The future of the common heritage of mankind: Intersections with the public trust doctrine

2013 ◽  
pp. 46-60
Keyword(s):  
Public Trust ◽  
The Public ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Public Trust Doctrine ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common

The Lakefront Today

2021 ◽  
pp. 281-298
Author(s):  
Joseph D. Kearney ◽  
Thomas W. Merrill
Keyword(s):  
Public Trust ◽  
The Political ◽  
Boundary Line ◽  
Deep Tunnel ◽  
The South ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Past ◽  
Public Trust Doctrine ◽  
The Future ◽  
Recent Developments

This chapter reviews how the political settlements and legal understandings canvassed in the account continue to affect the Chicago lakefront today. It offers brief snapshots of five more recent developments on the lakefront that reflect the influence of the past — and that may be indicative of the future. The chapter begins by recounting the boundary-line agreement of 1912 which planted the seeds of the Illinois Central's demise on the lakefront. Today, the railroad has largely disappeared from the lakefront, in both name and fact. The chapter then shifts to discuss the Ward cases, which continue to affect the shape of the lakefront. It chronicles the success of Millennium Park and the Illinois Supreme Court's demotion of the public dedication doctrine to a statutory right limited to Grant Park. The chapter also recounts the Deep Tunnel project and the challenges in the South Works site. Ultimately, it discusses the appearance of the public trust doctrine on the lakefront, being invoked by preservationist groups to challenge both a new museum and the construction of President Barack Obama's presidential library (called the Obama Presidential Center).

scholarly journals New Zealand’s Public Trust Doctrine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicola Jane Hulley
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Coastal Area ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Trust Doctrine ◽  
The Common

<p>This paper presents an argument that there is a public trust doctrine which is part of New Zealand’s common law. The public doctrine imposes an obligation on administrative decision-makers, with respect to decisions that impact commonly held natural resources, to act in the interests of the public. I argue the doctrine was inherited by New Zealand in 1840, as part of the English common law, and that it has been subsequently recognised in the New Zealand common law. I also argue that the doctrine has not been extinguished by the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Marine Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011: the common law doctrine supplements these regulatory regimes. My argument concludes that the doctrine is best conceived of as a ground of judicial review, perhaps under the heading of illegality, and that there are strong normative arguments for its augmentation by common law development or legislative codification.</p>

scholarly journals New Zealand’s Public Trust Doctrine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicola Jane Hulley
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Coastal Area ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Trust Doctrine ◽  
The Common

<p>This paper presents an argument that there is a public trust doctrine which is part of New Zealand’s common law. The public doctrine imposes an obligation on administrative decision-makers, with respect to decisions that impact commonly held natural resources, to act in the interests of the public. I argue the doctrine was inherited by New Zealand in 1840, as part of the English common law, and that it has been subsequently recognised in the New Zealand common law. I also argue that the doctrine has not been extinguished by the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Marine Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011: the common law doctrine supplements these regulatory regimes. My argument concludes that the doctrine is best conceived of as a ground of judicial review, perhaps under the heading of illegality, and that there are strong normative arguments for its augmentation by common law development or legislative codification.</p>

Common Heritage of Mankind as a Limit to Exploitation of the Global Commons

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 635-663
Author(s):  
Karin Mickelson
Keyword(s):  
Global Commons ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Economic Exploitation ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Common ◽  
Environmental Limits ◽  
Over Time

Abstract This contribution to the symposium on the economic exploitation of the commons focuses on the question of whether and to what extent the principle of the common heritage of mankind (CHM) imposes environmental limits on economic exploitation of the global commons. Focusing on the need to go beyond a unidimensional assessment of the principle, it considers how CHM was originally envisaged, the form it took in the deep seabed regime, in particular, how its role in that regime has developed over time and how it has been utilized as a basis for advocacy. It concludes with an assessment of CHM’s limitations and strategic advantages.

Outer limits of the continental shelf beyond CLCS recommendations and Article 76(8) of UNCLOS: With reference to Japan’s Cabinet Order No. 302

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Michael Sheng-ti Gau ◽  
Si-han Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
The West ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Common Heritage Of Mankind ◽  
Essential Questions ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
The Common ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
The Unclos

Abstract In 2014 Japan’s Cabinet Order No. 302 declared the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (OL) to the west and north of Oki-no-Tori Shima (Area 302). Oki-no-Tori Shima consists of two small, barren, and uninhabitable rocks in the West Pacific. The northern part of Area 302 is broader than what the 2012 recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) specify. A question arises whether Order No. 302 violates Article 76(8) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides that the OL established by a coastal state ‘on the basis of’ the CLCS recommendations shall be final and binding. Another question is the role played by the CLCS in ‘assisting’ the coastal states to delimit their national jurisdiction so as to know where the Area (i.e., the Common Heritage of Mankind under UNCLOS Articles 1(1)(1) and 136) begins. The essential questions arising from Area 302 concern how well the UNCLOS mechanism can perform to safeguard the Common Heritage of Mankind through preventing encroachment thereupon by individual coastal states. This article looks at the context and explores the obligations implied by Article 76(8) for coastal states to ‘follow’ the recommendations in establishing the OL, with special reference to the northern part of Area 302. The article also examines legal consequences arising from a breach of these obligations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document