Legal Imaginaries Across the Asia-Pacific: Vernacular Law and Literatures: September 5, 2024: Draft Program

Legal Imaginaries across the Asia-Pacific: Vernacular laws and literatures: September 5, 2024, at the ANU College of Law.

Download the program here. 

Here is a description of the event.

The Asia-Pacific is our region – important, volatile and diverse. Although there are many shared similarities in law and culture – including not least the history and legacy of colonialism – there are also telling differences. In recent years the law and literature movement has articulated the relevance of a study of culture in understanding law, and of the power of literary and other creative practices to more deeply engage with the legal history of particular places, to critique their legacy, and to imagine new futures. Postcolonialism, Afro-Futurism, Legal Imaginaries and Prefigurative Law are names that articulate this trend.

Particularly when questions of the relationship between law and history on the one hand, and law’s capacity to respond to the crises of the 21st century on the other, are urgent, linking law and literature in these ways is a powerful and creative tool for legal education and reform. It offers the potential to enrich the work of students of law, scholars, legal experts, and the wider public.

Yet until recently, the interdisciplinary approach of law and literature remains largely wedded to a traditional Western literary canon. But there are new trends offering enormous promise for enriching the plurality and specificity of law and literature, including work on Hong Kong, Singapore, India; not to mention a variety of scholars engaging with indigenous narrative and legal traditions in Australia, and on the west coast of the American continent.

The workshop is part of steps to build a new network that targets a specific geographic constellation and identifies, through the language of ‘the imaginary’ and ‘vernacular’, a specific set of theoretical resources. ‘Laws and literatures’ both frames the endeavour in relation to an established field and pluralises it in significant ways.

The workshop would be of interest to academics and students, particularly those in literature, law and the humanities, legal theory, and postcolonial studies. 

It will feature new work from prominent and emerging scholars working in law and literature from right across the region -- from Australia, Aoteoroa, the Pacific and Mexico to Hong Kong, Singapore, and Indonesia – showcasing remarkable new directions with a common geographic and theoretical orientation. 

Balkin on Rabbi Akiva and the Crowns: A Parable of Constitutional Fidelity @jackbalkin @YaleLawSch @BULawReview

Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School, is publishing Rabbi Akiva and the Crowns: A Parable of Constitutional Fidelity in the Boston University Law Review. Here is the abstract.

Historian Jonathan Gienapp argues that the Founding generation held very different views about constitutions, law, rights, and judicial review than lawyers do today. His target is conservative originalism, but his arguments are important for originalists and non-originalists alike. How is faithful interpretation of the Constitution possible if we inhabit a very different world from the generation that produced it? This essay answers that question by retelling a famous story in the Gemara about Moses and the Talmudic sage Rabbi Akiva, who lived a thousand years later. The story explains how the rabbis who compiled the Talmud in the sixth century C.E. dealt with the problem of interpreting religious texts that had been written hundreds of years earlier in a very different world. The rabbis argued that faithful interpretation of the law must recognize the distance between past and present and accept the need for creative adaptation in the face of transformations, upheavals, and ruptures. The same lessons hold true for constitutional interpretation today.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Miller on Perfecting Our Submission? Mann and Trump, Ruffin and Roberts @UGASchoolofLaw

Joseph Scott Miller, University of Georgia School of Law, has published Perfecting Our Submission? Mann and Trump, Ruffin and Roberts as University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2024-5. Here is the abstract.

Presidential power is vast, both under law and in practice. Who holds presidents accountable, and by what means? Much turns on the answers we provide, as well as on the justifications we establish for those answers. The majority opinion in the new presidential immunity case, Trump v. U.S., is eerily resonant, rhetorically, with a notorious judgment enhancing one person’s power over others by shielding that power utterly from criminal-law accountability. That judgment, now nearly two centuries old, is Judge Thomas Ruffin’s infamous slavery-law opinion for the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Mann. I juxtapose the two opinions, which share jarringly similar claims about the nature of power, rule, and accountability under law.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Murray on Visual Legal Rhetoric in the Age of Generative AI and Deepfakes: Renaissance or Dark Ages? @ukcollegeoflaw

Michael D Murray, University of Kentucky College of Law, has published Visual Legal Rhetoric in the Age of Generative AI and Deepfakes: Renaissance or Dark Ages? Here is the abstract.

The paradoxical development of visual generative AI tools, such as OpenAI’s DALL-E 3, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, simultaneously signal a renaissance and a potential dark age in visual rhetoric and communication. On the one hand, these tools democratize the creation of visual content, empowering attorneys and others to become artists and illustrators of their legal communications without needing to learn how to draw. These AI systems can simplify complex legal concepts, bridge language barriers, and enhance advocacy. But on the other hand, the proliferation of deepfakes presents significant challenges for visual rhetoric. Deepfakes can quickly and easily create realistic but false images, videos, and audio that exploit celebrities, distort facts, and facilitate various crimes. The negative implications of deepfakes include their association with fraud, misinformation, and emotional harm. This technological advancement undermines the credibility of genuine news photography and other highly representational media as the public struggles to distinguish real from fabricated content and begins to discount all visual media. The challenge lies in using the tools effectively while maintaining the verisimilitude and integrity of representational visual media, which traditionally relies on its status as an unembellished depiction of reality to achieve its rhetorical and communicative goals. The ethical and professional questions raised by manipulated images extend to the decision whether to edit or alter visual content to improve the communication of the message and enhance understanding while still acknowledging the lurking risk of misleading or confusing the audience with altered or manufactured media. The article suggests best practices for using generative AI responsibly: Use Non-representational Visuals: Favor diagrams, charts, drawings, and illustrations over highly representational media to avoid the pitfalls of staged, manufactured, or altered representational imagery. Disclose Staged Images: Always inform the audience when an image has been staged or recreated to maintain transparency and trust. Provide Original and Enhanced Versions: Present the original image alongside any enhanced version to allow for critical examination and comparison. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for vigilance in working with manipulated visuals and detecting the possible deceptions of the works of others. Given the ease with which AI can alter images, lawyers and judges must remain aware of their biases and heuristics in assessing visual evidence, recognizing that even analog photographs and videos do not represent definitive “truths.” The advent of AI-generated visuals necessitates a reassessment of the ethical use of visual media in legal communications to preserve the power of visuals in legal rhetoric.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Tewari on MeToo: Rethinking Law and Literature to Define Narrative Justice @DELawSchool

Geeta Tewari, Widener University, Delaware Law School, has published MeToo: Rethinking Law and Literature to Define Narrative Justice. Here is the abstract.

The law and literature movement is transforming into something new. This Article will discuss what that newness is, how it came about, and the different shapes it takes to provide the legal community with a platform to contribute to a working definition for narrative justice. Creatively, technologically, and economically, public institutions and legal culture are rethinking the value of voice and story. With concrete examples of innovations and social movements, this Article will demonstrate how both action and inaction have propelled us as a society toward urgency in defining and claiming narrative justice. The Introduction canvasses U.S. case law to discuss patterns of narrative incorporation—or the concerning lack thereof. Recently, we have seen a new growth in this field: an emphasis by activists, artists, and academics, among others internationally, on applying voice, story, and journey to present conflicts and problems. The next Part discusses the critical points where public and private institutions, as well as individual citizens, have catalyzed to birth a new field of narrative justice. Specifically, I discuss the #MeToo movement, as well as cities’ work, community, individual empowerment, recent interdisciplinary legal scholarship, and teaching models, which are all analyzed for their inclusion of narrative. City government “storytellers” and the action of the #MeToo movement are two rich examples of law and literature’s expansion to activism through narrative justice. Finally, in Part IV, I dissect the lack of narrative presently in corporate law and the growing legal field of environmental, social, and governance advising, which should include the concept of narrative justice. This Article concludes with a proposal for a working definition and function of narrative justice, based on the examples reviewed herein as they relate to each other, the precipitating field of law and literature, and the need for updated terminology and pedagogy to further advance the practice of law as a moral, ethical, and just profession.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bandes on The Sense of an Ending @BandesSusan @DePaulLaw

Susan A. Bandes, DePaul University College of Law, has published The Sense of an Ending at 73 DePaul Law Review 751 (2024). Here is the abstract.

One of the delights of shows like HBO's Succession is the virtual communal watch party they create, replete with competing interpretations and passionate predictions about plot development. These conversations reveal some enduring truths about the power of narrative expectations, one of which is the tremendous importance we place on the delivery of a satisfying ending. As the influential literary scholar Frank Kermode argued, “we cannot be denied an end, but it must be the right kind of ending.” One of the fascinating aspects of Succession was the uncertainty about what kind of ending would be satisfying. This uncertainty seems closely tied to the difficulty in pinning down the genre to which Succession belonged. This Essay will first examine the notion of a satisfying ending as it applies to Succession. It will argue that although Succession’s ending was, in some ways, letter-perfect, it was not—and could not be—emotionally satisfying. The emotionally impoverished ending was fitting, but dispiriting, and probably unavoidable given the particular generic traditions upon which Succession drew. The Essay will then pose the question: What lessons can the notion of narrative closure—the need for a satisfying ending—convey about legal proceedings? We have grown accustomed to thinking about law as storytelling, but what insights can narrative theory impart about how law stories ought to end? In legal terms, to determine what constitutes a legally satisfying end point, we first must determine what the proceeding is meant to accomplish. Legal finality may not track literary closure or psychological “closure;” and it is important to distinguish the dictates of the legal system from the impulses that drive finality and closure in other contexts. I will illustrate this point with examples from death penalty jurisprudence, in which the question of an ending is unavoidable and takes several forms: finality of judgment, the notion of “closure” for bereaved family members, and the loss of life.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Zinigrad on Laughing Matters in Courts: Humor's Role in Normalizing Hate Speech @RomanZinigrad @AUP_CCDS

Roman Zinigrad, American University of Paris, has published Laughing Matters in Courts: Humor’s Role in Normalizing Hate Speech in Alternatives (complete citation not yet available). Here is the abstract.

Humor is a form of speech capable of boosting the political value of a speech’s content or even reversing its meaning. Courts acknowledge these qualities by considering that an expression may enjoy an elevated level of free speech protection against government sanctions or private suits if it is formulated in a humorous way. This article spotlights another key attribute of humor, that is perhaps more consequential for the socio-political impact of an expression but that nonetheless does not seem to be invoked in free speech litigation: its power to increase the exposure of the speech. A humorous presentation of an idea offers its audience an entertaining form that is desirable to consume independently of the message it conveys. It lowers the costs of processing irrelevant or objectionable content and so bears the potential of catching the attention of those who would not otherwise be exposed to it. I argue that the capacity of humor to “raise the volume” of speech must be accounted for in the balancing formulas of constitutional and international free speech litigation. To underline the importance of this factor, I focus on cases of hate speech, a category where humor plays a decisive role in the outreach to audiences that do not always share the prejudice or intolerance of the speaker. This article analyzes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and of French courts as an example of the general disregard of courts for humor’s amplification of hate speech. The far-reaching damage potential of this disregard is demonstrated on the case of Dieudonné, a notorious French antisemitic comic who has masterfully exploited humor to expose large audiences to hateful content.

Full access is available by subscription.

Call For Proposals: International Conference on Renewing the Social Contract: The Challenge of Inclusivity and Democratic Government in Social Contract Theory, December 18-19, 2024 @AUP_CCDS @RomanZinigrad

 Call For Proposals:

The Center for Critical Democracy Studies at the American University of Paris is pleased to announce an international conference on: “Renewing the Social Contract: The Challenge of Inclusivity and Democratic Government in Social Contract Theory” scheduled for December 18-19, 2024. 

 

The conference will explore how the idea of a social contract should be adapted or reconsidered to address its relationship to democracy, and in particular to democratic government. How should social contracts be amended in contemporary transformations of popular government, administrative power, and regulatory frameworks? What is the role of law and legal institutions in these transformations? Are there alternative models that may keep social contracts open to contestation while establishing a legitimate foundation for governance? How are social contracts renewed or made resilient?

We invite researchers in law, political theory, philosophy, history, sociology, economy, and other related fields to submit abstracts on the theme of the conference conceived broadly.

Proposals in English or French must be submitted by September 15, 2024 and include an abstract (400 words) and a short CV (250 words). See attached poster. Full call for papers: aup.edu/social-contract.

Organization: Stephen Sawyer, Roman Zinigrad, Nathanaël Colin-Jaeger

 

 

Forthcoming from Cambridge University Press: Rhetorical Traditions & Contemporary Law (Brian N. Larson & Elizabeth C. Britt, eds., 2025) @CambridgeUP

Rhetorical Traditions & Contemporary Law (Brian N. Larson & Elizabeth C. Britt, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2025) (Forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

Rhetoric—the arts of practical discourse that we broadly define as the use of symbols to influence belief and action—has something to say about contemporary legal theory and practice. Law and rhetoric in the West were born together nearly 2500 years ago in the Mediterranean. American law has eschewed its rhetorical roots since the late nineteenth century. Denying law’s rhetorical nature helps to construct an impartial façade, shoring up law’s legitimacy. Admitting the rhetorical nature of law would be to admit its partiality, or the point of view inevitably inscribed with every textual choice. At the same time, rhetorical theorists have turned their attention to many subjects other than law. Though many rhetorical scholars today still study legal rhetoric, much of their focus is on high-profile court cases and Supreme Court opinions. This volume’s contributors believe it is time for an expanded conversation between law and rhetoric, placing a broader variety of legal texts in conversation with a broader variety of rhetorical traditions than is typically available. Each essay here makes a connection between one or more significant texts on rhetoric and contemporary legal texts.

Liu on Independence Through Judicialization: The Politics Surrounding Administrative Adjudicators, 1929-1949 @Michigan_JEAL @Lawrence_J_Liu

Lawrence J. Liu, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, is publishing Independence through Judicialization: The Politics Surrounding Administrative Adjudicators, 1929-1949 in the Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law. Here is the abstract.

One front in today’s battle to define the scope of the administrative state concerns the authority, status, and future of its 10,000-plus administrative adjudicators. Decisions by federal courts and the executive branch to increase the dependence of administrative adjudicators on the executive have sparked strong reactions from observers, with many advocating for measures to increase adjudicator “independence.” But who should administrative adjudicators be independent of, which ought to be independent, and why? Calls for administrative adjudicator independence are not new. This Article draws on primary documents produced by private actors, congressional decisionmakers, and federal executive agents to present a political legal history of legislative proposals between 1929 and 1949 to understand whether, how, and why different actors sought to insulate administrative adjudicators from their agencies or the President. Leading up to and following the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946, politicians and interested citizens advanced proposals to increase the independence of the individuals who conducted hearings and served as factfinders in administrative agencies. Then, like now, observers debated administrative adjudicator independence in the context of discussions about the power of administrative agencies. The loudest supporters of independence were anti-New Dealers trying to halt and reverse the growth of administrative power, who were joined by a subset of legal professionals interested in using law to check its operation. These critics attempted to “judicialize” administrative adjudication by increasing the resemblance of administrative adjudicators to the federal judiciary. What does this history teach? First, it illustrates how actors past and present deploy seemingly apolitical terms like judicial values, independence, or administrative procedure to obtain substantive political ends. Indeed, such terms can take on different meanings at different times, perhaps varying with views of the federal judiciary and active government, the policies and political strength of the President, the issues decided by administrative agencies, or the types of claimants subject to adjudication. Second, it highlights how early supporters of administrative agencies emphasized the diversity among administrative adjudicators, while opponents grouped them together to collectively limit their authority. Today, rather than pursuing one-size-fits-all reforms, I suggest that different rules should apply to different administrative adjudicators depending on the questions and claimants involved. Decisions about ratemaking or regulatory enforcement differ from individualized determinations whether citizens qualify for government benefits or licenses. Claims by business interests might be treated differently from those by more vulnerable groups, such as disability-benefits recipients or noncitizens at risk of removal. In any event, when making policy recommendations, reformers should begin by understanding who administrative adjudicators are and the functions they perform, an understanding that also underscores whether and how politics should animate arguments about adjudicator independence.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Barrett on Felix Frankfurter, Collector of People @JohnQBarrett @StJohnsLaw @TouroLawReview

John Q. Barrett, St. John's University School of Law; Robert H. Jackson Center, is publishing Felix Frankfurter, Collector of People in volume 39 of the Touro Law Review (2024). Here is the abstract.

This essay is part of the Touro Law Review symposium issue, “The Life, Work & Legacy of Felix Frankfurter.” It grew out of Touro Law School’s April 19, 2023, Frankfurter conference, which was inspired by Brad Snyder’s publication of the biography Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment. This essay describes how Felix Frankfurter engaged, intensely, with people—they were the treasures that he hunted down, evaluated, and collected. It considers some of Frankfurter’s most treasured people. One group is people who made Frankfurter, including Henry L. Stimson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Another group is Justice Frankfurter’s three great U.S. Supreme Court colleagues: Justices Hugo L. Black, Robert H. Jackson, and William O. Douglas. A third group is biographers who Frankfurter admired and pushed: Harlan Buddington Phillips, Mark DeWolfe Howe, Jr., McGeorge Bundy, Alexander M. Bickel, Andrew L. Kaufman, and Philip B. Kurland. Biographer Brad Snyder has, by himself collecting Frankfurter and portraying him so fully and so well, brought his people-collecting into focus. I hope that Snyder’s biography stimulates others to study Frankfurter, to recover his stolen papers, to write more about him, to publish more of his writings, and to live people-filled lives. The Touro Law Review Frankfurter symposium issue includes, in addition to my essay, this superb content: an introduction by Rodger Citron, conference organizer; a keynote address by Frankfurter biographer Brad Snyder; and essays and articles by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, R.B. Bernstein, William E. Nelson, Helen J. Knowles-Gardner, and Dalia Tsuk.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Call For Submissions: Open Philosophy: Sensuality and Robots

From Michał Kowalczyk, Assistant Editor, De Gruyter:

REMINDER: CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS for a topical issue of Open Philosophy

 

SENSUALITY AND ROBOTS: AN AESTHETIC APPROACH TO HUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTIONS

 

Open Philosophy (https://www.degruyter.com/opphil) invites submissions for the topical issue "Sensuality and Robots: An Aesthetic Approach to Human-Robot Interactions," edited by Adrià Harillo Pla.

 

DESCRIPTION

 

Can robots be sensual? In our era of technological advancements, the once clear demarcation between humans and machines is becoming increasingly blurred. As robotics and artificial intelligence continue to evolve, there is a remarkable confluence of situations that beckons us to ponder the profound implications of human-robot interactions. Sexual robots, or partners like Replika, are just an example. This edited issue puts on the table the relationship between aesthetics and philosophy, seeking to understand the intricate interplay of sensuality and robots.

 

Welcoming authors whose are informed by various philosophical approaches, which include, but are not limited to, Aesthetics, Philosophy of Time, Ethics, and Philosophy of Technology, this issue navigates the evolving landscape of human-robot relationships. Approaches from the Sociology of Expectations, Science and Technology Studies, or Psychology, are also welcome.

 

This issue will shed light into the concept of “sensuality” as a multi-faceted aesthetic, and creative experience that encompasses not only physical sensations, but also emotional and psychological. By probing the boundaries of what it means to be sensual, this issue intends to unravel the enigmatic allure of machines that simulate human-like qualities, maybe sometimes even transcending human capacities. The topical issue aspires to ignite a lively and thoughtful discussion on the present and future of sensuality and robots. By embracing this novel form of human-machine interaction, it opens the door to a fascinating journey that promises to reshape the boundaries of sensuality, aesthetics, eroticism, and the human experience in an ever-evolving technological world.

 

Contributions may address questions such as: ● Can a robot be sensual? ● In the case of sexual robots, is sensuality a condition of necessity, sufficiency, or possibility for its expected functionality? ● Can mechanisms of security affect not only the usability of a robot, but also its sensuality? ● Is there space for a “Robo-Eroticism” subdiscipline? ● How could a robot be sensual? ● What is the role of creativity in achieving sensual human-robot interactions? Authors publishing their articles in the special issue will benefit from: · transparent, comprehensive and fast peer review, · efficient route to fast-track publication and full advantage of De Gruyter's e-technology. Because Open Philosophy is published under an Open Access model, as a rule, publication costs should be covered by so-called Article Publishing Charges (APC), paid by authors, their affiliated institutions, funders, or sponsors. Authors without access to publishing funds are encouraged to discuss potential discounts or waivers with Managing Editor of the journal Katarzyna Tempczyk (katarzyna.tempczyk@degruyter.com) before submitting their manuscripts.

 

HOW TO SUBMIT Submissions will be collected from September 1 to September 30, 2024. To submit an article for the special issue of Open Philosophy, authors are asked to access the online submission system at: http://www.editorialmanager.com/opphil/

 

Please choose as article type: Sensual Robots

 

Before submission the authors should carefully read over the Instruction for Authors, available at: https://www.degruyter.com/publication/journal_key/OPPHIL/downloadAsset/OPPHIL_Instruction%20for%20Authors.pdf

 

All contributions will undergo critical review before being accepted for publication.

 

Further questions about this thematic issue can be addressed to Adrià Harillo Pla at adria.harillo@gmail.com.

 

In case of technical problems with submission, please contact AssistantManagingEditor@degruyter.com

 

Find us on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DGOpenPhilosophy

Postema on An "Almost Sacred Responsibility": The Rule of Law in Times of Peril @UNCPhilDept @DukeJudicature

Gerald J. Postema, University of North Carolina Department of Philosophy, has published An 'Almost Sacred Responsibility': The Rule of Law in Times of Peril at 107 Judicature 41 (2024). Here is the abstract.

“An ‘Almost Sacred Responsibility’: The Rule of Law in Times of Peril.” Published in Judicature (107 no. 3—2024) Judicature - Vol. 107 No. 3 (2024). The material in this short article was first presented in a lecture for the Bolch Judicial Institute, Duke University Law School, June 16, 2023. The essay sketches key ideas that are set out in detail in Gerald J. Postema, Law’s Rule: The Nature, Value, and Viability of the Rule of Law (Oxford, 2022). It briefly articulates the core principles of the rule-of-law ideal, its moral foundations, key institutions in which it is typically realized, and signal threats to which it is vulnerable.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.