An Examination of Current Approaches to Integrative Indigenous and Western Knowledge System Implementation in Water Research and Management: A Case Study Encompassing the Colonized Geographies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States

The commodification of natural resources and the pursuit of continuous growth has resulted in environmental degradation, depletion, and disparity in access to these life-sustaining resources, including water. Utility-based objectification and exploitation of water in some societies has brought us to the brink of crisis through an apathetic disregard for present and future generations. The ongoing depletion and degradation of the world’s water sources, coupled with a reliance on Western knowledge and the continued omission of Indigenous knowledge to manage our relationship with water has unduly burdened many, but particularly so for Indigenous communities. The goal of my thesis research is to call attention to and advance the value and validity of using both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems (also known as Two-Eyed Seeing) in water research and management to better care for water. To achieve this goal, I used a combined systematic and realist review method to identify and synthesize the peer-reviewed, integrative water literature, followed by semi-structured interviews with first authors of the exemplars from the included literature to identify the challenges and insights that researchers have experienced in conducting integrative water research. Findings suggest that these authors recognize that many previous attempts to integrate Indigenous knowledges have been tokenistic rather than meaningful, and that new methods for knowledge implementation are needed. Community-based participatory research methods, and the associated tenets of balancing power, fostering trust, and community ownership over the research process, emerged as a pathway towards the meaningful implementation of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems. Data also indicate that engagement and collaborative governance structures developed from a position of mutual respect are integral to the realization of a given project. The recommendations generated from these findings offer support for future Indigenous-led research and partnerships through the identification and examination of approaches that facilitate the meaningful implementation of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems in water research and management. Asking Western science questions and seeking Indigenous science solutions does not appear to be working; instead, the co-design of research projects and asking questions directed at the problem rather than the solution better lends itself to the strengths of Indigenous science.

Capital 2.0 capital formation and legal risk in a new global economic order from fiat to exit: including case studies of the proposed transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the United States and the European Union and the financing relation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China

Following the intrinsically linked balance sheets in his Capital Formation Life Cycle, Lukas M. Stahl explains with his Triple A Model of Accounting, Allocation and Accountability the stages of the Capital Formation process from FIAT to EXIT. Based on the theoretical foundations of legal risk laid by the International Bar Association with the help of Roger McCormick and legal scholars such as Joanna Benjamin, Matthew Whalley and Tobias Mahler, and founded on the basis of Wesley Hohfeld’s category theory of jural relations, Stahl develops his mutually exclusive Four Determinants of Legal Risk of Law, Lack of Right, Liability and Limitation. Those Four Determinants of Legal Risk allow us to apply, assess, and precisely describe the respective legal risk at all stages of the Capital Formation Life Cycle as demonstrated in case studies of nine industry verticals of the proposed and currently negotiated Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States of America and the European Union, TTIP, as well as in the case of the often cited financing relation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Having established the Four Determinants of Legal Risk and its application to the Capital Formation Life Cycle, Stahl then explores the theoretical foundations of capital formation, their historical basis in classical and neo-classical economics and its forefathers such as The Austrians around Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek and most notably and controversial, Karl Marx, and their impact on today’s exponential expansion of capital formation. Starting off with the first pillar of his Triple A Model, Accounting, Stahl then moves on to explain the Three Factors of Capital Formation, Man, Machines and Money and shows how “value-added” is created with respect to the non-monetary capital factors of human resources and industrial production. Followed by a detailed analysis discussing the roles of the Three Actors of Monetary Capital Formation, Central Banks, Commercial Banks and Citizens Stahl readily dismisses a number of myths regarding the creation of money providing in-depth insight into the workings of monetary policy makers, their institutions and ultimate beneficiaries, the corporate and consumer citizens. In his second pillar, Allocation, Stahl continues his analysis of the balance sheets of the Capital Formation Life Cycle by discussing the role of The Five Key Accounts of Monetary Capital Formation, the Sovereign, Financial, Corporate, Private and International account of Monetary Capital Formation and the associated legal risks in the allocation of capital pursuant to his Four Determinants of Legal Risk. In his third pillar, Accountability, Stahl discusses the ever recurring Crisis-Reaction-Acceleration-Sequence-History, in short: CRASH, since the beginning of the millennium starting with the dot-com crash at the turn of the millennium, followed seven years later by the financial crisis of 2008 and the dislocations in the global economy we are facing another seven years later today in 2015 with several sordid debt restructurings under way and hundred thousands of refugees on the way caused by war and increasing inequality. Together with the regulatory reactions they have caused in the form of so-called landmark legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the JOBS Act of 2012 or the introduction of the Basel Accords, Basel II in 2004 and III in 2010, the European Financial Stability Facility of 2010, the European Stability Mechanism of 2012 and the European Banking Union of 2013, Stahl analyses the acceleration in size and scope of crises that appears to find often seemingly helpless bureaucratic responses, the inherent legal risks and the complete lack of accountability on part of those responsible. Stahl argues that the order of the day requires to address the root cause of the problems in the form of two fundamental design defects of our Global Economic Order, namely our monetary and judicial order. Inspired by a 1933 plan of nine University of Chicago economists abolishing the fractional reserve system, he proposes the introduction of Sovereign Money as a prerequisite to void misallocations by way of judicial order in the course of domestic and transnational insolvency proceedings including the restructuring of sovereign debt throughout the entire monetary system back to its origin without causing domino effects of banking collapses and failed financial institutions. In recognizing Austrian-American economist Schumpeter’s Concept of Creative Destruction, as a process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one, Stahl responds to Schumpeter’s economic chemotherapy with his Concept of Equitable Default mimicking an immunotherapy that strengthens the corpus economicus own immune system by providing for the judicial authority to terminate precisely those misallocations that have proven malignant causing default perusing the century old common law concept of equity that allows for the equitable reformation, rescission or restitution of contract by way of judicial order. Following a review of the proposed mechanisms of transnational dispute resolution and current court systems with transnational jurisdiction, Stahl advocates as a first step in order to complete the Capital Formation Life Cycle from FIAT, the creation of money by way of credit, to EXIT, the termination of money by way of judicial order, the institution of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Court constituted by a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of International Trade and the European Court of Justice by following the model of the EFTA Court of the European Free Trade Association. Since the first time his proposal has been made public in June of 2014 after being discussed in academic circles since 2011, his or similar proposals have found numerous public supporters. Most notably, the former Vice President of the European Parliament, David Martin, has tabled an amendment in June 2015 in the course of the negotiations on TTIP calling for an independent judicial body and the Member of the European Commission, Cecilia Malmström, has presented her proposal of an International Investment Court on September 16, 2015. Stahl concludes, that for the first time in the history of our generation it appears that there is a real opportunity for reform of our Global Economic Order by curing the two fundamental design defects of our monetary order and judicial order with the abolition of the fractional reserve system and the introduction of Sovereign Money and the institution of a democratically elected Transatlantic Trade and Investment Court that commensurate with its jurisdiction extending to cases concerning the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may complete the Capital Formation Life Cycle resolving cases of default with the transnational judicial authority for terminal resolution of misallocations in a New Global Economic Order without the ensuing dangers of systemic collapse from FIAT to EXIT.

Watershed status map, New Jersey : August 1986 /

Includes indexed "Status of watersheds."

Transportation map of New Jersey.

Scale ca. 1:538,560; 1 in. represents approx. 8.5 miles.

Transportation map of New Jersey.

Scale ca. 1:538,560; 1 in. represents approx. 8.5 miles.

Map index, upper section, flood hazard analyses, Assunpink Creek watershed, Mercer and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey /

Shows "Stream reaches analyzed" and "Map location & plate number."

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Scale ca. 1:130,000.

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New Jersey and Pennsylvania /

Scale ca. 1:130,000.

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, official map and guide /

Relief shown by shading.

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, official map and guide /

Relief shown by shading.

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, official map and guide /

Relief shown by shading.

Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area, New Jersey and Pennsylvania /

Panel title.

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, official map and guide /

"*GPO: 1986--491-417/40047."

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New Jersey and Pennsylvania /

Relief shown by shading and spot heights.