No description available.

In both Kenya and Botswana, wildlife is a valuable natural resource in terms of its economic value, nutritional value, ecological value, medicinal value, educational and scientific value, as well as recreational and socio-cultural value. Despite this beneficial value, however, wild animals in both countries also cause damage and impose heavy losses on society. They also disrupt peaceful existence in local communities living in close proximity to wildlife areas. The damage they cause includes attacks on people and livestock, destruction of crops and other property as well as infrastructure. This has resulted in a human-wildlife conflict, with people having negative attitudes towards wildlife. Initially people seem to be the victims when wild animals attack them or destroy their property. Later, the animals are the real victims when people in retaliation start attacking, ensnaring or poisoning them. Contrary to the belief that it contributes to poverty alleviation, many people in the local communities in wildlife areas strongly believe wildlife has contributed to their poverty. Unless the governments of both Kenya and Botswana maintain efficient legal and institutional arrangements for wildlife damage, the future of wildlife conservation in both countries is bleak. These arrangements, if effectively enforced, have the potential to: reduce retaliatory killing of wildlife; ensure incidents of wildlife damage are reported; alleviate the losses and suffering associated with wildlife damage; and bolster public support for conservation programmes. It is encouraging that both countries recognize wildlife damage as a major problem and have put in place legal and institutional arrangements to address this problem. This study evaluated the legal and institutional arrangements in Kenya and Botswana on wildlife damage, assessing their suitability, adequacy as well as their effectiveness. While several studies have been conducted on wildlife damage, most of them mainly focus on institutional arrangements and the actual abatement measures adopted, few of them approach the subject from a legal standpoint, in the way this study does. Those studies do not, for instance, discuss the legal basis of the need for legal arrangements for wildlife damage alleviation and the various approaches and actual forms of legal intervention. This author through the use of semi-structured interviews, self-administered questionnaires, focus group discussions, and literature survey investigated the problem of ii wildlife damage in Kenya and Botswana. A central part of this investigation was on the types of damage, the animals involved, whether and how this problem has influenced public attitudes towards wildlife conservation, and suggestions for solution. Research for this study was conducted in the Laikipia region of Kenya and the Okavango delta region of Botswana between January and December 2006. This researcher interviewed 44 respondents from each country, comprising households from the local communities within wildlife areas, senior ranking government officials, leaders of NGOs that actually work on wildlife issues, experts in natural resource management as well as eminent scholars in environmental and natural resources law and policy. Research for this study established that while the governments of both Kenya and Botswana have established certain legal and institutional frameworks on wildlife damage, there are factors that hamper their efficient operation. These factors include the relevance and suitability of the existing laws, as well as their acceptability to stakeholders; lack of appropriate policy framewoks and dispute resolution mechanisms to support the regulatory regime; institutional problems such as overlapping responsibilities, lack of adequate resources and lack of motivation among staff. These factors together with others have continued to be a major challenge to the quest for appropriate and effective legal and institutional response to the problem of wildlife damage in both countries. The study found that in both countries the law vests in the state the power to manage wildlife wherever it occurs within the national boundaries. Botswana’s community-based wildlife management model, however, offers more incentives for conservation to local communities than Kenya’s state-centered system which largely disregards the role of local communities in wildlife matters. This author has argued that local communities are critical stakeholders and the success of any conservation programmes will depend on their goodwill. Besides, while the state has a duty to protect wildlife from harm by humans, it also has a corresponding duty to protect humans and their property from damage by wild animals and to ensure that wildlife does not undermine the people’s livelihoods and development. This is, however, not usually the case as in practice the state in both countries, and especially in Kenya, iii seems to favour wild animals at the expense of the people. The study has recommended certain reforms which need to be undertaken if Kenya and Botswana have to maintain appropriate and efficient legal and institutional arrangements on wildlife damage.

University of Technology, Sydney. Faculty of Law. / There are different notions of justice that support different reasons for compensating people injured in automobile accidents. The' traditional' method of compensating such persons is the tort system, which involves accident victim proving that fault of some other person caused their injury. This system is not a compensation scheme per se, but a means of shifting losses in accordance with community expectations. This system was criticised during the 20th-century for its inequity, expense and delay. Alternative compensation systems developed which supplement or replace tort as a means of access to compensation. These are divided into 'hybrid' systems - add-on, threshold and choice no-fault - and 'pure' no-fault. There are numerous arguments for and against each system and no one scheme has emerged as the system of choice internationally. In Australia, which is a Federation of states and territories, each jurisdiction has a separate scheme. The majority are fault based but with variations in benefit structures. There is also an add-on no-fault system in Tasmania, a threshold no-fault system in Victoria and a pure no-fault scheme covering residents of the Northern Territory. This pattern of diversity could be expected because of reluctance to embrace change when alternatives are not universally viewed as superior. Chapman and Trebilcock argue that the diversity signifies political instability that is not seen in other areas of law such as workplace injuries, products liability and medical malpractice. They hypothesise that because appreciation of facts surrounding automobile accidents and core values within communities across a Federation such as Australia should be similar, the probable reason for diversity is the existence of majority voting cycles and sequence dependent outcomes. A critical analysis of Chapman and Trebilcock's reasoning shows that their basic premise is faulty. An examination of the evidence from the structure of each Australian scheme, and the scheme reviews and debates on points of change during the period from 1970 to date, demonstrates that in relation to Australian automobile accident compensation schemes, Chapman and Trebilcock's theory is probably wrong, and the diversity is a result of rational democratic political processes.

Land has always been the focus of public debates among scholars, policy makers and local populations due to its scarcity in face of population explosion and rapid urban growth. This is particularly so in the case of China. In order to support an unprecedented rate of urbanization, the institutional mechanism of land expropriation has been widely adopted by the government of the People's Republic of China over the last three decades. However, the effect of this institutional mechanism in rural China has become increasingly controversial. On one side, it is one of the most powerful tools to assemble land for urban development. Moreover, by means of land expropriation and land conveyance, local governments are capable of collecting substantial revenues to fund urban development. On the other side, the exclusive power of local governments over land expropriation, which is derived from the land management system, makes it possible for local governments to manipulate the price at which land is taken from farmers. In practice, local governments expropriate suburban or rural land at a low price and then lease it at a much higher price in land market. Therefore, inequitable compensation for land expropriation has led to numerous conflicts and social tensions between local governments and land-loss farmers. The issue of land expropriation and compensation has been identified as one of most primary sources of social discontents and complaints. Even though a growing number of studies have been conducted on the urbanization and regional development in China, a thorough cause–effect elaboration of the issue of land expropriation and compensation in rural China has rarely been carried out within the political regime. This thesis analyzes the institutional framework of land expropriation and compensation in rural China from the perspectives of property rights and land management system. In addition, it discloses the opportunities for Chinese legal system to solve this issue by borrowing legal norms, wisdoms and experience from other jurisdiction, such as the United States and Germany. Furthermore, it aims to improve and reconstruct the legal framework of compensation by elaborating the concept of long-term reciprocity. Three primary questions would be elaborated in this thesis. Is the compensation for land expropriation in rural China equitable? If the compensation is not equitable, how has such an inequity been caused? And most importantly, how to improve the compensability of land expropriation? / published_or_final_version / Real Estate and Construction / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

University of Technology, Sydney. Faculty of Law. / There are different notions of justice that support different reasons for compensating people injured in automobile accidents. The' traditional' method of compensating such persons is the tort system, which involves accident victim proving that fault of some other person caused their injury. This system is not a compensation scheme per se, but a means of shifting losses in accordance with community expectations. This system was criticised during the 20th-century for its inequity, expense and delay. Alternative compensation systems developed which supplement or replace tort as a means of access to compensation. These are divided into 'hybrid' systems - add-on, threshold and choice no-fault - and 'pure' no-fault. There are numerous arguments for and against each system and no one scheme has emerged as the system of choice internationally. In Australia, which is a Federation of states and territories, each jurisdiction has a separate scheme. The majority are fault based but with variations in benefit structures. There is also an add-on no-fault system in Tasmania, a threshold no-fault system in Victoria and a pure no-fault scheme covering residents of the Northern Territory. This pattern of diversity could be expected because of reluctance to embrace change when alternatives are not universally viewed as superior. Chapman and Trebilcock argue that the diversity signifies political instability that is not seen in other areas of law such as workplace injuries, products liability and medical malpractice. They hypothesise that because appreciation of facts surrounding automobile accidents and core values within communities across a Federation such as Australia should be similar, the probable reason for diversity is the existence of majority voting cycles and sequence dependent outcomes. A critical analysis of Chapman and Trebilcock's reasoning shows that their basic premise is faulty. An examination of the evidence from the structure of each Australian scheme, and the scheme reviews and debates on points of change during the period from 1970 to date, demonstrates that in relation to Australian automobile accident compensation schemes, Chapman and Trebilcock's theory is probably wrong, and the diversity is a result of rational democratic political processes.

Thesis (doctoral9--Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1908. / Includes bibliographical references ([vi]-xi).

Karoshi, or death from overwork, is a tragic modern work event. Continuous occurrence of karoshi in Japan offers an opportunity to reconsider the contemporary working environment, and especially the workers' compensation system. Strongly bound by the traditional notion of work accident, the Japanese workers' compensation system has shown difficulty handling karoshi cases. This fact calls into question the adequacy of the current workers' compensation scheme in the work environment it is meant to oversee. To analyze the issue, this thesis will use a comparative law method. The basis of comparison will be Ontario, Canada, which shares a system similar to Japan's, but does not produce karoshi cases. Particular emphasis will be put on stress claims and claims from women, since both share some similarities with karoshi claims. The findings from this comparison will offer a valuable basis for discussion of the current and the future of workers' compensation and other protection systems in Japan.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Frankfurt am Main.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Göttingen, 1970. / Bibliography: p. viii-xxxii.

Thesis (L.L.M.)--University of Hong Kong, 1991. / Xerox opy of typescript.