University of Maine School of Law
University of Maine, School of Law: Digital CommonsNot a member yet
1960 research outputs found
Sort by
2023 Annual Report
Get PDFLetter from the Directors 2023: Year in Review General Practice Clinic Refugee and Human Rights Center Rural Practice Clinic Prisoner Assistance Clinic Protection from Abuse Program Youth Justice Clinic Center for Youth Policy & Law Clinic Staffin
The Right to Privacy and the Japanese Constitution
Get PDFMuch focus has been placed on the rapid adoption of laws and regulations governing information and data privacy around the globe. While such laws and regulations are undoubtedly critical in quelling increasing concerns about invasions of privacy enabled by technological advancements, a focus on new laws and regulations alone overlooks a critical and more foundational source of privacy rights—national constitutions. This paper analyzes whether a right to privacy exists under the Japanese Constitution and how the nature and scope of such a right is impacted by Japanese culture. An overview of key early court cases framing the right to privacy is provided. Next, the author summarizes contemporary debates on and proposals for amendments to the Japanese Constitution, within which voices in support of an explicit right to privacy are conspicuously absent, and suggests possible explanations for such absence. One such explanation includes the Japanese Diet’s (Japan’s national legislative body) active role in legislating data privacy over recent years. Finally, the author briefly discusses the gaps in privacy that could be addressed through an explicit constitutional right to privacy and suggests further areas of research
“Food of their Own Choosing”: Improving Access to Locally Grown, Sustainable, and Real Food
Get PDFThe State of Maine is leading the nation in efforts not only to promote production of locally and sustainably grown food, but the right of consumers to grow, produce, and consume the food of their choosing. This includes creation of a constitutional right to food, a right recognized in the global community but not throughout the United States. Many advocates in the United States emphasize the right to food as a human right, advocating for the same attention and protection as other human rights such as the right to life, liberty, freedom from slavery, and freedom from discrimination. The right to food provides individuals with greater access to healthy and sustainable food. This meets the global right to food standards of availability, accessibility, adequacy, and sustainability. A constitutional right to food addresses the challenging regulatory environment for food production and prioritizes access of individuals and families to nourishing food. This constitutional right is not only about access to food as a human right, but it also protects the ability of individuals to grow their own food or to obtain their food from small, local producers whom they trust. This Article approaches the constitutional right to food as a method to mitigate the overwhelming morass of regulations that discourage local food production by smaller independent farms and by consumers themselves. Establishing this right prioritizes the rights of individuals and small producers to produce locally grown, sustainable, and healthy food over regulations that favor larger industrial producers. Legal obstacles throughout the United States impede the ability of homesteaders, home gardeners, cottage food producers, and others to produce their own healthy, sustainably grown food. Impeding regulations include zoning prohibitions on the raising of chickens, front yard gardens, hoop houses, and other land uses. Small farms, increasingly sought out by consumers, are similarly affected. Regulations that negatively impact them include licensing and zoning restrictions; challenges to meat and poultry processing; complex food safety regulations; and regulation of unlicensed eggs, cottage foods, and dairy products. Continuing problems with and access to the U.S. meat processing industry forces local producers to drive long distances for processing, which is harmful to both the environment and to animals raised in humane conditions. Passage of a constitutional right to food and food sovereignty legislation provides an effective method of diminishing the impact of a regulatory system that supports centralization of the U.S. food supply controlled by a small number of corporate producers. It appropriately prioritizes the right of individuals to obtain locally and sustainably grown healthy food. The Maine constitutional right to food and the Maine Food Sovereignty Act provide a helpful blueprint for expanding Americans’ right to food. Maine courts and its Legislature should protect this new right to food, avoid unnecessary limitations, and prevent state agencies from violating the text, spirit, and intent of this basic right to food. Pending in the Superior Court of Maine is Kenduskeag Kitchen et al. v. Lambrew and DHHS. Kenduskeag Kitchen had been preparing food from locally produced ingredients permitted by a town ordinance and the Maine Food Sovereignty Act. The Maine Department of Health and Human Services insisted that the Kitchen obtain a food establishment license, which in turn requires construction of a cost-prohibitive commercial kitchen. Such action violates the Maine constitutional right to food by interfering with consumer choice of local healthy nourishment. The action likewise violated the Maine Food Sovereignty Act, which authorizes local control. By closing Kenduskeag Kitchen, the state shut down the only healthy prepared food option in town. This action demonstrates the need for a constitutional right to food over mere statutory changes
With Thanks from a Student and Alumna
Get PDFOn the first day of orientation for my law school class, we sat in the Moot Courtroom. After introductory remarks, the Dean was announced. He wore a button down collar shirt, Rep tie, gray suit, and Bean boots. He welcomed us and he told us how great we were. Mostly, he cracked jokes, some about himself, and rattled whatever it is he keeps in his pockets. It was classic Kinvin; and I knew, then, that I had chosen the right place
General Discretion Under Maine\u27s Site Location of Development Law
Get PDFThe 1960s brought nationwide concern about the environmental impact of post-World War II development and industrial growth. Efforts to protect the environment took many different forms. Part of Maine\u27s response to the growing need for environmental improvement measures was the Legislature\u27s enactment in 1970 of the Site Location of Development Law (Site Law). The Site Law gives the state control over the location of developments that would substantially affect the environment, rather than leaving such decisions to single towns and individual developers. The Law also addresses concerns beyond those dealt with in air and water pollution control legislation. The Site Law initiated an ambitious statewide program, and it is not surprising that the Legislature has amended the statute numerous times since its original passage. The most recent amendment was in 1988, when the Legislature clarified the Law\u27s meaning and provided the state agencies responsible for administering the Site Law sufficient scope, oversight, and enforcement capability to achieve its goals. Nonetheless, whether the Site Law has achieved its purposes and has actually given the state some control over developments is a matter of some debate. It is therefore appropriate to analyze the purposes of the Site Law and the legislated means to achieve those purposes, particularly in light of the substantial 1988 amendments which attempt to clarify and streamline the procedures mandated by the Site Law. The following discussion describes the provisions of the Site Law and demonstrates that the Legislature confers general discretion on state agencies to fulfill the statute\u27s broad mandate
Russia\u27s Arctic Maritime Claims
Get PDFAs an Arctic State, Russia has extensive maritime claims in the Arctic Ocean. This Article analyzes those claims to determine their consistency with international law. A brief overview of the applicable legal regime in the Arctic is provided, in particular, a discussion of Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), applicability of the mandatory Polar Code adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 2017, and the various legally binding agreements adopted by the Arctic Council. The Article will also review Russia’s maritime boundary agreements with the United States (1990), which is being provisionally applied pursuant to an exchange of notes, and with Norway (1957, 2007, and 2010). It also discusses Russia’s extensive straight baseline systems in the Arctic and the Bering Sea, many of which are inconsistent with the international rules applicable to the drawing of baselines set out in the 1951 International Court of Justice decision in the Fisheries (U.K. v. Nor.) Judgment and articles 5 and 7 of UNCLOS. The Article then analyzes Russian regulations applicable to ships transiting the Northern Sea Route, concluding that many of these provisions are inconsistent with international law. The Article concludes with a review of Russia’s extended continental shelf claims in the Arctic, which was validated by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in 2023
Sea Ice and the Law of the Sea: The Myth of Article 234
Get PDFThe sea ice of Article 234 of UNCLOS represents not the physical ice of the Arctic Ocean but a negotiated myth of ice as it affects the Arctic littoral states. The stability of this prescription is threatened by anthropogenic climate change causing a preferential evacuation of ice from the eastern Arctic compared to the western Arctic, as well as expectations for a possible future ice-free Arctic. This is leading to an intensification of claims on marine space. The irreducible uncertainties of the future trajectory of Arctic change demands a dynamic response. The myth of Article 234 will ultimately align with the complexities of the phenomenon of disappearing ice. It is in the dynamic nature of international law that prescriptions do not remain constant and neither does ice
A Greater Purpose for Icebergs: Iceberg Trade to Combat the Effects of Climate Change
Get PDFThree-fourths of the planet’s freshwater is stored in glaciers, and as the glaciers melt, humans are forfeiting their greatest freshwater resource. Climbing global temperatures, attributable to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, accelerate glacial melt while intensifying drought and water scarcity. This Comment identifies a way to relocate our greatest freshwater resource before it melts into the salty sea. Further, this Comment discusses how an iceberg trade could ensure the right to water by creating access to freshwater for all. Finally, this Comment introduces the iceberg trade as an equitable remedy to be employed by the Paris Agreement in the global response to climate change
It’s Getting Hot in Here: Maine’s Right to Food as a Mechanism to Address the Impact of the Warming of the Gulf of Maine on Lobster
Get PDFIn United States v. Washington, the Ninth Circuit considered a series of treaties called the Stevens Treaties between the Washington state government and a group of twenty-one Native American nations in the pacific northwest. The court held that embedded in a treaty right to take fish was a promise by the Washington state government that fish would still exist in that region. This case ultimately required the state government to protect the region’s fish against environmental degradation. In the age of climate change, this case provides a model for states like Maine to impose a duty on the state government to prevent further environmental degradation. Maine is both particularly well-adapted to enjoy the benefits of the Washington precedent and vulnerable to climate change. The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than almost any other ocean surface on the planet. The accelerated warming along the coast of the state coupled with the state’s reliance on lobster as an economic resource makes the state of Maine particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change if preventative measures are not taken. This Note analyzes the way Washington can be analogized to Maine’s constitutional right to food and the way that the inclusion of the term “harvest” imposes a duty on the state government to take affirmative steps to slow the warming of the Gulf of Maine
Judges as Lawyers
Get PDFThe integrity of the American legal system and, thereby, of our democracy rests on the shoulders of the judiciary. It is widely understood that the roles of jurist and advocate are incompatible and that the fairness and legitimacy of our court systems require maintaining clear boundaries between those roles. Accordingly, an essential feature of every state’s judicial conduct code is a prohibition on the practice of law by judges. However, many states have carved out exceptions to this prohibition to allow part-time judges sitting in low-level trial courts to supplement their modest judicial compensation by practicing law. The rationale for these exceptions neither cancels nor addresses the problems inherent in allowing judges to practice law. Rather, the real-world impact of the exceptions to the prohibition underscores the importance of the default restriction on law practice by judges. At a minimum, permitting the existence of lawyer-judges gives rise to potential conflicts and practical challenges. Other consequences are more unsettling, as when a person holding both roles uses their judicial authority to benefit a private client or to gain other personal advantage. Aside from the potential impact of the dual role in particular cases, such permission creates awkwardness and uncertainty for the attorneys, judges, and litigants with whom the lawyer-judges interact, thereby undermining public confidence in the courts in which they appear as attorneys and sit as judges. Conversely, full-time judges, who do not have their attention, interests, and responsibilities divided by maintaining a separate law practice, can immerse fully in their judicial role. States that continue to allow law practice by judges should amend their respective judicial codes of conduct and, as needed, restructure their judiciary to eliminate any reliance on part-time judges. Such long overdue reforms are essential to protecting our courts, the litigants who appear before them, and the integrity and fairness of our justice system