DOCSLIB.ORG

HEDG- Sciences Po Report on Ecocide 7-12-2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HEDG- Sciences Po Report on Ecocide 7-12-2013 1 LAW CLINIC HEDG REPORT ON THE ECOCIDE PROJECT Manon Garin Blanka Glasenhardt Robert Houston Jason Pham Lecturer Rosmerlin Estupinan-Silva Human Rights, Economic, Development and Globalization HEDG Law Clinic – Sciences Po Paris 7 December 2013 2 SOMMAIRE ABREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 4 I. DOCTRINE RELATIVE À L’ECOCIDE ...................................................................... 5 A. ARTICLES SCIENTIFIQUES RELATIFS AU CRIME D’ECOCIDE ............................................. 5 B. DOCUMENTS OFFICIELS RELATIFS AU CRIME D ’ECOCIDE .............................................. 16 II. DOCTRINE RELATIVE AUX CRIMES CONTRE L’ENVIRONNEMENT.......... 17 A. OUVRAGES ..................................................................................................................... 17 B. ARTICLES SCIENTIFIQUES .............................................................................................. 18 C. AUTRES SOURCES .......................................................................................................... 34 III. SOURCES JURIDIQUES NATIONALES ................................................................... 36 A. SOURCES CONSTITUTIONNELLES ................................................................................... 36 1. Amérique du Nord et Afrique du Sud ........................................................................ 36 2. Amérique Centrale et Caraïbes................................................................................. 39 3. Amérique du Sud........................................................................................................ 48 4. Asie............................................................................................................................ 59 5. Europe de l’Est.......................................................................................................... 60 6. Europe de l’Ouest...................................................................................................... 65 7. Oceania ..................................................................................................................... 66 B. SOURCES DE DROIT PÉNAL............................................................................................. 66 1. Amérique du Nord et Afrique du Sud ........................................................................ 66 2. Amérique Centrale et Caraïbes................................................................................. 71 3. Amérique du Sud........................................................................................................ 76 4. Asie............................................................................................................................ 78 5. Europe de l’Est.......................................................................................................... 82 6. Europe de l’Ouest...................................................................................................... 89 7. Oceania ..................................................................................................................... 91 IV. AFFAIRES....................................................................................................................... 91 A. JURIDICTIONS NATIONALES ........................................................................................... 91 B. JURIDICTIONS INTERNATIONALES ................................................................................. 95 V. LISTE D’EXPERTS........................................................................................................ 98 VI. ANNEXES........................................................................................................................ 99 A. ANNEXE 1. C ODES PENAUX DE L ’A MERIQUE CENTRALE ET CARAÏBES ........................ 99 B. ANNEXE 2. C ODES PENAUX DE L ’E UROPE DE L ’E ST ..................................................... 99 C. ANNEXE 3. E NTRETIEN A ANTONIO GOMEZ (P ROCUREUR ARGENTIN )......................... 99 3 ABREVIATIONS ATCA : Alien Tort Claims Act CEO: Chief-Executive Officer CPJS-E : Cour provincial de justice de Sucumbios en Equateur DCH-N: District Court Of The Hague (The Netherlands) e.g. Par exemple EU : European Union IACtHR: Inter-American Court of Human Rights ICC : International Criminal Court ICJ : International Court of Justice N/A : Non applicable PNG : Papua New Guinea TSJ-B : Tribunal supérieur de justice du Brésil UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea US: Unites States 4 INTRODUCTION Dans le cadre de notre recherche, nous avons noté une divergence de définition. Ce que nous concevons comme « écocide » n'est pas ce que nous avons rencontré dans les sources universitaires : si « écocide » est utilisé pour décrire un crime différent (e.g. crimes commis dans des contextes de conflit armé, crimes en connexion avec le génocide) ou pour protéger une valeur juridique autre que la nature en elle-même (e.g. la jouissance de l'environnement par l’être humain), il peut également arriver qu’un autre terme soit utilisé pour décrire notre conception de l'écocide (e.g. « géocide », « biocide ») . Au sein de la doctrine consultée, l’on retrouve souvent la référence au Statut de Rome : des auteurs comme Sharp suggèrent d'interpréter les questions environnementales dans le cadre des crimes internationaux déjà existants au sein du Statut de Rome, d'autres comme Drumbl , soutiennent que l'écocide doit être conçu comme un crime autonome. Il semble important de noter la difficulté rencontrée pour différencier l’écocide d'autres crimes contre l’environnement ainsi que le manque de précision dans la définition des sanctions. Ce manque de précision est la raison pour laquelle nous-mêmes avons des difficultés à établir une telle distinction dans l’état de l’art. Nous constatons, néanmoins, certains avancements. En Amérique latine, le droit interne semble très concerné par les crimes environnementaux et il y a une forte législation à cet effet. Cependant, d’après certains praticiens, le renforcement de ladite législation au niveau international n’a pas un intérêt particulier, l'accent étant plutôt mis sur l'application effective de la législation nationale en vigueur. Dans cette région nous constatons également un fossé entre les pays avec de vastes lois contre les crimes environnementaux (e.g., le Mexique , le Nicaragua , le Guatemala , le Panama ) et ceux qui ne le font pas (e.g., certaines îles anglophones). Nous attirons l’attention sur une faiblesse concernant une bonne partie de la doctrine relative à l’écocide, à savoir, l’absence de précision des éléments du droit international pénal. Ce fait pourrait expliquer les difficultés rencontrées pour définir précisément le crime international envisagé.. D’autres approches semblent s’orienter vers la transformation du droit national par la voie des réformes constitutionnelles (e.g. Jaria i Manzano), ou vers l’interprétation élargie des droits civiques et politiques dans l’intention de protéger le droit à l’environnement sain à travers la protection de ses défenseurs (e.g. IACtHR, Káwas Fernandez v. Honduras , 2009). Finalement, nous notons que le droit international demeure largement centré sur la volonté des Etats et que les intérêts de ceux-ci restent profondément anthropocentrés. La reconnaissance de l'écocide pourrait être facilitée dans ce cadre si la première valeur protégée est l’être humain. I. Doctrine relative à l’Ecocide A. Articles scientifiques relatifs au crime d’écocide Source : Lynn Berat, “Defending the right to a healthy environment: toward a crime of geocide in international law”, Boston university International Law Journal (1993) (pp.327-348) Concept : Assessment of the current dramatic ecological situation: “it is imperative that those who flout the right to a healthy environment incur criminal liability for their actions. Therefore, states should begin to move toward a comprehensive international environmental legal dispensation that recognizes the unity of the planet as a single, fragile ecosystem” (p.328) Creation of a crime of “geocide”, “ literally a killing of the earth, the environmental counterpart of genocide ” (p.328) – definition of the crime inspired by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (p.342) “Geocide is the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of any portion of the global ecosystem, via killing members of a species; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the species; inflicting on the species conditions of life that bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and imposing measures that prevent births within the group or lead to birth defects ” (p.343) Valeur Right to a healthy environment (p. 328) protégée : Future generations (“the imperative for the creation of a crime of geocide arises from the desperate need to halt the destruction of the planet before it becomes incapable of sustaining life” (p.340)) Recognition of the “interdependence of all species in a complex global ecosystem and eschews species chauvinism on the part of humans who generally view human life as superior to all other forms of life” (p.343). Recognition that the term “species” in the definition would probably be used in an anthropocentric manner at first
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Trust Doctrine Implications of Electricity Production
    Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law Volume 5 Issue 1 2015 Public Trust Doctrine Implications of Electricity Production Lance Noel University of Delaware, [email protected] Jeremy Firestone University of Delaware, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal Part of the Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Lance Noel & Jeremy Firestone, Public Trust Doctrine Implications of Electricity Production, 5 MICH. J. ENVTL. & ADMIN. L. 169 (2015). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal/vol5/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\M\MEA\5-1\MEA104.txt unknown Seq: 1 4-JAN-16 9:52 PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE IMPLICATIONS OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION Lance Noel* & Jeremy Firestone** ABSTRACT The public trust doctrine is a powerful legal tool in property law that re- quires the sovereign, as a trustee, to protect and manage natural resources. His- torically, the public trust doctrine has been used in relationship to navigable waterways and wildlife management. Despite electricity production’s impact on those two areas and the comparatively smaller impacts of renewable energy, elec- tricity production has garnered very little public trust doctrine attention. This Article examines how electricity production implicates the public trust doctrine, primarily through the lens of four states—California, Wisconsin, Ha- waii, and New Jersey—and how it would potentially apply to each state’s electric- ity planning and policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Asia's Wicked Environmental Problems
    ADBI Working Paper Series Asia’s Wicked Environmental Problems Stephen Howes and Paul Wyrwoll No. 348 February 2012 Asian Development Bank Institute Stephen Howes and Paul Wyrwoll are director and researcher, respectively, at the Development Policy Centre, Crawford School, Australian National University. This paper was prepared as a background paper for the Asian Development Bank (ADB)/Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) study Role of Key Emerging Economies—ASEAN, the People Republic of China, and India—for a Balanced, Resilient and Sustainable Asia. The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of ADBI, the ADB, its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms. The Working Paper series is a continuation of the formerly named Discussion Paper series; the numbering of the papers continued without interruption or change. ADBI’s working papers reflect initial ideas on a topic and are posted online for discussion. ADBI encourages readers to post their comments on the main page for each working paper (given in the citation below). Some working papers may develop into other forms of publication. Suggested citation: Howes, S. and P. Wyrwoll. 2012. Asia’s Wicked Environmental Problems. ADBI Working Paper 348. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available: http://www.adbi.org/working- paper/2012/02/28/5009.asia.wicked.environmental.problems/ Please contact the author(s) for information about this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Europe and Eurasia
    E u r o p e a n d E u r a s i a 1 4 European Union Law L u d w i g K r ä m e r ( A ) I n t r o d u c t i o n Th e European Union legal system 1 4 . 0 1 Th e European Union (‘EU’) is a regional integration organisation consisting at present of twenty-seven European Member States that have transferred part of their sovereignty to the EU. Th e EU is based on international treaties – the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) – and its power to act is laid down in the various provisions of these treaties; there is no ‘common law’ applicable to it. In this regard, the EU is similar to a civil law country. 1 4 . 0 2 A n u m b e r o f s p e c i fi c features distinguish the EU from traditional international organisations. First, the TEU and TFEU address not only the relations between the Member States and the EU insti- tutions, but also establish rights and obligations for individuals. Second, though legislative decisions in climate change matters are taken by majority vote in the European Parliament – whose members are directly elected – and the Council, which consists of the governments of the twenty-seven Member States, the adop- tion of legislation on climate change is only possible on the basis of a proposal by the European Commission. Th e Commission oversees the application of EU law in the Member States, and has the duty to act in the general interest of the EU rather than in the interest of the individual Member States.
    [Show full text]
  • The North American Mosaic: an Overview of Key Environmental Issues 3
    The North American Mosaic An Overview of Key Environmental Issues June 2008 Commission for Environmental Cooperation section title A This report addresses the state of the environment in the territories of the Parties to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation by providing an overview of key environmental issues. It provides an objective appraisal of environmental trends and conditions to inform the Council’s deliberations on strategic planning and future cooperative activities. This publication was prepared by the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. The design and implementation of this report benefited from the participation of the State of the Environment Advisory Group, which is composed of environmental reporting experts from the Parties. The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the governments of Canada, Mexico or the United States of America. In general, this report does not address the wide variety of responses to the environmental issues described herein. Likewise, an evaluation of the efficacy of these responses is beyond its scope. More information, including detailed references for the findings in this report, is available on the CEC website: <http://www.cec.org/soe>. Publication details Type: Project report Date: June 2008 Original language: English Review and Quality Assurance Procedures • Review by the Parties: February – April 2008; April – May 2008 • For more information please consult the Acknowledgements. Published by the Communications Department
    [Show full text]
  • Water Is NOT a Commodity, Water Is a COMMON Resource: the Rationale for States to Hold Groundwater in the Public Trust
    COMMON RESOURCES Water Is NOT a Commodity, Water Is a COMMON Resource: The Rationale for States to Hold Groundwater in the Public Trust Fact Sheet • June 2012 any communities have had no option but to go to court to try and protect their Mgroundwater from corporate water bottlers. These legal battles can be extremely expensive and time consuming,1 and water-bottling schemes have torn towns apart.2 Although some communities have banned commercial water extraction,3 not all towns have had such success. States should not allow the interests of multinational a means to protect natural resources, including water, bottled water companies to take precedence over the from environmental degradation and privatization.10 interests of the public, and all water should be under the Over time, the doctrine has expanded,11 and Hawai’i, dominion of the public and not under the control of pri- New Hampshire, Tennessee and Vermont apply the pub- vate companies. States can better protect their ground- lic trust doctrine explicitly to groundwater.12 water resources and act in the public’s best interest by Water bottlers’ pumping operations can harm the envi- placing groundwater in the public trust. ronment and natural resources that communities may rely on for local farming or residential recreation. Even Water as a Commons though groundwater is not “navigable,”13 groundwater and the Public Trust Doctrine sources are often connected to navigable surface wa- The public trust doctrine puts public interests before ters,14 and when an aquifer is over-pumped,
    [Show full text]
  • Desertification and Agriculture
    BRIEFING Desertification and agriculture SUMMARY Desertification is a land degradation process that occurs in drylands. It affects the land's capacity to supply ecosystem services, such as producing food or hosting biodiversity, to mention the most well-known ones. Its drivers are related to both human activity and the climate, and depend on the specific context. More than 1 billion people in some 100 countries face some level of risk related to the effects of desertification. Climate change can further increase the risk of desertification for those regions of the world that may change into drylands for climatic reasons. Desertification is reversible, but that requires proper indicators to send out alerts about the potential risk of desertification while there is still time and scope for remedial action. However, issues related to the availability and comparability of data across various regions of the world pose big challenges when it comes to measuring and monitoring desertification processes. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and the UN sustainable development goals provide a global framework for assessing desertification. The 2018 World Atlas of Desertification introduced the concept of 'convergence of evidence' to identify areas where multiple pressures cause land change processes relevant to land degradation, of which desertification is a striking example. Desertification involves many environmental and socio-economic aspects. It has many causes and triggers many consequences. A major cause is unsustainable agriculture, a major consequence is the threat to food production. To fully comprehend this two-way relationship requires to understand how agriculture affects land quality, what risks land degradation poses for agricultural production and to what extent a change in agricultural practices can reverse the trend.
    [Show full text]
  • WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY 5 June 2021
    STATEMENT INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LAW ORGANIZATION STATEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, MS JAN BEAGLE WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY 5 June 2021 On the 5th of June 1972 – the day now annually celebrated as ‘World Environment Day’ – leaders convened for the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the first major global conference on international environmental issues. That day, almost 50 years ago, also marked a major milestone in the development of international environmental law: the Conference’s outcome document, the Stockholm Declaration, was the first international agreement to acknowledge the intrinsic connection between ecological management, economic development, and human well-being. Since then, we have observed the development of many international legal instruments related to the environment, and an overall increased awareness of states and civil society of the disastrous effects of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and global warming. Nevertheless, our environment is in greater peril than before, and the significance of this day has only grown. Since 1970, global warming has accelerated at an increasing rate. Biodiversity is under threat, as nearly one million species are threatened with extinction within decades. And the growing frequency and severity of natural disasters have put state capacity under greater strain and human lives at greater risk. While ecological degradation, pollution, and climate change affect us all, it disproportionately affects people living in conditions of vulnerability and marginalization, particularly women and youth, and those living in lower-income countries and fragile states, who have contributed the least to climate change. This impact is also distributed unequally across time, as future generations will cope with the consequences of present-day choices.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 17 CLIMATE CHANGE in the COURTS: JURISDICTION and COMMON LAW LITIGATION
    Chapter 17 CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE COURTS: JURISDICTION AND COMMON LAW LITIGATION SYNOPSIS I. The Uncertain Future of Climate Change Litigation II. Article III Standing A. Standing in Early Climate Change Cases B. Massachusetts v. EPA C. Post-Massachusetts Standing Analysis III. Is Climate Change a Nonjusticiable Political Question? IV. Are Claims Displaced or Preempted by the Clean Air Act? A. Federal Common Law Displacement B. Are State Law Claims Preempted? V. Could Common Law Doctrines Apply to Climate Change? A. Public Nuisance and Other Tort Claims 1. Breach of Duty: The Reasonableness of Defendants’ Actions 2. Causation 3. Damages B. The Atmospheric Trust 1. The Atmospheric Trust Theory 2. Atmospheric Trust Litigation I. THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION In the 1990s, states and environmental groups began using litigation as a strategy to compel agency action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to force large greenhouse gas emitters to reduce their emissions or pay damages for the harm they caused. Suits against agencies typically arose under federal environmental statutes, most importantly the Clean Air Act. Suits against emitters typically proceeded under tort law and primarily alleged that the emitters had caused or contributed to a public nuisance. Despite the prevalence of environmental litigation in modern society and the long history of using the common law to remedy environmental harms, courts have struggled to fit climate change into statutory frameworks and common law doctrines. In particular, courts have displayed a reticence to accept jurisdiction over cases involving climate change. As this chapter explores, this reticence seems to have increased even after the Supreme Court found climate change claims justiciable in Massachusetts v.
    [Show full text]
  • 'You Can't Negotiate with a Beetle': Environmental Law
    \\server05\productn\N\NMN\50-1\NMN107.txt unknown Seq: 1 12-OCT-10 10:25 MARY CHRISTINA WOOD* “You Can’t Negotiate with a Beetle”1: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age ABSTRACT Environmental law has failed in its most basic purpose: to keep human activities in compliance with nature’s requirements. Ecologi- cal systems are collapsing across the globe, and climate crisis threat- ens the continued viability of human civilization as we know it. Across the United States, agencies at all jurisdictional levels use dis- cretion provided in their governing statutes to allow continuing damage to the atmosphere and other natural resources. Government officials routinely approach environmental protection as a matter of political discretion—and private, singular interests usually win the day over the long-term public good. This article suggests infusing public trust principles into government institutions to hold officials accountable, as trustees, for protecting crucial natural resources. It offers a modern version of the ancient public trust doctrine that is holistic, organic, and uniform across all environmental agencies. This article is adapted from the introductory chapter that will appear in Professor Wood’s book, Nature’s Trust, forthcoming by Cam- bridge University Press in 2011. INTRODUCTION “You can’t negotiate with a beetle. You are now dealing with natural law. And if you don’t understand natural law, you will soon.”2 * Philip H. Knight Professor of Law, University of Oregon School of Law, Faculty Director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program. The author wishes to thank Orren Johnson and Naomi Rowden for research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Speaks for the Future of Earth? How Critical Social Science Can Extend the Conversation on the Anthropocene
    http://www.diva-portal.org This is the published version of a paper published in Global Environmental Change. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., Forsyth, T., Hedrén, J. et al. (2015) Who speaks for the future of Earth?: how critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 32: 211-218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-43841 Global Environmental Change 32 (2015) 211–218 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Environmental Change jo urnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene a, b c d a e Eva Lo¨vbrand *, Silke Beck , Jason Chilvers , Tim Forsyth , Johan Hedre´n , Mike Hulme , f g Rolf Lidskog , Eleftheria Vasileiadou a Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linko¨ping University, 58183 Linko¨ping, Sweden b Department of Environmental Politics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany c School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK d Department of International Development, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK e Department of Geography, King’s College London, K4L.07, King’s Building, Strand Campus, London WC2R 2LS, UK f Environmental Sociology Section, O¨rebro University, 701 82 O¨rebro, Sweden g Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Environment and Sustainable Development Into Economic and Development Co-Operation Policy Elements of a Comprehensive Strategy
    COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 20.10.1999 COM(1999)499 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INTO ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION POLICY ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INTO ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION POLICY ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2 3. INCREASED POLICY COHERENCE IN PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 3 4. THE AMSTERDAM .TREATY: CHALLENGES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENT INTO ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION POLICIES ...................................................... 5 4.1. Sustainable economic and social development ................................................. 5 4.2. Integration of developing countries into the world economy and private sector development ................................................................................ 7 4.3. Campaign against poverty ............................................................................... 1-l S. IMPLEMENTATION OF OBLIGATIONS OF MULTI-LATERAL ENVIRONMENT AGREEMENTS AND PROCESSES ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use and Zoning—Who Owns the Beach? Massachusetts Refuses to Join the Trend of Increasing Public Access
    Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law Volume 11 January 1976 Land Use and Zoning—Who Owns the Beach? Massachusetts Refuses to Join the Trend of Increasing Public Access Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Land Use and Zoning—Who Owns the Beach? Massachusetts Refuses to Join the Trend of Increasing Public Access, 11 Urb. L. Ann. 283 (1976) Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw/vol11/iss1/11 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHO OWNS THE BEACH? MASSACHUSETTS REFUSES TO JOIN THE TREND OF INCREASING PUBLIC ACCESS The right of the public to use ocean beaches has recently received widespread attention. Most state courts have found extensive public rights to beach access, but only at the expense of the private beachfront owner.' In In re Opinion of the Justices,2 an advisory opinion 3 rendered in response to a question propounded by the Massachusetts House of Representatives, 4 however, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massa- chusetts ruled that a proposed statute5 creating an on-foot free right of passage along the beach between the line of mean high tide and extreme low tide would violate the constitutional prohibition against taking private property without compensation. 6 Although the court found 1.
    [Show full text]