Journals and Magazines
ABOUT THE COLLECTIONS
Several journals and magazines produced at the University of Arizona, or by groups affiliated with the University, are shared, preserved and archived in the UA Campus Repository.
The University Libraries also publishes several journals using the Janeway platform. Those publications are available at https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu.
QUESTIONS?
Please contact the Scholarly Communication Unit at repository@u.library.arizona.edu with your questions about journals and magazines in the UA Campus Repository, or if you are affiliated with the University of Arizona and are interested in archiving your journal or magazine in the repository or exploring our other journal publishing services.
.Sub-communities within this community
Recent Submissions
-
The Regulatory State and the Emerging Offshore Wind Energy Market in the United StatesOffshore wind energy technologies are generally regarded as variable baseload systems. They could therefore serve a crucial role in a net-zero or carbonneutral electricity supply grid. With the spate of growing commercial and government-policy interests in offshore wind, it is important to examine how and to what extent the framework of assessing and reviewing project plans, as well as the process of engaging with impacted stakeholders or alternative users of the outer continental shelf, can become more efficient and less controversial. Thus, this paper discusses the emerging offshore wind energy market in the U.S. and highlights the role of the regulatory state in facilitating a more efficient leasing and permitting process for projects without compromising the protections afforded under applicable laws and regulations. Adopting a thorough yet standardized review of relevant project plans and proactive stakeholder engagement processes is recommended at an early or appropriate time during the permitting process. Understanding the opportunity costs of delayed and canceled projects, addressing misperception of risks, and standardizing best practice measures for resolving common issues could make project review process(es) more efficient. Considering experiences in other jurisdictions such as the UK, such efficiency gains are achievable while protecting the environment and legitimate interests of other users in the outer continental shelf.
-
Shifting Tiny: The Environmental and Economic Benefits of Zoning Reform for Tiny DwellingsAs we continue to evolve as a society we are confronted with the pitfalls of humanity. Time goes on and the greed of our human nature is reflected in our need for space, our careless use of resources, and our disregard for future generations. Humans have a hard time contemplating life beyond their very own, which is why as a race we have failed to take necessary environmental precautions. Because we are human, we are often gluttonous and in western culture specifically we have the habit of taking up far more space then we need to live a full life. Tiny homes offer an alternative form of living that is not only economically feasible for a greater number of Americans but is also more environmentally conscious when compared to traditional American living situations. This note will explore the environmental impact of today’s single-family homes compared to tiny homes. To do so one must first discuss the history of zoning and building laws in the United States. Once there is an understanding of how these laws may have impacted the construction of tiny dwellings, this paper will go on to discuss a hypothetical example expressing the advantages of shifting to a tiny lifestyle. Environmental impact will be measured in the form of an ecological footprint calculated in hectares. Then, using data from the US Census Bureau, we will be able to find the potential decrease in carbon waste if new developments were primarily tiny style dwellings. It is the purpose of this analysis to challenge traditional forms of housing and look to more environmentally friendly alternatives. In the end, this note will work to show the positive impact tiny homes can have on our environment.
-
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Current Situation of the #Landback Movement and Indigenous-Imagined FuturesThis Note will review the long and complex history of Indigenous resistance to the United States settler colonial project through a #LandBack lens and will discuss the different legal and political routes Tribes have taken in their attempts to reclaim and exercise sovereignty over their lands by working with the current American legal and property system. This reveals that the most recent Indigenous calls for land return signal the imminent exhaustion of existing legal and property routes for the #LandBack movement. Tribes working within the United States legal and property system have found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place: submit to state jurisdiction for land owned in fee simple or grapple with the disadvantages of land held in trust by the federal government. Under this current system, #LandBack is conditioned on the consent of the United States. This note concludes with the idea that the most recent iteration of #LandBack is positioned to continue exploring Indigenous-imagined alternatives to the current regimes of property and federal Indian law.
-
The Unlikely Renaissance of Federal Common Law in the Second Wave of Climate Change LitigationSince 2017, states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel producers under state law, alleging that they continued producing, selling, and marketing fossil fuels despite knowledge of the harms that fossil fuels caused. The defendants— the world’s largest fossil fuels producers—have held up the litigation around the country by arguing plaintiffs’ claims are not what they purport to be. They argued states and municipalities are attempting to regulate global climate change, an area of a “unique federal interest,” requiring exclusive application of federal common law. Through these arguments, fossil fuel companies attempt to resurrect federal common law, which runs headlong into Supreme Court precedent and the text of the Clean Air Act. Nonetheless, the defendants have found success in some federal courts. For example, the Second Circuit in The New York City v. Chevron first reframed defendants’ state-law claims as claims concerning global greenhouse gas emissions and then erroneously applied federal common law to justify dismissal of New York City’s state-law claims. Such legal analysis erroneously interprets the Supreme Court’s precedent and intrudes on historic powers of state courts. This Article concludes that instead, courts should apply an ordinary preemption analysis under the Clean Air Act
-
Failing the Future: The Complex Road to Effective Plastic Regulation in the U.S.The United States’ plastic pollution problem presents both domestic and global challenges. As this paper illustrates, the inability of the U.S. to effectively regulate plastics negatively affects the environment and human health in the U.S. and in countries that must deal with plastic waste exports coming from the U.S. The paper explores plastic production, use, waste, and recycling in the U.S. and critically analyzes the significant challenges that the U.S. continues to experience in devising and implementing a cohesive and comprehensive plastics regulatory framework. As with many other countries, successful industry lobbying efforts have contributed to the piecemeal approach to regulation. The challenges are compounded in the U.S., where the competitive nature of the federal system appears to have presented industry actors with a number of effective tools with which to prevent effective regulation in this space. Tactics adopted by industry actors range from marketing efforts that frame the problem as one that is purely individual rather than collective; the promotion of scientific studies that emphasize the deleterious economic effects of regulation without adequately addressing the serious environmental and human health problems of plastic pollution; and support of legal mechanisms at various levels to thwart grassroots efforts aimed at implementing effective change. The paper begins by briefly outlining plastic production, use, recycling, and waste in the U.S., with an emphasis on the negative effects to the environment and human health. The paper then critically analyzes regulatory attempts at the federal, state and local levels. In light of the significant role of U.S. industry actors in framing the discussion regarding plastic pollution, the paper reviews key efforts that have prevented effective regulatory action. The paper concludes by making a number of recommendations that the U.S. should implement to ensure the effective regulation of plastics.
-
A New Hope, With a New NEPA: How Existing Environmental Impact Statements Fail to Protect People of Color at the Federal LevelEnvironmental Justice is a highly complex issue which centers on the fight to ensure a healthy environment for communities of color, the effects of which have been largely ignored by the federal government. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) contains promising mandates such as the creation of an Environmental Impact Statement wherein the federal government must consider how any projects it pursues could affect the quality and health of the surrounding natural and human environment. However, the law has been interpreted to require little judicial enforcement beyond meeting basic procedural requirements of the code and largely ignores the role racism plays in determining which communities suffer the brunt of the impact of harmful federal action. This Article concludes congressional legislative action is required to ensure there are more consistent, nuanced, and stronger protections for underserved communities and the creation of accessible avenues for affected communities to defend themselves. Further, the White House Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) should be abolished to protect the longevity of improved regulations codified by Congress and ensure communities remain protected as the political pendulum swings between administrations.
-
The Kaleidoscope of Climate Change and Human Rights: The Promise of International Litigation for Women, Indigenous Peoples, and ChildrenClimate change has been identified as a global emergency, a major international development issue, and a priority concern by many international and national entities. Women, Indigenous peoples, and children are some of the individuals and groups most affected by the adverse impacts of climate change. The author contends in this article that international case litigation can be a key strategy to set critical legal standards to address human rights violations suffered by women, Indigenous peoples, and children in the area of climate change. This article also proposes international litigation as a powerful catalyst to give agency, autonomy, and participation to these groups, especially in the finding of solutions and strategies to combat climate change. The author discusses cases currently before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child alleging human rights violations under existing treaties connected to state failures in adopting measures to adequately adapt and mitigate to climate change concerns. The author explores whether the litigation of cases before global and regional human rights protection systems can serve to secure the goal of climate justice and be useful in addressing climate change issues faced by women, Indigenous peoples, and children. The article discusses important opportunities in cases to develop key concepts, legal standards, and useful guidance for states on how to best mitigate, adapt, and ensure access to justice for climate change effects. The article delves into four areas in which case litigation before global and regional human rights bodies can be helpful in defining the contours of state obligations to advance the human rights of women, Indigenous peoples, and children in the area of climate justice. These areas include due diligence, extraterritoriality, and non-state actors; a gender perspective and intersectional discrimination; consultation, consent, and effective participation; and access to information and human rights defense. This article also reviews how existing global and regional human rights treaties, as well as new agreements – such as the Escazú Agreement in Latin America and the Caribbean – can serve as important references in human rights litigation efforts related to climate change. This article seeks to contribute to current scholarship exploring the synergies between climate change concerns, international human rights law, the goal of climate justice, and the human rights of women, Indigenous peoples, and children in these areas.
-
Aiding Employment and the Environment on Tribal Lands: An Analysis of Hiring Preferences and Their Use in the Mining IndustryThis Note analyzes hiring preferences on tribal lands in the mining industry within the United States and particularly in the State of Arizona, which has a relatively high number of both mines and federally recognized tribes. Arizona has its own robust history and case law on hiring preferences in the mining industry for tribal members. This Note asserts the efficacy of hiring preferences in increasing employment and improving economies on tribal lands and explains how hiring preferences can be of use moving forward. To establish context, this Note introduces the history of tribal relations regarding land with the federal government, covers the history and current state of mining on tribal lands, and analyzes how hiring preferences are set in a lease or tribal government document. Then, the constitutionality of hiring preferences (particularly regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is addressed, along with how tribal constitutions and enactments alike interpret and apply such hiring preferences. This Note also looks at hiring preferences thus far from statistical and economic perspectives. Finally, this Note predicts how hiring preferences might benefit tribes moving forward, particularly with expanding sustainable development and renewable energy.
-
Saltwater Ecology and Economics on the Half-Shell: Comparing Georgia’s New Oyster Law to Its Southeastern NeighborsGeorgia oysters have both a historic pedigree and a bright future. The salt marsh ecosystem Georgia's wild oysters inhabit and the booming market awaiting Georgia's farmed oysters each stand to benefit from the State's 2019-2020 oyster law andr egulations. This new legalframeworkprovidesfo r leasinga ndp ermitting offloating cages in public trust waters, and the potential for sustainable ecological and economic growth for coastal resiliency. These developments should allow Georgia to enter the national and international market for farmed oysters, alongside neighboring states and others on the Eastern Seaboard, Gulf Coast, and Pacific Northwest. By analyzing the history and structure of the new law, this article provides an in-depth analysis of how Georgia might establish its oyster farming industry, with an eye toward the benefits of protecting, preserving, and restoring the wild natural oyster resource. By comparing Georgia's approach to that of its "core corner four" neighbors South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Alabama this article outlines the considerations and context used by other states developing oyster "mariculture" programs. By identifying the potential for the Georgia oyster farming industry to not only serve a growing market but also to strengthen coastal resiliency, this article also highlights the ecological benefits of oysters and the State's Coastal Marshlands Protection Act. Last, the article provides an Appendix with a short legal memorandum analyzing constitutional law issues related to residency requirements and contains several tables comparing state mariculture programs.
-
Sovereigns of No Territory: Alaska Natives, Ancsa, and Tribal Self-DeterminationThis Note examines Alaska Native systems of private land ownership as imposed through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and evaluates existing and potential alternatives in the interest of self-determination, sovereignty, and land ownership. ANCSA was passed in 1971 to resolve conflicts over the land in Alaska, and it established a system of tribal corporations which is distinct from the federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States. With few exceptions, Alaska Native tribes do not hold their lands in trust and tribal land in Alaska is not considered “Indian Country.” This distinction from the tribes in the contiguous United States carries administrative, jurisdictional, and environmental consequences. Alaska Native tribal governments are without territorial reach and are severely limited in their authority. Alaska Native villages face additional challenges with regards to subsistence living and environmental considerations due to the extinguishment of native claims through ANCSA. This Note explores aspects of self-determination both retained by and denied to Alaska Native tribes and analyzes the conflicted legacy of ANCSA 50 years after its enactment.
-
Indigenous Shared Governance, International Law, Mixed Use, and Preserving Rainforest During the Covid-19 PandemicThis article takes a transdisciplinary approach to examining a range of issues related to the topic of Indigenous shared governance. It examines concepts such as free prior informed consent and the role of international law in affecting local reality in the context of a specific illustrative example in South America in the Amazon biome: the Iwokrama Forest and its communities in Guyana. The role of international law in preserving biodiversity, climate, and rainforests is considered as well. The article also considers legal, ethical, and scientific perspectives on issues related to mixed uses of rainforests. These include shared stewardship of natural resources, ecotourism, the means of funding scientific research and use of rainforests for science, reduced impact logging and green commerce certifications, and whether benefits of a mixed-use approach to natural resources are shared with Indigenous people. Finally, the article describes the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and considers options for responding to the additional stresses of the pandemic, which include exacerbation of illegal mining and logging in protected areas. Besides describing difficult decisions and trade-offs that arise in reality and generalizable take-away observations, the reflections and opinions of local Indigenous representatives are included, and directions for future research are suggested.
-
“There’s Nothing to Prohibit Sending this Material Overseas”: How U.S. Law Excludes International Victims in the Growing Epidemic of Electronic Waste ExportationThis Note analyzes the emerging, and under-documented litigation field of illegal dumping of electronic waste (e-waste). U.S. federal courts are inadequately prosecuting and failing to provide avenues for both criminal and civil restitution for international victims. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the primary legislation on e-waste recycling, protects only state interests and offers little relief to private actors. Under RCRA, which has both criminal and civil statutes, the exportation of e-waste is lightly monitored and is only scorned under specific circumstances, mainly if the receiving country has not authorized it. Further, most prosecutors elect to bring wire fraud charges under Title 18, the federal Criminal and Criminal Procedure law, rather than RCRA. Therefore, restitution is only granted to companies, not international victims. Using the three major e-waste criminal cases —Executive Recycling, Intercon Solutions, and Total Reclaim— as steppingstones to begin the discussion on international e-waste dumping, this Note demonstrates that victims are only narrowly provided relief, and international victims are virtually unable to seek relief. This Note focuses on administrative action to provide proper prosecutorial direction and critique legislative ignorance of modern environmental issues. In addition, this Note emphasizes international solutions to the growing waste epidemic and discusses how the U.S. can more effectively use these structures to prosecute e-waste smuggling and environmental waste smuggling at large.
-
Broken Windows, Broken Theory: How City Planning Actually Affects CrimeThis Note examines the effects urban planning has on crime rates in two cities. The first, Washington, D.C., passed the Legacy Plan in 1997 to improve city aesthetics and revitalize businesses. Neighboring Alexandria, Virginia passed new city planning ordinances in 1992. The differential timing gives rise to a natural experiment for examining the impact of city planning on crime rates. A difference-in-differences analysis is used to compare the effect of the Legacy Plan in Washington, D.C. before and after its adoption, relative to the control jurisdiction of Alexandria during the same period. The difference-in-differences estimation produced one statistically significant result for motor vehicle thefts. There was also an overall decrease in crimes in both cities over the period studied. Recommendations for future research and for practice are discussed.
-
Sierra Club V. Trump, California V. Trump: Border Wall Funding Knocked DownAfter Congress refused to fund the border wall, President Trump declared a national emergency. This allowed him to reprogram funds from other accounts to provide funding for border wall construction. The Ninth Circuit in Sierra Club v. Trump and California v. Trump held that the reprogramming of funds pursuant to sections 8005 and 2808 violated the statutes and posed constitutional problems. However, the Supreme Court issued a stay, which allowed construction to continue. This article analyzes and asserts that the Ninth Circuit decisions were correct. Events at the end of Trump administration are reviewed. After taking office, President Biden cancelled the national emergency and stopped most of the funding for the border wall. President Biden supports the establishment of a virtual border wall. Events during the Biden administration are examined.
-
Environmental Racism in Indian Country: An Analysis of Its Impacts on the Environment and Natural Resources and Its Connection to the Diminishment of Tribal SovereigntyThis note seeks to discuss environmental racism and its connection to the diminishment of tribal sovereignty. First, there will be a discussion on the history and origin of tribal sovereignty, and the presence of tribes and Indigenous peoples in the United States. Second, there will be an examination of how the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts have been utilized to both diminish and promote tribal sovereignty. Next, case studies of state and federal actions against tribes will be analyzed to demonstrate the prevalence of environmental racism against Indigenous peoples today. Finally, this note generally seeks to address environmental racism in Indian country and how it works to diminish tribal sovereignty over land and natural resources while also addressing how tribal sovereignty may be further used to combat serious environmental crises facing Indigenous communities across the United States.
-
Environmental Racism on Tucson's Southside: An Overview of the Tucson Superfund Site and a Call to Address New Chemical ContaminationSince the 1970s, the term “environmental racism” has become more commonplace in the public sphere and is largely recognized when governments and private industry aim to develop or use land for their own interests at the expense of the health and safety of the communities that reside nearby. This is a positive development in the evolution of dialogue on the environmental impacts on communities of color. Equal attention should also be paid to instances of environmental racism before the term became widely known. One such example is the Superfund site in Tucson, which sits near the city’s majority-minority southside. Federal contractor Hughes Aircraft Co., with the Tucson Airport Authority, spent nearly three decades disposing of a degreaser containing a toxic chemical, trichloroethylene (TCE), which then leaked into the groundwater supply. While this took place largely before the term was coined, a retrospective demonstrates that the release of the TCE, intentional or not, resulted in many residents developing cancer or other illnesses, and falls under the definition of environmental racism. Although the litigation settled over 15 years ago, problems persist in the communities surrounding the Superfund site. In addition to the still ongoing TCE cleanup, a new contaminant, polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), has emerged, brought on by the Air National Guard’s use of firefighting foam, showing up in water wells close to the Tucson Airport Remediation Project (TARP). The state and federal governments have an obligation to act quickly to prevent the spread of PFAS in the water remediation system and avert a repetition of environmental harms on communities of color.
-
Charting a “Substantially Different” Approach to Land Management Planning Following a Congressional Review Act Joint Resolution of DisapprovalCongress enacted the Congressional Review Act (CRA) in 1996 as part of the Gingrich Revolution. The CRA creates an expedited path for Congress to repeal agency rules. It also prohibits an agency from reissuing a new rule that is “substantially the same” as a repealed rule. But the CRA fails to define “substantially the same” and does not require Congress to identify its objections to a repealed rule. The uncertainty that results has a chilling effect on federal agencies. Indeed, Congress has struck down twenty rules using the CRA, and just two of those rules have been replaced. We use the Bureau of Land Management’s Planning Rule, which was struck down in 2017 using the CRA, as an example of how an agency that is statutorily obligated to enact a broad regulatory program can proceed following a joint resolution of disapproval. We argue here for repeal of the CRA. We also argue that absent a repeal, the safest path forward involves a rule that is more protective of the environment than the rule that was repealed by Congress—far from the outcome that congressional Republicans and the Trump Administration intended when they struck down the BLM Planning Rule.
-
Disproportionate Police Militarization at Standing Rock Violated International LawThis paper examines the law enforcement response to the 2016 Standing Rock NoDAPL1 protests and evaluates whether this response violated international human rights law. Following an assessment of increasing militarization in U.S. policing, relevant international human rights law doctrine will be discussed. In particular, UN Human Rights declarations prohibit disproportionate armaments in policing, armed response to unlawful but unarmed protests, the deprivation of enumerated human rights, and the use of a hostilities paradigm suited to the battlefield instead of a community-caretaking focused law enforcement paradigm. The militarization at Standing Rock took the form of 76 law enforcement agencies coordinating with military contractors, both armed with less-lethal force to suppress anti-pipeline protests. This paper illustrates that the law enforcement response to the Standing Rock protests was disproportionate and in violation of customary international human rights law norms for policing, including the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), and more broadly in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). These violations eroded relationships between Indigenous people, environmentalists, and the federal government, set a problematic example for foreign and domestic law enforcement departments, and endangered domestic compliance with international human rights law. In order to uphold international law, future police work should be mindful of the potential for international human rights law violation and averse to militarization disproportionate to the risks posed to officers.
-
Coming Home Again: Tribal Sovereignty, the Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, and their Potential for Endemic Wildlife ReintroductionDespite centuries of federal and state policies that have resulted in extinction or endangerment for multitudes of wildlife species with cultural, ecological, and historical significance to Indigenous nations throughout the United States, many tribes have begun to attempt wildlife reintroduction in and near Indian Country, with or without federal or state support, and sometimes in spite of strident opposition. Recent efforts, including the reintroduction of bison to the Fort Peck and Wind River Reservations, the Nez Perce and Yurok Tribes’ release of California condors, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation’s reintroduction of pronghorn antelope, have shown early signs of success. Tribes attempting to reintroduce endangered, threatened, or extirpated species have used a variety of legal and other tools to further their efforts, sometimes in combinations that reflect unique values or particular history connecting the tribe to the reintroduced species. The focus of this Article is an option that has received relatively little scholarly examination–the Tribal Wildlife Grant Program (“TWG” or “TWG Program”). The TWG Program presents a unique means by which tribes can establish, or reestablish, wildlife management frameworks largely free of federal oversight or intervention, allowing tribes to avoid certain complications of the federal-tribal legal relationship that have impeded many past tribal wildlife management efforts. The Program also allows tribes to choose when and how to partner with states, a significant improvement over other wildlife conservation and management frameworks that used a federalism structure. Finally, the Program provides a mechanism for actualizing inherent tribal sovereignty for tribes that are willing to establish positive laws in connection with their reintroduction efforts.
-
Sustainable Red Power: Tribal Energy Sovereignty and the Way ForwardThis article will examine how tribes can synthesize Indigenous ingenuity and federal selfdetermination policy to strengthen their cultural and political institutions by developing sophisticated solar-based microgrids and leveraging blockchain technology. This article acknowledges that climate change is here to stay and seeks to provide indigenous peoples in the US with innovative community solutions that work toward tribal energy sovereignty (ES) by marrying Indigenous sciences and cultural knowledge with innovative technologies. This article examines some of the creative renewable energy and blockchain systems that Indigenous communities have been using and encourages tribal leaders to consider how such technologies can support one another to strengthen ES. By pragmatically leveraging inherent sovereignty, federal programs, and principles from international law, tribes can exert tribal energy sovereignty by building resilient systems to protect their cultures and economies from the ravages of climate change. Section I clarifies the cultural context of this article and explores the immense importance of traditional cultural values. More specifically, Section I explores traditional Cowlitz practices, my identity as a Cowlitz man as an integral element of this article, and the connections between Cultural Sovereignty and ES3 Section II examines the political and economic realities facing Indian communities seeking to develop renewable energy by briefly exploring Federal Indian Law, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Native nation-building, and the benefits of decentralizing Indian affairs by moving from centralized federal management to decentralized tribal governance. Section III explores solar energy and microgrids generally and briefly explores three remarkable tribal case studies. Section IV explores some of the specific ways that tribes can work toward solar and microgrid-based ES by leveraging cultural values, tribal programs, federal self-determination policy, and NGOs. Section V considers blockchain technologies generally and looks at some innovative ways Indigenous peoples in the US use them. Section VI considers how blockchain can support ES by allowing tribes to develop peer-to-peer (p2p), decentralized, community-energy systems. Section VII shares final conclusions on recommendations. when assessing whether federal law preempts state-law causes of action arising from production, sale, and marketing of fossil fuels.