and prevalence of Amish adherents in the cervid breeding raises concerns about the effectiveness of any efforts by Federal and State agriculture agencies to effectively regulate cervid breeding and curb the transmission of CWD. Therefore, due to the unique issues with non-compliance that stem from enforcing regulations on Amish communities and the internal expertise of wildlife agencies, it is recommended that states within the “Amish Belt,” a term coined by the author to refer to the states with the highest Amish populations that border the Great Lakes, adopt a regulatory framework that completely aligns with the public trust doctrine view of wildlife management and gives full authority to State wildlife agencies to regulate all cervids within the state. By solely granting state wildlife agencies the power to regulate cervids, regardless of origin, CWD manage- ment and mitigation efforts can be left to those with the most institutional knowledge on the subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The public trust doctrine holds promise as a tool for combatting international climate inaction. A global public trust in the Earth's atmosphere may be a feasible avenue for generating international cooperation in this issue. The public trust doctrine is a viable and underutilized mechanism of understanding our collaborative obligations with respect to natural resources. This Article looks to the historical origins and current presentations of public trusts to extract features which indicate its effectiveness and appeal for modern climate change applications. Additionally, it presents two circumstances under which a global public trust in the atmosphere could eventually develop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past few years, Canadian courts have heard the first climate change cases. These claims have been commenced on behalf of youth and future generations who allege that governments have failed to meet or, otherwise, uphold greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. This novel area of litigation has brought forth creative legal arguments to expand or re-envision existing doctrines in order to place blame for what continues to be a warming planet and increasingly unstable ecosystems. This article investigates the public trust doctrine. In Canadian courts, the doctrine's limited and arguably parochial interpretation has diverged from its understanding in other jurisdictions. Now, it appears to be at a crossroads. On the one hand, it can lay the foundation for robust climate litigation for years to come via common law, constitutional law, or even natural law interpretations. On the other hand, it could wither away into irrelevance as, even if it is recognized as part of Canadian law, it would be relegated to its historical origins as a property law doctrine that guarantees that natural resources can be accessed by the public--not a doctrine that obligates governments to protect natural resources for current and future generations. Arguably, the public trust doctrine sits alone as a potential tool to hold government and even corporate actors to account for their exceptional contributions to a warming planet. Currently, the tension in Canadian courts lies with how broadly to interpret the doctrine, particularly in light of past opinions that span from obiter comments in Canfor to the doctrine's recent rejection in La Rose. For an expansive public trust doctrine that could be applied in climate litigation, Canadian courts would construe governments as being responsible for the continued enjoyment of inherently public resources, including the air, atmosphere, forests, and all navigable waters. Pursuant to that understanding, the doctrine would serve as a cause of action for claims brought by individuals against governments as well as for claims brought by governments against arms-length corporations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change can be litigated through tort, common law, statute/policy, public trust doctrine or human rights among others. While climate change litigation appears to have developed in states of the Global North, its use is still relatively recent in states of the Global South. Nor has it been seriously considered from the perspective of international tribunals from the Global South. Therefore, this study examines a human rights approach to climate change litigation in the Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice (ECOWAS Court). This study finds that there are some developments in certain jurisdictions which make a human rights approach promising in terms of locus standi, justiciability, causation and separation of powers and that they can be related to the jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Court. It also finds that the doctrine of exhaustion of local remedies does not apply to the ECOWAS Court. Based on these findings, it is argued that a human rights approach can be successfully deployed to litigate climate change before the ECOWAS Court and that it can wake up West African States from their lethargy in terms of policy on, and treatment of, climate issues. The study concludes that individuals and NGOs may adopt a human rights approach before the ECOWAS Court to influence policy change and/or state behaviour in West African States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses two popular concepts in the legal world, the public trust doctrine and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). For the first time, it explores whether litigants could successfully use the doctrine to protect valuable NFTs. The public trust doctrine is the legal principle that the government holds and manages land under navigable water and closely associated natural resources in trust of the people. NFTs, on the other hand, are unique collections of cryptographical data that represent ownership of a digital artwork. This paper reconsiders the question of what exactly the scope of the public trust doctrine is and how its arguably ancient precepts limit its application in a modern context--a much needed exercise for a doctrine so heavily written about but so easily confused. The crux of this paper argues that while the doctrine's expansion to things like art and data is a stretch, expansion to NFTs is a titanic departure from the doctrine's historical scope and underlying policy justifications. Accordingly, modern courts are unlikely to apply the doctrine to NFTs, regardless of wide academic support for the doctrine's general expansion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the integral role of the judiciary to democracy, and the importance of judicial trust for judicial system performance, we know relatively little about the bases of public trust in this institution. How does institutional quality affect judicial trust? We explore this question in the context of Latin America, using a multilevel data set comprising survey data spanning 2001 to 2016 and country-level institutional and economic factors. We find that the effects of institutional quality on judicial trust are highly circumscribed. Factors like rule of law and corruption impact the judicial trust of only the best-educated survey respondents. Among the broader public, however, judicial trust is shaped more strongly by individuals' subjective economic and regime evaluations, as well as one's personal experiences with the judiciary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until recently, Oregon's public trust doctrine included both traditionally navigable-in-title as well as navigable-in-fact waters. However, in 2005, the Oregon Office of the Attorney General issued an opinion that drastically limited the public trust doctrine to include only navigable-in-title waters, reducing the state's fiduciary trust obligations through the creation of the so-called "public use" doctrine. In the wake of that opinion, the state denied state trust protection to a 400-acre navigable lake and to the atmosphere in two high-profile cases. Oregon has consistently denied any fiduciary obligations for the only trust resources the state acknowledges--navigable-in-title waters and the underlying submerged lands. The attorney general's 2005 opinion, denying public trust protection to waterbodies underlying private submerged lands, has created what is now among the narrowest public trust obligations in the United States, and one entirely out of step with public trust developments abroad. The role of the attorney general in denying public trust obligations that are widely recognized elsewhere stems from an inherent conflict between two of the attorney general's duties: defending state agencies in cases alleging breach of trust responsibilities and representing the public's interest in trust resources. Over a decade ago, the Oregon State Bar offered a potential solution to this conflict, when the Sustainable Future Section proposed the creation of the Office of the Legal Guardian to act as a custodian and advisor for the state's public trust resources. Building on that 2012 proposal, as well as the experiences of New Jersey's comparable former Department of the Public Advocate, this Article offers suggestions for establishing a Legal Guardian in Oregon today. This proposal would not only eliminate the attorney general's ongoing conflict of interest, but would give the Oregon public an unbiased advocate to protect important resources to which the state has denied trust protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article argues that recent United States Supreme Court decisions invalidating agency policymaking rely on a normatively unattractive and empirically mistaken notion of democratic popular sovereignty. Namely, they rely upon a transmission belt model that runs like this: democracy is vindicated by first translating and aggregating voter preferences through elections. Then, the popular will is transposed by members of Congress into the statute books. Finally, the popular will (now codified), is applied mechanically by administrative agencies who should merely "fill in the details" using their neutral, technical expertise. So long as statutes lay down sufficiently "intelligible principle[s]" that permit their application without significant discretionary remainder, regulation will carry democratic legitimacy because they who will the ends--the people--will the means. Although the transmission belt model comes in procedural, deliberative, and populist varieties, each occludes the inescapable facts of political intermediation and social conflict. No matter how participatory and rational, governance will involve some officials somewhere making decisions that some citizens will dislike. Even after citizen preferences are massaged by public reason or netted out through compromise, it is impossible to speak of a single, identifiable popular will that is capable of translation into legislative codes and regulations. Collectively, voters do not behave in a way that makes them a plausible principle to a government agent. Given these empirical problems, the transmission belt model carries several unsavory undemocratic implications. For example, it can lead to a Schmittian repression of social difference, should a demagogic leader claim to speak with the (fictional) voice of the (fictional) people. It may lead to juristocracy, as judges and technocrats claim unique insight into the substantive contents of public reason. The Article suggests instead that models of democratic political representation serve as better criteria to assess agency legitimacy. Theories of representation recognize and take advantage of the institutional mediation of democratic input. They protect and accommodate social conflict. They recognize, unlike pluralist, deliberative, and transmission belt theories of democracy, that there will always be a gap between ruler and ruled and that there will always be officials making decisions that people may not like. Drawing from theories of political representation within political science and political theory, the Article argues that administrative agencies themselves can serve as democratic representatives because they (1) incorporate citizen presence in their decision-making while (2) preserving the normative priority of the citizen. The Article concludes by offering some modifications to the legal doctrine used by courts to assess the legitimacy of agency action, to interpret agencies' organic statutes, and to shape the presidential removal power. If we demand that administration provide good trustee representation, we will not expect it to mechanically carry out the orders of elected representatives. Rather, we will give them sufficient autonomy to carry out their authorized mandates diligently, loyally, and in good faith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The public trust doctrine guarantees that the government will hold natural resources in trust and protect them for the common good. The doctrine has played a key role in the allocation of water rights, particularly for Native American and Native Hawaiian interests in the United States. State and federal courts often consider the doctrine when deciding if certain use rights should be granted. In Hawai'i, the doctrine has taken on a particularly robust form because the State Constitution expressly provides that all public natural resources are to be held in trust for the benefit of all Hawaiians. Unfortunately, the doctrine's application has not always benefited Native Hawaiian interests. This Comment analyzes the current status of the public trust doctrine in Hawai'i and its unique relation to Native Hawaiian rights. Because the State has historically prioritized large sugar plantations on the islands over its Native population, modern applications of the doctrine to protect the islands' natural resources are a relatively new concept in Hawaiian law. By evaluating statutes and cases from the Kingdom of Hawai'i (1795-1893); the Territory of Hawai'i (1900-1959); and the current State of Hawai'i (1959-present), this Comment builds a more complete picture of Hawaiian jurisprudence around natural resource allocation and explores ways to reinterpret the public trust doctrine. One of the purposes of the doctrine has been to protect Native Hawaiian water rights and to uphold the exercise of Native Hawaiian traditions and customs, yet the State has yet to live up to that purpose. The State Legislature should enact laws that require consultation with Native cultural organizations when a state agency issues any permit in land, water, or other natural resource or when any court reviews the allocation and use of any natural resource. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: waterfront; New York; Chicago; regional planning; public trust doctrine EN waterfront New York Chicago regional planning public trust doctrine 342 347 6 10/16/23 20231101 NES 231101 Schlichting, Kara M. 2019. The book explains the legal procedures by which the parks commissions financed the landfill and parks in great detail but is unfortunately silent on how the region's traffic engineers hijacked the pleasure dive and transformed it into an expressway. Other property owners, led by department store magnate Montgomery Ward, resisted proposals to place cultural buildings in Grant Park, the centrepiece of Chicago's downtown parks system. Schlichting demonstrates how, in the absence of a city plan, the New York City Parks Commission acted as the initial planning agency for the South Bronx, creating a system of large parks connected by parkways. [Extracted from the article]

Facilitative political trust is the reduction in cognitive demand citizens experience when forming their opinions about political issues. This type of trust is important for generating legitimate democratic institutions in the eyes of politically uninvolved citizens. The article develops and validates an original direct measure of facilitative political trust among voters receiving a voting aid compiled by a Swiss municipal-level deliberative minipublic convening twenty citizens ahead of a federal popular initiative vote on expanding affordable housing policies. Based on perceiving the randomly selected group as competent and aligned with voters' interests, we find a reliable and valid latent trust measure using confirmatory factor analyses among the same sample of voters within the municipality at two points during the campaign, ahead (N = 1159), and again around the time of the ballot (N = 472). In subsequent multiple regressions, increases in facilitative trust sores are the main driver of readers' ratings of both the voting aid's usefulness for deciding how to vote and of how important they judge its information for their peers' vote decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Los Angeles is experiencing an unprecedented “Mulholland Moment”: a period of bustling enterprise, skyrocketing socioeconomic inequality, and dwindling water resources. After years of yellow lawns and increasing water use restrictions, Angelenos are thirsty for local, reliable, and affordable water supplies even as climate change and prolonged periods of drought become the norm. To quench this thirst, Los Angeles promised to recycle 100 percent of its wastewater by 2035 to help the city wean off over-tapped and expensive imported water sources. But while city planners and water advocates rejoice, some ask: should Los Angeles recycle all its wastewater? For many, the answer is “no.” Wastewater discharges comprise nearly 90 percent of instream flows in the Los Angeles River, a fifty-one-mile waterway that connects millions of residents in Southern California. Even in its concrete straitjacket, the Los Angeles River has survived. Its flows support many critical recreational, educational, and ecological uses open for all. But if Los Angeles recycles all its wastewater, the discharges that feed the river’s flows will disappear. As a result, Angelenos will lose summer kayaking, communal space, and habitats for endangered species, especially in sweltering dry seasons. As a trustee for the people of California, the State Water Resources Control Board must consider its public trust obligations before it approves any future Los Angeles city plans, which could reshape the Los Angeles River as Angelenos know it today. In its assessment, the State Water Resources Control Board must acknowledge the traditional, recreational, and ecological uses of the river and balance the protection of these interests with the projected benefits of increasing the local water supply. It is critical for decisionmakers to think about the future of the river before pursuing projects that could permanently change its character. As Los Angeles’s need for continued water ingenuity grows in response to the region’s evaporating water supply, the conflict between development—even development that may benefit the public—and preserving natural spaces will only increase. However, honoring public trust resources can help cities, community members, and local leaders navigate the course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the challenges Nevada faces in managing its water resources, particularly groundwater, due to climate change and overpopulation. It discusses the state's water management policies, including the designation of Critical Management Areas (CMAs) and the implementation of sustainable water use practices. The case study of the Diamond Valley basin highlights the state's user-oriented approach to water law and the potential for future changes in Nevada's water management policies. The article also discusses the controversial Diamond Valley decision, which deviates from the doctrine of prior appropriation and raises concerns about the devaluation of priority and vested rights. It examines the impact of the Diamond Valley Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) on water rights and the practice of water banking, and discusses the implementation of GMPs in Nevada and their potential impact on water management policies. The future of Nevada's water law is uncertain, with a complete overhaul of the system being a possibility. [Extracted from the article]

This article examines the legal and policy intersection of property rights and environmental law. Property rights are closely connected to and often in tension with many elements of environmental law and policy. Appropriate controls on the use of property rights and natural resources, and effectively managing the environmental consequences of such use, are critical in addressing the environmental challenges of our time. This paper first reviews the importance of property rights in the context of our legal, social, economic and political systems. It then examines the active use of property rights and mechanisms to address environmental challenges, including the creative and innovative use and development of new forms of property rights that have emerged in recent times. This is followed by a discussion of recent developments in restricting the use of property rights in land use and natural resource development to address environmental issues. The paper concludes with some ideas for future development of the law, and emerging new directions for future research. Throughout the paper, New Zealand will be used as a case study to reflect on the relationship between property rights and environmental protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beginning around 1990, judicial interpretation transformed public law in Sri Lanka by blending writs with fundamental rights. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has defined and expanded the constitutional right 'to equality and equal protection of the law' by drawing on administrative law concepts of natural justice, reasonableness, legitimate expectation, the duty to provide reasons for decision-making, and proportionality. On the other hand, judges have relied on the Bill of Rights as a standard to assess the decisions of public authorities in writ matters. This relationship between the writs and the rights has had important implications for the growth of public law in Sri Lanka. There has also emerged an incipient ground of review, 'rights-based review', as part of the writ jurisdiction, and the 'public trust doctrine' in fundamental rights review. Public law has been strengthened by the growth of public interest litigation and the use of new judicial remedies. This article looks at how the writ jurisdiction and rights-based review have evolved in recent times and considers how the two remedies have been used and fused, in a country where the legal and constitutional history has taken a different trajectory to some other post-colonial societies. The article concludes by arguing that this fusion of constitutional and administrative law concepts, together with the expansion in the rules of standing and the emergence of the new concepts of public trust doctrine and fairness, have generated a more robust legal framework that can better protect constitutional rights and democratic freedoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2020, Central Java Province, led by Governor Ganjar Pranowo, stood out in the Saiful Mujani Research Center (SMRC) survey, ranking first among regional governments with a 73%approval rate for its swift and responsive pandemic policies, surpassing the national standard of 59%. This success prompted an investigation, particularly as Instagram emerged as Ganjar Pranowo's primary tool for communicating his governance efforts during the pandemic. Instagram, as a platform, demonstratedgreater responsiveness than other social media platforms. Observations revealed heightened interactionlevels on Instagram compared to Twitter, evident in increased comments and likes. Ganjar Pranowostrategically utilized Instagram for public interaction, disseminating information, fostering communitysupport, and educating the public about COVID-19. This study explores the realmof Political Communication through online mass media, emphasizing the evolving role of mass media and Ganjar Pranowo's adept use of it for open communication during the pandemic. Employing a quantitative approach, the research utilized questionnaires distributed to @ganjar_pranowo Instagramfollowers inCentral Java, complemented by interviews with selected informants. Simple linear regression analysis, grounded in the principles of Good Governance, served as the theoretical framework. Findings analyzedusing SPSS 25.0, revealed a significant impact of information transparency on public trust. Witha calculated F-value of 146.267 and a significance level of 0.000 (< 0.05), the study suggests that information transparency through Instagram content influences public trust in pandemic management byapproximately 59.9%, with 40.9% influenced by unexplored variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on how Pakistan's Parliament is addressing the declining public trust in state institutions through various reforms and initiatives. Topics include efforts to improve the electoral process, measures to strengthen the judicial system and law enforcement, and the implementation of economic policies to stabilize inflation and enhance public confidence.

In jurisdictions like Sri Lanka, where judicial review is explicitly prohibited, what is the relevance, ifany, of the arguments about representation reinforcement through responsive judicial review.? What does the Sri Lankan case study reveal about the limits to responsive judicial review in addressing democratic dysfunction? The executive presidency and its aggrandisement in practice and the failure to guarantee equality and the internal right of self-detennination aTe some of Sri Lanka's most challenging constitutional problems. Dinesha Samararatne argues in this article that developments in Sri Lanka offer insights to a different form of judicial engagement, a form which builds on a fundamental value of constitutionalism, that public power must be exercised in trust for the People. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the complex issue of stream access and trespass laws in the American West, specifically in relation to anglers and recreationists.

This article provides a critical overview of youth-led climate change litigation, an emerging practice which could go some way towards redressing the injustice the Global South suffers as a result of global warming. It preliminarily explores the political background of such phenomenon, emphasising young people's growing mistrust of adults, their desire to build a global generational alliance, but also the need to ally with older generations in a world where adults generally monopolise power, money and accepted expertise. It then delineates youth-led litigation's distinctive features, both substantive and procedural, highlighting its radicality. Children's and youth's vulnerabilities enable innovative claims under the public trust doctrine, rights-of-nature approaches, and human rights law. Youth-led litigation is no less radical in terms of the procedural avenues it is exploring, which include generational class actions, direct multistate complaints before international adjudicating bodies, and transnational complaints. The article concludes by offering some thoughts on the prospects of youth-led climate change litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Michigan enjoys along its inland seas, the Laurentian Great Lakes, one of the longest coastlines in the U.S. Much of that shoreline is privately owned. Because of a confluence of development pressures and irrepressible physical dynamics, growing numbers of Great Lakes shoreland properties, built on shifting sandy shores, are at heightened risk of loss from coastal storm surge, inundation, erosion, and shoreline recession. In response, property owners are installing extensive hardened shoreline armoring structures like seawalls and revetments to arrest those erosional processes. Those structures, however, will substantially impair, if not ultimately destroy, the state's natural coastal beaches and other shoreland resources, as well as accelerate erosion of neighboring shoreland properties. The clash of imperatives to protect shoreland properties versus conserve coastal resources signifies a wicked dilemma the State cannot avoid: armor or withdraw? More precisely, should we allow the armoring of Michigan's Great Lakes shorelines in an attempt to fix in place shoreland properties, at great and ongoing private and public expense, and ultimately risk the loss of public trust resources? Or should we allow--and should we compel shoreland property owners to allow--natural processes to proceed, even though doing so will increase the rate at which privately owned shorelands naturally convert into state-owned submerged bottomlands? We cannot hope to simultaneously protect both the beach and the beach house along naturally receding Great Lakes shorelines; we must choose which interest to prioritize first, recognizing the cost of doing so by losing the other. In addition to the complex physical dynamics at play along Michigan's Great Lakes coasts, there are evolving legal complexities as well. The State, as sovereign, enjoys police power authorities that encompass coastal shoreland management. The State has also long recognized the applicability of the public trust doctrine to its Great Lakes shores, and its constitution mandates the protection of natural resources. This article first analyzes current Michigan law to determine how those doctrines and mandates apply to Great Lakes shoreline armoring, particularly in terms of what to prioritize. Based on that assessment, we conclude that Michigan's courts, legislature, and people have consistently and clearly prioritized protecting and conserving Great Lakes natural coastal resources above developing or impairing them for private use, except when such development truly serves larger public trust interests. In contrast, the administrative rules now used to execute those protections prioritize protecting the private beach house first, even at the expense of destroying the natural beach and impairing other public trust interests. This administrative approach was not inevitable--indeed it may be unlawful--and it has created strong expectations on the part of shoreland property owners, heightening the likelihood of litigation. The article then analyzes current Michigan law to determine how the courts might resolve disputes between property owners hoping to armor the shore and State or local constraints on such armoring. Here we find that while the Michigan courts have resolved a number of key questions regarding coastal shorelands, there is no caselaw addressing directly the lawfulness of shoreline armoring. Based on our review of relevant caselaw, we conclude the courts are not likely to find that the State lacks authority to regulate--or prohibit altogether--shoreline armoring to protect coastal resources. There is conflicting caselaw, however, upon which the courts could rely to find either that the current regulatory regime provides adequate protection of coastal resources, or alternatively that it is deficient. Finally, beyond questions of regulatory authority, the courts are not likely to find that reinvigorated regulatory efforts to prevent the destruction and impairment of public trust coastal resources from armoring--even those resulting in the accelerated loss of private properties--violate constitutional protections, especially if State reforms are undertaken with deliberation and care. If the courts conclude that current regulatory efforts are lawful and require no greater protection, then Michigan will likely see much of its Great Lakes shorelines armored and its natural coastal beaches destroyed. If they conclude that current regulatory efforts are deficient (or if they approve of reinvigorated protection efforts), however, then private shoreland properties may be lost to the lakes. Such losses cannot be avoided forever, especially along naturally receding shorelines, but they might occur sooner than would happen absent attempts to arrest shoreline erosion with armoring. As with most wicked policy dilemmas, the best response may not be at either extreme--always armor or always withdraw--but somewhere in between. Crafting that hybrid approach, and the appropriate rules for applying it, will be the most challenging course to navigate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a legal and conceptual background to modern takings law and to the necessity exception and climate change is a predicament for property rights. It mentions doctrine has garnered far less court and academic interest in the context of takings claims than either public nuisance or the public trust doctrines. It also mentions just compensation requirement "places a condition on the exercise of the sovereign's inherent power of eminent domain.

The common law "escape rule" determines that if a wild animal escapes from its controlled environment and reverts to its natural state of freedom, it is res nullius and may be acquired by another party by occupatio. To place the owners of game in a more favourable position when their game escapes from its enclosure, the aforementioned common law rule was amended by the Game Theft Act 105 of 1991 (GTA). Sections of the Game Theft Act 105 of 1991 came under discussion in Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Ltd (Wildlife Ranching South Africa amicus curiae) 2016 4 SA 457 (ECG) and later in Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency v Medbury (Pty) Ltd t/a Crown River Safari 2018 4 SA 206 (SCA). Two separate issues came before the courts. First, whether a certificate in terms of section 2(2)(a) of the GTA is a prerequisite for the operation of section (2)(1)(a) of the GTA; and second, whether the common law must be developed to provide that wild animals that are sufficiently contained in a protected area managed by an organ of state charged with the management thereof in terms of relevant nature conservation legislation in order to promote conservation, are res publicae owned by such organ of state. Neither one of the cases thoroughly considered the second issue before the court. Therefore, the purpose of this contribution is to investigate the possibility of developing the common law to provide that wild animals that are sufficiently contained in a protected area managed by an organ of state charged with the management thereof in terms of relevant nature conservation legislation in order to promote conservation are res publicae owned by such organ of state. In Roman Law res publicae were classified as public things that were out of commerce and intended for public use. They are often referred to as state property, but they belong to the entire civil community and their common interests in these things are safeguarded by the state. This proposed development bears some resemblance to the international environmental law principle known as the public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine determines that a country's sovereign acts as the guardian of the public interest in natural resources by holding them in trust for the benefit of the nation as a whole. The article provides a theoretical analysis of the proposed development of the common law by exploring (a) the significance of biodiversity conservation and protected areas in South Africa; (b) the application of the GTA in the context of protected areas; (c) the concepts of res nullius, res publicae and the public trust doctrine and (d) the development of the common law in South Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Every state has a public trust doctrine that protects commonly owned natural resources. Under the doctrine, the state has a fiduciary duty to maintain the resources and ensure the public can use them. Generally, if the state breaches its fiduciary duty, the public can sue. Yet, New Mexico has trust issues. In Sanders-Reed v. Martinez, the New Mexico Court of Appeals expanded the resources within New Mexico's public trust but made it inept in the same breath. The court extended the trust to encompass air, water, and all other natural resources. However, it then severely limited the state's protection of those resources by removing the public's cause of action under the doctrine in many instances. Without a cause of action, there is neither a mechanism to enforce the state's public trust duties nor is there anything to incentivize the state to protect the entrusted resources. In short, without enforcement, the resources can easily be misused and abused. New Mexico's public trust now protects the entrusted resources in name only. This Comment outlines how the state's doctrine operates regarding one entrusted resource: water. It illustrates that there are very limited instances in which the public can sue the state for breaching a public trust duty and proposes two possible solutions. First, the legislature could address the issue directly; it could pass a law which gives the public a legal right to sue the state for breaching any public trust duty. Alternatively, the state could pass the so-called "Green Amendment," a proposed constitutional amendment that creates a fundamental right to "pure water" and "clean air," which would give the public a legal right under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act to sue the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the importance of judicial ethics in maintaining public trust in the impartiality of the judiciary. Topics include the current skepticism towards judges and their perceived biases, the impact of judicial selection methods on public perceptions, and the role of transparency and ethical oversight in reinforcing judicial integrity.

Utah Lake, the largest freshwater lake in the third driest state, is a vital, yet underappreciated natural resource. In 2018, the Utah State Legislature passed the Utah Lake Restoration Act in an attempt to restore and enhance the lake's ecological and recreational value. Yet the new law has been met with strong public resistance because it leaves the lake vulnerable to exploitation and further ecological degradation, a concern made real by a proposed development plan that would build a city of islands on top of the lake. Community members cite specific concerns about threats to native species, disruption of water rights, and burdens on local taxpayers. But such a plan also presents potential legal issues as the scheme likely violates the public trust doctrine. A legal doctrine with historic roots, the public trust doctrine asserts that the public has a right to the beneficial use of lands underlying navigable waters. The state, as trustee, has an inalienable responsibility to preserve this public benefit. Utah's Constitution, statutes, and common law all support continued adherence to the public trust doctrine, suggesting that the state legislature has written an illegal law. Amending the Utah Lake Restoration Act to comply with the public trust doctrine, or repealing it altogether, will provide notice to would-be developers to construct their plans accordingly and safeguard against potential lawsuits against the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With climate change litigation proliferating throughout the world, a substantial body of case law is emerging. As part of a project of the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law's Climate Change Specialist Group, this Article, a version of which will be included in a "Judicial Handbook on Climate Litigation," explains the public trust doctrine's influence on climate change litigation internationally. We select what we view as judicial "best practices" as a kind of restatement of international atmospheric trust law in 2022. International atmospheric trust law is at the forefront of many best practices, as state and federal courts in the United States have fettered the public trust doctrine's development by erecting procedural hurdles like standing and political question doctrines. On the other hand, international courts do not suffer from these procedural limitations, allowing them to reach the merits of public trust claims in the context of climate change. This Article explains these developments in an effort to synthesize the rapidly developing case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces the connected concepts of ecolawfare—legal challenges to violations and violators of environmental law—and ecolawriors, its practitioners. These concepts are extensions of lawfare and lawriors, terms that emerged in this century's first decade in a military context. The article examines sociological, political economic, and legal literature, as well as black letter law, and argues that many non-US jurisdictions have been eco-friendly trendsetters in law. The article examines the relationships of ecolawfare and ecolawriors with Green social movements, presents a Marxian perspective on intergenerational equity, the public trust doctrine, and rights of nature against the backdrop of capitalist extraction, the climate crisis, and related litigation, and posits a legal parallel between protecting ecosystems and protecting civil rights. The article argues that the climate crisis demands radically new approaches to the law, including lawyers who do not think like traditional lawyers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Chilean public, which has expressed widespread dissatisfaction with Chile's environmental policies, recently rejected a new constitution that would have entrenched the public trust doctrine in the country's fundamental charter. The rejection had little to do with the public trust provisions in the proposed constitution, and Chile's president has promised a revised constitution will be drafted for a second referendum soon. This Article maintains that the revision should continue to include the public trust provisions. The ancient public trust doctrine, which emanated from Roman law and was reflected in the 13th century Spanish treatise Las Siete Partidas, offers the promise of making publicly enforceable commitments to environmental protection that under current Chilean law have been discretionary, and therefore unfulfilled. An interdisciplinary white paper sponsored by the Chile California Conservation Council in 2021 drew on language from the Pennsylvania Constitution in recommending that the convention drafting the constitution include the public trust doctrine. The convention did in fact include public trust principles in the proposed constitution that was rejected. This Article explains what the public trust doctrine would mean to Chileans if future iterations of the constitution retain public trust doctrine language, arguing that such revisions will better position Chile to meet the environmental challenges ahead while accommodating the country's commitment to private property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the legal duty to aloha ‘aina, which is a cultural and philosophical obligation that Kanaka has towards Hawai‘i's natural and cultural resources for present and future generations. Topics include how the Hawai‘i Supreme Court's Ching v. Case decision embraced and uplifted cultural precept, acknowledging the Public Trust Doctrine; and Ching within the caselaw and the state constitution's embrace of restorative justice and argues that deploying contextual legal inquiry.

Climate change will necessitate adaptation in all parts of the United States, but some individuals and localities will be better able to adapt than others. Wealth inequalities among individuals and localities already are translating--and will continue to translate--into inequalities between the rich and poor in their capacity to adapt. Current federal disaster aid programs and policies exacerbate these inequalities by favoring the wealthy, and future government resource management decisions and investments also may broaden the gap between rich and poor in terms of the economic and other costs they will bear from climate change. Some have suggested broadening Takings Clause liability as a means to address the problem of inequality and climate change adaptation. However, these suggested doctrinal reforms, if anything, would skew government actors to provide even greater protection to wealthy communities and even less to low-income ones. Broadening the public trust doctrine could help address some of the inequality problems associated with climate change, but the most important reforms needed involve the integration of equality analysis and equality concerns into all levels of administrative decision-making. And those reforms, in turn, will require a climate-aware, equality-focused, and politically effective electorate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]