This chapter explores counterterrorism and counter-radicalisation practices in the United States and operationalises a more sociological approach to securitisation by looking at security practices themselves. I look at the everyday practices of security actors at various levels of the security field: federal (the Department of Homeland Security) and city (the NYPD). The chapter establishes two types of counterterrorism practice: the ‘hard’ approach and the ‘soft’ approach (referred to as countering violent extremism), which relies on counter-insurgency tactics. The chapter investigates cases of police entrapment by security professionals and, in line with civil liberties unions, offers a critique of the surveillance and targeting of minority groups for ‘security’ purposes.

A civilian head of state who is the commander-in-chief of his nation's forces becomes a prisoner of war if he falls into enemy hands. Responsibility for the treatment of prisoners of war rests upon the detaining power, although they may be transferred to the custody of another party to the Convention and even, in some circumstances, to a neutral power. Broadly speaking, the duties of the Detaining Power are the concomitant of the rights of prisoners of war. In addition, however, there are duties directly imposed upon them and controlling their freedom of action. Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations and orders of the Detaining Power, but must not be punished for any act which would not have been punishable if committed by a member of that Power's own forces.

The Mono Lake case reached court in the early 1980s, but the crisis that led to the case began almost a century earlier, when the city of Los Angeles first began to run out of water. Moving water to Los Angeles, California’s most populous and economically dynamic city, has been a state priority since the turn of the 20th century. This chapter explores the water struggles that led to the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct and ultimately to the Mono Lake litigation. It reviews the history of water exports from the Owens Valley in the early 1900s and the devastating effects on the local community and ecology – prompting the decline of its once thriving agricultural economy (and an open rebellion by Owens Valley farmers). It then recounts the St. Francis Dam disaster of 1928, which terrified the population and tempered judgements about the safety risks of large-scale water projects near population centers, further prompting water speculation in more remote areas of the state. The sobering loss of life in that infamous disaster testifies to the high stakes involved in managing water scarcity dilemmas that continue to bedevil California and arid regions throughout the world.

This chapter concludes the book, but the book concludes only midway through the quiet revolution that modern public trust advocacy has engendered. The Mono Lake litigation advanced public trust principles as a source of environmental law – and even environmental rights – highlighting the role of the doctrine in providing needed support for environmental protection amid weak legal foundations. The Conclusion turns to several open questions, including objections that the judicial role the doctrine invites may threaten the constitutional separation of powers. It considers whether trust-rights claims raise the kind of generalized harms that jurisprudential standing limitations are intended to prevent, but also the counterargument that the doctrine is the original “citizen suit” provision of the common law, deputizing private attorneys general to champion diffuse environmental interests that special interests would otherwise dominate. Finally, it considers what the world might look like without public trust governance – visiting parallel stories unfolding at the Great Salt Lake, Dead Sea, Sea of Galilee, and Aral Sea – before returning at last to the ongoing story at Mono Lake itself.

This chapter analyses the Federal Reserve’s mandate and statutory objectives and how they have evolved since the Fed was established in 1913, and considers the mandate in the context of environmental and social sustainability challenges. The chapter argues that the Fed’s mandate and statutory objectives historically were interpreted broadly to allow discretion for the Fed and its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to manage monetary policy in support of Government policy. The chapter further argues that the legislative history behind the adoption of the dual mandate to achieve price stability and full employment allows the FOMC and the Board of Governors discretion to use their powers to mitigate the risks emanating from the broader economy and society that might impact the price stability and full employment objectives. Despite the conventional interpretation by Fed officials that the Fed ‘should stick to its knitting’ by focusing on short-to-medium term risks to price stability, the chapter concludes that the economic evidence is compelling that climate finance risks and other sustainability challenges can undermine price stability and full employment and therefore should be factored into the Fed’s monetary policy and financial stability strategy.

The Audubon Society decision was a seminal step toward the protection of Mono Lake, but only the first step – and an uncertain one at best. It required the Water Board to consider Mono’s public trust values before adjudicating new permits, but without specifying how to balance the competing interests at stake. Moreover, it was not the only means by which advocates fought to protect the area. Policy proposals and new litigation added force to the court’s command that the state take its obligation to protect the Mono Basin environment seriously. This chapter addresses the legal, legislative, and political aftermath of Audubon Society. It reviews the creation of the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area and traces the complex CalTrout litigation to protect the Mono Basin creeks. It recounts how the Water Board ultimately implemented all Basin litigation in Decision 1631, the historic legal moment that ensured more water for Mono Lake. Finally, it addresses the brave choices Los Angeles made in response – water conservation decisions that changed the direction of Mono Basin recovery. The chapter closes with an update on the ongoing efforts to protect the Mono Basin and Owens Valley.

Should central banks favour green assets in their operations? This question has caused an intense debate in the Euro area and the UK, focussed on corporate bond portfolios purchased by the Eurosystem and the Bank of England. It has been argued that their initial purchases supported economic activity that was not consistent with the stated targets of the EU and the UK governments to hit net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Sustainability issues are not a primary objective for central banks, and their independence could be damaged by exceeding their remits. Nevertheless, the risks arising are highly relevant to their existing primary objectives. Furthermore, central banks and all other institutions must do what they can if society is to deal with the growing existential threat. That draws on their secondary objectives. We argue that: (1) Not only is it permissible for a central bank to be involved in climate mitigation activities, but existing mandates require it. (2) The expansion of central bank balance sheets gives room for more action. (3) All market operations are in scope. (4) Central bank staff do not need to make capital allocation choices between businesses. (5) There is no trade-off with monetary policy objectives.