Legal and Policy Implications of the Perception of Property Rights in Catch Shares

Catch shares are a fishery management strategy under which persons are allocated exclusive access to specific portions of the total allowable catch of a fishery. Proponents of catch share management argue that these programs allow for more efficient management of annual catch limits and mitigate the negative biological and economic impacts associated with other management programs. Because of the exclusivity of their allocations, catch share programs have been characterized by their opponents as privatizing the public fisheries resource and granting catch share holders a property right to fish. However, case law suggests that a court is unlikely to conclude that catch shares constitute property or entitle a share holder to compensation under the Fifth Amendment takings clause if those shares are revoked or modified. Nevertheless, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act instills catch shares with more attributes of property than other fishing permits. This paper examines the existing authority for establishing catch share management programs and the property right implications of that authority. Despite the low probability that a court would find a compensable taking, an analysis of takings law provides useful guidance to policymakers and fishery managers as they attempt to develop catch share programs. Consideration of takings law can help managers to structure a program that provides some of the benefits that arise from property rights, while avoiding potential claims of entitlement from catch share holders when program modifications are implemented

Operaciones portuarias de petróleo crudo: Una revisión bibliográfica sobre simulación e investigación operativa

[Resumen] Actualmente, el tráfico marítimo de crudo de petróleo y sus derivados sigue siendo un tráfico relevante, tanto desde un punto de vista geoestratégico como a nivel de volumen transportado. Dado el desequilibrio regional en términos de reservas, producción y consumo, se genera, por tanto, un importante tráfico marítimo, pero también una necesidad de la industria de optimizar los procesos con el objetivo de minimizar los costes y dar una respuesta eficiente en términos logísticos. Desde esta perspectiva, las técnicas de investigación operativa y la modelización de los tráficos para su optimización se presentan como una metodología muy conveniente y, a lo largo de los últimos setenta años, han empezado a publicarse estudios científicos con diferentes enfoques cualitativos y cuantitativos. El objetivo de esta investigación es recopilar, analizar y clasificar los modelos de tráfico de crudo de petróleo y sus derivados y ordenar la temática de las innovaciones introducidas. Para alcanzar este objetivo se realiza un recorrido bibliográfico conceptual indicando como se han ido introduciendo las sucesivas mejoras y, al mismo tiempo, eliminando las restricciones iniciales.[Abstract] The maritime traffic of crude oil and derivatives is still very relevant, both from a geostrategic perspective and regarding the total volume of liquid bulk shipped. Due to the regional imbalance in terms of reserves, production and consumption, important maritime traffic is generated, and a necessity for the industry of optimizing these processes, with the goal to minimize costs and give an efficient answer in logistic terms. From this perspective, the operation research techniques, and the traffic modeling techniques aimed at optimization, can be presented as a very convenient methodology over the last seventy years, a stream of scientific publications has emerged with different quantitative and qualitative focus. This research aims to gather, analyze and classify the traffic models of crude oil and derivatives and to order the innovation concepts gradually introduced. In order to achieve this goal, conceptual bibliographic research is performed showing how the subsequent improvements have been introduced and, at the same time, erasing the initial restriction

Managine for Effectiveness and Efficiency in Oil Spill Response

Responding to oil spills, even spills of moderate proportion, requires the commitment of substantial manpower and equipment on the part of the responsible party or the federal government. Throughout the response operation, successful spill management entails choosing the most effective and efficient countermeasures and cleanup techniques to remove or neutralize oil in the environment, minimize overall environmental damages from the spill, and insure that the objectives and expectations of government agencies, responsible parties, and the public are met. As the response progresses, effective and efficient management requires determining when response operations should be terminated. In making this decision, the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) must deal with the complex how clean is clean (HCIC) issue, which requires an often subjective determination on when a point of diminishing returns has been reached in the cleanup effort. Beyond this point, further expenditure of resources will have little effect on preventing damage and/or accelerating recovery, and may cause more damage than if no further action is taken. Dealing with this issue often results in considerable controversy among the agencies and organizations involved in the response effort. The purpose of this treatment is not to rigorously define and resolve all of the processes and issues involved in effectively and efficiently managing oil spill cleanup and dealing with the how clean is clean issue. Rather, the objective is to characterize the current strategic doctrine and practice used in dealing with these spill management issues, and provide some insight into how this management process can be improved and supported

Taking the Oceanfront Lot

Oceanfront landowners and states share a property boundary located between the wet and dry parts of the shore. This legal coastline is different from an ordinary land boundary. First, on sandy beaches, the line is constantly in flux, and it cannot be marked except momentarily. Without the help of a surveyor and a court, neither the landowner nor a citizen walking down the beach has the ability to know exactly where the line lies. This uncertainty means that, as a practical matter, ownership of some part of the beach is effectively shared. Second, the common law establishes that the owner of each oceanfront lot holds easement-like interests in adjacent state-owned land; and, the state holds similar interests in the oceanfront lot. For these two reasons, the legal relationship between the oceanfront owner and the state is more interdependent than first might seem. It is much more than the usual neighbor relationship. Disputes over oceanfront property are often framed as cases of wrongful taking under the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause. The Supreme Court has historically applied its standard takings test for determining whether or not a state is liable for the impact of its rules on a landowner’s rights. This Article is the first to examine the question of whether use of this standard test is optimal in cases between states and the owners of oceanfront land. Given the fact that climate change impacts such as sea-level rise are likely to increase rates of conflict along the legal coastline, the potential benefits of a test that takes into account the special relationship between these parties are significant. Support for an alternative test can be found in two sets of common law property rules, the upland rights and public trust doctrines, as well as in a mechanism that nineteenth century courts used to resolve similar disputes

Taking the Oceanfront Lot

Oceanfront landowners and states share a property boundary that runs between the wet and dry parts of the shore. This legal coastline is different from an ordinary land boundary. First, on sandy beaches, the line is constantly in flux, and it cannot be marked except momentarily. Without the help of a surveyor and a court, neither the landowner nor a citizen walking down the beach has the ability to know exactly where the line lies. This uncertainty means that, as a practical matter, ownership of some part of the beach is effectively shared. Second, the common law establishes that the owner of each oceanfront lot holds easement-like interests in adjacent state-owned land; and, the state holds similar interests in the oceanfront lot. For these two reasons, the legal relationship between the oceanfront owner and the state is more interdependent than it may seem at first. It is much more than the usual neighbor relationship. Disputes over oceanfront property are often framed as cases of wrongful taking under the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause. The Supreme Court has historically applied its standard takings test for determining whether or not a state is liable for the impact of its rules on a landowner’s rights. This Article is the first to examine the question of whether use of this standard test is optimal, or even logical, in cases between states and the owners of oceanfront land. Given the fact that climate change impacts such as sea-level rise are likely to increase rates of conflict along the legal coastline, the potential benefits of a test that takes into account the special relationship between these parties are significant. Support for an alternative test can be found in two sets of common law property rules, the upland rights and public trust doctrines, as well as in a mechanism that nineteenth-century courts used to resolve similar disputes

The capital markets as a source of finance for shipping and the feasibility of a merchant shipping company listing in the Athens Stock Exchange

Thesis (M.S.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Ocean Engineering, 1995.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 126-128).by Eleftheria Mamidaki.M.S