16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Approaching a U.S. Regulatory Framework for Sporeless Seaweed Biotechnology
Get PDFSeaweed farming is the fastest-growing aquaculture sector in the United States. The development of sterile, selectively bred (sporeless) seaweed aims to support the economic viability of future large offshore seaweed operations and minimize the environmental risks of these operations to wild seaweed beds. Farmers have implemented analogous breeding techniques to control and enhance most terrestrial crops and common aquaculture products (e.g., oysters and carp). This Article draws from existing federal and state aquaculture policies to explore four pillars critical to a future sporeless seaweed regulatory framework: ensuring maintained sterility, tracing the geographic origin of seed, securing offshore permits, and facilitating the international exchange of seed. Our analysis supplements the limited literature on U.S. seaweed aquaculture policy and is the first to explore regulatory precedent for sporeless seaweed in the United States
Does History Repeat Itself? Analyzing Montana\u27s 2023 Draft Wolf Management Plan in Light of Historical Misconceptions of Wolves
Get PDFThis Note intends to argue that Montana’s Draft Wolf Management Plan, when compared to other states’ plans, particularly Wisconsin’s, is inadequate because it contains many indicators of the antiquated societal bias that has plagued the wolf’s reputation for centuries. Part I begins with a historical overview of wolf hysteria and controversy beginning in Europe and extending to colonial America. Included in Part I is a specific focus on the treatment of wolves in Yellowstone and Montana during the early 1900s. Part I ends with an overview of the reintroduction of wolves into the [Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem] GYE and the success of the conservation efforts. Part II addresses Montana’s 2021 “anti-wolf” legislation and argues that the laws are connected to the historically ingrained notions of wolves rather than scientific evidence. Part II also identifies the effects of such legislation and briefly predicts the impact of these laws on Montana’s and Yellowstone’s ecosystems and economies. Part III analyzes both Montana’s and Wisconsin’s wolf management plans. This section compares the presence and adequacy of four elements of each state’s plan: (1) overall objectives; (2) population management; (3) addressing societal attitudes towards wolves; and (4) level of public involvement.
This abstract was taken from the author\u27s introduction
The Judicial Grassroots of the Arbitration Revolution
Get PDFThe “arbitration revolution”—the meteoric rise in the use of arbitration in the United States—is commonly imputed to the Supreme Court’s unilateral and ideologically driven expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The portrayal of the FAA’s evolution as a campaign launched by a Supreme Court that is out of touch with society and with the judicial system over which it presides usefully serves to delegitimize both this one-hundred year-old statute and arbitration more generally. This Article argues that the popular description of the Supreme Court as the sole instigator of the “arbitration revolution” is misleading because it conveniently ignores a critically important player in the FAA’s judicial development—the lower courts.
This Article offers a novel, alternative account of the judicial evolution of the FAA. It demonstrates that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the current judicial understanding of the FAA was not created by the Supreme Court out of whole cloth. Rather, some of the most fundamental, and controversial, arbitration principles set out by the Supreme Court were in fact rooted in the lower courts’ interpretation of the FAA and these courts’ own policy preferences regarding arbitration, rather than in the Supreme Court’s unilateral rewriting of arbitration law.
This Article revisits five fundamental arbitration principles set out in Supreme Court decisions rendered between 1967 and 2001—the separability principle, the principle that the FAA reflects a federal policy favoring arbitration, the principle that the FAA preempts state law in state courts, the principle that statutory claims are arbitrable under the FAA, and the principle that employment disputes are arbitrable under the FAA. These five principles seem revolutionary and have been criticized as such. However, this Article shows that in establishing all of them the Supreme Court adopted an interpretation of the FAA that had already been accepted by at least some, and at times by the majority, of the Circuit Courts of Appeals as well as by other lower federal and state courts. Therefore, the Court was simply reacting to jurisprudential development already taking place in the lower courts. Accusing the Supreme Court of single-handedly producing the woes associated with modern arbitration does little more than fuel a counterproductive anti-arbitration movement that operates to delegitimize arbitration rather than to improve it
The Initial Response of Biodiversity Conventions to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Get PDFThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the operations of global biodiversity conventions, requiring virtual meetings in place of in-person events. Yet the pandemic also highlighted the importance of biodiversity conservation as a mechanism to reduce the risk of zoonotic diseases, as the October 2020 report issued by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (“IPBES”) emphasized. Now that in-person, international meetings have resumed, this Article examines the extent to which four biodiversity conventions—the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds, the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and the Convention on Biological Diversity—considered the nexus between biodiversity conservation and human health in the context of zoonotic disease. While the biodiversity conventions have taken several steps, individually, to emphasize the importance of biodiversity conservation to human health, this cross-cutting issue could be used for greater coordination among the conventions
Copyrights or Copywrongs?: How to Find Your IP Answers
Get PDFOn display in the Wolf Law Library March-June 2024.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/libdisplays/1007/thumbnail.jp
The Color of Money: How Our Broken Campaign Finance System Fuels Racial Inequality
Get PDFThe laws upholding our campaign finance system are inadequate and under-enforced. These problems are felt disproportionately by African American voters. Election law experts agree that the structure and enforcement authority of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) severely limits the ability of the agency to achieve its goals. Several Supreme Court decisions have also limited the ability of Congress to control campaign contributions and expenditures. Tracking expenditures from corporations, groups, and individuals (to the extent possible), will show the link between favorable outcomes for these groups and their detrimental effects on African Americans. While closing racial disparities in wealth allows for African Americans to participate equally in the arms race of political contributions and expenditures, this too is harmful for our democracy. A limit on independent expenditures and public financing in federal elections would be a more feasible and equitable approach, as it would not drown out the voices of those with less resources. By setting these limits on campaign spending, African American voters will see a more responsive political class and a reduction in harm from monied interests
Accessing the ARTs: The Use of Reproductive Justice in the Fight for LGBT+ Rights
Get PDFProcreation has long been an integral component within the family structure. While the ability to produce offspring was once a privilege reserved for fertile, heterosexual pairings, modern advancements in Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) have made same-sex procreation possible. Although ART makes it possible for same-sex couples to biologically produce offspring , accessibility to treatment is often hindered by financial, legal, and social impediments. This Note will explore the current limitations on LGBT+ accessibility to ART treatments and provide much needed solutions for these challenges. In a post-Obergefell world, the prominence of and rights owed to same-sex households can no longer be disregarded