Rights Based Fishing: Use Rights versus Property Rights to Fish

The basic economic problem of commercial fisheries can be seen as the absence of property rights to the fish stocks. There are, however, both practical and principal obstacles to applying that solution. Instead, the preferable arrangement appears to be stock control by public agencies, combined with exclusive use rights granted, leased or sold to the fishing industry in order to achieve economic efficiency. Incentives to establish such rights can be found both in government circles and in the industry. Both have a vital role to play; plans to establish use rights such as ITQs have run aground on more than one occasion because of opposition from the industry. Use rights can be seen as a tool for government agencies to achieve economic efficiency in the industry. If desired, these gains can be distributed over a wider public through user fees of some kind. There are few examples, however, of substantial user fees, and the industry has been successful in getting such schemes abolished when they have been put into effect. The experience of Russia and, in particular, Estonia is discussed. The absence of user fees can be explained by the need to obtain support for use right schemes from the industry, and the windfall gains from gratis use rights are vehicles for this. Norway and Iceland are two countries which have put in place use rights, but they have done so in different ways. Iceland has an ITQ system while Norway has fishing concessions combined with individual vessel quotas. Some success appears to have been achieved in both countries with these systems.     

Culture and Rights after Culture and Rights

Building on a critical, theoretical approach outlined in Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives (Cowan et al. 2001a), I posit rights processes as complex and contradictory: Both enabling and constraining, they produce new subjectivities and social relations and entail unintended consequences. To encourage interdisciplinary engagement on these themes, I explore selected texts that consider the relationship between culture and rights, addressing two literatures: (1) debates on culture, rights, and recognition in the context of multiculturalism among political philosophers and (2) an emerging literature by anthropologists, feminists, critical legal scholars, and engaged practitioners analyzing empirical cases. Although political philosophers elucidate ethical implications and clarify political projects, an outmoded arsenal of theoretical concepts of "culture,""society," and "the individual" has hampered their debates. When accounts are both theoretically informed and empirically grounded, contradictions, ambiguities, and impasses of culture and rights are more fully explored and the liberal model of rights and multiculturalism is more open to interrogation.     

Gay Rights One Baby-Step at a Time: Protecting Hospital Visitation Rights for Same-Sex Partners While the Lack of Surrogacy Rights Lingers

Recognizing that GLBTI individuals are often barred from visiting their partners in hospitals or from acting as health care surrogates for incapacitated partners, President Obama directed the Department of Health and Human Services to address these issues. In response, the department amended its rules to prohibit hospitals from restricting, limiting, or denying visitation privileges on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. But the changes do not affect the designation of a health care surrogate, a matter largely governed by state law. Therefore, subject to state law, same-sex partners can still be legally barred from making health care decisions for their incapacitated partners, and it remains essential that they execute advance directives and appoint one another as their health care proxies.     

Developing Indigenous Rights

Indigenous Peoples, Ethnic Groups and the State. David Maybury-Lewis. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997.168 pp.
Malaysia and the Original People:. Case Study of the Impact of Development on Indigenous Peoples. Robert Knox Dentan. Kirk Endicott. Alberto G. Gomes. and M. B. Hooker. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. 175 pp.
Forest Dwellers, Forest Protectors: Indigenous Models for International Development. Richard Reed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. 135 pp.     

Relativism and the Search for Human Rights

The theory of ethical relativism has been the subject of much misunderstanding. It is argued that the central insight of relativism is enculturation and not tolerance. Relativism is characterized as a metaethical theory about the nature of moral perceptions. As such it is logically consistent, permits moral criticism, and is compatible with cross-cultural universals. The existence of universals may indicate global support for particular human rights.     

Withholding or Withdrawing Extraordinary Life Support—Optimizing Rights and Limiting Liability

For many years physicians, ethicists and members of the legal community have attempted to minimize ambiguity and unpredictability in making decisions to withhold or withdraw extraordinary life support. Recent developments in national and California law now afford medical care providers unparalleled protection from criminal and civil liability in surrogate decision-making situations. They also reinforce the concept of patient''s rights by providing medical care consumers with new and effective mechanisms for enforcing their “right to decide,” even after they have lost decision-making capacity. A case in point is California''s new Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, which serves as a model for other jurisdictions that do not have such legislation. Thus, the medical and legal professions, working together, can contribute immeasurably to respectful medical decision making by educating the public about these developments and by adopting policies that reinforce these rights.     

The Descent of Rights and the Descent of Persons

Explication and evaluation of the relative ethnographic and theoretical merits of several constructions of "descent" and "descent groups" (by W. H. R. Rivers, M. Fortes, and W. Goodenough, among others) reveals that relations of descent can have right and duty values only where patri- or matrifiliation is the necessary and sufficient condition for inclusion in a social group. Therefore, only unilineally constituted groups should be described as descent groups.     

The Social Life of Rights: ‘Gender Antagonism’, Modernity and Raet in Vanuatu

In the northern Vanuatu town of Luganville a small group of men have responded to social and legal changes engendered by women's rights activists by forming a male support group called ‘Violence Against Men’. Members of this ‘backlash’ movement argue that the insidious promotion of Western‐style ‘women's rights’ is leading to discrimination against men in divorce proceedings, child custody battles, and in domestic violence and rape cases. They directly oppose recent and ongoing legal changes aimed at protecting women from domestic violence, such as Domestic Violence Protection Court Orders, and the repeatedly tabled (but long‐delayed) ‘Family Protection Bill’. Such interventions, they argue, undermine Vanuatu's ‘natural’kastom and Christian patriarchal gender order and, in doing so, pose a serious threat to the socio‐economic productivity of the nation‐state. For other men, however, rather than opposing women's rights activism, such challenges have raised questions about how men might successfully negotiate their identities in ways that are sensitive to contemporary issues of gender equality without undermining existing paradigms. Thus, this paper addresses the value accorded to universalism and relativism in gender activism in Vanuatu, and especially in terms of the linked discourses of kastom, church and modernity. It therefore explores gender relations in terms of the contemporary entanglement of indigenous and exogenous epistemologies, and in doing so argues that the contextual analysis of ‘rights’ should consider the specific historical, political and socio‐cultural circumstances in which they are put to use.     

An Overview of Fishing Rights

Coastal state management of marine harvests within 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones was a new and innovative process during the period from the late 1970s through the 1980s. The spread of conservation-focused harvest management was a key step in the evolution of fishing rights, followed in some nations by a second step of creating more exclusive, individual or group fishing rights. The three main forms of more exclusive fishing rights – limited entry permits, individual fishing quotas (IFQs), and local community-based or co-operative harvesting – vary widely in content and detail. But, when successful, they all increase the economic efficiency of fisheries, and they reshape the economic and political landscape of fisheries. All three types, but particularly IFQs, may initiate radical changes in the economic organization of the fishery, ultimately changing who fishes, where and when they fish, the products sold, the balance of power among industry sectors, incentives to support conservation, the size of incomes from fishing, and the location of shore-side economic activity. Changes of this sort are bound to provoke controversy. The controversies over fishing rights take three forms: disagreements over the meaning and intent of fishing rights, disputes over the distribution of rights and associated economic gain, and concern for disruptions imposed on people who are dependent on the “old order”. This paper provides a short review of the underlying concepts, rights systems, and current controversies concerning fishing rights.