DOCSLIB.ORG

Summer Law Review.Book

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Summer 2006 Vol. 19, No. 2 Articles Reversing the Flow: International Law and Chinese Hydropower Development on the Headwaters of the Mekong River L. Waldron Davis..................................................................................................1 The Availability of Damages to Foreign Nationals for Violation of the Consular Relations Treaty David Sweis........................................................................................................63 Occupational Jurisdiction: A Critical Analysis of the Iraqi Special Tribunal Ryan Swift...........................................................................................................99 Recent Decisions Banco Central de Paraguay v. Paraguay Humanitarian Found., Inc.............141 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a counter- claim because the foreign defendants asserted their claim against an opposing party in a capacity that was different from that in which the party sued. SARL Louis Feraud Int’l v. Viewfinder Inc. ....................................................149 A foreign judgment cannot be enforced against an American corporation when repugnant to the funda- mental notions of public policy of the United States and the forum state. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. v. Suveyke ...............................157 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York applied the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., that forum selection clauses are presumed to be valid unless it is shown that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that fraud or over- reaching was present. Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Omega, S.A. ........................................................165 In a dispute between a domestic and a foreign corporation, a settlement agreement between the parties was held binding despite the lack of a signature of the foreign corporation. Ungar v. Palestine Liberation Organization....................................................173 The case discusses the results of an action under the Anti-Terrorism Act against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation.....................................181 Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, when a plaintiff is not an American citizen, less deference is accorded to plaintiff’s choice of forum, and when an alternative forum exists, private and public interest factors must clearly weigh in favor of the alternative forum. Opoku-Acheampong v. Depository Trust Co. ..................................................187 The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment for the defendant when the plaintiff, a native of Ghana, failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimi- nation and retaliatory discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LAW & PRACTICE SECTION Published with the assistance of St. John’s University School of Law NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Summer 2006 Vol. 19, No. 2 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LAW & PRACTICE SECTION © 2006 New York State Bar Association ISSN 1050-9453 INTERNATIONAL LAW & PRACTICE SECTION OFFICERS—2006 Chair ..............................................................John F. Zulack, Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP One Liberty Plaza, 35th Floor, New York, NY 10006-1404 Chair Elect......................................................Oliver J. Armas, Thacher Proffitt & Wood LLP Two World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281 Vice-Chairs ............................. Mark H. Alcott, Paul, Weiss, et al. Allen E. Kaye, Law Offices of Allen E. Kaye, PC 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019 111 Broadway, Suite 1304, New York, NY 10006 Jonathan P. Armstrong, Eversheds, LLP Jennifer K. King, Flemming Zulack et al. 85 Queen Victoria Street, London EC4V 4JL UK One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006 John E. Blyth Steven C. Krane, Proskauer Rose LLP 1115 Midtown Tower, Rochester, NY 14604 1585 Broadway, Room 1778, New York, NY 10036 Prof. Sydney M. Cone, III, New York Law School A. Thomas Levin, Meyer Suozzi English & Klein, PC 57 Worth Street, New York, NY 10013 1505 Kellum Place, PO Box 803, Mineola, NY 10051 David W. Detjen, Alston & Bird, LLP Michael M. Maney, Sullivan & Cromwell 90 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10016-1302 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004-2498 Gerald J. Ferguson, Baker & Hostetler LLP Eduardo Ramos-Gomez, Duane Morris LLP 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10103 380 Lexington Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10168 Kathryn Bryk Friedman Saul L. Sherman 51 Lancaster Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14222 PO Box 820, 221 Mecox Road, Water Mill, NY 11976 Joyce M. Hansen, Federal Reserve Bank of NY Lorraine Power Tharp, Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP 33 Liberty Street, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10045 One Commerce Plaza, Albany, NY 12260 Executive Vice-Chair......................................Marco A. Blanco, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10178 Secretary.........................................................Michael W. Galligan, Phillips Nizer LLP 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10103 Assistant Secretary..........................................Nava Bat-Avraham Greenwich, CT 06831 Treasu re r .........................................................Lawrence E. Shoenthal, Weiser LLP 135 West 50th Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10020 Immediate Past Chair ....................................Robert J. Leo, Meeks & Sheppard 330 Madison Avenue, 39th Floor, New York, NY 10017 Delegates to the NYSBA James P. Duffy, III, Berg & Duffy, LLP House of Delegates ........................................3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 1W02, Lake Success, NY 11042 Paul M. Frank, Alston & Bird LLP 90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor, New York, NY 10016 Kenneth A. Schultz, Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke 230 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10169 Alternate Delegate..........................................John Hanna, Jr., Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP One Commerce Plaza, Albany, NY 12260 NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Advisory Board Chair .........................Ronald D. Greenberg, New York, New York David Buxbaum Frank Fine Sven Papp Guangzhou, China Brussels, Belgium Stockholm, Sweden Nishith M. Desai Larry D. Johnson Charles A. Patrizia Bombay, India New York, New York Washington, D.C. Siegfried H. Elsing Clifford Larsen Saud M.A. Shawwaf Dusseldorf, Germany Paris, France Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Christian Emmeluth Kenneth Cang Li Koji Takeuchi London, England New York, New York Tokyo, Japan Dr. Alfred S. Farha Monica Petraglia McCabe Samuel Xiangyu Zhang Zurich, Switzerland New York, New York Washington, D.C. NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW Editorial Board Editor-in-Chief..........Lester Nelson New York, NY Executive Editor .............................Alan J. Hartnick Article Editors (continued) ..............Myron J. Laub New York, NY Clifton, NJ Recent Decisions Marisa A. Marinelli Editor ..............................................Peter W. Schroth New York, NY Glastonbury, CT George K. Miller Article Editors ................................Charles Davidson New York, NY New York, NY Joseph J. Saltarelli Charles K. Fewell New York, NY New York, NY David Serko Richard L. Furman New York, NY New York, NY Shane H. Sutton Joseph S. Kaplan New York, NY New York, NY Jacob R. Wyatt Robert Kestelik Washington, D.C. Houston, TX Prof. Cynthia C. Lichtenstein Newton Center, MA Student Editorial Board St. John’s University School of Law Editor-in-Chief ..........Vinny Lee Managing Editor .........Nicola Carpenter Associate Managing Editor ........Steven Gauthier Executive Articles Editor ................Christina Gardner Executive Notes & Associate Articles Editor..................Christine Geier Comments Editor ...........................Ariana Gambella Associate Articles Editor .................Tisha Magsino Associate Notes & Executive Research Editor ..............Curtis Young Comments Editor ...........................Jefferey LeMaster Symposium Editor ..........................James Morgan Associate Notes & Comments Editor ...........................Brooke Skolnik Staff Shirin Aboujawde Jonathan Lerner Jennifer Apple Susan Lutinger Salim Azzam Misty Marris Stefanie Beyer William Ng Michael Blit Emma Oh Joshua Bornstein Joseph Russo Valerie Ferrier Rachel Stern Lisa Fitzgerald Jennifer Thomas Michelle Francisco Bena Varughese Lauren Gehrig Theodora Vasilatos Halie Geller Wendy Wang David Henry Melissa Whitman Sui Jim Anne Zangos Troy Kennedy Faculty Advisor: Professor Charles Biblowit INTERNATIONAL LAW & PRACTICE SECTION COMMITTEES Asian Pacific Law................... Lawrence A. Darby, III International (212) 836-8235 Environmental Law ............... John Hanna, Jr. Junji Masuda (518) 487-7600 (212) 258-3333 Andrew D. Otis (212) 696-6000 Awards ................................... Jonathan I. Blackman Mark F. Rosenberg (212) 225-2000 (212) 558-3647 Michael M. Maney (212) 558-3800 International Estate Lauren D. Rachlin and Trust Law........................ Michael W. Galligan (716) 848-1460 (212) 841-0572 Saul L. Sherman International Human (631) 537-5841 Rights .................................... Arthur L. Galub Central and Eastern European (212) 595-4598 and Central Asian Law........... Serhiy Hoshovskyy Rachel L. Kaylie (212) 370-0447 (212) 406-7387 Corporate Counsel................
Recommended publications
  • Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law

    Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law

    McGeorge Law Review Volume 19 Issue 4 Article 3 1-1-1988 Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law William R. Attwater State Water Resources Control Board James Markle State Water Resources Control Board Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William R. Attwater & James Markle, Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law, 19 PAC. L. J. 957 (1988). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol19/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Overview of California Water Rights and Water Quality Law William R. Attwater* and James Markle** CONTENTS Part One - Water Rights in California .......................... 959 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 959 A. Beginnings ..................................................... 960 B. The World Rushes In ...................................... 961 II. THE PROPRIETARY ERA ........................................... 962 A. Appropriative Rights ....................................... 962 1. A Period of Development ........................... 964 2. Doctrine of Relation .................................. 964 3. Changes in Exercise of Appropriative Rights .. 965 4. Use of Natural Channels for Conveyance ...... 965 5. 1872 Civil Code Provisions ......................... 966 6. Statutory Forfeiture of Appropriative Rights .. 967 7. Reasonableness of Use and Diversion of Water .. .. .. ........... 9 67 8. Federal Land Laws .................................... 968 B. Prescriptive Rights ........................................... 969 * B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Utah (1961); J.D., University of Washington (1965). William Attwater has been the Chief Counsel for the State Water Resources Control Board since 1974.
  • An Artificial Distinction: Addressing Water Quantity Concerns Under the Clean Water Act

    An Artificial Distinction: Addressing Water Quantity Concerns Under the Clean Water Act

    An Artificial Distinction: Addressing water quantity concerns under the Clean Water Act Merritt Frey, River Network, September 2011 “Petitioners also assert…that the Clean Water Act is only concerned with water “quality,” and does not allow the regulation of water “quantity.” This is an artificial distinction.” Justice O’Connor writing for the Supreme Court in 511 U.S. 700(1994) (writing for the majority) Although fish and others who rely on our rivers don’t see the separation, our legal system has long treated water quality and quantity as unrelated concerns. Water quality is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act, while state laws govern water quantity. Aquatic and riparian habitat protection and restoration has been even more removed – when habitat issues are addressed at all, it is through a hodge-podge of statutes, regulations and voluntary programs at the federal, state and local level. Even within our landmark water quality law – the Clean Water Act – biological and physical components of our river systems have received far less attention than traditional chemical pollution issues. Although this is slowly changing, the power of the Act has not truly been brought to bear on issues of quantity or habitat. The goal of the paper is to identify Clean Water Act and related tools that could be better used to drive in-stream flow and habitat restoration and protection efforts. Our research focuses heavily on flow protection and restoration, but touches on habitat issues where appropriate. Our findings focus on several policy areas – including better utilizing bioassessement data, developing and implementing strong water quality standards, applying the states’ 401 water quality certification power more broadly to flow and habitat issues, and expanding creative use of the Total Maximum Daily Load program to better identify and remedy habitat and/or flow- related impairments.
  • The Proliferation of Dissenting Opinions.Indb

    The Proliferation of Dissenting Opinions.Indb

    Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/123230 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation. Author: Sarmiento Lamus, A.D. Title: The proliferation of dissenting opinions in international law: A comparative analysis of the exercise of the right to dissent at the ICJ and IACtHR Issue Date: 2020-07-08 The proliferation of dissenting opinions in international law A comparative analysis of the exercise of the right to dissent at the ICJ and the IACtHR 544424-L-bw-Sarmiento 544424-L-bw-Sarmiento The proliferation of dissenting opinions in international law A comparative analysis of the exercise of the right to dissent at the ICJ and the IACtHR PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. C.J.J.M. Stolker, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op woensdag 8 juli 2020 klokke 16.15 uur door Andrés Dario Sarmiento Lamus geboren te Bogota, Colombia in 1985 544424-L-bw-Sarmiento Promotoren: Prof. dr. L.J. van den Herik Prof. dr. Y.A.A.S. Radi (Université Chatolique de Louivain) Promotiecommissie: Dr. J. Powderly Dr. G. Le Moli Prof. dr. E. Ferrer MacGregor (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México) Prof. dr. D. Kritsiotis (University of Nottingham, United Kingdom) Lay-out: AlphaZet prepress, Bodegraven Printwerk: Ipskamp Printing © 2020 A.D. Sarmiento Lamus Behoudens de in of krachtens de Auteurswet van 1912 gestelde uitzonderingen mag niets in deze uitgave worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm op enige wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen of enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de uitgever.
  • At the Confluence of the Clean Water Act and Prior Appropriation

    At the Confluence of the Clean Water Act and Prior Appropriation

    At the Confluence of the Clean Water Act and Prior Appropriation The Challenge and Ways Forward At the Confluence of the Clean Water Act and Prior Appropriation The Challenge and Ways Forward Adam Schempp Director, Western Water Program February 2013 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Environmental Law Institute. It was authored by Adam Schempp with editorial assistance from Jay Austin, Jim McElfish, and Jessye Waxman and research assistance from Katelyn Huber, Wesley Rosenfeld, and Philip Womble. The author wishes to thank all the individuals who gave their candid observations about water quality and quantity programs in ELI’s interviews as well as those who helped in reviewing the informa- tion contained in this report. Those individuals include: Carl Adams, Peter Anderson, John Barnes, Bob Barwin, Linda Bassi, John Bender, Reed Benson, Paul Bossert, Nathan Bracken, Susan Braley, Helen Bresler, Marti Bridges, Andy Brummond, Travis Burns, Thomas Cappiello, Aaron Citron, Boyd Clayton, Brad Daniels, Mark Derichsweiler, John Echeverria, Mike Ell, Garland Erbele, Susan France, Cindy Gilder, Phil Hegeman, John Heggeness, Heidi Henderson, Pam Homer, Russell Husen, Jason King, Marty Link, Larry MacDonnell, Sharon Megdal, Shannon Minerich, Phil Moershel, Bill Painter, Tom Paul, Gary Prokosch, Kevin Rein, Janet Ronald, DL Sanders, Andy Sawyer, Bob Shaver, John Shields, MaryLou Smith, Robin Smith, Tom Stiles, Linda Stitzer, Clive Strong, Jason Sutter, Karen Tarnow, Mike Thompson, Patrick Tyrrell, Karla Urbanowicz, John Wagner, Mike Walton, Phil Ward, Dean Yashan, and Anne Yates. The ultimate conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are solely those of ELI. About ELI Publications— ELI publishes Research Reports that present the analysis and conclusions of the policy studies ELI undertakes to improve environmental law and policy.
  • Memorandum of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on The

    Memorandum of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on The

    Memorandum of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the Application filed before the International Court of Justice by the Cooperative of Guyana on March 29th, 2018 ANNEX Table of Contents I. Venezuela’s territorial claim and process of decolonization of the British Guyana, 1961-1965 ................................................................... 3 II. London Conference, December 9th-10th, 1965………………………15 III. Geneva Conference, February 16th-17th, 1966………………………20 IV. Intervention of Minister Iribarren Borges on the Geneva Agreement at the National Congress, March 17th, 1966……………………………25 V. The recognition of Guyana by Venezuela, May 1966 ........................ 37 VI. Mixed Commission, 1966-1970 .......................................................... 41 VII. The Protocol of Port of Spain, 1970-1982 .......................................... 49 VIII. Reactivation of the Geneva Agreement: election of means of settlement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 1982-198371 IX. The choice of Good Offices, 1983-1989 ............................................. 83 X. The process of Good Offices, 1989-2014 ........................................... 87 XI. Work Plan Proposal: Process of good offices in the border dispute between Guyana and Venezuela, 2013 ............................................. 116 XII. Events leading to the communiqué of the UN Secretary-General of January 30th, 2018 (2014-2018) ....................................................... 118 2 I. Venezuela’s territorial claim and Process of decolonization
  • ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES for AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL 00Environ PRELIMS 3/8/01 2:12 PM Page Iii

    ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES for AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL 00Environ PRELIMS 3/8/01 2:12 PM Page Iii

    00Environ PRELIMS 3/8/01 2:12 PM Page i ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES FOR AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL 00Environ PRELIMS 3/8/01 2:12 PM Page iii ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES FOR AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL Edited by J.S. SHORTLE AND D.G. ABLER Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Pennsylvania State University USA CABI Publishing 00Environ PRELIMS 3/8/01 2:12 PM Page iv CABI Publishing is a division of CAB International CABI Publishing CABI Publishing CAB International 10 E 40th Street Wallingford Suite 3203 Oxon OX10 8DE New York, NY 10016 UK USA Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 212 481 7018 Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Fax: +1 212 686 7993 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web site: http://www.cabi.org © CAB International 2001. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Environmental policies for agricultural pollution control/edited by J.S. Shortle and D.G. Abler. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 0-85199-399-0 (alk. paper) 1. Agricultural pollution--Government policy. 2. Water--Pollution--Government policy. 3. Environmental policy--Economic aspects. I. Shortle, J.S. (James S.) II. Abler, David Gerrard, 1960– TD428.A37 E58 2001 363.739Ј45--dc21 2001020355 ISBN 0 85199 399 0 Typeset in Photina by Columns Design Ltd, Reading.
  • Keeping the Clean Water Act Cooperatively Federal—Or, Why the Clean Water Act Does Not Directly Regulate Groundwater Pollution

    Keeping the Clean Water Act Cooperatively Federal—Or, Why the Clean Water Act Does Not Directly Regulate Groundwater Pollution

    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 42 (2017-2018) Issue 2 Article 3 February 2018 Keeping the Clean Water Act Cooperatively Federal—Or, Why the Clean Water Act Does Not Directly Regulate Groundwater Pollution Damien Schiff Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Repository Citation Damien Schiff, Keeping the Clean Water Act Cooperatively Federal—Or, Why the Clean Water Act Does Not Directly Regulate Groundwater Pollution, 42 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 447 (2018), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol42/iss2/3 Copyright c 2018 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr KEEPING THE CLEAN WATER ACT COOPERATIVELY FEDERAL—OR, WHY THE CLEAN WATER ACT DOES NOT DIRECTLY REGULATE GROUNDWATER POLLUTION DAMIEN SCHIFF* INTRODUCTION The Clean Water Act1 is the leading federal environmental law regulating water pollution.2 In recent years, its scope and application to normal land-use activities have become extremely contentious.3 Yet, despite the growing controversy, the environmental community contin- ues to try to extend the Act’s reach.4 One of its most recent efforts has focused on expanding the Act to groundwater pollution.5 In this Article * Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation. 1 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1388. The Act’s formal title is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. See Pub. L. No. 92-500, § 1, 86 Stat. 816 (Oct. 18, 1972).
  • Effectiveness of EU Regulations in the Context of Local Realities

    Effectiveness of EU Regulations in the Context of Local Realities

    Journal of Environmental Management 287 (2021) 112270 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman Research article Protection of drinking water resources from agricultural pressures: Effectiveness of EU regulations in the context of local realities Susanne Wuijts a,b,*, Jacqueline Claessens a, Luke Farrow c, Donnacha G. Doody c, Susanne Klages d, Chris Christophoridis e, Rozalija Cveji´c f, Matjaˇz Glavan f, Ingrid Nesheim g, Froukje Platjouw g, Isobel Wright h, Jenny Rowbottom h, Morten Graversgaard i, Cors van den Brink j,k, In^es Leitao~ k, Antonio´ Ferreira l, Sandra Boekhold a a National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, the Netherlands b Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Utrecht University, Newtonlaan 231, 3584 BH Utrecht, the Netherlands c Agri-Food and Bioscience Institute, 18a, Newforge Lane, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK d Coordination Unit Climate, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute, Braunschweig, 38116, Germany e Environmental Pollution Control Laboratory, Chemistry Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece f Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Agronomy, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva Ul. 101, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia g Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Gaustadall´een 21, NO-0349, Oslo, Norway h Lincoln Institute for Agri-Food Technology, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK i Department of Agroecology,
  • Public Values in Water Law: a Case of Substantive Fragmentation?

    Public Values in Water Law: a Case of Substantive Fragmentation?

    This article is published in a peer-reviewed section of the Utrecht Law Review Public Values in Water Law: A Case of Substantive Fragmentation? Monika Ambrus Herman Kasper Gilissen Jasper J.H. van Kempen* 1. Introduction Water is often characterized as a public good for various reasons: it can benefit large numbers of people without diminishing its quality, it is a natural resource, it serves the basic needs of individuals, and is essential for maintaining the ecosystem. The underlying idea behind these reasons is the need to ensure that certain publicly important values, i.e. public values, are respected. Although there is a general idea about what these values might be, it is still unclear what the concrete public water values are and to what extent these are actually incorporated in the various dimensions of water law (economic, environmental and social) and at the different institutional/governance levels (international, regional, sub-regional and domestic). Given these dimensions and levels of governance, water law is therefore often described as horizontally and vertically fragmented. The term ‘fragmentation’ is often associated with negative consequences; the general idea is that diverging approaches would lead to inconsistent, incoherent and ineffective results as well as to legal uncertainty. These negative connotations then raise the question whether institutional fragmentation negatively affects the protection of public values. Against this background, the following research question will be addressed in this article: Is there substantive fragmentation regarding the protection of public water values across different institutional levels, and to what extent? Hence, the main purpose of this article is twofold: (1) to provide a working definition of and a theoretical framework for the identification of public values; and (2) to explore which public values are being protected at the different levels and across two main dimensions.
  • Prohibit State Agencies from Regulating Waters More Stringently Than the Federal Clean Water Act, Or Limit Their Authority to Do So

    Prohibit State Agencies from Regulating Waters More Stringently Than the Federal Clean Water Act, Or Limit Their Authority to Do So

    STATE CONSTRAINTS State-Imposed Limitations on the Authority of Agencies to Regulate Waters Beyond the Scope of the Federal Clean Water Act An ELI 50-State Study May 2013 A PUBLICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE WASHINGTON, DC ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under GSA contract No. GS-10F-0330P (P.O. # EP10H000246). The contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views of EPA, and no official endorsement of the report or its findings by EPA may be inferred. Principal ELI staff contributing to the project were Bruce Myers, Catherine McLinn, and James M. McElfish, Jr. Additional research and editing assistance was provided by Carolyn Clarkin, Michael Liu, Jocelyn Wiesner, Masumi Kikkawa, Katrina Cuskelly, Katelyn Tsukada, Jamie Friedland, Sean Moran, Brian Korpics, Meredith Wilensky, Chelsea Tu, and Kiera Zitelman. ELI extends its thanks to Donna Downing and Sonia Kassambara of EPA, as well as to Erin Flannery and Damaris Christensen. Any errors and omissions are solely the responsibility of ELI. The authors welcome additions, corrections, and clarifications for purposes of future updates to this report. About ELI Publications— ELI publishes Research Reports that present the analysis and conclusions of the policy studies ELI undertakes to improve environmental law and policy. In addition, ELI publishes several journals and reporters—including the Environmental Law Reporter, The Environmental Forum, and the National Wetlands Newsletter—and books, which contribute to education of the profession and disseminate diverse points of view and opinions to stimulate a robust and creative exchange of ideas.
  • Pollution Controls 3

    Pollution Controls 3

    IlEV-8-92-003 C2 Maine Citizens' Handbook on COASTAL WATER QUALITY ENFORCEMENT Prepared by Marine Law Institute University of Maine Schoolof Law 246 Deering Avenue Portland, Maine 0410? in cooperation with the SeaGrant Marine Advisory Program University of Maine, Orono December 1992 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION II. POINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROLS 3 THE CLEAN WATER ACT ..... FEDERAL NPDES PERMITS ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 Point Sources Duration and Termination....................... ~ . Complianceand DischargeMonitoring Reports......... Public Participation in the Permit Process............. Penalties... ~.................................. STATE DISCHARGE LICENSES .......... 12 When Required............................. ........ 13 Application Procedures....................... ........ 13 Public Participation ........ 14 AdministrativeAppeals and Judicial Review ....... ........ 15 License Rhvocations, Modifications and Suspensions........................ ... 15 State Discharge Standards..................... ... 16 Prohibited Discharges ......... ~ ~~.....,...... ... 16 CITIZEN ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL AND STATE DISCHARGE PERMITS ........ 17 Citizen Suits Under the Clean Water Act ... 18 Requirementsfor CitizenSuits 19 Enforcement Under State Law 21 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TABLE oF CQNTEYTs Federal Effluent Limitation Standards 23 Federal Requirements for State WQSs 24 Maine's Water Quality Standards 26 SEWAGE TREATMENT 29 STORMWATER AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS ....... 31 STATE CERTIFICATIONS
  • Assemblée Générale Distr

    Assemblée Générale Distr

    Nations Unies A/59/439* Assemblée générale Distr. générale 10 décembre 2004 Français Original: anglais/espagnol/français Cinquante-neuvième session Point 18 de l’ordre du jour Élection de juges du Tribunal pénal international chargé de juger les personnes accusées de violations graves du droit international humanitaire commises sur le territoire de l’ex-Yougoslavie depuis 1991 Curriculum vitæ des candidats présentés par les États Membres de l’Organisation des Nations Unies Note du Secrétaire général Table des matières Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 3 II. Curriculum vitæ des candidats .................................................... 4 Carmel A. Agius (Malte)......................................................... 4 Jean-Claude Antonetti (France) ................................................... 15 Iain Bonomy (Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord) .................. 18 Liu Daqun (Chine).............................................................. 20 Mohamed Amin El-Abbassi El Mahdi (Égypte) ...................................... 24 Elhagi Abdulkader Emberesh (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne) ............................. 27 Rigoberto Espinal Irias (Honduras) ................................................ 30 O-gon Kwon (République de Corée) ............................................... 35 Theodor Meron (États-Unis d’Amérique) ........................................... 38 Bakone Melema Moloto (Afrique du Sud) .......................................... 40 Prisca