Climate change is a major environmental threat and likely one of the most important challenges of our time. In particular, climate extremes –such as heat waves– can have a significant negative effect on society. Yet, many impacts of climate change are poorly understood and binding international climate change agreements are notoriously hard to reach. This work deals with the economics of climate change in three separate essays. The first one introduces a new methodology to estimate the impacts of climate extremes on public health. The second utilizes this methodology to assess the impacts of several climate change scenarios on Europe. The third explores a way to increase cooperation on climate change mitigation policies through explicit communication of the uncertainty of future climate change impacts. In general, human mortality shows an oscillatory pattern on top of a nonlinear trend. It tends to be highest in winter and lowest in summer. The nonlinear trend follows changes in health policies, economic growth rates, and other institutional factors. The first essays shows that singular spectrum analysis can be used for the estimation of this base rate mortality and thus allows to isolate the impacts of climate extremes on human mortality. This methodology is an improvement over approaches based on fixed effects or classic spectral analysis. It makes it possible to extend climate impact analysis to regions and countries for which there are no detailed data from hospital records as only coarse monthly data on mortality are needed. The danger of climate change lies not necessarily in the shift in average temperatures, but more so the increase in frequency of extreme heat events. Yet, while heat waves become more common, cold spells become less frequent. As both types of extreme temperature events increase human morbidity and mortality, the net effect of this shift is unknown. The second essay finds that a scenario of moderate warming can have a positive net effect on some European countries, creating winners and losers. In contrast –severe warming as a result of failed climate change mitigation policies– affects all examined European countries in a negative way. There would be no winners, just losers. As a result of the uncertainty associated with it, climate change poses a different challenge than other social dilemma situations: The negative effects of climate change do not necessarily take place incrementally. While this should be a focal point for policy makers, the costs of climate change tend to be presented within an expected utility framework. Yet, the potential behavioral reactions to this uncertainty are –so far– neither explored nor accounted for in game-theoretic models of climate coalition building. The third essay finds that cooperation in a public goods game can be increased when the uncertainty is communicated explicitly. This means that uncertainty should not be hidden behind expected costs and benefits, but rather be acknowledged when the goal is to form a climate change mitigation agreement.

Thesis. 1978. M.C.P.--Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning. / MICROFICHE COPY AVAILABLE IN ARCHIVES AND ROTCH. / Bibliography: leaves 110-113. / M.C.P.

A key challenge confronting modern policymakers is to ensure that economic development is both socially just and environmentally sustainable. Toward that goal, effective government regulations require the accurate quantification of their associated costs and benefits. An extensive theoretical and empirical literature in economics has shown the benefits of government policies in addressing market failures and providing public goods. But few studies have credibly identified the social costs and distributional impacts of existing policies. My dissertation integrates new data and empirical methods from economics and earth sciences to investigate the social impacts of energy infrastructure and environmental policy. Chapter 1 uses the Three Gorges Dam in China as a natural experiment to provide the first evidence of the social and economic impacts of dam-induced inundation on population displacement and labor market reallocation. Chapter 2 examines the political economy implications of wind turbine construction on United States congressional elections. Chapter 3 employs original data from a large-scale survey to study the social benefits of environmental quality improvements. Overall, results from these papers inform future research on the social impacts of energy and environmental policy and highlight the importance of unbiased policy evaluations.

Judicial enforcement of arbitral awards is necessary where there is no voluntary compliance by the relevant parties. Courts world-wide may refuse to enforce arbitral awards if such enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of their countries. This is known as ‘the public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards’. It is enshrined in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (Model Law), which are two of the most prominent international instruments in promoting and regulating international commercial arbitration.The public policy exception is one of the most controversial exceptions to the enforcement of arbitral awards, causing judicial inconsistency and therefore unpredictability in its application. It is often likened to an ‘unruly horse’, which may lead us from sound law. The International Law Association’s Resolution on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards 2002 (ILA Resolution) endorses a narrow approach to the public policy exception – namely, refusal of enforcement under the public policy exception in exceptional circumstances only. The ILA Resolution seeks to facilitate the finality of arbitral awards in accordance with the New York Convention’s primary goal of facilitating the enforcement of arbitral awards. The courts of many countries refer to this as the New York Convention’s ‘pro-enforcement policy’, which demands a narrow approach to the public policy exception.This thesis explores the main controversies and complexities in the judicial application of the public policy exception from an Australian perspective. It is a critical analysis of the prevalent narrow approach to the public policy exception. It examines the extent of the ILA Resolution’s suitability and applicability in Australia, considering past problems experienced by the courts of other countries, the distinctive features of the Australian legal system, and future challenges confronting the Australian judiciary. It examines when and how the Australian judiciary may need to swim against the tide by departing from the narrow approach to the public policy exception. For instance, such departure may be appropriate for ensuring that their application of the public policy exception neither causes nor condones injustice, and thereby preserves the integrity and faith in the system of arbitration. The author’s perspective throughout this thesis is that of an academic lawyer, as she has not had the benefit of practical experience in this area of the law.The recommendations throughout this thesis are tailor-made for the Australian judiciary. They are Australian in perspective yet international in character. They canvass certain issues not addressed in the ILA Resolution, encouraging the Australian judiciary to participate in the ongoing debate and the ultimate resolution of those issues. In doing so, this thesis contributes to refining the judicial application of public policy in determining the enforceability of arbitral awards. The public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards, or its application, need not be an unruly horse in Australia.“This version contains corrections of typographical errors identified in the original version of the thesis submitted for completion of the SJD program”.

published_or_final_version / Politics and Public Administration / Master / Master of Public Administration

published_or_final_version / Public Administration / Master / Master of Public Administration

Judicial enforcement of arbitral awards is necessary where there is no voluntary compliance by the relevant parties. Courts world-wide may refuse to enforce arbitral awards if such enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of their countries. This is known as ‘the public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards’. It is enshrined in the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (Model Law), which are two of the most prominent international instruments in promoting and regulating international commercial arbitration.The public policy exception is one of the most controversial exceptions to the enforcement of arbitral awards, causing judicial inconsistency and therefore unpredictability in its application. It is often likened to an ‘unruly horse’, which may lead us from sound law. The International Law Association’s Resolution on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards 2002 (ILA Resolution) endorses a narrow approach to the public policy exception – namely, refusal of enforcement under the public policy exception in exceptional circumstances only. The ILA Resolution seeks to facilitate the finality of arbitral awards in accordance with the New York Convention’s primary goal of facilitating the enforcement of arbitral awards. The courts of many countries refer to this as the New York Convention’s ‘pro-enforcement policy’, which demands a narrow approach to the public policy exception.This thesis explores the main controversies and complexities in the judicial application of the public policy exception from an Australian perspective. It is a critical analysis of the prevalent narrow approach to the public policy exception. It examines the extent of the ILA Resolution’s suitability and applicability in Australia, considering past problems experienced by the courts of other countries, the distinctive features of the Australian legal system, and future challenges confronting the Australian judiciary. It examines when and how the Australian judiciary may need to swim against the tide by departing from the narrow approach to the public policy exception. For instance, such departure may be appropriate for ensuring that their application of the public policy exception neither causes nor condones injustice, and thereby preserves the integrity and faith in the system of arbitration. The author’s perspective throughout this thesis is that of an academic lawyer, as she has not had the benefit of practical experience in this area of the law.The recommendations throughout this thesis are tailor-made for the Australian judiciary. They are Australian in perspective yet international in character. They canvass certain issues not addressed in the ILA Resolution, encouraging the Australian judiciary to participate in the ongoing debate and the ultimate resolution of those issues. In doing so, this thesis contributes to refining the judicial application of public policy in determining the enforceability of arbitral awards. The public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitral awards, or its application, need not be an unruly horse in Australia.“This version contains corrections of typographical errors identified in the original version of the thesis submitted for completion of the SJD program”.

Thesis (Ph.D.) - Carleton University, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 199-206). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 44-51).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 44-51).