Mesoamerican Biological Corridor: The Legal Framework for an Integrated, Regional System of Protected Areas

This article first briefly examines the historical basis for the recent movement toward regional environmental integration in Central America. Part II discusses the biological, economic and cultural rationales for a regional, protected-areas system. With this background, Part III reviews the current international law framework for biodiversity conservation. Part IV examines the extent to which existing models of international and regional cooperation incorporate modern scientific principles of conservation biology, such as island biogeography, into their legal framework. Finally, Part V surveys alternative international law approaches for an integrated, regional, protected-areas system to achieve the region\u27s stated goal of preserving an “effective Mesoamerican biological corridor.

Shared Knowledge, Shared Jurisprudence: Learning to Speak Environmental Law Creole (\u3ci\u3eCriollo\u3c/i\u3e)

The character of the legal and judicial systems in Latin America and the Caribbean is undergoing fundamental change.\u27 Traditionally weak judiciaries are emboldened, precedent as a jurisprudential decision-making tool has become increasingly important, the apparatus of administrative law has become more sophisticated and complex, and increasingly sophisticated reporting systems and the globalization of shared jurisprudence through contemporary communication media have all contributed to the development of law in the region. These broader systemic developments, though uneven and incomplete, have occurred in tandem with the emergence of environmental law as a unique and discrete body of law. This Article traces several of the more interesting jurisprudential developments that have resulted from, or that have benefited, environmental law in the region and the knowledge sharing mechanisms that have contributed to the emergence of a shared hemispheric environmental jurisprudence.\u27 This shared jurisprudence represents a new environmental law (derecho ambiento) that is not solely rooted in the civil or common law, but represents instead, a legal creole that relies on both traditions and requires the skills of each

Shared Knowledge, Shared Jurisprudence: Learning to Speak Environmental Law Creole (\u3ci\u3eCriollo\u3c/i\u3e)

The character of the legal and judicial systems in Latin America and the Caribbean is undergoing fundamental change.\u27 Traditionally weak judiciaries are emboldened, precedent as a jurisprudential decision-making tool has become increasingly important, the apparatus of administrative law has become more sophisticated and complex, and increasingly sophisticated reporting systems and the globalization of shared jurisprudence through contemporary communication media have all contributed to the development of law in the region. These broader systemic developments, though uneven and incomplete, have occurred in tandem with the emergence of environmental law as a unique and discrete body of law. This Article traces several of the more interesting jurisprudential developments that have resulted from, or that have benefited, environmental law in the region and the knowledge sharing mechanisms that have contributed to the emergence of a shared hemispheric environmental jurisprudence.\u27 This shared jurisprudence represents a new environmental law (derecho ambiento) that is not solely rooted in the civil or common law, but represents instead, a legal creole that relies on both traditions and requires the skills of each

\u3ci\u3eTierra y Libertad\u3c/i\u3e: The Social Function Doctrine and Land Reform in Latin America

Latin America has been caught for centuries in a vicious cycle of land consolidation and land reform; the issue perennially resurfaces since concentration of land and associated resources results in conflict.\u27 Latin American nations are among the world\u27s leaders when it comes to the inequality of land distribution. Land reform, or agrarian reform, as it is more commonly referred to in Latin America, is hardly a new phenomenon. As we will show, the need to develop a policy to redress the consolidation of lands by a powerful few and redistribute it in the name of equity and development has its pedigree in Greco-Roman times. In Latin America land reform began in colonial times and has persisted through the present, resisted by elites who benefited from the largesse of the colonial powers. In the colonial era, the land and its resources was all the crown could offer to the conquistadors, colonial elites, and to the church. As a result, the newly independent states immediately entrenched a resistant, wealthy class of latifundistas, or large landed estate holders, setting the stage for a legacy of revolution and attempts at land reform

\u3ci\u3eTierra y Libertad\u3c/i\u3e: The Social Function Doctrine and Land Reform in Latin America

Latin America has been caught for centuries in a vicious cycle of land consolidation and land reform; the issue perennially resurfaces since concentration of land and associated resources results in conflict.\u27 Latin American nations are among the world\u27s leaders when it comes to the inequality of land distribution. Land reform, or agrarian reform, as it is more commonly referred to in Latin America, is hardly a new phenomenon. As we will show, the need to develop a policy to redress the consolidation of lands by a powerful few and redistribute it in the name of equity and development has its pedigree in Greco-Roman times. In Latin America land reform began in colonial times and has persisted through the present, resisted by elites who benefited from the largesse of the colonial powers. In the colonial era, the land and its resources was all the crown could offer to the conquistadors, colonial elites, and to the church. As a result, the newly independent states immediately entrenched a resistant, wealthy class of latifundistas, or large landed estate holders, setting the stage for a legacy of revolution and attempts at land reform

Defending the Polygon: The Emerging Human Right to Communal Property

For many peoples in the developing world, homeland security has a meaning very different from its post-September 11 meaning in the United States. In many cases, peoples who have a shared cultural conception of territory within nation-states have begun to adopt the dominant Western property paradigm of land titling to formalize their rights to that territory. Many view this paradigm and the individualization of property rights it facilitates as an inevitable outcome of the inexorable march of social evolution, evidenced by the end of the twentieth century collapse of communism. The Enlightenment era conception of fungible individual property emerged triumphant. Moreover, it has been enshrined in the fundamental human rights charters and domestic constitutions of the twentieth century.\u27 Yet a closer inspection yields a much more nuanced analysis of the nature and forms of property ownership around the world and its treatment within the rights-based framework of humanitarian law. The literature suggests that communally held lands, often referred to as common property, have remained robust and adaptable in the face of the forces of globalization, and continue to persist in even the most developed nations.\u27 This Article begins with a brief review of the literature of common property - an area of intense and interdisciplinary scholarly interest sparked by Garrett Hardin\u27s famous essay, The Tragedy of the Commons. In Part II we briefly review the modem view of common property and its relationship with international development theory. Part III describes the historical development of the three-generational conceptual framework for international human rights law and the right to property within that framework. Part IV discusses key national jurisprudence that has attempted to reverse the colonial legacy of indigenous homeland alienation and the inter-American human rights system

Got Guts? The Iconic Streams of the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Law’s Ephemeral Edge

The legal status of “guts” — the ephemeral streams of the U.S. Virgin Islands that typically flow only after rainfall — is uncertain. Furthermore, it is unclear what, if any, property interest the Government of the Virgin Islands, and the public, have in these watercourses. This uncertainty stems from the non-navigable nature of guts, and is compounded by the Virgin Islands’ unique legal system, a legal system that recognizes at least some Danish law from its colonial past, and has seemingly inconsistent provisions purporting to confer legal and regulatory interests in these guts to the Government of the Virgin Islands. The uncertain legal status of guts, coupled with the Territory’s lack of a cohesive watercourse management regime, has caused guts to remain largely unmanaged and environmentally threatened. Land use changes, poorly sited development, pollution, illegal clearing, and other practices threaten the health of these guts. This Article first examines the legal status of guts in the Virgin Islands within the Territory’s existing laws and legal precedents. Next, it looks to other jurisdictions for guidance regarding best practices for regulating intermittent and ephemeral waterways, and methods of ensuring government access to these waterways for better management and protection. Finally, it proposes certain proprietary, regulatory, and management policy measures that could be implemented within this legal framework to better manage and protect guts for the entire Territory

State Funding for Ports: Selected State Summaries and Links to Resources

The maritime industry in the United States, which plays a significant role in the economies of coastal states and the nation as a whole, involves a diverse variety of working waterfronts, ranging from large commercial ports that facilitate heavy industry to small-scale, traditional working waterfronts. Moreover, in many areas of the country, the economic and cultural identities of local communities depend almost exclusively on traditional working waterfronts. Unfortunately, land use and economic policy shocks, such as escalating coastal property values and taxes, increasing demands for non-water-dependent land uses, and complex and time-consuming permitting processes, currently threaten many working waterfronts. Since waterfront land is essentially a non-renewable resource, these pressures are likely to intensify, with more than half the U.S. population (153 million people) living in coastal zones. Additionally, the number of people 65 years and older living in coastal zones is expected to increase by 147% over the next 50 years (these people come to the coast for reasons other than economic reasons). Further compounding this pressure, waterfront infrastructure almost always amounts to a long-term capital investment, which demands stable planning and funding mechanisms. Thus, where state policies fail to make the appropriate financial resources available to waterfront communities, these communities face an uphill battle to remain viable – essentially playing third-fiddle to other ports in the state, ports in other states, and non-water-dependent land uses, such as luxury residential projects

The Tiff Over TIF: Extending Tax Increment Financing to Municipal Maritime Infrastructure

Harbors, inner harbors and their navigational connection to the streams of maritime commerce are the economic and cultural lifeblood of most waterfront communities. Oddly, this connection has often been disregarded in the development and financing of municipal plans. Working waterfront communities need to find new and creative means to finance or co-finance improvements to their maritime infrastructure. One such means is through redevelopment planning and the financial vehicle known as Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Typically associated with dry land, TIF allows the incremental increase in property taxes from a base year to be captured from a defined geographic area and used to fund activities within that area. By the end of the 1980s, many states were utilizing TIF to address inner city blight. In most cases, the authorization for TIF remains imbedded in statutes that create “redevelopment districts” – based on statutory definitions of “slum” and “blight.” Because working waterfronts often lie within the urban core, the landside facilities that keep these waterfronts working also lie within these so-called “blight districts.” However, waterfront blight districts can fail to include the waterside of their waterfront, including navigation infrastructure and natural resources that may contribute to both on-water and waterfront blight. Moreover, in many cases, municipal boundaries themselves end at the waterfront, compounding the jurisdictional problem. Expending TIF revenue to support on-water harbor improvements outside these TIF districts and their associated municipalities may be legally problematic. This article explores the issues associated with TIF financing in Florida for maritime infrastructure outside of the redevelopment district that provides the tax increment and suggests options for local governments, including targeted statutory reform