Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (291)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (17)
- Environmental Law (16)
- International Law (11)
- Administrative Law (7)
-
- Law of the Sea (7)
- Land Use Law (6)
- Water Law (6)
- Property Law and Real Estate (4)
- Animal Law (2)
- Civil Law (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Law and Economics (2)
- Law and Politics (2)
- Natural Law (2)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Energy and Utilities Law (1)
- Environmental Studies (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Housing Law (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal Biography (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (1)
- Keyword
-
- Salmon (6)
- Coastal zone management (3)
- Habitat restoration (3)
- Public trust doctrine (3)
- Contracts (2)
-
- Environmental policy (2)
- Fisheries (2)
- Fishery commission (2)
- Forest Practices Act (2)
- International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean (2)
- Oil spills (2)
- Timber (2)
- Washington State (2)
- Water rights (2)
- 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942) (1)
- Administrative Procedures Act (1)
- Article III standing (1)
- Clean energy (1)
- Climate change (1)
- Climate resilience (1)
- Community engagement (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Convention on Biological Diversity (1)
- Decarbonization (1)
- Deep sea thermal vents (1)
- Deepwater Horizon (1)
- Energy development (1)
- Environment (1)
- Environmental disasters (1)
- Environmental law; Treaty; Indigenous Rights; Appellate; Ninth Circuit; Health; Administrative Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Washington Law Review (70)
- Articles (25)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975)) (18)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 96-35014, 96-35082, 96-35142, 96-35196, 96-35200, 96-35223 (135 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998)) (17)
- Washington International Law Journal (17)
-
- Sohappy v. Smith, Nos. 74-2409, 74-2376, 74-2617 (529 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1976)) (14)
- Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, Docket Nos. 77-983, 78-119, 78-139 (443 U.S. 658 (1979)) (13)
- Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy (11)
- Washington v. United States, Puget Sound Shellfish Growers v. United States, Alexander v. United States, 26 Tideland and Upland Private Property Owners v. United States, Docket Nos. 98-1028, 98-1026, 98-1039, 98-1052 (526 U.S. 1060 (1999)) (11)
- United States v. Baker, Docket Nos. 80-1085, 80-1086, 80-1088, 80-1116, 80-1117, 80-1118, 80-1206, 80-1219, 80-1208, 80-1205, 80-1214 (641 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1981)) (9)
- Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. Moos, Docket No. 44401 (88 Wash. 2d 677 (June 9, 1976)) (8)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009)) (8)
- Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967)) (7)
- Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. United States District Court, Docket Nos. 77-3129, 77-3208, 77-3209, 77-3654, 77-3655 (605 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1979)) (7)
- United States v. Washington, Docket No.95-35202 (98 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1996)) (7)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 95-35442, 95-35446 (86 F.3d 1499 (9th Cir. 1996)) (7)
- Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010)) (7)
- Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 43736 (86 Wash. 2d. 664 (April 8, 1976)) (6)
- United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, Docket No. 98-35964 (235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000)) (6)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 81-3111 (694 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1982)) (6)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. Nos. 79-4447, 79-4472 (641 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1981)) (6)
- Washington v. United States, Northwest Steelheaders Council of Trout Unlimited v. United States, Washington Reef Net Owners Association v. United States, Docket Nos. 75-588, 75-592, 75-705 (423 U.S. 1086 (1976)) (6)
- United States v. Washington, Docket No. 84-3769 (774 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1985)) (5)
- United States v. Washington, Docket No. No. 84-3999 (761 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1985)) (5)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 75-2835 and 76-1042 (573 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir. 1978)) (5)
- United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 85-3908, 85-4009 (813 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1987)) (5)
- Duwamish Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 96-1607 (522 U.S. 806 (1997)) (4)
- Duwamish, Samish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie and Steilacoom Indian Tribes v. Washington, Docket No. 81-509 (454 U.S. 1143 (1982)) (4)
- McCauley v. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942) (4)
- United States v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Docket No. 99-35960 (235 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 2000)) (4)
- Publication Type
Articles 31 - 60 of 403
Full-Text Articles in Natural Resources Law
Reply Brief For Petitioner - Suquamish Indian Tribe V. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))
Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))
No abstract provided.
Brief In Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari By Respondent Tribes Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, And Tulalip Tribes - Suquamish Indian Tribe V. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))
Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))
No abstract provided.
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari - Suquamish Indian Tribe V. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))
Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Docket No. 10-33 (562 U.S. 981 (2010))
No abstract provided.
The Legality Of Washington Shoreline Development Moratoria In The Wake Of Biggers V. City Of Bainbridge Island, Michelle E. Delappe
The Legality Of Washington Shoreline Development Moratoria In The Wake Of Biggers V. City Of Bainbridge Island, Michelle E. Delappe
Washington Law Review
The Washington State Supreme Court struck down the temporary shoreline development moratorium at issue in Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island, 162 Wash. 2d 683, 169 P.3d 14 (2007); yet the court fragmented on the broader question of whether a local government has authority to adopt a moratorium on shoreline development during long-term land-use planning. In light of upcoming deadlines for the state’s local governments to revise their shoreline-management plans, constraints on local authority to adopt shoreline moratoria during the planning process take on heightened importance for hundreds of local governments. The question highlights the tension between private property …
A Precautionary Tale: Assessing Ecological Damages After The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Sanne Knudsen
A Precautionary Tale: Assessing Ecological Damages After The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Sanne Knudsen
Articles
To address the shortcomings of our existing damages paradigm--exemplified by the response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound--this article suggests that we invoke the burden-shifting attributes of the precautionary principle to transfer the risk of long-term, unknown ecological harm to those who have caused the injury. Through such a risk transfer, this article posits that true costs of ecological injury would more properly be borne by actors capable of altering their behavior to avoid such injury in the first place. In addition, this article suggests offering defendants two options for incurring damages for ecological injuries--either accepting …
Answering Brief For The United States - United States V. Washington, Docket No. 08-35794 (593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2009) (As Amended Jan. 10, 2010))
United States v. Washington, Docket No. 08-35794 (593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2009) (as amended Jan. 10, 2010))
No abstract provided.
The End Of The Viarsa Saga And The Legality Of Australia's Vessel Forefeiture Penalty For Illegal Fishing In Its Exclusive Economic Zone, Laurence Blakely
The End Of The Viarsa Saga And The Legality Of Australia's Vessel Forefeiture Penalty For Illegal Fishing In Its Exclusive Economic Zone, Laurence Blakely
Washington International Law Journal
The world’s fish stocks are suffering from over-utilization. The earth’s oceans are subject to exploitation by all nation states and very little preservation. Because of the nature of the international legal regime of the Law of the Sea, enforcement of what conservation and management measures exist is challenging. Boundaries, ephemeral on land, are even more so on water, making rights allocation and management particularly difficult. Nevertheless, as fish stocks continue to decrease and it becomes clearer that oceans require more effective management, coastal states have begun to undertake more significant enforcement procedures corresponding to their rights in their exclusive economic …
Reply Brief Of Appellants Makah, Puyallup, Quileute, Upper Skagit, Nisqually And Squaxin Island Indian Tribes, Lummi Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, And Swinomish Indian Tribal Community - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Appellant Suquamish Tribe's Reply Brief To Response Brief Of Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, The Tulalip Tribes' Response Brief And Response Brief Of Intervenors Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010)) Tribes
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Response Brief Of Appellees Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief Of Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief For Appellant Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Response Brief Of Appellees Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Appellants Makah, Puyallup, Quileute, Upper Skagit, Nisqually And Squaxin Island Indian Tribes, Lummi Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, And Swinomish Indian Tribal Community - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Recovery In A Cynical Time—With Apologies To Eric Arthur Blair, Dale D. Goble
Recovery In A Cynical Time—With Apologies To Eric Arthur Blair, Dale D. Goble
Washington Law Review
The drafters of the Endangered Species Act envisioned a process in which a species at risk of extinction would be protected while the threats it faces are removed so that it recovers. Over the first three decades of experience with the Act, implementation has proved to be far more complex. Recovering at-risk species imposes two different types of requirements. Biologically, recovery is a demographic problem: the species's population must have increased in numbers and dispersed geographically to a point at which nature's random risks have been reduced so that the species is no longer in danger of extinction. The risk-management …
Chumming On The Chesapeake Bay And Complexity Theory: Why The Precautionary Principle, Not Cost-Benefit Analysis, Makes More Sense As A Regulatory Approach, Hope M. Babcock
Washington Law Review
"[H]istory reveals not merely that change is real but also that change is various. All change is not the same, nor are all changes equal. Some changes are cyclical, some are not. Some changes are linear, others are not. Some changes take an afternoon to accomplish, some a millennium. We can no more take any particular kind of change as absolutely normative than we can take any particular state of equilibrium as normative .... The challenge is to determine which changes are in our enlightened self-interest and are consistent with our most rigorous ethical reasoning, always remembering our inescapable dependency …
From Stratton To Uscop: Environmental Law Floundering At Sea, Donna R. Christie
From Stratton To Uscop: Environmental Law Floundering At Sea, Donna R. Christie
Washington Law Review
No abstract provided.
Precaution, Science, And Learning While Doing In Natural Resource Management, Holly Doremus
Precaution, Science, And Learning While Doing In Natural Resource Management, Holly Doremus
Washington Law Review
Dealing with uncertainty is widely recognized as the key challenge for environmental and natural resource decisionmaking. Too often, though, that challenge is considered only from an ex ante perspective which treats uncertainty as an invariant feature that must be accounted for but cannot be changed. With respect to many natural resource management decisions, that picture is misleading. Decisions are often iterative or similar, providing significant opportunities for leaming. Where such opportunities are available and inaction is not feasible or desirable, learning while doing can provide the benefits of both the precautionary principle and scientific decisionmaking while minimizing the key weaknesses …
Response Brief Of Intervenors Port Gamble S'Klallam And Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Appellant Suquamish Tribe's Reply Brief To Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community And Response Brief Of Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Appellee Swinomish Indian Tribal Community - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
The Tulalip Tribes' Response Brief - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Response Brief Of Appellee Upper Skagit Indian Tribe - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Opening Brief Of Appellant Suquamish Tribe - Upper Skagit Indian Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. United States, Docket No. 07-35061 (590 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2010))
No abstract provided.
Brief For Appellant Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Appellant Skokomish Indian Tribe - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 07-35062, 07-35124, 07-35219 (573 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2009))
No abstract provided.
Brief For The United States In Opposition - Lummi Nation V. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))
Lummi Nation v. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))
No abstract provided.
Brief In Opposition - Lummi Nation V. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))
Brief In Opposition - Lummi Nation V. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))
Lummi Nation v. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))
No abstract provided.
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari - Lummi Nation V. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))
Lummi Nation v. Samish Indian Tribe, Docket No. 05-445 (546 U.S. 1090 (2006))
No abstract provided.
Forsaking The Forests For The Trees: Forestry Law In Papua New Guinea Inhibits Indigenous Customary Ownership, Alyssa A. Vegter
Forsaking The Forests For The Trees: Forestry Law In Papua New Guinea Inhibits Indigenous Customary Ownership, Alyssa A. Vegter
Washington International Law Journal
Illegal logging in the tropical forests of Papua New Guinea is one of the greatest threats to the forests and indigenous people of this island nation. Increasing pressure from the commercial logging industry, legislation that restrains customary ownership, and an unclear legal basis for this ownership subjects the indigenous people of Papua New Guinea to unscrupulous, unsustainable, and illegal logging practices. As a region central to the preservation of global ecological and cultural diversity, the devastating consequences of illegal logging in Papua New Guinea have become nationally and internationally significant. Customary ownership of the forests by the indigenous clans of …