Barry University

About: Barry University is a education organization based out in Miami, Florida, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Social work. The organization has 645 authors who have published 1119 publications receiving 17494 citations.

Demarcation of Authority Over Coastal Waters and Submerged Lands in the United States and Australia

Abstract: The United States and Australia both have been confronted with federal-state controversies concerning problems of demarcation of authority. An example of such a continuing controversy common to both nations is the battle for control and ownership of coastal waters and submerged lands. Of critical importance within this context is the extent of state and federal legislative authority over these areas. This article explores the respective approaches adopted in Australia and in the United States to resolve their problems concerning coastal demarcation. United States courts first addressed these problems. Controversy between the federal government and several of the coastal states began in the 1920s when California, under claim of ownership, issued oil and gas leases on certain submerged lands underlying the Santa Barbara Channel. With the development of oil production from offshore lands along the California coast, applications for oil and gas rights began to be filed directly with the federal government under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. United States reaction to these applications varied from a policy of rejection, on the basis that the submerged lands were the property of the State of California, to one of acceptance, on the basis of federal ownership. Upon recommendation of an interdepartmental committee, the Attorney General took action to have the conflicting federal-state claims adjudicated. The resulting Tidelands Cases established the doctrine that the thirteen original colonies did not acquire ownership of the submerged lands along the coast, nor did states subsequently admitted to the Union acquire or retain ownership of these lands, as in the case of Texas. Based on national external sovereignty, the federal government and not the states had paramount rights in and full dominion and power over these lands. By contrast, Australia's legislation and jurisprudence have raised several current issues for discussion. The 1958 conventions on the Law of the Sea were not concerned with allocating Australian sovereignty to any central or regional government. Passage of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act in 1973 apparently accomplished that result, however.The Seas and Submerged Lands Act was passed some twenty years later than its American equivalent. As a result, Australia had the benefit of observing the jurisprudence that had developed in the United States as well as the Conventions enacted pursuant to the 1958 Law of the Sea Conference. The Australian approach is a "constitutional" analysis of the problems of federal and state authority over coastal waters and submerged lands. In order to comprehend fully the Australian approach to these problems, American readers should first review the background and rationale for the events that took place in the United States.

The Challenges of Poverty and Social Welfare in the Caribbean

Abstract: Poverty and related social problems have presented a long-standing challenge to policy makers and development planners throughout the Caribbean. This article is a social primer on anti-poverty strategies and welfare programs established in Caribbean countries. It presents a comprehensive overview of poverty and attendant problems, discusses the social welfare approach and poverty reduction strategies, and outlines practical proposals for pursuing social development.

Their Love is Here to Stay: Why the Supreme Court Cannot Turn Back the Hands of Time

Abstract: Throughout history, and certainly throughout the history of this nation, change has been a constant. Customs and mores have moved back and forth between liberal and conservative, freewheeling to draconian, with never-ending changes in between. Political changes have concurrently ushered in administrations and legislatures who have idealized many of these societal mores. In the 1950s, amid widespread, systemic, and in many cases fiercely defended patterns of segregation in this nation, the Supreme Court of the United States told the country that the time had come for forced integration. In 1973, the Court allowed legal access to abortion, and in 2003, put an end to criminal sanctions for homosexuality, which it had upheld only seventeen years earlier.Recent changes on the Court, specifically the retirements of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- long considered the "swing" vote on a fairly conservative Court -- and Justice John Paul Stevens -- the de facto leader of the liberal block -- as well as the appointments of known conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, have led to speculation on both sides of the political spectrum that the Court is destined to change and/or overturn long-established law. This, in turn, leads to quandaries by interested parties of whether and when to bring challenges on controversial issues. Much of the discussion in this article focuses on contentious issues, such as abortion and same-sex relationships, including partner rights, adoption and other societal benefits. However, this article also looks at the history of major issues in controversy to determine how and why they were resolved and how history may give guidance to the likely resolution of future issues.Part I takes a brief look at the Court as an institution, Presidential appointments, and judicial perceptions. Part II looks at a brief history of some landmark cases and their surroundings, including the makeup of the Court at each of these times in history, as well as the societal influences that surrounded them. A major focus is whether, in many of the precedential cases, it was the Court and/or societal changes that paved the way to the ultimate decisions. It looks at what role public opinion may have played in these holdings, including the kinds of violent confrontations and mass rallies preceding decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, and the continuing controversies surrounding such topics as new cases have arisen. It addresses changes both in the makeup of the bench and in societal mores between the time of an earlier decision such as Roe and later challenges to it, as in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, to try to determine what might have been the predicted outcomes of each and whether those predictions held true. Much of the research is focused on family and privacy issues, looking to the string of "privacy cases" beginning with Griswold v. Connecticut as well as cases prior to this seminal case, and culminating, at least presently, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.

The Development and Testing of a Behavioral Intentions Model: A Longitudinal Study

Abstract: This paper develops and tests a model that illustrates the development of travel behavior intentions. Two separate studies were conducted, that measured the perceptions of German travel consumers regarding Northern Ireland (NI) as a tourist destination. The studies were conducted at the ITB Berlin (1999 and 2000) Travel Trade Fair. Northern Ireland was chosen as the travel destination because the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement gave hope that tourism to NI would again increase (after two years of decreases). We focused on German consumers because they are considered to be an important segment for NI tourism. The results of the study indicated that 81% of those interviewed had a good or very good impression of NI, and 59% considered it safe or very safe. The model itself illustrated that the travel consumers utilize both external and internal information for developing their perceptions and ultimately their behavioral intentions. Yet, the results also illustrated that travel consumers were more d...

Earth Jurisprudence: Toward Law in Nature's Balance

Abstract: In 2008, when the Center for Earth Jurisprudence (CEJ), Sister Patricia Siemen, and the Barry Law Review cosponsored the first symposium on Earth Jurisprudence, we had no idea what the event's reception would be. Outstandingly well, as it turns out; more than 160 persons attended the symposium, "Framing an Earth Jurisprudence for a Planet in Peril," at the Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law in Orlando, Florida. Others in sixteen states and seven countries participated via webcast. Both Barry and St. Thomas universities are commended for their academic bravery in jointly sponsoring the CEJ, a center that is growing into a hub of thought and learning surrounding Earth jurisprudence. These universities are the first institutions of higher learning in the United States to put the weight of their reputations behind our efforts. Earth jurisprudence is an emerging field of law - broader than environmental law, yet closely allied – that draws on many ancient traditions subjugated, in recent centuries, to western and Judeo-Christian legal systems. It is a movement infused with indigenous peoples' reverence for the land, a recognition of a scientific and evolutionary worldview that demonstrates humanity's oneness with all that exists, and for all things living, as well as for things that, in western legal views, are considered inanimate. In keeping also with more recent traditions of deep ecology, Earth jurisprudence is an attempt to live gently with the Earth and all life that depends on it. It is aligned with those aspects of religious traditions that honor the sacredness of creation and perceive the intrinsic value of all that exists, not only the instrumental value of other beings. Changing one's worldview, although critical to repositioning how humans think of themselves in relation to Nature and the laws we fashion, is not a simple process. The problems we face are not insurmountable if we can find a way to join our endeavors, which is where you, the reader, come in. For all our sakes, give the discussions in this issue some thought.