Special Event: Release of Special Issue of World Records Journal, Just Evidence: May 8, 2025

 

On Thursday 8^th May, Goldsmiths MCCS and Visual Cultures are co-hosting an event to mark the release of a special issue of World Records Journal called Just Evidence.

 

Just Evidence @ Goldsmiths brings together scholars and practitioners from the fields of Cinema Studies, Cultural Studies, Political Theory, and Geography, to highlight particular cases and contexts in which targeted populations have located mechanisms of harm reductions within forensic authority, and through counterforensic practices. This special issue of World Records Journal interrogates how counterforensic practices offer provisional forms of protection that challenge and/or uphold the systems producing vulnerability, and it investigates strategies employed by artists and activists to navigate these double-binds.

 

Particular areas of focus include the forensic architecture investigation unit of Al-Haq, the oldest human rights organization in Palestine, the rise of the victims’ rights movement, and the cinematic practices of Languid Hands, Philip Scheffner, and Maxime Jean-Baptiste.

 

This event will take place at Goldsmiths in the RHB Cinema (Ground Floor, Richard Hoggart Building) from 2pm-4pm on Thursday 8^th May. It will feature a short introduction to the Just Evidence special issue by the editors (Sasha Crawford-Holland, Patrick Smith and LaCharles Ward), followed by reflections on three of its essays (see below) by Goldsmiths interlocutors. The remaining time will be reserved for free-flowing discussion and debate. 

 

Previews of the following three essays will be shared with registered participants ahead of the discussion:

 

They Are Shooting at Our Shadows The Al-Haq Forensic Architecture Investigative Unit and Rachel Nelson (Visualizing Abolition)

Laliv Melamed and Pooja Rangan

 

Countering Forensic Violence: Philip Scheffner’s Revision

Başak Ertür and Alisa Lebow

 

Tongueless Whispers and Recited Choreographies: Black Memory as Counterforensics

Yasmina Price

 

To register for the event, please RSVP via the Eventbrite page here. 

 

Boden on Myra Bradwell and the Chicago Legal News: Speech and the March for All Civil Rights

Anastasia Boden, George Mason University, has published Myra Bradwell and the Chicago Legal News: Speech and the March for All Civil Rights. Here is the abstract.

To the extent that people know the name Myra Bradwell, they likely know her only for her defeat. In Bradwell v. Illinois, the Supreme Court famously denied that Myra had a constitutional right to earn a living as an attorney. 2 According to eight justices, the "paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother," not to enter a profession. 3 Myra may have lost in court, but she was wildly triumphant in the long run and became a successful advocate even without government permission. Though the Court denied her the right to pursue a livelihood, she retained her right to free speech-and she used it to start and manage the most successful legal periodical of her time, to draft and help pass various reforms that advanced equality before the law, and even to free Mary Todd Lincoln from unjust imprisonment in a sanitarium in Illinois. Myra's successful civil rights campaign underscores a perverse distinction in constitutional law: the purported distinction between the right to free speech and other, "unenumerated" constitutional rights like the right to earn a living. The First Amendment is given privileged treatment, with judges subjecting laws that infringe speech to strict judicial scrutiny. 4 Most unenumerated rights, by contrast, are relegated to rational basis scrutiny.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Salant on Neutralizing "Ales" Without Compromising Venona: What Really Happened to Alger Hiss

Stephen Walter Salant, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, has published Neutralizing 'Ales' Without Compromising Venona: What Really Happened to Alger Hiss. Here is the abstract.

In the celebrated Alger Hiss case, the defendant was convicted on the basis of typed spy documents traced to his typewriter. Although Hiss always maintained he had been the victim of forgery by typewriter, judges were unpersuaded, saying "there is not a trace of any evidence that Chambers [his accuser] had the mechanical skill, tools, equipment or material for such a difficult task [as forgery by typewriter]." Moreover, "If Chambers had constructed a duplicate machine how would he have known where to plant it so that it would be found by Hiss?" These are reasonable questions and I answer each of them. What the judges, jurors, and Hiss himself did not know was that Army Military Intelligence (1) had become proficient during the War at forging documents to protect agents behind enemy lines, (2) had concluded (rightly or wrongly) from Venona decryptions of Soviet messages which could not be disclosed that Hiss was stealing military information for Soviet Military Intelligence and (3) had inserted into Hiss's legal team as its Chief Investigator an undercover Army spy-catcher (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/hiss/essay.html), as Special Agents of the Counter Intelligence Corps referred to themselves. The spy-catcher confided in the FBI that he was actually working for Military Intelligence. Hiss’s legal team assigned the investigator/spy-catcher to find the Hiss family machine, hoping to prove Hiss innocent. The spy-catcher secretly removed the rusty family machine in December. A few months later a fabricated one which had been used to type bogus spy documents was deposited in its place.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Fisher on Czars in the Courts: Organized Labour in Illinois and the Fight to Pass Anti-Injunction Legislation (1886-1935)

Adeline Fisher, McGill University, has published Czars in the Courts: Organized Labour in Illinois and the Fight to Pass Anti-Injunction Legislation (1886-1935) as no. 10 of the McGill Undergraduate Law Review. Here is the abstract.

This article explores the tumultuous history of injunctions and the role of organized labour in the fight for anti-injunction legislation in the United States during the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. It will contend that Illinois, with its long history of labour organization, emerged as a central node in this battle between labour unions and the courts. The beginning of this article explores the early history of labour unions in Illinois stretching back to the formation of some of the nation’s first unions, early instances of striking in the 1850s and 60s, and the first labour injunction in Pullman, Illinois in 1894. It goes on to detail how Gilded-Age judges in courts of equity increasingly issued injunctions with the deliberate intention of hampering workers’ efforts to improve or change their terms of employment. This challenge from the court system proved devastating to the labour movement as a whole, but was not met without resistance. The article goes on to examine efforts of Illinois-based unions, like the Chicago Federation of Labor and the Illinois State Federation of Labor, to lobby the Illinois General Assembly and the United States Congress to pass state and federal injunction limitation bills, culminating in the first effective federal anti-injunction bill, the Norris-LaGuardia Federal Anti-Injunction Act, in 1932. The last section concludes by noting that this piece of legislation was not a permanent solution to the injunction problem, but represented a significant step forwards for organized labour and the protection of workers’ rights after so many decades of struggle against “government by injunction.” Originally from Ottawa, Ontario, Adeline Fisher is in the final year of her B.A. (Honours) History and German minor concentration at McGill University in Montreal. Her primary areas of academic interest include nineteenth-century economic and industrial history, legal and labour history, and political philosophy. During her time at McGill, Adeline has worked as a news staff writer with The Tribune (formerly The McGill Tribune), a research assistant in the Department of History and Classical Studies, and a mentor and speaker at the McGill Arts Internship Office (AIO). She has also worked as a court clerk in the civil division of the Superior Court of Quebec. In 2023, Adeline was awarded the Undergraduate Experiential Learning Opportunities Support Fund by the McGill AIO in support of her internship at the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) Museum and Archives. In 2024, she received the Madelene Hodgson Prize in History, awarded by the Department of History and endowed by the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire (I.O.D.E.), for the most outstanding work in history. This fall, Adeline will be continuing her studies at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, where she will pursue a Juris Doctor.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Sugarman on The Hidden Histories of the Pinochet Case 1

David Sugarman, Lancaster University Law School, has published The Hidden Histories of the Pinochet Case 1. Here is the abstract.

Although states are in certain circumstances legally obliged to arrest acting or former heads of state for crimes committed while they were in office, their governments often chose not to. The 1998 arrest in London of General Augusto Pinochet, Chile’s former dictator, by a Spanish magistrate on charges of egregious human rights crimes, and the 16-month battle to extradite him to Madrid was the first time that a former head of state had, while travelling abroad, been arrested on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, and where a claim to immunity was rejected by a national court. Surprising almost everyone, this drama caught the world’s imagination. Never have the conduct and decisions of the UK’s Home Secretary, the Law Lords, and Amnesty International generated such international attention. The whole episode constituted the most intensive, high-profile litigation of its kind ever undertaken. Hugely controversial, it gave a massive fillip to human rights movements and galvanized victims, their loved ones, activists, and lawyers into action. Its cause célèbre status was magnified when Lord Hoffmann, who delivered the deciding vote when the case first came before the Law Lords, did not disclose in public his links with Amnesty International, an intervenor in these proceedings, thereby opening the way for the case to be reheard. Pinochet’s release on health grounds by Home Secretary Jack Straw, then rising from his wheelchair on landing in Santiago to wave at jubilant supporters, further magnified the notoriety of the case. Weaving together a variety of sources – including a unique set of interviews with key judges, lawyers and other actors involved conducted during or shortly after the case – this article provides what I believe to be the most comprehensive behind-the-scenes account to date of the legal proceedings in London. The story that emerges is full of coincidence and unpredictable decisions - a story with many plots and protagonists, victims, villains, and heroes. It reveals much that is new about the law and politics of the case. It illuminates the role of personal views and judicial creativity in top courts, the ways in which law operates in practice, and its promise and limitations. My hope is that the article will change the way we think about the Pinochet case.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

van de Berge and Gaakeer on Rereading Kafka's The Trial: Responsibility, Reflection, and the Case of the Dutch Childcare Allowance Scandal

Lukas van de Berge, Utrecht University Faculty of Law, and Jeanne Gaakeer have published Rereading Kafka's The Trial: Responsibility, Reflection, and the Case of the Dutch Childcare Allowance Scandal. Here is the abstract.

As standard interpretation has it, Kafka's novel The Trial depicts how an innocent and defenceless individual is crushed by powerful and absurdly bureaucratic institutions. No wonder, therefore, that The Trial is often linked to the British Post Office Scandal, the Australian Robodebt Scheme, the Dutch Childcare Allowance Scandal and other such affairs that rendered many people helpless in their fights against flawed systems and disinterested governments. This paper explores the significance for judicial ethics and legal practice of an alternative interpretation of The Trial-and of Kafka's works more in generalthat has been most compellingly proposed by Walter H. Sokel. An important conclusion will be that Sokel's alternative understanding of Kafka and the Kafkaesque yields even more important insights into the workings of modern law and government than the standard interpretation.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bernick on Cthulhu and the Constitution

Evan D. Bernick, Northern Illinois University College of Law, has published Cthulhu and the Constitution. Here is the abstract.

Howard Phillips Lovecraft was born in 1892, nineteen years after the enactment of the Comstock Act and six years before the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship as a constitutional guarantee. He dreamed of monsters and brought them to life with language that has not lost its power to horrify. The best-known entity in his bestiary is Cthulhu, whom people cannot behold without going mad. Cthulhu and co. are ancient, unknowable, and unkillable. Wrote Lovecraft in The Dunwich Horror: “The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, and the Old Ones shall be.” One of the most insightful engagements with Lovecraft’s work and legacy, Alan Moore’s Providence, imagines Lovecraft as an instrument of actually existing cosmic entities who use his extraordinary literary talents to bring their world into contact with ours. But let’s be real: Lovecraft’s monsters were, are fictional, and their origins lie in nothing so creditable. Lovecraft was racist, sexist, and xenophobic, and he was obsessively fearful of the contamination of the nation’s sexual purity—especially through immigration. These prejudices and phobias inspired his monsters and his descriptions of their acolytes. This Essay describes present-day efforts to revive old, monstrous legal institutions and ideas and put them in the service of policies Lovecraft might have loved. The Trump Administration is committed to a constitutional program that is informed by racism, sexism, and xenophobia. One of the major components of that program is an ongoing attack on the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. Another is an attack on reproductive rights, which is likely to include an effort to revive the long-dead Comstock Act and use it to ban the distribution of abortion pills. These attacks have late-nineteenth-century analogs and depend upon late-nineteenth century statutes and legal theories. Studying how popular movements resisted and ultimately sapped these statutes and theories of power with, without, and despite law can equip us to defeat these monsters once again. They were and they are, but they shall not be.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Stern on Victims of Circumstantial Evidence: Murder, Proof, and Wrongful Convictions in Nineteenth-Century Crime Fiction

Simon Stern, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, has published Victims of Circumstantial Evidence: Murder, Proof, and Wrongful Convictions in Nineteenth-Century Crime Fiction. Here is the abstract.

The early nineteenth century witnessed the flourishing of a genre that today seems almost unbearably hackneyed, predictable, and lifeless. These tales feature a murder, followed by the arrest of an innocent person—usually an upstanding, sincere, and honest young man. In a few stories he is convicted and executed, and the truth comes out later. More commonly, he is spared at the last moment, because the truth emerges just before the execution or at the very end of the trial. These stories propose a wide array of meanings for “circumstantial evidence,” including rumor, motive, and various kinds of physical evidence. This chapter contextualizes these stories in relation to the popular crime writing (fiction and nonfiction) of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; offers examples of suspects framed by an enemy, framed by nature, and suspected on very weak evidence; and shows how these tales are related to late nineteenth-century detective fiction. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of People v. Vereneseneckockockhoff (Cal. 1900), an important decision that recapitulates and responds to the basic concerns motivating this genre.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Barbas on Originalism in Modern Free Speech History

Samantha Barbas, University of Iowa College of Law, has published Originalism in Modern Free Speech History as U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2025-13. Here is the abstract.

Contrary to what is often assumed, originalism has played an important role in our free speech history. During the 1950s, originalist interpretations of the First Amendment as prohibiting the crime of seditious libel became popular in legal argumentation, court rulings, and in popular culture more generally. The reason for the popularity of this argument was the Red Scare. Liberal lawyers, judges, and scholars deployed originalist arguments in their battles against government anticommunist measures. They argued that the original meaning of the First Amendment was the ban on punishment for criticism of the government, and that many of the government’s anticommunist measures were effectively a form of prosecution for seditious libel and unconstitutional. This essay describes the popularization of First Amendment originalist arguments in the 1950s and early 60s, culminating in New York Times v. Sullivan. It explains how originalist First Amendment arguments came to be seen as an important liberal line of defense against government anticommunist efforts. Activists, scholars, lawyers, and justices on the left mobilized in a loosely affiliated sort of First Amendment “originalist movement” in an attempt to defeat the Red Scare. Ultimately, the essay suggests that originalism is a legal and social phenomenon that is intimately intertwined with culture and politics. Originalist ideas arise from multiple sources, including interest groups, intellectuals, journalists, lawyers, and ordinary citizens. The case study offers one example of how legal advocates and scholars in the mid-twentieth century deployed originalist arguments instrumentally, in response to the circumstances and perceived exigencies of their times.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Sayid on Law, Language, and Aboutness: Diaz v. United States as Case-Study

Cosim Sayid, Rutgers Institute for Law and Philosophy, is publishing Law, Language, and Aboutness: Diaz v. United States as Case-Study in the Mississippi Law Journal. Here is the abstract.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Diaz v. United States is a simple interpretive dispute concerning when expert testimony is ‘about’ a defendant’s possession of mens rea conducted by justices who are avowedly textualist and yet reached diametrically opposite conclusions. While the court reached the right result in permitting testimony concerning behavior of members of a class including the criminal defendant, the rationale it offered is at best incomplete and at worst incorrect. This essay introduces into legal analysis the rigorous study of aboutness in analytic philosophy, which is used to augment, rather than attack, the textualist analyses offered by the justices. The essay develops the tools of aboutness in a straightforward way that should serve as a primer for those interested in the technique and its value – a group which should definitely include those interested in textualist interpretation. Taking aboutness seriously elegantly justifies the correct result in Diaz. The essay concludes on the speculative note that aboutness can be used to resolve other intra-textualist disputes, such as the thorny one in Bostock v. Clayton County. Thus, attending to aboutness allows us to cleanly explain the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 704, and it may lead to further cogent explanations where thorny disputes have pervaded the law even against the common ground of shared textualism.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Douglas on History, Tradition, and Voter Registration

Joshua A. Douglas, University of Kentuky College of Law, is publishing History, Tradition, and Voter Registration in the Wisconsin Law Review. Here is the abstract. H

istory and tradition are dominating the current Supreme Court, which has invoked history and tradition to curtail some rights, such as abortion, while using it to elevate other rights, such the right to bear arms. Might history and tradition also support expanded rights even if doing so will result in a ruling that seems contrary to the majority's preferred ideological outcome? Current disputes over voter registration restrictions will pose that very question. Many states have recently implemented onerous rules on voter registration, especially targeting third-party voter registration organizations. As this Article shows, the Court should strike down these rules under a faithful interpretation of the history and tradition of voter registration. The Article first discusses the ways in which some states have imposed restrictive registration rules and made it harder for organizations to help voters register. States have enacted citizenship requirements on who may register voters, tight delivery deadlines for completed registration forms, speech mandates for third-party organizations, compensation restrictions for individuals engaged in voter registration, and rules on what voters must present to register to vote. The Article then turns to the history of voter registration, drawing upon primary sources such as archival newspaper records to show that there is a rich history of voter registration drives that date to the beginning of voter registration. There are three significant periods of expanded voter registration through third-party organizations, including during the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement, and in the 1990s after Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act. Interested parties and organizations have engaged in voter registration activities for almost as long as there have been registration lists. The Article then evaluates how courts should use this history and tradition. Specifically, because history and tradition support robust third-party voter registration activities, the Court should invalidate new voter registration restrictions as violating organizations’ and voters’ rights. If voter registration is considered a deeply rooted aspect of the election process, then so is the practice of third parties conducting voter registration drives and helping others register to vote. History and tradition are now the primary focus of arguments at the Court. To win, litigants must explain why history and tradition support their contentions. On voter registration, history and tradition demonstrate that eligible voters could easily place their names on the voter list and that organizations could assist in those efforts without hindrance. The Court should invoke this history and tradition to strike down restrictions on voter registration.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Fourth Annual Nomos Conference, Masaryk University: Call For Papers

From Tomáš Havlíček, Masaryk University:

Call for Papers

4^th Annual Nomos Conference at Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia

“Of course, we have all read, and all do read Capital. For almost a century, we have been able to read it every day, transparently, in the dramas and dreams of our history, in its disputes and conflicts, in the defeats and victories of the workers’ movement which is indeed our only hope and our destiny.”

(Althusser, Balibar, Rancière and Macherey, Lire le Capital 1965, 3)

“God is dead; Communism is dead. It is, at best, the legacy code of the Chinese ruling class. But that does not exhaust the imaginal faculty of the subordinate classes, whose vulgar energies may even in this practico-inert world have some surprises in store.”

(Wark, Capital is Dead 2019, 142)

 

Sixty years ago, Reading Capital offered a transformative reading of Marx’s Capital, reorienting the way scholars, activists, and theorists viewed the role of law within capitalist society. For Althusser, Balibar, Rancière, and Macherey, a genuine understanding of Marx’s critique demanded a lens that brought economic and material forces to the forefront, highlighting how law is not a neutral arbiter of justice but a structure deeply embedded in the capitalist mode of production. Law, they argued, functions not simply as a regulatory tool but as a fundamental mechanism through which capital exercises control, manages class conflict, and reproduces its power.

From a Marxist perspective, law is inseparable from the political economy because it arises from, enforces, and perpetuates the relations of production. Under capitalism, legal frameworks are designed to safeguard property rights, enforce contracts, and legitimate private ownership—all of which are essential to the maintenance and growth of capital. Marx’s critique demonstrated that law, rather than standing apart from economic interests, actually facilitates the accumulation of wealth and the entrenchment of class hierarchies. This insight remains profoundly relevant in our own time, as capitalism morphs into new forms and faces systemic crises.

Today, as we grapple with stark inequalities, environmental collapse, and rising authoritarianism, the relationship between law and political economy demands renewed scrutiny. Wark’s declaration that “Capital is dead” reflects a contemporary frustration with the ability of traditional critiques to fully capture the complexities of modern capitalism, which has evolved into a global network of finance, data, and extraction. Yet, as Wark also suggests, the imagination and energies of the subordinate classes remain powerful. This conference takes up the challenge of exploring how Marxist critiques of law can help us understand and resist the transformations of capitalism today. What does it mean to read Capital in a world where economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few corporations and states, where wealth inequality is extreme, and where legal systems often seem complicit in perpetuating social and environmental injustices?

This conference invites scholars to return to the materialist critique of law within political economy, examining how law continues to serve as a critical tool in maintaining economic power structures. From the foreclosure crisis and austerity measures to labour law and environmental deregulation, the impact of law on economic and social life remains profound. By revisiting Reading Capital’s Marxist approach, we seek to explore law not as an abstract system of rules but as a living, evolving force that both reflects and shapes the contradictions of capitalism.

Key topics discussed include:

1. Illiberalism and Authoritarian Resurgence in Contemporary Constitutionalism

The resurgence of authoritarian and illiberal tendencies in various regions, from Eastern Europe to South America and parts of Asia, reflects a critical shift in global politics. The rise of “illiberal democracies” challenges the assumption that constitutionalism inherently supports liberal democracy. Analysing these developments helps us understand the fragility of constitutional norms and the ways authoritarian leaders can exploit legal mechanisms.

Key questions:

·         How do illiberal regimes use constitutional frameworks to solidify power while undermining democratic principles?

·         In what ways are courts, laws, and constitutional amendments leveraged to stifle dissent and limit civil liberties?

·         What is the role of global legal and political institutions in responding to these shifts?

2. Materialism, New Materialism, and Ecological Redefinitions of Legal-Economic Relations

With the climate crisis and environmental degradation at the forefront of global challenges, legal scholars and economists are increasingly called to rethink economic models that prioritize profit over ecological sustainability. New materialism brings fresh perspectives on the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental systems, potentially inspiring laws that recognize the rights of nature, integrate ecological costs, and reshape economic responsibilities.

Key Questions:

·         How does new materialism redefine the legal-economic relationship by emphasizing non-human actors (e.g., the environment, technological systems)?

·         How is environmental rhetoric co-opted by dominant capitalist ideology to perpetuate existing power structures, and in what ways is law complicit in supporting this 'greenwashing' of capitalism?

·         How does law mediate the economic power of technology companies, whose systems have become infrastructural and almost autonomous within capitalist economies?

·         What new legal structures could emerge to reflect interconnected, ecological models of economy and law?

 

3. The Role of Utopian and Dystopian Imagination in Law and Political Economy

Utopian and dystopian visions allow us to imagine positive or negative legal systems and political scenarios outside the constraints of current neoliberal or capitalist structures. By drawing on both hopeful and cautionary futures, legal and economic scholars can explore radical reforms or protections that address power imbalances, social inequities, and environmental degradation, creating blueprints for societies resilient against authoritarianism and climate catastrophe. We seek to renew the relevance of utopia in legal and economic thought, holding that envisioning alternative futures remains not only necessary but profoundly worthwhile in guiding transformative change toward justice and sustainability

Key Questions:

·         How can utopian or dystopian imagination inform new frameworks for economic justice and legal rights?

·         How does law contribute to, or even accelerate, dystopian realities within capitalist societies?

·         In what ways might speculative futures guide us in addressing today’s crises of inequality, authoritarianism, and environmental decline?

·         What legal and economic principles might underlie a political economy that genuinely respects ecological boundaries, social equity, and human dignity?

4. The Impact of Capitalism’s Crisis on War, Legal Orders, and Global Political Structures

Capitalism’s crisis is a catalyst for both internal and external conflicts, influencing the rise of populism, nationalism, and militarized economies. The impacts on legal orders range from increased domestic repression to contested international norms. Exploring these dynamics can reveal how law is used both to enforce and resist economic power, shedding light on how legal orders adapt or fail in times of systemic upheaval.

Key Questions:

·         How does the contemporary crisis of capitalism—marked by inequality, financial instability, and ecological limits—affect global legal and political structures?

·         What role do militarization and conflict play in sustaining or challenging current economic and legal orders?

·         How do international laws, trade agreements, and intellectual property regimes uphold or exacerbate conflicts in ways that benefit capitalist interests?

·         Can law simultaneously act as an agent of peace while being complicit in the economic incentives that drive wars?

5. Reimagining Sovereignty and Global Legal Frameworks from Law and Political Economy Perspectives

The concept of sovereignty is foundational to modern legal and political systems, yet it is increasingly challenged by the realities of global capitalism, transnational governance, and interconnected crises. Traditional notions of sovereignty, centred on territorial control and centralized authority, often serve to uphold the interests of global capital and state power. At the same time, these frameworks frequently constrain efforts to address border-transcending issues like climate change, labour exploitation, and resource extraction. This theme invites scholars to explore how sovereignty and global legal frameworks can be reimagined through a critical political economy lens that emphasizes material and economic justice over geopolitical dominance and market interests.

Key Questions:

·         In an era where multinational corporations, international trade agreements, and global financial institutions exert immense influence over domestic policies, national sovereignty is often compromised, how do global economic structures undermine or reshape state sovereignty, particularly in developing countries?

·         What alternative forms of sovereignty could accommodate transnational challenges like climate change, migration, and economic inequality?

·         How might reimagining sovereignty through a political economy lens allow for fairer distribution of resources and protection of marginalized populations?

·         What role can international law play in moderating the excesses of global capitalism.

 

Submission Guidelines

We welcome abstracts (200–300 words) for individual papers and panels, that engage critically with the relationship between law and political economy. Interdisciplinary approaches are highly encouraged. Contributions can address theoretical, historical, or empirical dimensions of the topic and may include case studies, comparative analyses, or reflections on praxis.

 

The conference will be held in a hybrid format, allowing for both in-person and virtual participation.

 

Keynote Speakers:

·         Marija Bartl (University of Amsterdam)

·         Werner Bonefeld (University of York)

 

Conference fee: 120 EUR

Deadline for Submissions: 13 April 2025

Notice of Acceptance: 20 April 2025

Conference Date: 6-7 June 2025

Conference Venue: Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia

Please submit abstracts including affiliation to: 458644@muni.cz

 

 

 

 

Guerra-Pujol on Adam Smith's Blind Spot

F. E. Guerra-Pujol, Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico; University of Central Florida, has published Adam Smith's Blind Spot. Here is the abstract.

This article connects Adam Smith's maxims of taxations-as well as a possible precursor to Smith's maxims: Roussel de la Tour's Richesses de l'etat-with Geoffrey Brennan and James Buchanan's critique of optimal taxation theory. Among other things, Brennan and Buchanan's critique of the optimality criterion fills an important gap not only in the optimal-tax literature but also in Adam Smith's thought.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Sullivan on Death and Discretion: Some Thoughts on Living

Barry Sullivan, Loyola University Chicago School of Law, is publishing Death and Discretion: Some Thoughts on Living in volume 35 of the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities. Here is the abstract.

Like judges, administrative officials exercise legal authority that significantly impacts the lives of others, and, in doing so, they must confront the problem of authority as "a problem for the individual mind faced with the difficulty of deciding what to do or to say." (James Boyd White, Acts of Hope309 (1994) Their work, like the work of judges, has a profound moral dimension. In this essay, Professor Sullivan considers that moral obligation through an analysis of Kazuo Ishiguro's 2022 film Living, together with Akira Kurosawa's film Ikiru and Leo Tolstoy's novella The Death of Ivan Ilyich. An earlier version of the essay was presented at a Yale Law School conference in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of James Boyd White's path-breaking book The Legal Imagination.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Workshop on Understanding and Doing Equality: Building Synergies Between Arts and Human Rights

From Honor Tuohy, University of Galway:

Announcement of a workshop: Understanding and Doing Equality: Building Synergies between Arts and Human Rights

Workshop

Understanding and Doing Equality: Building Synergies between Arts and Human Rights

This is a one-day workshop on May 29th 2025 at the Centre for Advanced Study, Sofia, Bulgaria.

Call for contributors: 

This workshop aims to explore themes focusing on methodologies and approaches for the creation of synergies between arts (understood broadly) and the equality-oriented dimension of human rights. What uses of arts are particularly conducive to the sharing of lived experiences of disadvantage to evoke compassion and create mutual understanding? How can artistic means be used to communicate ideas about equality, including in their scientific complexity? What specific forms of artistic communication are most conducive to positive change?

A full outline of the workshop is available in the document attached. A 300 words abstract should be sent to the organisers by 30 April 2025.

Please contact Honor Tuohy (H.Tuohy3@universityofgalway.ie) or Ekaterina Yahyaoui (ekaterina.yahyaoui@universityofgalway.ie) for more information and/or see attached document.

 

Theme

Human rights and equality appear as ideals appealing to most if not all people across the globe. 

However, the way people understand and experience these ideals can vary significantly since even the 

most conserva=ve poli=cians or ac=vists use these ideals in some shape or form. This reveals 

complexity and mul=dimensionality of equality and human rights which o?en hampers efficient public 

debate, communica=on and mutual understanding. At the same =me, the concept of equality is the 

subject of philosophical and academic discussions of which many contain difficult and not immediately 

accessible language. The experience of (in)equality is also not immediately comprehensible by those 

who have not personally been vic=ms of any sort of discrimina=on.

Arts and various ar=s=c prac=ces – visual arts, performing arts, or literary arts – have long been 

recognised for their ability to document human rights abuses. Arts also play a role in increasing 

empathy, communica=ng feelings and emo=ons. Discussions about arts’ ability to contribute to 

building stronger communi=es, transla=ng human experiences and knowledge into a more accessible 

form, or ac=ng as a crea=ve force leading to posi=ve change in our socie=es are ongoing.

This workshop aims to explore further these themes focusing on methodologies and approaches for 

crea=on of synergies between arts (understood broadly) and the equality-oriented dimension human 

rights. What uses of arts are par=cularly conduc=ve to sharing of lived experiences of disadvantage 

to evoke compassion and create mutual understanding? How can ar=s=c means be used to communicate 

ideas about equality, including in their scien=fic complexity? What specific forms of ar=s=c 

communica=on are most conduc=ve to posi=ve change?

We invite papers on these and related ques=ons from scholars, ar=sts and ac=vists alike. Inter- and 

transdisciplinary approaches are the most welcome. Equally, we are looking for both theore=cally 

informed contribu=ons as well as empirically grounded work, including examples of successful novel 

synergies and collabora=ons.

About the workshop

The one-day workshop will be held on 29 May 2025 at the Centre for Advanced Study, Sofia Bulgaria. 

The par=cipants will be required to submit a 1000 words concept paper by 22 May 2025. While this 

will be an in-person workshop, online aWendance can be facilitated in jus=fied circumstances. The 

workshop will also serve as a form of feedback on future publishable outputs as the organisers aim 

to submit an edited volume proposal to a reputable publisher. Publica=on plans will be discussed 

during the workshop.

While the par=cipa=on in the workshop is free, the organisers are unable to cover any travel or 

accommoda=on expenses.

Submission process

Please  submit  a  300  words  abstract  to  the  organisers  Ekaterina  Yahyaoui 

(Ekaterina.yahyaoui@universityofgalway.ie) and Honor Tuohy (H.Tuohy3@universityofgalway.ie) (please 

use both emails) by 30 April 2025. Decisions will be communicated in the following week.

Fletcher on Nanboozhoo Died for Your Sins

Matthew L. M. Fletcher, University of Michigan Law School, has published Nanaboozhoo Died for Your Sins. Here is the abstract.

This paper is a review of the classic book by Vine Deloria, Jr., “Custer Died For Your Sins,” for the 2025 volume of the Michigan Law Review’s book review issue. Nanaboozhoo, the Anishinaabe trickster god, decides to attend law school after reading “Custer Died For Your Sins” and realizing that the author, Vine Deloria, Jr. also decided to law school after publishing the book. This review follows Nanaboozhoo as he progresses through a legal career guided by the book.

Download the book review from SSRN at the link.

Cooper on A Sin for the Sake of Heaven: Vigilante Heroes in Law and Culture. An Old-New Paradigm

Levi Cooper, Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law, has published A Sin for the Sake of Heaven: Vigilante Heroes in Law and Culture. An Old-New Paradigm עבירה לשמה: גיבורים נוקמים במשפט ובתרבות in Probing Human Dignity: Exploring Thresholds from an Interdisciplinary Perspective (Stephanie N. Ariel, Levi Cooper, and Vanessa Hellman, eds., Springer, 2024).

This article explores the halakhic concept of aveira lishmah (“a sin for its own sake”) as a theoretical lens for analysing cases where violations of human dignity are debated as morally justified in extreme circumstances, such as the “ticking time-bomb” scenario. The study examines two landmark German cases: the interrogation under duress of a child kidnapper to locate the victim and the Federal Constitutional Court’s decision to invalidate a provision in the Aviation Security Act that would have permitted the downing of hijacked passenger aircraft turned into weapons of terror, akin to the 9/11 attacks. While German law strictly prohibits such infringements on human dignity, these rulings provoked public and institutional dissonance: they were legally necessary yet emotionally unsatisfying. The article draws compelling parallels between these legal dilemmas and vigilante heroes in popular culture—Dirty Harry, Batman, Captain America, and Jack Bauer from 24—who embody a fundamental moral paradox: society officially condemns human dignity violations but emotionally invests in figures who employ such measures for ostensibly just ends. The concept of aveira lishmah offers a distinctive analytical perspective. Unlike traditional criminal law defences and justifications, it acknowledges that certain acts may be morally necessary while still requiring punishment. This paradox—where an action is simultaneously righteous and criminal—captures the tension in both real and fictional cases. The article concludes by critically assessing whether a version of aveira lishmah could be integrated into contemporary legal frameworks. The article ultimately argues that legal systems, committed to clarity and predictability, cannot sustain a category that simultaneously mandates action and imposes liability. Nonetheless, the concept provides a valuable lens for understanding deep-seated instinctive responses to extreme moral dilemmas. המאמר בוחן את הרלוונטיות של המושג ההלכתי "עבירה לשמה" כמסגרת תיאורטית להתמודדות עם פגיעות הכרחיות בכבוד האדם, כדוגמת תרחיש "הפצצה המתקתקת". המחקר נפתח בניתוח שני מקרים מהמשפט הגרמני: הראשון עוסק בחקירה תחת איומים ועינויים של חוטף ילד, במטרה לחשוף את מיקומו של הקורבן; השני דן בהחלטת בית המשפט החוקתי הפדרלי לבטל סעיף בחוק הביטחון האווירי שהתיר הפלת מטוס נוסעים חטוף שהפך לכלי טרור, בדומה לאירועי 11 בספטמבר. אף שהחוק הגרמני אוסר פגיעה בכבוד האדם בנסיבות אלו, ההחלטות עוררו ביקורת ציבורית. קופר משווה מקרים אלה לייצוגים תרבותיים פופולריים כגון דירטי הארי, באטמן, קפטן אמריקה וג'ק באואר בסדרה 24. דמויות אלו ממחישות את הדילמה המוסרית: בעוד הציבור דוחה פגיעה בכבוד האדם באופן עקרוני, הוא מזדהה עם גיבורים הנוקטים באמצעים אלו להשגת מטרות ראויות. המושג "עבירה לשמה" מציע זווית ראייה ייחודית לסוגיה. לפי פרשנויות מסוימות, מושג זה מכיר בנחיצות של מעשה אסור בנסיבות מסוימות, אך עדיין מחייב ענישה של מבצע העבירה. בניגוד להגנות המוכרות במשפט הפלילי, גישה זו מותירה את האחריות הפלילית על כנה, גם כאשר המעשה נתפס כמוצדק מבחינה מוסרית. המאמר מסתיים בבחינה ביקורתית של האפשרות ליישם גרסה מודרנית של "עבירה לשמה" במערכות משפט עכשוויות. קופר מעלה ספקות בדבר התאמתו של המושג למסגרת המשפטית המודרנית, מחויבת לעקרונות של ודאות משפטית ויכולת חיזוי של תוצאות משפטיות.

Download the chapter from SSRN at the link.

Craddock on Civic Friendship in the Postmodern Polis: Law as Mediator in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice

Joshua J. Craddock, Harvard Law School, Students; James Wilson Institute for Natural Rights and the American Founding, is publishing Civic Friendship in the Postmodern Polis: Law as Mediator in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice in the Journal of Law & Civil Governance at Texas A&M. Here is the abstract.

In Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare explores whether commercial republicanism can alone sustain civic virtue. Putting Shakespeare into conversation with pillars of American political thought, Merchant of Venice seems to support John Adams’ contention that a republican constitution is “made only for a moral and religious people” and “is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Economic liberty as an end unto itself cannot form the basis of a coherent political order and must ultimately erode public-spiritedness. By examining the character of the Venetian regime and the irreconcilable differences between its citizens regarding the nature of the Good, the attentive reader can identify barriers to civic friendship and evaluate whether law can serve as a mediating influence against what Publius calls “faction” in The Federalist. Shakespeare suggests that law’s mediating influence on faction is at best tenuous and follows the Aristotelean belief that civic friendship depends in large part on substantial agreement about first principles. These themes find their echoes in American political thought and remain deeply relevant to the legal and political challenges facing re-publican self-government today.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Cramer on The National Firearms Act and Perceived Constitutional Limitations in 1934

Clayton E. Cramer, College of Western Idaho, has published The National Firearms Act and Perceived Constitutional Limitations in 1934. Here is the abstract.

Laws regulating firearms based on their lethality as "weapons of mass destruction" have no Founding Era equivalent and such weapons were for sale to civilians. They were common enough to be subject to fire safety regulations. How long did this Framing Era understanding persist? What implications does this have for so-called "assault weapons" and machine gun regulation? When Congress held hearings on the National Firearms Act (1934), discussions between Members of the Subcommittee and Executive branch advocates for the bill repeatedly phrased their support for this rather complex tax law because they recognized that a federal ban on civilian ownership or manufacture of machine guns was likely unconstitutional. This argues that the Framing Era understanding persisted well into the 20th century and should be part of understanding current post-Heller challenges to bump stock and machine gun regulation.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Siegel on Balkin Amid Balkanization: Constitutional Construction, The Uses of History, And Interpretive Discretion In A Divided Country

Neil Siegel, Duke University School of Law, has published Balkin Amid Balkanization: Constitutional Construction, The Uses Of History, And Interpretive Discretion In A Divided Country as Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2025-14. Here is the abstract.

Professor Jack Balkin's Memory and Authority is a good book by a great constitutional theorist, but it gives me some pause. Balkin's account of legitimate constitutional construction is so capacious and seemingly accepting of a results orientation that it may be difficult to discern when someone is doing it wrong. Balkin repeatedly implies that more is better, both regarding the number of modalities of constitutional interpretation and the kinds of history that are relevant to making constitutional arguments. Moreover, he repeatedly declares that "history is a resource, not a constraint." But modality creep may make it more challenging for pluralists to answer the charge that their methodology makes it possible for users to reach whatever outcome they want. Likewise, history must be both a resource and a constraint if an interpretive theory is also to restrain, not just license, interpretive discretion. More is not necessarily better when one imagines constitutional law being made by people who do not share one's values. In the United States, constitutional law is made by Supreme Court Justices who do not share the values of a significant percentage of the country, and the problem is worse during our polarized era. Although Balkin does not emphasize them, certain concepts and practices have been central to the generationslong effort to constrain judicial discretion: a general allegiance to judicial restraint, a genuine commitment to stare decisis in constitutional disputes, a presumption in favor of incrementalism in judicial decision-making, and a dedication to giving principled reasons for judicial decisions. Those ideas and others discussed in this Essay fall under the heading of judicial role morality, which has long been discussed by the legal profession due to the perceived importance of identifying constraining conceptions of a Justice's institutional role.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Pfander and Zakowski on Non-Party Protective Relief in the Early Republic: Judicial Power to Annul Letters Patent

James E. Pfander and Mary Zakowski, both of Northwestern University School of Law, are publishing Non-Party Protective Relief in the Early Republic: Judicial Power to Annul Letters Patent in volume 128 of the Northwestern University Law Review. Here is the abstract.

Much of the debate over the constitutionality of universal or non-party protective relief in the federal court system has focused on lessons drawn from historical practice. But with its emphasis on injunctive relief, the literature has largely ignored forms of adjudication that arose outside the courts of equity and led to judgments and decrees affecting the rights of non-parties. As a result, the story of non-party protective relief has not yet been fully told. This Article offers a more complete story, highlighting a range of proceedings in which federal courts issued judgments that settled a matter once and for all and operated on all the world. Some familiar examples include proceedings in admiralty, where a decree could settle title conclusively and operate on those who did not appear in the litigation. Less familiar examples include naturalization judgments, which conferred the status of citizenship on an individual once and for all. We focus here on yet a third example: the power of federal courts, acting under the patent laws of the 1790s, to entertain individual suits to cancel or annul a patent for all purposes. Such cancellation proceedings, based on a practice that developed in England on the writ of scire facias, were understood to operate as a general matter and could confer benefits on artisans and manufacturers who did not appear in the litigation. Patent cancellation remains a part of the federal judicial role today. History suggests, then, that federal courts were understood to have power, when so authorized by Congress, to issue decrees that settled matters conclusively and therefore conferred burdens or benefits on non-parties. Over the nineteenth century, the patent cancellation power migrated to federal courts of equity, resulting in decrees that prohibited patent owners from asserting claims against non-parties. These early examples of non-party protection make it challenging to argue on historical grounds that Article III of the Constitution bars federal courts from granting such relief today. In a brief concluding section, we suggest that assessments of non-party protective relief should focus instead on congressional authority; such a focus could help distinguish universal injunctions in general from the set-aside power conferred in section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.