February 29, 2016

Olson on the Future of Law and Literature (and Other "Law-And") Movements

Greta Olson, Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, has published Futures of Law and Literature: A Preliminary Overview from a Culturalist Perspective in Recht und Literatur im Zwischenraum/Law and Literature In-Between: Aktuelle inter- und transdisziplinäre Zugänge/Contemporary Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approaches 37-69 (Christian Hiebaum, Susanne Knaller, and Doris Pichler, eds., Bielefeld, 2015). Here is the abstract.
Two meta-narratives concerning developments in Law and Literature currently prevail. One suggests that the post-1970 movement that was spearheaded by reformist US American legal teachers such as J. B. White, Richard Weisberg, Robin West, and the moral philosopher Martha Nussbaum is no longer viable. Accordingly, the movement is adjudged to be politically and methodologically passé. Further, a discourse is emerging within legal theory that says that since law once housed all of the disciplines currently used to interrogate it, it does not need literature (or anthropology or sociology for that matter) to reflect on its practice. The other narrative says that the historical and geographical moment that marked Law and Literature as US American has been replaced. “Law and Literature” has metamorphosed into a number of different interdisciplinary local and transnational ventures. Accordingly, a polysemic Law and Literature needs to develop a new form of self-reflection about its practice.
Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

A New Book on Authorship and Copyright From Mark Rose

Mark Rose, Professor of English, University of California, Santa Barbara, is publishing Authors in Court: Scenes from the Theater of Copyright (Harvard University Press, 2016). Here is a description of the contents from the publisher's website.
Through a series of vivid case studies, Authors in Court charts the 300-year-long dance between authorship and copyright that has shaped each institution’s response to changing social norms of identity, privacy, and celebrity. Authors’ self-presentations in court are often inflected by prevailing concepts of propriety and respectability. And judges, for their part, have not been immune to the reputation and standing of the authors who have appeared before them in legal dramas. Some authors strut their roles on the public stage. For example, Napoleon Sarony—the nineteenth-century photographer whose case established that photographs might be protected as works of art—was fond of marching along Broadway dressed in a red fez and high-top campaign boots, proclaiming his special status as a celebrity. Others, such as the reclusive J. D. Salinger, enacted their dramas precisely by shrinking from attention. Mark Rose’s case studies include the flamboyant early modern writer Daniel Defoe; the self-consciously genteel poet Alexander Pope; the nineteenth-century abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe; the once-celebrated early twentieth-century dramatist Anne Nichols, author of Abie’s Irish Rose; and the provocative contemporary artist Jeff Koons. These examples suggest not only how social forms such as gender and gentility have influenced the self-presentation of authors in public and in court but also how the personal styles and histories of authors have influenced the development of legal doctrine.

February 26, 2016

Martin on Elizabeth Espionage and Catholicism in the Reign of Elizabeth I

Patrick H. Martin is publishing Elizabethan Espionage: Plotters and Spies in the Struggle Between Catholicism and the Crown (McFarland, 2016). Here is a description of the contents from the publisher's website. 

In the wake of the 1588 destruction of the Spanish Armada, English Catholics launched an ingenious counterespionage effort to undermine the Tudor government’s anti–Catholic machinations. This Jesuit-connected network secretly transmitted intelligence to Brussels, Antwerp, Madrid and Rome. Its central figure was William Sterrell, a brilliant Oxford philosopher. Sterrell moved at the highest levels of government, working for the ill-fated Earl of Essex and for the powerful 4th Earl of Worcester, secret sponsor of the Jesuits. Partnered with Sterrell was Phelippes the Decipherer, once aide to Sir Francis Walsingham, now turned Jesuit agent. Queen Elizabeth long maintained spies and provocateurs among English Catholic exiles. Walsingham, her principal secretary, used treachery—including the execution of Mary Queen of Scots—to foster plots against the queen to justify harsh measures against Catholics. His agents were involved in the Jesuit Mission of 1580–1581, the Throckmorton, Parry and Babington plots and the defeat of the Armada. His successor, Sir Robert Cecil, continued to infiltrate Catholic exiles and stir dissension. Sterrell’s agents nimbly countered Cecilian intrigues until the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. This is the story of Sterrell’s secret network—undetected for 400 years—brought to life in vivid detail, based on close examination of hundreds of original letters and documents never before transcribed or published.

Dr. Martin is Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University Law Center, and a good friend. I'm looking forward to reading this book.

Schmidt on German Free Lawyers, American Legal Realists, and the Transatlantic Turn to "Life," 1903-1933

Katharina Isabel Schmidt, Yale Law School, has published Law, Modernity, Crisis: German Free Lawyers, American Legal Realists, and the Transatlantic Turn to "Life," 1903-1933, at 39 German Studies Review 121 (2016). Here is the abstract.
Scholars have long recognized American jurists’ idiosyncratic commitment to a prudent, pragmatic, and political style of legal reasoning. The origins of this style have been linked to the legacy of the most American legal movement of all: the realists. Conversely, German jurists’ doctrinal, idealistic, and apolitical approach can be tied to the relative failure of Germany’s equivalent movement: the free lawyers. How to account for the seemingly inverse fate of realistic jurisprudential reform projects on both sides of the Atlantic? In this paper I employ transnational history to shed light on this particular instance of German-American divergence.
Here is a link to the article via Project Muse.

February 25, 2016

Chang and Wang on The Empirical Foundation of Normative Arguments in Legal Reasoning

Yun-chien Chang, University of Chicago Law School and Academia Sinica, Institutum Iurisprudentiae, and Peng-Hsiang Wang, Academia Sinica, Institutum Iurisprudentiae, have published The Empirical Foundation of Normative Arguments in Legal Reasoning as University of Chicago Public Law Working Paper No. 561 and University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper No. 745. Here is the abstract.
While empirical legal studies thrive in the U.S., this is not necessarily the case elsewhere. Yet even in the U.S., the way in which empirical work is useful for normative legal arguments remains unclear. This article first points out the junction between empirical facts and normative arguments. Both teleological and consequentialist arguments, in one of the premises, require “difference-making facts” which point out causal relations. Much empirical research makes causal inferences and thus constitutes an essential part in teleological and consequentialist arguments, which are typical normative arguments in legal reasoning. This article then offers a descriptive theory of legal reasoning. Some empirical research does not make causal inferences, it still falls within the domain of legal scholarship. This is because describing valid laws is a core function of doctrinal studies of law, and sometimes only sophisticated empirical research can aptly describe laws.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Provost on Centaur Jurisprudence: Cultural Sensitivity of Courts and Other Legal Institutions

René Provost, McGill University Faculty of Law, is publishing Centaur Jurisprudence: Culture Before the Law in Culture in the Domains of Law (René Provost, ed., Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). Here is the abstract.
Many claims to justice ask law to be responsive to the lived experiences of those to and through whom it is applied. ‘Culture’ is one label attached to collective forms of this lived experience. But what does it mean for courts and other legal institutions to be culturally sensitive? What are the institutional implications and consequences of such an aspiration? To what extent is legal discourse capable of accommodating multiple cultural narratives without losing its claim to normative specificity? And how are we to understand meetings of law and culture in the context of formal legal processes, such as when a criminal defendant invokes the acceptability of domestic violence within his ethnic community, when oral traditions are presented as the basis for an aboriginal land claim, or when the custom of ‘bush marriage’ is evoked as relevant to the prosecution of the war crime of rape? The encounter of law and culture corresponds to a polycentric relation, but these specific questions draw our attention to law and legal institutions as one site of encounter warranting further investigation, to map out the place of culture in the domains of law.
Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Tidmarsh on the English Fire Courts and the American Right to a Federal Civil Jury Trial

Jay Tidmarsh, Notre Dame Law School, is publishing The English Fire Courts and the American Right to Civil Jury Trial, in volume 83 of the University of Chicago Law Review. Here is the abstract.
This Article uncovers the history of a long-forgotten English court system, the “fire courts,” which Parliament established to resolve dispute between landlords and tenants in urban areas destroyed in catastrophic fires. One of the fire courts’ remarkable features was the delegation of authority to judges to adjudicate disputes without juries. Because the Seventh Amendment’s right to a federal civil jury trial depends in part on the historical practice of English courts in 1791, this delegation bears directly on the present power of Congress to abrogate the use of juries in federal civil litigation. Parliament enacted fire-courts legislation on eight occasions between the mid-seventeenth century and the nineteenth century. The Article particularly emphasizes the first and largest of these courts, established after the Great Fire of London in 1666. Archival research into 1,585 cases resolved by the London Fire Court reveals that the Court never employed juries to resolve contested factual matters. The Article argues that the history of these courts provides a limited but clear power for Congress to strike civil juries in federal court.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Cronin on 3D Printing, Public Domain Cultural Artifacts, and Copyright

Charles Patrick Desmond Cronin, USC School of Law, has published Possession is 99% of the Law: 3D Printing, Public Domain Cultural Artifacts & Copyright. Here is the abstract.
Since time immemorial there has been an uneasy rapport between those who own tangible cultural artifacts, and those who wish to examine them, and record, analyze, and reproduce the information they embody. Owners of physical objects - museums, libraries, individuals, etc. - are caught between a desire to enhance the prestige and renown of these artifacts through public display, and a fear that non-owners might capitalize without their authorization, or any apparent benefit to them, upon their access to these works. Tangible cultural artifacts are akin to trade secrets in that once they are revealed it is difficult to control, by law or other means, further dissemination of their information. Just as one can legally reverse engineer and reproduce the secret formula of a fragrance or an unpatented pharmaceutical, one may legitimately copy and reproduce for virtually any purpose public domain old master paintings, classical sculptures, etc., that are owned by another. Owners of public domain artifacts attempt to overcome their inability to rely upon copyright to capitalize financially on reproductions through physical, technological and legal measures. As digital capture and reproduction technologies have advanced, and become so prevalent, some owners have resorted to restrictive physical and technological measures like smartphone prohibitions and watermarks. Increasingly, however, owners rely on contracts, and specifically licensing agreements, to suppress unauthorized replication of public domain works that they have displayed publically. Until recently, owners have been concerned mainly about unauthorized - and more pointedly, uncompensated - copying and reproduction of essentially two-dimensional works: prints, drawings, paintings, photographs, etc. Since the advent of photography one can legally and inexpensively create copies of public domain works that convey most of the information contained in the originals. Using digital technologies - laser scanning and additive printing and subtractive manufacture - today one can create copies that most observers would find indistinguishable from the originals. 3D scanning and printing technologies also make it possible to replicate sculptural works and myriad other three-dimensional artifacts. Hitherto, these works had been relatively immune to unauthorized reproduction. A reproduction of a statue, for instance, involved a laborious process demanding direct physical contact with the original work. A 3D scan of the same statue might be obtained in less than an hour, and could be used to produce an infinite number of replicas of it. It is even possible to create 3D scans using still photographs of a work taken from various angles - an encouraging possibility, for example, to those endeavoring to restore the Buddhas of Bamiyan that the Taliban destroyed. The potential loss of control over the replication of public domain artifacts posed by 3D replication has disconcerted the owners of these objects, and led to arguably overreaching efforts to suppress the unauthorized use of this technology in connection with these objects. Stanford University, for instance, has permitted a former faculty member to arrogate sole control over access to the 3D data of a University-sponsored project to scan Michelangelo’s David. Access the data is given only to those whose credentials and objectives this former faculty member condones. Prohibitions on “tasteless” and commercial uses by those given access purportedly stem from an agreement struck between the former faculty member and Italian authorities. The Getty recently sponsored Power & Pathos, an exhibition of Hellenic Era bronzes that included The Getty’s Victorious Athlete. The Getty permits visitors to photograph Victorious Athlete and other public domain works that it exhibits in its museums. While this work was included in Power & Pathos, however, The Getty forbade visitors from photographing the work. This prohibition accommodated the demand of European museums that had loaned works included in the exhibition, to suppress activity that they feared might dilute the profits generated by their own reproductions and images of these physical objects. 3D technologies hold remarkable potential for the dissemination of increasingly accurate and enhanced information about tangible cultural artifacts. This article argues that those who apply these technologies to these works should not be inhibited by contractual limitations that establish copying limitations beyond those provided under US copyright law. Three-dimensional cultural artifacts in the public domain, which attract the interest and investment of those working with 3D print technologies, tend to be objects best identified as the cultural legacy of humanity - not that of a particular geographical or political entity. By facilitating the widespread and inexpensive reproduction and distribution of such public domain cultural artifacts, 3D printing technologies, therefore not only promote more democratic access to geographically disperse cultural works, but also advance the dissolution of divisive cultural, political, and geographic boundaries.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

February 24, 2016

Colman on Warren and Brandeis' "The Right To Privacy" and Samuel Warren's Family Concerns

Charles E. Colman, New York University School of Law and University of Hawai'i School of Law, has published About Ned at 129 Harvard Law Review Forum 128 (2016). Here is the abstract.
In this essay, I explore the possibility that the storied article "The Right to Privacy," 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890), might have come into existence in part because of lead author Sam Warren's powerful drive to protect his younger siblings -- and, in particular, his gay brother Ned. For reasons both obvious and less intuitive, Sam might have viewed the article as a promising vehicle for shielding Ned and the rest of the Warren family from potentially devastating journalistic and public scrutiny of Ned's sexuality. Viewed in this light, the article acquires a special resonance in this, its one hundred twenty-fifth anniversary. Rhetoric central to the piece can be traced, link by link, case by case, to Supreme Court decisions that collectively established a multifaceted constitutional right to personal autonomy. The article can arguably be understood as a catalyst for the series of events culminating in the Supreme Court's 2015 recognition, in Obergefell v. Hodges, of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. If "The Right to Privacy" is indeed about Ned, even in part, then what originated as an effort to protect one gay man might, quite remarkably, be a 125-year-old precursor of the Court's decision securing the protection of a fundamental right for gay people throughout the nation.
Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Bunikowski on Sámi Reindeer Husbandry and Its Legal, Philosophical, and Cultural-Anthropological Dimensions

Dawid Bunikowski, University of Eastern Finland Law School; Cardiff University, Centre for Law and Religion; and University of the Arctice, has published Sámi Reindeer Husbandry - Legal-Philosophical and Cultural-Anthropological Dimensions. Here is the abstract.
In this short statement, I claim that it is impossible to understand what reindeer husbandry means for the Sámi people without good understanding of the Sámi laws, culture, philosophy, and cosmology. The aim is to shed some light on Sámi reindeer husbandry from the point of view of philosophy, anthropology, culture, and law. However, my point of view is Western and legal-philosophical-anthropological. As a non-Sámi but Western scholar, the philosopher of law, I may only try to understand them, their culture, and their understandings. Thus, as much as possible, Western scholars should follow narratives and language of some chosen Sámi scholars and herders in this respect. However, in this paper I also follow my reason, which is deeply rooted in Western traditions and intellectual heritage, and this kind of way of interpretation of facts.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

"How Does It Feel?" To Quote Bob Dylan? Ask the Courts

The New York Times' Adam Liptak surveys the uses of Bob Dylan lyrics in judicial opinions here, and lists some here.

Below, a short bibliography of secondary sources on Bob Dylan and the Law:

Bob Dylan and the Law: An Inspriation for Personal Injury Attorneys

Don't Put a Price on My Soul: Bob Dylan, Justice, and the Law

The Jurisprudence of Bob Dylan

Knake, Renee Newman, Why the Law Needs Music: Revisiting NAACP v. Button Through the Songs of Bob Dylan, volume 38 of the Fordham Urban Law Journal (2011).

Lawyer Happy To Be Tangled Up In Dylan

Long, Alex B., The Freewheelin' Judiciary: A Bob Dylan Anthology.

Long, Alex B., [Insert Song Lyrics Here]: The Uses and Misuses of Popular Music Lyrics In Legal Writing, in volume 64, Washington and Lee Law Review (2007).

Michael L. Perlin, Tangled Up in Law: The Jurisprudence of Bob Dylan.

Symposium: Bob Dylan and the Law, Foreword, at 38 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1267 (2011).

Frye on Copyright and Cultural Production

Brian L. Frye, University of Kentucky College of Law, has published Copyright & Cultural Production. Here is the abstract.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of works of authorship. Indeed, the Intellectual Property Clause of the United States Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power, "To promote the progress of science … , by securing for limited times to authors … the exclusive right to their … writings." In the 18th century, "science" meant "knowledge or learning," so the Constitution authorized Congress to create copyright in order to promote knowledge and learning, as embodied in works of authorship. But what does that tell us about the justification for copyright protection, and how we should evaluate its scope and duration? Or rather, how do we ensure that copyright maximizes cultural production?
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Channing on David Bowie, Rock Music, and Tax Law

Here's an interesting take on tax law and pop culture.

Emma Channing has published an essay, Bowie: Rock God or Tax Genius? Here is the abstract.

Even now, nearly 20 years on from issue, the Bowie Bonds remain a remarkable creation that spawned over 100 similar transactions in the music industry, and some claim, triggered the creation of more dubious derivatives that played such an enormous part in triggering the Great Recession. Following David Bowie’s tragic death in January 2016, there has been a great deal of coverage of the Bowie Bonds and their origination, but one aspect has always been overlooked, and that is the tax structuring. The Bowie Bonds arguably were a tax free structure paying 15 years income totaling $55m in one bullet payment by the first securitization of intellectual property rights, namely Bowie’s pre 1990’s royalties, which can be concluded from a facts and circumstances analysis as laid out in this essay. In this day and age of punishing regimes for both income and capital gains, such an enormous tax free structure is an incredible achievement. However this is unsurprising given the beneficiary was a creative genius with a very smart business sense: David Bowie and hence the answer to the title Rock God or Tax Genius arguably should be “both”.

The Bowie Bonds came to the end of their life early in 2007 when they were liquidated and the assets returned to Bowie, but the Bowie Bonds’ role in the history of securitization is also worth note. The Bowie Bonds were successful arguably for the same reason that certain Credit Derivative Obligations (CDO), particularly CDO2 and their ilk were not. The Bowie Bonds were transparently structured, with clear sight of the underlying income generating assets, proven income track-record, most likely modeled for that income to decrease as well as increase and clear title ownership. The Bowie Bonds remain an interesting example of what was and was not wrong with where the securitization market went, and an argument for the merits of well-structured securitization products.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

February 22, 2016

Ayers on Atticus Finch's "Half-Virtuous" Integrity

Andrew B. Ayers, Office of the Solicitor General of New York, has published The Half-Virtuous Integrity of Atticus Finch. Here is the abstract.
Atticus Finch has two kinds of integrity, but only one of them is genuinely admirable. On one hand, he is rightly admired for standing up for the things he values. On the other hand, Atticus is also praised for being true to himself — being “the same in his house as he is on the public streets.” But this kind of integrity, contrary to what many lawyers and legal ethicists believe, is not a virtue. Far from being virtuous, a solidly integrated self, like Atticus’s, can sometimes make it harder to act virtuously. For example, Atticus’s self-understanding is solidly integrated around his commitment to the justice system. But this self-integration prevents him from noticing his only chance to save Tom Robinson’s life. To Kill a Mockingbird shows that it is sometimes better to have tension in our identities. The identities of characters like Calpurnia, Maudie, and others are conflicted or divided; but these tensions allow them to be admirable in ways that Atticus is not. They can cross social boundaries, subvert their own social roles, and radically criticize their community precisely because their identities are fragmented or in flux. This should be inspiring to lawyers, and to the legal ethicists who have long worried that lawyers’ roles will cause schisms in their identities. Sometimes tension in the self is exactly what we need to be good.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

The Legacy of "To Kill a Mockingbird"

The Hollywood Reporter reviews and remembers the movie adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird. Here, the original THR review (1962), here a discussion of the movie's enduring impact as Harper Lee, author of the novel, leaves the world stage.

Below: a short bibliography on law and film in To Kill a Mockingbird

Michael Asimow, When Lawyers Were Heroes, 30 U.S. L. Rev. 1131 (1995).

Rob Atkinson, Liberating Lawyers: Divergent Parallels in "Intruder in the Dust" and "To Kill a Mockingbird,"  49 Duke L.J. 601 (1999).

John Denvir, One Movie No Lawyer Should Miss, 30 U.S. L. Rev. 1051 (1995).

Timothy O. Lenz, Changing Images of Law in Film & Television Crime Stories (2003).

Stefan Machura and Stefan Ulbrich, Law in Film: Globalizing the Hollywood Courtroom Drama, 28 Journal of Law and Society 117 (March 2001).

Carrie Menkel-Meadow, The Sense and Sensibilities of Lawyers: Lawyering in Literature, Narratives, Film and Television, and Ethical Choices Regarding Career and Craft, 31 McGeorge L. Rev. 1 (1999-2000).

John Jay Osborn, Jr., Atticus Finch--The End of Honor: A Discussion of "To Kill a Mockingbird, 30 U.S. L. Rev. 1139 (1995).

David Ray Papke, Law, Cinema, and Ideology: Hollywood Legal Films of the 1950s, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1473 (2000-2001).

Stanchi, Berger, and Crawford on Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court

Kathryn Stanchi, Temple University School of Law, Linda L. Berger, UNLV School of Law, and Bridget J. Crawford, Pace University School of Law, are publishing Introduction: U.S. Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court (Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger & Bridget J. Crawford eds.), Cambridge University Press, 2016). Here is the abstract.
What would United States Supreme Court opinions look like if key decisions on gender issues were written with a feminist perspective? To begin to answer this question, we brought together a group of scholars and lawyers to rewrite, using feminist reasoning, the most significant U.S. Supreme Court cases on gender from the 1800s to the present day. While feminist legal theory has developed and even thrived within universities, and feminist activists and lawyers are responsible for major changes in the law, feminist reasoning has had a less clear impact on judicial decision-making. Doctrines of stare decisis and judicial language of neutrality can operate to obscure structural bias in the law, making it difficult to see what feminism could bring to judicial reasoning. The twenty-five opinions in this volume demonstrate that judges with feminist viewpoints could have changed the course of the law. The rewritten decisions show that previously accepted judicial outcomes were not necessary or inevitable and demonstrate that feminist reasoning increases the judicial capacity for justice, not only for women but for many other oppressed groups. The remarkable differences evident in the rewritten opinions also open a path for a long overdue discussion of the real impact that judicial diversity has on law and of the influence that perspective has in judging. Included here are the table of contents for the book, and the introductory chapter to the book.
Download the Introduction from SSRN at the link.

February 21, 2016

Mueller-Dietz on Law and Criminality Through the Prism of Literature

Heinz Müller-Dietz is publishing Recht und Kriminalität in literarischen Brechungen (de Gruyter, 2016)(Juristische Zeitgeschichte; Abteilung 6 45). Here is a description of the contents from the publisher's website.
This work compiles twelve essays on the complex relationship between the law and literature as viewed from each discipline. It reveals a profound transformation in the relationship of authors to the state and society over the course of the 20th century. Modern literature reflects this change in conflicted portrayals of major juridical issues. These conflicts are also apparent in texts by important writers from earlier periods.

February 19, 2016

Schneiderman on Lord Durham's Theory of the Imperial Constitution

David Schneiderman, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, is publishing Dividing Power in the First and Second British Empires: Revisiting Durham's Imperial Constitution in the Review of Constitutional Studies. Here is the abstract.
In his Report on the Affairs of British North America, Lord Durham proposed that “internal” government be placed in the hands of the colonists themselves and that a short list of subjects be reserved for Imperial control. Janet Ajzenstat maintains that Durham did not intend to formally restrict the authority of the new colonial legislature by dividing power. This paper argues otherwise: that Durham’s recommendation fell squarely within a tradition of distinguishing between the internal and external affairs of the colony. This was the imprecise but pragmatic distinction that American colonists invoked during the Stamp Act crisis as a means of curtailing imperial authority over internal taxation while maintaining their allegiance to the British Crown. It also was a division that Charles Buller relied upon in a constitution for New South Wales that he proposed prior to sailing to Canada as Durham’s principal secretary. Durham likely was drawing upon this tradition when he made his recommendation, a distinction that began to crumble away almost immediately. In the result, Canadians inherited a robust semblance of self-government, just as colonists during the Stamp Act crisis had desired, but without the need for revolution.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Law, Literature, and the Humanities Association of Australasia Conference 2016: Call for Papers

From Scott Veitch, Paul KC Chung Professor in Jurisprudence Faculty of Law University of Hong Kong HKSAR


 Law, Literature and the Humanities Association of Australasia Conference 2016 The Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, 8-10 December 2016
Preceded by a half-day Graduate Research Student Workshop  CALL FOR PAPERS The LLH Association of Australasia invites researchers working at the intersection of law and the humanities to Hong Kong in 2016 to explore the complex relations between law, theory, culture and visuality. This conference invites participants to re-affirm the enduring capacity of interdisciplinary, creative and critical legal scholarship to allow us to see the law otherwise. The theme of ‘spectacular law’ invites reflection on the performance and dramaturgy of political and legal power, the affective lures of sovereignty and the technologies that revealand conceal – legality, dissent, (dis)obedience, and different modalities of regulation. This conference will examine the various ways in which we can see, and be seen by, law, politics and power. The location of this year’s conference prompts its theme. Hong Kong is a visually striking city: fading tower blocks, gleaming edifices, remnants of a colonial past, and canopies of neon suspended over street corners, all enframed by lushly forested hills and the increasingly contested waters of the South China Sea. The powerful visual affect, as much a result of the city’s geography as it is of its legal and political orderings, inspires an exploration of the spectacle. We invite either individual paper proposals or pre-arranged panels of 3-4 papers. Participants may present in the form of a traditional academic paper, panel discussion, or innovative presentational forms that engage video, performance or other media. We will consider proposals in any area of law, literature and the humanities. However in addressing the conference theme papers might wish to reflect on the following questions:·         What are the techniques through which law’s operative power is made (in)visible today?
·         How do the various methodologies of ‘law and humanities’ allow us to approach questions of speech, surveillance, censorship, and freedom?
·         How are the spatial, aural, textual and haptic dimensions of law and power refracted through – or obscured by – a focus on the law’s visuality, its spectacles and spectaculars?
·         In what ways might we think about the performance of law in a plurality of settings: on the stage, the screen, in literature or in the courtroom?
·         Does the development of new technologies necessitate the re-examination of how justice is seen to be done?
 PLENARY SPEAKERS Laurent de Sutter, Professor of Legal Theory at Vrije Universiteit Brussels Christine Black, Senior Research Fellow at the Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University 
 Paper and panel proposals should be submitted through the conference webpage.Accepted participants will be notified of the registration and payment details in June. Conference Fees Standard rate                                                                    1,300 HKDStudent rate                                                                      600 HKDConference dinner                                                          500 HKD Graduate bursaries 10 bursaries of 2,000 HKD will be available to support graduate students from outside Hong Kong attending the Graduate Workshop and presenting a paper at the conference. For full details and how to apply, see the Conference website. Dates & Times The Graduate Workshop will be held on the morning of the 8 December. The Conference will begin in the afternoon of 8 December and end at 5pm on the 10 December. The Conference Dinner will be on the evening of 9 December. Practicalities Information about registration, accommodation, plenaries and panels, updates and all other matters will be available through the Conference website. Conference website                       http://www.law.hku.hk/lawandhumanities/Email address                                    lawandhumanities@hku.hk 

February 18, 2016

Call For Papers: Legal History

From Swinburne Law School:


Call for Papers: Legal History
Legal History is being relaunched with a new series in 2016 with its new academic host, Swinburne Law School. Dr Amanda Scardamaglia and Dr Jessica Lake have been announced as joint editors, with two issues planned for 2016.
We are calling for papers for the new series on any subject relating to legal history in Australia, the Asia-Pacific region or other common law countries. Although the focus is generally on Australia, the new series will also extend its interests from South Asia to North America.
Papers should be between 3,000-10,000 words. Shorter pieces are encouraged, including memoirs. Book reviews (of no more than 1,000 words) are also welcome. Full papers are required by 14 March 2016 and will be subject to a peer review process. Successful papers will be published later this year. All papers should subscribe to the Australian Guide to Legal Citation.
Papers must include an abstract of approximately 200 words and a short author biography

Papers should be submitted in Word format to legalhistory@swin.edu.au with the subject line CFP: Legal History.

The editors are also calling for expressions of interest from those interested in being involved in an advisory capacity and as reviewers for the journal.

Legal History is an Australian scholarly journal devoted to the history of the law and legal institutions in Australia, the region, and more broadly of the common law world. The journal promotes legal history as being vital to understanding the context and meaning of law today and to informing future directions. We encourage submissions from all jurisdictions and welcome contributions of an interdisciplinary, transnational or comparative character. Legal History is published by Australian Scholarly Publishing.

Swinburne Law School was officially launched in February 2015, with Professor Dan Hunter appointed as Foundational Dean. The Swinburne LLB has a focus on commercial law with an emphasis on intellectual property, technology and creativity. Swinburne Law School offers an innovative degree that will enable its students to work in the new knowledge economy.