Your search

As the world rapidly urbanizes, cities are expanding to provide space for growing populations. The predominant growth pattern for the last several decades - continued outward expansion, or “urban sprawl” - is helping to lock in carbon expenditure for generations. By contrast, and perhaps counterintuitively, densification of cities can contribute both to CO2 emissions reductions and biodiversity protection. This chapter argues that environmental law should go beyond addressing negative externalities of activities within the city, to engage with the built form of the city. Legal and land use planning tools such as greenbelts and planning/zoning reform, and practices such as city building, placemaking, and nature-based urban solutions provide avenues for building cities in a way that promises climate mitigation and biodiversity protection in their very structure.

For decades, various levels of Canadian governments have gone all-in on facilitating the building of suburban, car-centric neighbourhoods while limiting the potential of urban living

Governments have implemented different interventions and response models to combat the spread of COVID-19. The necessary intensity and frequency of control measures require us to project the number of infected cases. Three short-term forecasting models were proposed to predict the total number of infected cases in Canada for a number of days ahead. The proposed models were evaluated on how their performance degrades with increased forecast horizon, and improves with increased historical data by which to estimate them. For the data analyzed, our results show that 7 to 10 weeks of historical data points are enough to produce good fits for a two-weeks predictive model of infected case numbers with a NRMSE of 1% to 2%. The preferred model is an important quick-deployment tool to support data-informed short-term pandemic related decision-making at all levels of governance.

Article Book Review of J.A.M. A. Sluysmans, S. Verbist, and E. Waring, eds., Expropriation Law in Europe (Deventer: Wolters Kluwer, 2015) was published on August 28, 2017 in the journal European Property Law Journal (volume 6, issue 2).

English Abstract: This volume of the Oñati Socio-legal Series consists of revised versions of 15 of the 20 papers presented at a workshop hosted by the Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law (IISL) in May 2013. The workshop took its theme from Stéphane Hessel’s cri de coeur, Indignez-vous! and the protest movements it inspired, which we saw as protests against the social inequality that necessarily follows from economic inequality and other power imbalances. This message continues to resonate. In 2015, for example, Oxfam International’s research paper entitled “Wealth: Having it all and wanting more” concludes that by 2016, the world’s richest 1% will have more of the world’s wealth than all of the remaining 99% of people. And a Canadian observer decries the effect of this – which he labels “trickle-down meanness” – on the socio-political fabric of a country.

English Abstract: Expropriation – the non-consensual taking of privately-owned property by the state in exchange for the payment of compensation – is a widely-used tool of land use planning in Canada as it is in many other states. While in principle all privately-held properties are equally susceptible to expropriation in Canada, legal frameworks on expropriation fail to guard against the possibility that less-wealthy neighbourhoods become more susceptible to expropriation than more wealthy ones (the 99% versus the 1% to put it in the terms used by the Occupy movement of the early part of this decade). The paper examines existing legal frameworks as well as a number of historical expropriation projects in Canada to depict how and why this may come to pass. It does so with a comparative eye turned towards the United States. The paper concludes with several recommendations for strengthening expropriation law frameworks in Canada to ensure that the property of the less-wealthy is as well protected as those properties in higher-income neighbourhoods.

Expropriation – the non-consensual taking of privately-owned property by the state in exchange for the payment of compensation – is a widely-used tool of land use planning in Canada as it is in many other states. While in principle all privately-held properties are equally susceptible to expropriation in Canada, legal frameworks on expropriation fail to guard against the possibility that less-wealthy neighbourhoods become more susceptible to expropriation than more wealthy ones (the 99% versus the 1% to put it in the terms used by the Occupy movement of the early part of this decade). The paper examines existing legal frameworks as well as a number of historical expropriation projects in Canada to depict how and why this may come to pass. It does so with a comparative eye turned towards the United States. The paper concludes with several recommendations for strengthening expropriation law frameworks in Canada to ensure that the property of the less-wealthy is as well protected as those properties in higher-income neighbourhoods. La expropiación –la adopción no consentida de una propiedad privada a manos del estado, a cambio de una compensación económica– es una herramienta ampliamente utilizada en la planificación urbanística, tanto en Canadá como en muchos otros estados. Aunque en principio, todas las propiedades en manos privadas tienen la misma posibilidad de ser expropiadas en Canadá, los marcos jurídicos en materia de expropiación fallan a la hora de proteger a los barrios con menos recursos para que no sean más susceptibles a la expropiación que los más ricos (el 99% frente al 1%, según los datos utilizados por el movimiento Occupy durante la primera parte de esta década). Este artículo analiza los marcos legales y una serie de proyectos de expropiación históricos en Canadá para describir cómo y por qué puede llegar a ocurrir esto. Se realiza una comparación con la situación en Estados Unidos. El artículo concluye con una serie de recomendaciones para fortalecer los marcos de la ley de expropiación en Canadá, y asegurar que las propiedades de los menos ricos están protegidas de la misma manera que las propiedades en los barrios más acomodados. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2572207

The experience of many university students studying public international law is, ""This is fascinating, but what can I do with it?"" While this book in no way detracts from the more intangible reasons to study international law, it is practically focused and explores the options available to law graduates beyond traditional or domestic law career paths. The range of possible careers is vast - from human rights to investment law and from the courtroom or boardroom to the refugee camp - and the book offers a step-by-step approach to considering whether and how to pursue a career in one of these

This chapter presents a theoretical perspective on the roles of law in the evolution of planning systems. Three main roles of law in planning are distinguished: law can enable, delimit and codify planning. How these roles play out and relate to each other in the evolution of a planning system, will differ by community. In four scenario’s we discern key points regarding the relation between the roles of law in evolving spatial governance. Understanding the different roles of law in planning, and their interplay in the evolution of the planning system, adds to the scientific and societal debates on planning and law, where hitherto polarizing discourses (planning vs law) dominated the discussion. More broadly, our perspective on the enabling, codifying and delimiting functions of law in planning sheds a new light on the potential and limitation of both law and planning to shape the future of communities.

The development of the right to return to one's home of origin -- Modern experiences with post-conflict restitution and return -- Restitution and return "home" -- Local integration and the regularization of collective centre space -- Compensation and regularizing secondary occupation

The approach of both domestic Georgian authorities and international organisations to solving the displacement crisis created by the 2008 Russia–Georgia conflict charted a new path.1 It was radically different than approaches taken in the early 1990s when Georgia was faced with mass displacements following the secessionist conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In particular, the expectation that a prompt return to homes of origin would be the preferred durable solution to the displacement was quickly abandoned for a sizeable number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) forced to leave their homes during the 2008 conflict. In its place, the two other theoretically accepted – but much less widely used – durable solutions to displacement (local integration and resettlement) have been embraced with unprecedented speed and vigour, with both funding and logistical support in place to implement such plans.