The Right of Nonuse

The Right of Nonuse provides a fresh and remarkably different perspective on the real causes of the ills plaguing the world\u27s resources and environment. It reexamines the very nature of nature, and from this new perspective, argues that what is needed is for humans to grant to natural resources a legal right to be left alone - a right of nonuse. In the process, it explores the following questions: Why do natural resources continue to be depleted and removed at an alarming rate? Why are species becoming extinct at a pace that may be unprecedented? Why does the environment continue to be polluted? Why do the weather and climate seem to be changing? Perhaps most important, why have laws, legal institutions and governments been unable to address and correct these problems?Jan Laitos reviews the history of our relationship with the natural environment and develops new ways of thinking about nature and its protection. Instead of proceeding with human-based goals, Laitos argues that we should protect environmental resources for their own intrinsic value. Instead of giving humans more and more rights to clean up the environment, and to halt resources depletion, a right of nonuse held by the resource itself should be created. Natural resources have always possessed this parallel nonuse function, and society should recognize and legitimize it

Legislative Retroactivity

Whenever a new law affects either past legal relationships or decisions made by private parties in reliance on prior law, the question of prospective or retroactive application of the new law becomes significant

The Strange Career of Private Takings of Private Property for Private Use

Part I summarizes the two private entities thattraditionally have been conferred the power to take private property for their own private use: (1) natural resource developers and (2) common carriers involved in, andresponsible for, our country’s transportation, storage, and distribution (TS&D) system for energy infrastructure—pipelines, electrical transmission lines, and rail lines. Part II considers the traditional rationale for those private takings, which typically relies on some version ofthe notion thatthe public atlarge may, or will, eventually benefit from this private exercise of eminent domain. Part III explores the four central problems associated with these kinds of private takings: (1) the potential for inefficiencies and abuses when state laws distrust normal private market allocations of resources and instead rely on private party condemnation decisions to create a public benefit;(2)the typical absence of meaningful judicial review; (3)the failure to take into account countervailing interests when authorizing private parties to determine the best use of another’s private property; and (4)the inability oftraditional calculations of“just compensation” to truly compensate a private party whose property has been taken by another private party. Part IV offers suggestions on how to reform this particular class of private takings