It is just not fair: the Endangered Species Act in the United States and Ontario
نویسنده
چکیده
The United States and the Canadian province of Ontario have enacted endangered species laws that regulate private land. The rationale for this is that the vast majority of endangered species in the two countries rely on private lands for survival. However, from a landowner perspective the law is deemed unfair. This paper presents analysis from 141 interviews with landowners in three U.S. states and Ontario. In recognition of distributive justice claims, both the U.S. government and the Ontario government have enacted programs aimed at increasing financial incentives for participation and compliance with the law. However, the law is still perceived as unfair. The central argument of this paper is that future amendments and new policies for endangered species should confront two other forms of environmental justice: procedural justice and justice-as-recognition. Landowners in both countries expressed not only concerns about compensation, but also a deep desire to be included in the protection and recovery process, as well as to be recognized by government and society as good stewards of the land. The paper concludes by stating that future policy amendments need to address justice-as-recognition if endangered species conservation on private lands is to be considered fair by landowners.
منابع مشابه
A Comparative Study of the Principles of Fair Proceeding in Iran with Tax Litigation patterns in the United States, Britain, France and Germany
One of the most important economic topics in every country is considering tax issues as a way of increasing the government's income through attracting public confidence by observing the principles of proceeding in the tax system of the country which might likely cause a national production boom, increase economic growth rate, reduce unemployment and the fair distribution of wealth. In this rega...
متن کاملOn Why the United States Should Not Attack Iran: A Conservative, Evangelical Christian Response
In the midst of American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the aftermath of the presidential election in Iran, support for American involvement in Iran has increased in some circles. In this piece, our desire is to give a conservative, evangelical Christian response to why America should not support any military action against Iran. A position advocated by many of us is “Just War.” I...
متن کاملHealth System Reform in the United States
In 2010, the United States adopted its first-ever comprehensive set of health system reforms in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Implementation of the law, though politically contentious and controversial, has now reached a stage where reversal of most elements of the law is no longer feasible. The controversial portions of the law that expand affordable health insurance coverage to most U.S. cit...
متن کاملحمایت از آثار هنر معاصر در رویه قضایی آمریکا
Contemporary artistic works are a part of art that because of their particular nature cannot be fitted into the definition and requirements of traditional art. Such works fit uneasily into the concepts of originality, idea-expression dichotomy and fixation as conventional copyrights works do. This results in lack or inadequacy in protection of these works within national and international laws....
متن کاملA Global Social Support System: What the International Community Could Learn From the United States’ National Basketball Association’s Scheme for Redistribution of New Talent
If global trade were fair, it is argued, then international aid would be unnecessary and inequalities inherent to the economic system would be justifiable. Here, we argue that while global trade is unfair, in part because richer countries set the rules, we believe that additional interventions must go beyond trade regulation and short-term aid to redress inequalities among countries that will p...
متن کامل