Date of Publication:
Kirsten K. Davis, Recent Judicial Criticism Cases: Audience, Style, and Tone Matter, AALS Professional Responsibility Section Newsletter (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Erin Okuno, Frankenstein’s Mammoth: Anticipating the Global Legal Framework for De-Extinction, 43 Ecology L.Q. 581 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Scientists around the world are actively working toward de-extinction, the concept of bringing extinct species back to life. Before herds of woolly mammoths roam and flocks of passenger pigeons soar once again, the international community needs to consider what should be done about de-extinct species from a legal and policy perspective. In the context of international environmental law, the precautionary principle counsels that the absence of scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse for failing to prevent environmental harm. No global legal framework exists to protect and regulate de-extinct species, and this Article seeks to fill that gap by anticipating how the global legal framework for de-extinction could be structured. The Article recommends that the notions underlying the precautionary principle should be applied to de-extinction and that the role of international treaties and other international agreements should be considered to determine how they will or should apply to de-extinct species. The Article explains the concepts of extinction and de-extinction, reviews relevant international treaties and agreements, and analyzes how those treaties and agreements might affect de-extinct species as objects of trade, as migratory species, as biodiversity, as genetically modified organisms, and as intellectual property. The Article provides suggestions about how the treaties and the international legal framework could be modified to address de-extinct species more directly. Regardless of ongoing moral and ethical debates about de-extinction, the Article concludes that the international community must begin to contemplate how de-extinct species will be regulated and protected under existing and prospective international laws and policies.
Date of Publication:
Kristen David Adams and Candace Zierdt, International Sale of Goods, 71 Bus. Law. 1345 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Marco Jimenez, Justifying the Law-Equity Divide, 2016 Jotwell 178 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Jason Bent, Health Theft, 48 Conn. L. Rev. 637 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Three possible approaches have been advanced for setting appropriate occupational health standards: the feasibility principle currently employed by OSHA, cost-benefit analysis, and a “soft” cost-benefit analysis that allows for qualitative considerations. This Article rejects all three and advances a fourth possible approach that would focus on counteracting “health theft” by employers — employer actions that expose workers to health risks without compensation. An anti-health theft approach recognizes that Congress’s purpose in enacting the Occupational Safety and Health Act was to maximize worker welfare, not to maximize overall total social welfare. This Article makes both the positive claim that counteracting health theft was Congress’s intent when it enacted the OSH Act and the normative claim that an anti-health theft approach sets a rational regulatory standard justified on distributional grounds. The Article urges OSHA to adopt the anti-health theft principle as a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous Section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act.
Date of Publication:
Linda S. Anderson, Marriage, Monogamy, and Affairs: Reassessing Intimate Relationships in Light of Growing Acceptance of Consensual Non-Monogamy, 22 Wash. & Lee. J. C.R. & Soc. Just. 3 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Jason Bent, Hope for Zimmerism: Overcoming the Empathy Problem in Antidiscrimination Law, 20 Em. Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J. 277 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Luz Estella Nagle and Bolaji Owasonoye, Fearing the Dark: The Use of Witchcraft to Control Human Trafficking Victims and Sustain Vulnerability, 45 Sw. L. Rev. 561 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Will Bunting, Resolving Conflicts over Scarce Resources: Private versus Shared Ownership, 99 Marq. L. Rev. 893 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article models private ownership as a conflict resolution mechanism and contends that for the Coase Theorem (as defined here) to be consistent, private ownership must yield the Pareto-optimal use of scarce resources among all feasible conflict resolution mechanisms. Conflict over a scarce resource may be better resolved, however, by eliminating the possibility of private ownership and “forcing” parties to share ownership of a contested scarce resource. A corollary to the Coase Theorem is introduced which states: In the absence of transaction costs, the distribution of private and shared ownership is efficient. Provided transaction costs are high and shared ownership is socially-optimal, a role for the courts is suggested wherein de facto shared ownership is established by rendering private property rights random or unclear — judicial behavior that stands in contrast to the normative implications of the Coase Theorem.
Date of Publication:
Lance Long, Is There Any Science Behind the Art of Legal Writing, 16 Wyo. L. Rev. 287 (2016)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.