Workshop for Junior Scholars, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, June 8-9, 2026

 Workshop for Junior Scholars

Georgetown University Law Center, Stanford Law School, UCLA School of Law, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Southern California Center for Law, History, and Culture invite submissions for the 24th meeting of the Law and Humanities Workshop for Junior Scholars, to be held at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School on June 8-9, 2026. For more information please see the link to the CFP below. 2026 LHW Jr Scholars CFP.pdf

New From Hart Publishing: Picart on Countering Jihadi Cool: Narrative, Law, and Philosophy Against Global Jihad (2025)

New from Caroline Joan "Kay" S. Picart, Countering Jihadi Cool: Narrative, Law, and Philosophy Against Global Jihad (Hart Publishing, 2025).

Here from the publisher's website is a description of the book's contents.

Using an aesthetic culture and techniques termed as jihadi cool, terrorist groups have been able to recruit members from around the world, so how do we begin to respond? This book analyzes the rhetorical and ethical dynamics of a culture of jihadi cool/chic, and why these rhetorical and aesthetic techniques have been such a powerful recruitment force for particular transnational terrorist groups. The author uses an evidence-based approach, with frameworks derived from law, politics, philosophy, rhetoric, feminist theory, and communication studies, to examine various attempts to construct counter-narratives to the jihadi cool master narrative. The book closes with an examination of how to begin to respond critically and effectively to the lure of jihadi cool.

Cultures of Legality in Weimar Germany: Next Series of Lectures at the University of Lucerne

From Dr. Stephen Howe, Senior Research and Lecturer, Associate Director of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies, Iucernaiuris, University of Lucerne

The next series of lectures in Cultures of Legality in Weimar Germany

Wednesday 12 November, 10.00-11.00

Visualising ‘Through Science to Justice’? Sexological Photographs during the Weimar Republic

Xiaojue Michelle Zhu (The Courtauld Institute of Art, London)

 

Tuesday 25 November, 16.00-17.00

Visualizing the Legal Subject in Weimar Film

Hannes Charen (Pratt Institute, Brooklyn)

 

Wednesday 10 December, 09.00-10.00

The Paragraph Film: Genre, Emotions and the Struggle for Law

Steven Howe (University of Lucerne)

 

All sessions are free and open to all, and we warmly invite you to join us. Further details, including registration info, available via the links.

 

Please note that listed start times are CET. Time zone converter here.

Call For Papers: Socio-Legal Studies Association 2026 Annual Conference, Dance/Law Current Topic

From Dr. Sean Mulcahy, Research Officer, Gender, Law and Drugs Program, LaTrobe University:

The call for papers for the Socio-Legal Studies Assocation's 2026 Annual Conference is open. The conference will be held at the University of Sussex.

We would be delighted if you would consider submitting an abstract to the Dance/Law current topic co-convened by myself and Dr Maria Frederica Moscati (University of Sussex).

You can find out more information here. Just scroll down to 'Dance/Law'.

The deadline for submissions is 30 October 2025. 

If you have any questions or would like any further information, please do reach out. 

 

ICYMI: Barbas on The Story of Beauharnais v. Illinois

ICYMI: Samantha Barbas, University of Iowa Collee of Law, has published The Story Of Beauharnais v. Illinois at 2 Journal of Free Speech Law 420 (2023). Here is the abstract.

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark First Amendment decision in Beauharnais v. Illinois, upholding an Illinois hate speech law. Beauharnais, involving a white supremacist “hate group” leader in Chicago, was the Supreme Court’s first encounter with racist speech. The Illinois statute, enacted in 1917, was one of several hate speech or “group defamation” laws that existed in the United States during the first half of the twentieth century. Commentators believed that the Supreme Court’s approval of the Illinois statute would lead other jurisdictions to enact hate speech laws. Yet Beauharnais facilitated the demise of hate speech laws. This article tells the story of Beauharnais v. Illinois and explains why the Supreme Court’s ruling helped bring about the end of hate speech laws in America.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Wieboldt on Ideas With(out) Consequences?: The Natural Law Institute and the Making of Conservative Constitutionalism During the Cold War, 1947-1951

Dennis J. Wieboldt, III, is publishing Ideas With(out) Consequences?: The Natural Law Institute and the Making of Conservative Constitutionalism During the Cold War, 1947-1951 in volume 42 of the Law & History Review (2025). Here is the abstract.

Recent scholarship on conservative constitutionalism in the United States focuses near exclusively on the development of originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation. Before conservatives turned to originalism to counter the perceived threats of an activist judiciary in the 1980s, however, this article demonstrates that conservatives employed a very different interpretive philosophy to counter a very different perceived threat. To do so, this article reconstructs the history of a conservative legal movement that predated "the" conservative legal movement. Indeed, this article uncovers how conservatives employed natural law philosophy to respond to the elite legal academy's seemingly morally foundationless positivism during the Cold War. The network of natural lawyers that sustained this earlier movement was deeply indebted to the Natural Law Institute (NLI), an academic initiative of the University of Notre Dame established in 1947. By framing the founding fathers' natural law philosophy as a bulwark of individual liberty against the encroachments of legal realists, World War II-era totalitarians, and Cold War communists, the NLI created what the political scientist Amanda Hollis-Brusky has termed a "political epistemic network." In concluding, this article suggests that recovering the history of the NLI's epistemic network reveals the importance of natural law to the making of conservative constitutionalism during the Cold War.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Monopoli on A "New" New Departure

Paula A. Monopoli, University of Maryland School of Law, has pulished A "New" New Departure at 102 Washington University Law Review 1961 (2025). Here is the abstract.

In the wake of enactment of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, women’s rights activists embarked on an exercise in popular constitutionalism known as “the New Departure.” Frustrated by the failure of Congress to include women in the Reconstruction Amendments, suffragists turned to a strategy based, in part, upon republican theory. They argued that women had an inherent right to vote grounded in natural law and in their status as citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. They operationalized that theory by engaging in mass-voting events and were prosecuted for illegal voting. These activist efforts came to an end in 1875 when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that theory in Minor v. Happersett. This paper situates the New Departure at the beginning of a historical continuum that includes two subsequent periods in feminist legal history—the Progressive Era and the period which began in the wake of the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. It explores how women’s rights activists in each of these three periods have rejected originalism as an interpretive methodology that, by its very terms, has a subordinating effect on women’s constitutional status. Such activists have proposed alternative interpretive methods which centered women and their legal, economic, and social status. Feminist constitutional advocacy in the post-Dobbs period continues in this tradition by resisting the dominant interpretive method and arguing for a “new” New Departure toward interpretive methods which elevate rather than subordinate women’s constitutional status. Exploring feminist constitutional strategies across time illuminates a history and tradition that may have a generative effect for current efforts to restore the right to abortion and establish a broader reproductive justice.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Katz on "May It Please Her Honor": The United States' First Women Juges, 1870-1930

Elizabeth D. Katz, University of Florida College of Law, has published "May It Please Her Honor": The United States' First Women Judges, 1870-1930 at 102 Washington University Law Review 1729 (2025).

Between 1870 and 1930, hundreds of women served as judges in the United States. While a small number compared to the men who served, these pathbreaking officials were particularly visible and influential in women's efforts to secure political rights and advance in the legal profession. Women's progress in obtaining judgeships developed in a regional pattern, with women in the Midwest and West able to secure earlier and broader jurisdiction positions than their counterparts in the Northeast and South. Seeking access to the judiciary, women in conservative states made gendered arguments about women's supposed superiority in overseeing cases involving women, children, and families. Some demonstrated women's skill in handling juvenile and family matters through service as the country's first probation officers, a step that supported women's selection as judges in juvenile and family courts. Regardless of location or type of court, women judges attracted significant attention because they seemed to embody the promise and perils of women's increasing political and professional power. Yet since most served in local trial courts, nearly all are forgotten today. This Article recovers the stories of these overlooked trailblazers, offering the most comprehensive account of the obstacles they faced and the strategies they deployed to join the country's judicial benches.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Priel on The Political Theories of the Legal Realists

Dan Priel, City University of Hong Kong School of Law; York University, Osgoode Hall Law School, has published The Political Theories of the Legal Realists. Here is the abstract.

A popular view about the legal realists is that, either knowingly or inadvertently, they advanced ideas inconsistent with traditional values, democracy, and the rule of law. Another view about them suggested that the realists had no political theory: they only offered a descriptive (empirical) theory of adjudication, albeit one that has normatively "quietist" implications. In this essay, I challenge both views. I argue that there were two legal realist camps whose jurisprudential ideas presupposed two quite different political theories. One group of legal realists consisted of public utilitarians who were consciously inspired by Bentham, wanted to turn legal and political theory into a science, and who thought law should be evaluated by its ability to increase social welfare. The other group had a very different political theory underlying its approach to law. For these legal realists, law was a traditionary institution, which should reflect, and be continuous with, community customs and values. After showing these different views, I show their relevance to contemporary debates in different areas of law.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

LCH 2026 Conference Scheduled for June 17-18, 2026 at DePaul College of Law

The Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and the Humanities will hold its 2026 conference June 17-18, 2026 at the DePaul University College of Law, in Chicago. The CFP will be available soon.

Submissions will be due on January 31, and the Association will send notifications shortly after that. 

In the meantime, you can view all the recent conference programs here. Here's a link to the 2026 conference website.

Rhodes on A Silence after Slaughter-House: Nineteenth-Century State Constitutional Substantive Rights, Liberties, and Privileges

Charles W. (Rocky) Rhodes, University of Missouri (Columbia) Law School, has published A Silence after Slaughter-House: Nineteenth-Century State Constitutional Substantive Rights, Liberties, and Privileges at 85 Louisiana Law Review 439 (2025).

In rejecting federal constitutional challenges to the Louisiana legislature’s exclusive butchering grant in the Slaughter-House Cases, the United States Supreme Court opined that it was the states’ obligation to protect fundamental privileges, such as rights to acquire and possess property, engage in trade and commerce, and pursue happiness, subject only to those restraints necessary for the public good. But the states met this charge with silence. State courts across the nation consistently parroted Slaughter-House’s reasoning, even while occasionally acknowledging the decision did not bind their interpretation of state constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities. Although two states ratified arguably responsive constitutional provisions affording protection to state privileges and immunities, their judiciaries also followed the Supreme Court’s lead. Yet a minority of states, both before and after Slaughter-House, specifically targeted exclusive state legislative grants through anti-monopoly state constitutional provisions or through common-law doctrines. While not affording broad protections for their citizens’ rights and liberties, these constitution makers and state judiciaries attacked the specific perceived problem through either the majoritarian convention and ratification process or within the majoritarian features of the common law. This symposium piece explores the salient lessons this nineteenth-century response offers for the past, present, and future of state constitutional interpretation in Louisiana and throughout the nation. Ascertaining the meaning of universal American foundational jurisprudential principles—such as liberty, rights, privileges, and immunities—has always been a predominantly shared judicial enterprise, despite some arguably significant textual variations among America’s constitutions. But state courts depart more frequently from the universal approach and federal constitutional law’s influence when supported by either a precise state constitutional guarantee targeting the issue or a longstanding state common-law tradition. These methods typically prevail when the state constitution’s design and accompanying institutional incentives reinforce the majoritarian features of state constitutionalism. This explains the state constitutional response to Slaughter-House over 150 years ago and still holds true today.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Vasconcelos Vilaça on Law as a Semiotic Time Machine

Guilherme Vasconcelos Vilaça, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), Law School, has published "Law as a Semiotic Time Machine." Here is the abstract.

This chapter examines several semiotic dimensions of the relation between law and time. Focusing on Tanpınar's novel The Time Regulation Institute, it emphasizes the interaction between different temporal standards, subjectivities and normative sources, and its role in giving meaning to individual and social life. Given law's powers as a time machine the chapter also discusses political projects that supress time, revealing how categories of collective life depend on certain semiotics of time.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Davies on Sherlock Holmes: Real or Imagined? Living or Dying?

Ross E. Davies, George Mason University Law School; The Green Bag, has published Sherlock Holmes: Real or Imagined? Living or Dying? at 2025 Baker Street Almanac I. Here is the abstract.

Readers of the November 22, 1913 issue of Collier’s Weekly magazine had the joy of taking in Arthur Conan Doyle’s new Sherlock Holmes story, “The Adventure of the Dying Detective.” Recipients of the nifty little Christmas 1913 keepsake booklet of “The Dying Detective” put out by the advertising department at Collier’s got to read almost exactly the same story. The typesetters did a near-perfect job of making sure that the text of “The Dying Detective” in the booklet matched the text in the magazine. Indeed, there are just three notable differences between the booklet and magazine texts. The first two differences appear to be intentional and definitely are not defects. The third is, alas, a typographical finish-line fail. While there does not appear to be much worthy of study in the textual differences between the two 1913 Collier’s versions of “The Dying Detective,” addingThe Strand Magazine to the mix may change things. There is at least one difference between, on one hand, both of those Collier’s versions and, on the other hand, the version in the December 1913 Strandthat might merit a closer look. On page 609 of The Strand, while conversing with Dr. John Watson, Holmes says, “Strange how the brain controls the brain!”

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Balkin and Levinson on Casebooks, Canons, and Constitutional Memory

Jack M. Balkin, Yale University Law School, and Sanford Levinson, University of Texas Law School, are publishing Casebooks, Canons, and Constitutional Memory as a Yale Law School Public Law Research Paper.

Why edit a constitutional law casebook? One might want to shape how professors teach the subject and how students learn it. But the influence of casebook editors is limited. Most students at most law schools will never practice constitutional law, and those that do probably deal with subjects not in the standard introductory course. Editing a casebook involves the construction of a canon. The canon in literature is organized around great works of excellence. By contrast, the canon in constitutional casebooks does not reflect the best opinions ever written; instead it reflects generations of political and legal struggles over the Constitution. There are three kinds of canons in constitutional law, and in constitutional law casebooks: (1) the pedagogical canon of materials that students need to know to be well-trained lawyers; (2) the cultural literacy canon of materials that citizens need to know to understand their constitutional system; and (3) the constitutional theory canon of materials that are grist for the mill of serious academic discussion. Each of these canons has a politics, and different casebooks may align themselves with different political and legal visions and movements. Casebooks are also sites of collective memory. A casebook foregrounds what teachers and students are likely to focus on and remember. What is left out of teaching materials is more likely to be forgotten. Hence constitutional law casebook authors are almost inevitably memory entrepreneurs, who seek to get people to remember certain things or remember them differently. But casebook editors are hardly all-powerful memory entrepreneurs. Authors must work with their coauthors to decide what materials to include and delete in successive editions. Casebook authors face serious constraints from publishers. Publishers demand frequent new editions to undercut sales of used casebooks; and they want casebooks to be ever shorter and simpler to understand. Perhaps most important, casebook authors feel obliged to cover contemporary issues in constitutional law. Those issues are not in their control. They are shaped by the continuous interaction and collision between the political branches and the courts, and especially the United States Supreme Court. In this way the Supreme Court exercises vast control over the content and organization of constitutional law casebooks. This creates important problems of constitutional memory. If the Supreme Court overrules a line of cases, those cases are likely to be flushed down the memory hole unless casebook editors are willing to sacrifice other valued content. The Supreme Court constantly destroys existing canons of constitutional law and reconstitutes them through its choice of cases to decide. Casebook authors must carefully consider how much of this constant churning and change is noise and how much is genuinely important and lasting for understanding the U.S. Constitution. This makes casebook authors' limited choices about what to remember especially important. At most, by placing certain materials before professors and students, casebook authors can provide opportunities to recall and absorb what is most important about our constitutional traditions. Yet what others do with those materials--and those memories--is ultimately beyond casebook authors' control.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Pasker on "Which History has Condescended to Notice": Black Testimony in Antebellum Courts

Robert B. Pasker, CUNY Department of History, has published "Which History has Condescended to Notice": Black Testimony in Antebellum Courts. Here is the abstract.

This study investigates the contested admissibility of Black testimony in American courts between 1790 and 1865, analyzing 73 appellate opinions across 11 states and the District of Columbia. Contrary to the prevailing historiography that portrays antebellum statutes as universally excluding Black voices, these cases reveal that judges frequently exercised discretion to admit testimony where exclusion threatened the courts’ procedural capacity to adjudicate. The analysis demonstrates that judicial reasoning prioritized institutional functionality rather than moral or rights-based considerations. A central challenge was methodological: appellate case law is vast, dispersed, and embedded in archaic legal language that resists conventional search tools. To overcome this, I developed Roscoe, a machine-learning system designed to perform conceptual searches, generate topical classifications, and produce plain-language summaries of nineteenth-century case law. Named for Roscoe Pound, the system allowed efficient retrieval and categorization of relevant cases from hundreds of thousands of digitized opinions. Roscoe not only enhanced recall and precision in identifying Black testimony cases but also facilitated thematic grouping across jurisdictional boundaries, making possible a genuinely national analysis. The findings expose the structural contradiction at the core of antebellum jurisprudence: statutes that categorically barred Black testimony collided with the judiciary’s pragmatic need for probative evidence. Appellate decisions show how Black participation forced courts to adapt in ways that preserved institutional authority while reinforcing racial hierarchy. This duality—judicial flexibility without recognition of Black rights—complicates prevailing narratives of antebellum legal history and demonstrates how digital methodologies can expand the evidentiary base of legal historiography.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bond on Representations of Law and Race Revisited: An Updated Survey of Recent American Film

Cynthia D. Bond, UIC School of Law, has published Representations of Law and Race Revisited: An Updated Survey of Recent American Film at 30 Denver Sports and Entertainment Law Journal 51 (Spring 2025). Here is the abstract.

This article revisits the author's Laws of Race/Laws of Representation: The Construction of Race and Law in Contemporary American Film, 11 Univ. Tex. Rev. of Sports and Ent. L. 219 (2010), surveying recent developments in mainstream films' depiction of the interrelated narratives of law and race. This article applies to current film the 2010 article's paradigm, which articulated three key narrative aspects of depictions of race and law in popular film: 1.) the raced construction of the lawyer-hero; 2.) the denial or displacement of the law's role in constructing race and race-based discrimination; and 3.) the suppression or revision of politics and political history. Using this paradigm as a point of departure, the article examines a range of films, TV shows, and streaming series that grapple with race under law. Particular focus is paid to films created post-2020, in light of social movements like Black Lives Matter and the attendant increased public dialogue regarding racialized legal disparities in American life. Beyond displaying a mere statistical uptick of racially diverse casting, films and series of the last fifteen years reveal that popular culture can engage notions of race and its place under law in a more direct and nuanced way.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Expressions of Interest: International Handbook of Legal Language and Communication: From Text to Semiotics; Section 3: Justice in the Media Age-- Law, Communication, and Public Perception

Call For Expressions of Interest

International Handbook of Legal Language and Communication (IHLLC): From Text to Semiotics
Editor-in-Chief: Anne Wagner
Publisher: Springer

Section 3: Justice in the Media Age — Law, Communication, and Public Perception

Section Editors: Jerome Tessuto & Vijay Kumar Bhatia
Contact: Tessuto Jerome (t.jerome@libero.it) & Vijay Kumar Bhatia (vjkbhatia1@gmail.com)

We invite proposals for chapters for Section 3 of the IHLLC, which examines the evolving relationship between media, digital communication, and the legal system—and how these shape public perceptions of justice, cultural identity, and collective memory. We welcome contributions that bridge law, linguistics, communication, media studies, and semiotics.

This section explores:

• How traditional media (press, TV, radio) construct legal narratives and influence trust in institutions.
• The role of social and digital platforms (e.g., X/Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) in real-time legal discourse, advocacy, and mobilization—as well as the risks of misinformation and prejudgment.
• The emergence of digital evidence, its authenticity and admissibility, and the impact of virtual courtrooms on procedure and participation.
• Media’s role in collective memory, reform, and accountability, including the responsibilities of tech companies and regulators in moderating harmful content while safeguarding free expression.

Suggested Themes (non-exhaustive)

• Media trials, open justice, and the right to a fair trial
• Framing of courts, judges, and litigants in legacy media
• Social media activism, hashtag movements, and legal reform
• Disinformation, prejudicial publicity, and contempt risks
• Digital evidence: capture, authenticity, admissibility, and fact-finding
• Virtual hearings, remote justice, and access to justice
• Platform governance, content moderation, and intermediary liability
• Online hate speech, defamation, harassment, and remedies
• Investigative journalism, watchdog roles, and legal accountability
• Collective memory, cultural identity, and legal storytelling
• Comparative and cross-jurisdictional analyses
• Methods: discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, multimodal/semiotic analysis

Submission Guidelines

Please email your Expression of Interest (EOI) to Tessuto Jerome (t.jerome@libero.it) and Vijay Kumar Bhatia (vjkbhatia1@gmail.com) including:

• Tentative chapter title (subject to revision)
• Author name(s)
• Institutional affiliation(s)
• Country
• Short abstract

Chapters should be substantial, literature-based, and accessible in tone, engaging the handbook’s semiotic perspective on law and communication. Revisions are possible through the production process.

Timeline: Deadlines for full chapters are flexible (typically 6–12 months after acceptance, with extensions possible).

All information, including author guidelines, templates, and Q&A, is available on the IHLLC project website:
👉 https://meteor.springer.com/project/dashboard.jsf?id=1949&tab=About&mode=ReadPage&entity=15466

Call for Applications: National Humanities Center Residential Fellowships 2026-2027

National Humanities Center Residential Fellowships 2026-27 

The National Humanities Center invites applications for academic-year or semester-long residential fellowships for scholars of the humanities. 

Fellows enjoy private studies, in-house dining, and superb library services that deliver a variety of research materials while they are in residence. Mid-career, senior, and emerging scholars with a strong record of peer-reviewed work from all areas of the humanities are encouraged to apply. 

(Please note: applicants must have received a PhD or equivalent scholarly credentials five years prior to applying to qualify.). Scholars from all parts of the globe are welcome; stipends and travel expenses are provided. 

 For more information about the NHC fellowship experience, eligibility requirements, or to apply, please visit this link: https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/scholarly-programs/. 

Applications are due by 11:59 p.m. ET, October 2, 2025. 

FAQs: https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/scholarly-programs/faqs/ 

Queries re. application and program: fellowships@nationalhumanitiescenter.org

Mitchell on The Narrative Fragmentation of International Legal History

Ryan Mitchell, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, has published The Narrative Fragmentation of International Legal History at 27 Journal of the History of International Law 57 (2025). Here is the abstract.

The historiography of international law is highly pluralistic and resistant to unifying master narratives. This pluralism is reflected in diverging authorial strategies. To categorize such strategies, this article borrows Hayden White's typology of 'emplotments', or narrative logics, as a useful method of classification. As the article shows, leading accounts of international law's history have often involved conflicting forms of subjective identification with protagonists and forces. This article also suggests that the turn from a relatively homogeneous understanding of international legal history to one characterized by inescapable fragmentation can be dated to the geopolitical, ideological, and cultural transitions of the 1950s-60s. Entrenched ideological conflict and decolonization resulted in a stubbornly diverse historiography that remains the essential condition of the field today. For modern historians of international law, it is crucial to recognize this narrative fragmentation as well as the resulting choices it imposes upon authors making sense of the past.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Sharma and Pareek on Colonial Constructs and Legal Myths: The Erasure of Hindi Jurisprudence and Dicta on Criminal Law Under the Shadow of English Legal Superiority

Prakash Sharma, Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, and Animesh Pareek, IIT Kharagpur, have published Colonial Constructs and Legal Myths: The Erasure of Hindu Jurisprudence and Dicta on Criminal Law Under the Shadow of English Legal Superiority. Here is the abstract.

The British colonial enterprise in India restructured political and economic institutions and fundamentally altered the subcontinent's legal landscape. The systematic marginalisation and erasure of intangible Bhartiya heritage, especially in criminal law, was a crucial aspect of this transformation. This chapter examines the colonial imposition of the English legal system, viewing it not only as an administrative mechanism but also as a cultural and ideological initiative based on the belief in the inherent superiority and modernity of English law. The chapter examines the evolution of colonial legal discourse from the late 18th century, highlighting the portrayal of English criminal law as rational, secular, and progressive, in stark contrast to the depiction of Hindu law as irrational, archaic, and overly devoid of logic. The colonial state selectively codified elements of Hindu legal tradition that aligned with its administrative requirements, while disregarding extensive bodies of nuanced jurisprudence, especially those found in Dharmaśāstra literature and community-based justice practices. This chapter examines the suppression of Hindu criminal law as an aspect of broader epistemic violence, in which legal modernity is aligned with Western legal norms, thereby delegitimising non-Western legal systems. This chapter examines legislative developments and judicial opinions to elucidate the lasting effects of this erasure on postcolonial legal consciousness in India. Ultimately, the chapter contests the herrschendeErzählung(dominant narrative) that the English legal system represented a neutral or inevitable advancement over Bhartiya systems. This necessitates a critical reassessment of the influence of colonial legal constructs on current interpretations of law, justice, and legal modernity in India.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Johnson on Frederick Douglass: D.C. Recorder of Deeds

Randall K. Johnson, University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law, is publishing Frederick Douglass: D.C. Recorder of Deeds in volume 28 of The Green Bag (2026). Here is the abstract.

Frederick Douglass' surprise nomination, as the first Black D.C. Recorder of Deeds, represented yet another career milestone for the most photographed U.S. citizen of the nineteenth century. As head of the local agency responsible for registering property interests, Douglass played an important role in advancing local economic development, mostly by letting the world know who owns what real estate within the geographic boundaries of D.C. This point is underscored by the fact that Douglass earned the second highest salary in the U.S. federal government, which some have estimated to be as high as $40 per work day in 1886 dollars. My essay, further, builds upon this analysis by focusing on a third indicator of importance: the type, quality and quantity of local press coverage that Douglass received during his time as the D.C. Recorder (1881 to 1886).

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Seong-Hak Kim on Legal Pluralism That Wasn't: State and the Plurality of Law in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe

Marie Seong-Hak Kim, Käte Hamburger Kolleg "Einheit und Vielfalt im Recht", has published Legal Pluralism That Wasn't: State and the Plurality of Law in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Legaal Hre is the abstract,

Legal pluralism has seemingly become a new orthodoxy. Its core proposition is that law has no privileged relationship with the state. Students of legal history have reason for paying attention, as legal pluralism, a corollary of colonialism, has come to project back onto European history its cultural and social-scientific paradigm and arrogate to itself the role of explaining the evolution of normative orders in the continent's past. This article argues that applying to European history a theory premised on a contest between legal monism and pluralism brings more confusion than clarity. The difference between historically grounded legal pluralism and the contemporary theory of legal pluralism revolves around the question of whether multiple legal orders existed as part of state law or state law was merely one among many legal orders. In late medieval and early modern Europe, law was foremost equated with jurisdictional power, that is, authority to rule. Various kinds of laws, including custom, Roman law, church law, and legislation, operated in a plurality of practices within the state-centered hierarchy, and it was on this framework of state law pluralism that the European countries, while remaining under the doctrinal unity of the jus commune, each followed a discrete path of legal development shaped by political and institutional changes. The history of Europe provides little support for the theory that an imposed Romanitas or state sovereignty displaced and distorted good old customary law. Modern legal pluralist views may be in need of reconsideration not just in light of what was happening in late medieval and early modern Europe but also in terms of how Europe's ideas of legal order spread to the colonies in the late nineteenth century. Recent debates on legal pluralism serve as a reminder that history is distinct from an anemic version of the more theoretical social sciences. Still, the binary of unity and plurality in law can offer an unaccustomed yet useful direction in approaching the legal past.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Applications, Witteveen Memorial Fellowship in Law and Humanities, Tilburg Law School

From Michel Bot, Associate Professor of Law and Humanities
Department of Public Law and Governance, Tilburg Law School
Program Director, Major Law in an International Context, University College Tilburg

Tilburg Law School (The Netherlands) is accepting applications for this spring’s one-month Witteveen memorial fellowship in Law and Humanities. Application deadline: September 21.

The Witteveen Memorial Fellowship in Law and Humanities aims to promote research and teaching on law and rhetoric, narrative, image, performance, sound, and/or culture.

The fellowship enables a junior scholar (PhD or postdoc level) to share and develop their research in the field of law and humanities during a residency at Tilburg Law School for one month in February-May 2026. There is a 5000 euro budget to cover travel and accommodation costs.

We expect the fellow to participate actively in the academic life of Tilburg Law School by presenting their research in a research seminar and by teaching a guest class to students. Past Fellows have also introduced film screenings, have organized a reading of their play with students, have read their poetry, have given a lecture performance, participated in a teach-out, in addition to participating in various research seminars.

Scholars who are in the final stages of their PhD research or who obtained their PhD in the field of law and humanities within the last five years are eligible.

Please apply via this link.

 

See past fellows via this link.

 

Call for Applications: Law/Justice/Ethics Positions, Haverford College

 

Call For Applications: Interdisciplinary Positions at Haverford College

Two tenure-track interdisciplinary law/justice/ethics jobs at Haverford College

Haverford College invites applications for two tenure-track Assistant Professors in its Peace, Justice, and Human Rights program, to begin Fall semester 2026. The positions are open to humanists and social scientists at all pre-tenure levels (including new PhDs through those who currently hold a tenure-track position) whose work is interdisciplinary and focuses on questions of justice, law, human rights, and related fields. Position 1 seeks scholars specializing in justice- or law-oriented work that engages with theory and can contribute to the vibrancy of an interdisciplinary program. Position 2 seeks scholars specializing in ethics-oriented work who are able to engage with the college’s new Kim Ethics Institute as well as contribute to the PJHR curriculum. Successful candidates for both positions will be required to teach an introductory course on peace, justice, and human rights and/or an applied ethics course emphasizing diplomacy over winning an argument, and also offer more specialized courses in their area of expertise. Scholars knowledgeable in both theory and practice in their fields will be best suited for these positions. Candidates should also be well-versed in inclusive pedagogy and prepared to mentor a diverse student body. Haverford College embraces the teacher-scholar model and supports faculty research through programs and funding opportunities such as a pre-tenure sabbatical after a successful 3rd year review. Candidates must have a PhD by August 31, 2026.  Peace, Justice, and Human Rights (PJHR) is an interdisciplinary concentration attracting students from many different disciplines; it offers students the opportunity to study the history, philosophy, and critiques of the rights tradition, examine issues of justice in their local and international contexts, and apply humanistic, social scientific, theoretical, and ethical reasoning to real-world problems. The program’s goal is to foster cross-disciplinary collaboration and new perspectives on entrenched problems. For more information, see http://www.haverford.edu/pjhr/  Still in the planning stages, the Kim Ethics Institute takes a holistic approach to ethical inquiry across the liberal arts, teaching students to address and evaluate competing goods and the consequences of choices in a global context. It brings scholarship, coursework, experiential learning, and collaborative action together, transforming theory into practice; and ethical inquiry into participation and leadership. For more information, see https://catalog.haverford.edu/programs/kim-ethics-institute/ Applicants should submit the following via Interfolio (https://apply.interfolio.com/171862): A cover letter indicating which position(s) are being applied for and addressing qualifications for the position(s), including a paragraph description of a course you’d like to teach in PJHR  A curriculum vitae A writing sample (up to 25 pages) or statement of research Applicants should arrange for three confidential letters of recommendation to be submitted directly by the recommenders via Interfolio. All application materials must be received by the end of the day on October 24, 2025 in order to receive consideration. Haverford College is a leading liberal arts college serving highly motivated students on a nationally recognized arboretum in suburban Haverford, just outside Philadelphia. For more information about Haverford and this position, please see here: https://www.haverford.edu/provost/available-positions/tenure-track-search-peace-justice-and-human-rights-pjhr-additional-information  Questions about the application process should be directed to hc-pjhrsearch@haverford.edu. For technical questions, please contact Interfolio directly at 1-877-997-8807 or help@interfolio.com.  Haverford College is an Equal Opportunity employer committed to diversity, equity, inclusion, social justice, and providing equal opportunities and access to all individuals regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry, age, marital status, disability, or veteran status. Women, non-binary and transgender individuals, people of color, Indigenous people, and those with other or multiple historically marginalized and/or underrepresented identities are especially encouraged to apply. Haverford College and our consortial partners are located on Lenape lands.

Serafin on The Corruption of Blood as Metaphor

Nicholas Serafin, Santa Clara University School of Law, has published The Corruption of Blood as Metaphor. Here is the abstract.

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood.” Corruption of blood was a common law punishment according to which individuals adjudged guilty of treason were deemed to possess “corrupt” blood and thus were stripped of the right to transmit property to any heirs. Conversely, their descendants lost the ability to inherit property or titles through the corrupted ancestral line. The punishment was typically imposed via attainders, that is, parliamentary determinations of an individual’s guilt without recourse to a trial. Legal authorities and legal scholars have offered a number of interpretations of the Clause. According to one interpretation, the Clause simply bans the corruption of blood, as this punishment was understood in common law. According to another interpretation, the Clause prohibits the punishment of children for the sins of their parents. According to yet another, the Clause stands for the principle that individuals should not be singled out on the basis of stigmatized group characteristics. Legal scholars remain divided over how to interpret the Clause. Part of the problem lies in the fact that while a number of legal scholars have examined the history of attainder, few have investigated the origins and meaning of the corruption of blood. In fact, much of the history of the punishment, including significant legal precedents discussing the corruption of blood, has not made its way into existing legal scholarship. This Article breaks new ground by tracing the origins of the Corruption of Blood Clause to the Roman law of infamy. I demonstrate that the punishment was imposed not simply for treason but rather for conduct or physical characteristics that were thought to be morally shameful. As the punishment was adopted in feudal Europe, the idea of corrupt blood became associated with individuals and groups who possessed stigmatized physical characteristics. In American law, this sense of corrupt blood was retained and applied particularly in cases involving immigration, integration, and intermarriage. In these cases, non-white groups were deemed to possess corrupt blood and so were excluded from the American body politic. Drawing on this history, I defend a “group-status” interpretation of the corruption of blood. I argue that the principle prohibits state action that singles out outcast groups, particularly groups defined by stigmatized physical characteristics. Because stigmatized physical characteristics are often shared by group members and passed down through generations, the principle is especially relevant when children are threatened with intergenerational punishment. The corruption of blood principle thus provides a separate foundation for important antidiscrimination doctrinal tools, such as the Court’s animus and stigma jurisprudence. Yet I also argue that the Clause itself bears directly upon issues like felon disenfranchisement and the Trump administration’s child-separation policy at the United States- Mexico border.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Molina Bustos on Cultural Analysis of the Legend of the Alligator Man

Francisco Fabiany Molina Bustos, EDUKIVOTOS, has published Cultural Analysis of the Legend of the Alligator Man. Here is the abstract.

This academic work explores the multifaceted dimensions of the Colombian legend El Hombre Caimán, analyzing its social, ethical, emotional, territorial, and economic functions. Through interdisciplinary lenses—myth theory, semiotics, pedagogy, cultural transmission, and symbolic economy—the study examines how the legend adapts across generations, media formats, and cultural contexts. It highlights the role of the myth in community identity, emotional processing, moral teaching, and cultural tourism, while critically reflecting on the risks of commodification.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Molina Bustos on Cultural Analysis of the Legend of the Whistler

Francisco Fabiany Molina Bustos, EDUKIVOTOS, has published Cultural Analysis of the Legend of the Whistler. Here is the abstract.

This academic project explores the Colombian legend of El Silbón through multidisciplinary lenses, examining its role as a myth in shaping ethics, emotions, social norms, identity, and economic potential. Analyzed from theories by Durkheim, Aristotle, Plutchik, Moscovici, and Harvey, El Silbón is shown to function as a pedagogical, symbolic, and cultural resource. The study reveals its adaptability to modern media, its emotional and psychological depth, and its use in tourism, ritual, and intergenerational transmission. It argues that the legend is not only a vessel of fear but also of identity, memory, and community resilience.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Rocheton: Among the Voices of the French Revolution: Olympe de Gouges' Political and Legal Pamphlets

Julie Rocheton, Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory, has published Among the Voices of the French Revolution: Olympe de Gouges’ Political and Legal Pamphlets as the Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory Research Paper Series No. 2025-11. Here is the abstract.

This article explores the often overlooked political and legal pamphlets of Olympe de Gouges, a French revolutionary thinker whose contributions extend far beyond her renowned Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen. In her prolific writings between 1788 and 1793, de Gouges crafted a nuanced blueprint for social justice aimed at protecting vulnerable populations, advocated for women’s rights, and proposed progressive reforms in family and criminal law. Her work consistently foregrounded themes of equality, civic responsibility, and the moral obligation of the state to support its citizens, particularly those marginalized by poverty, gender, and social hierarchy. Throughout her writings, de Gouges was both ahead of her time and constrained by it. Her proposals embodied an Enlightenment-inspired belief in “natural law,” which she used to validate her ideas in the face of societal limitations on women’s intellectual contributions. While she championed equality, her moral framework sometimes restricted the inclusivity of her proposals, particularly in her critique of women. As a political thinker, her stance towards the monarchy was complex, sometimes even paradoxical. She initially advocated for a constitutional monarchy but adjusted her views as the revolution progressed, mirroring the complexities of the French population’s loyalties and the radical shifts of the revolutionary era. This study brings de Gouges’ political and social philosophies to light, assessing their historical impact and looking at her pamphlets as a coherent body of work in order to underscore her lasting legacy as a pioneering thinker.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Concepcion on The First American Law Libraries

Cattleya M. Concepcion, Georgetown University Law Library, has published The First American Law Libraries at The Green Bag Almanac and Reader 80 (2025). Here is the abstract.

A brief history and bibliography of the first American law libraries, including lawyers’ personal law libraries, bar association or membership law libraries, county law libraries, state law libraries, court law libraries, federal law libraries, law school libraries, law firm libraries, and prison law libraries.

Download the article from SSRN at the link. Note: This work is (or will be) published by the Green Bag (www.greenbag.org), which hopes you will find it useful.

Upcoming Conference: Melville's Legacy For Law and the Humanities, University of Cincinnati Law School, October 24-25, 2025

Upcoming Conference at the University of Cincinnati Law School, October 24-25, 2025

Melville's Legacy for Law and the Humanities

Co-sponsored by the University of Cincinnati Law School and the Law and Humanities Institute

See the website link below for a list of speakers and more information about registration. Speakers will include Brook Thomas, Richard Weisberg, Paul Finkelman, Marguerite Allen, Jenny Doctor, Sanford Levinson, and Robin West. 

 

https://www.lawandhumanitiesinstitute.org/events/melvilles-legacy-for-law-and-the-humanities-2

Paradise on Agape and Law in Byzantium

Brandon L. Paradise, Rutgers Law School, Newardk, has published Agape and Law in Byzantium. Here is the abstract.

This study focuses on agape love and Eastern Orthodox soteriology as master narratives in the Byzantine legal imagination. It is an approach to the conference theme that inspired this chapter--the "sacred arts of Orthodoxy" in so far as the "art of legal disputation," so central to Byzantine literature, is a much neglected area of study, where rhetoric, ethics, legal theory and theology all coincide in a symphonia which is distinctively "Orthodox." As scholars have recently argued, law in Byzantium is better understood as a rhetorical, literary negotiation of broad, extra-legal religious, cultural and philosophical narratives than as an autonomous, formalist-positivist discipline that mirrors the scientific aspirations of modern western legal systems.560 Rather than attempting to generate formally correct "legal" solutions derived exclusively from rule or formalist discourse, Byzantine law seeks to render 'substantive justice' as measured by extra-legal narratives, including—and perhaps most importantly for this study—the master narratives of the gospel and Orthodox theology.561 Concretely put, this means that law in Byzantium is more an exercise in literary negotiation and applied morality than an exercise in technocratic and autonomous rule reasoning. Thus, unlike modern western legal systems, Byzantine law clearly imagines itself less as legal science and more as artistic practice. The praxis of this artistic endeavor is the shepherding of society on the basis of agape-love and in the direction of Orthodox soteriology, so that law becomes a force for realizing these two extra-legal cultural ideals.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Muñoz on The American Revolutions of 1776

Vincent Phillip Muñoz, University of Notre Dame, Department of Political Science, has published The American Revolutions of 1776. Here is the abstract.

Through the Declaration of Independence, the founders set in motion three interrelated revolutions: They put forth a new understanding of the foundations of political authority, crafted a new conception of government's purpose, and recognized the existence of religious truth and the legitimacy of religious authority. In this way, America's founding was animated by both the spirit of liberty and the spirit of religion.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bilder on Hater of Kings: Catharine Macaulay's Constitutional Regicide and the Declaration of Independence

Mary Sarah Bilder, Boston College Law School, has published Hater of Kings: Catharine Macaulay’s Constitutional Regicide and the Declaration of Independence as Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 654.

The American Revolution was a constitutional regicide. At first glance it does not much resemble a regicide. Charles I had been executed in 1649. George III went on to live nearly half a century beyond 1776. But read the Declaration of Independence carefully and notice how large the king looms. The “present King of Great Britain” aimed to establish “an absolute Tyranny.” The eighteen usurpations each began with He, the king. The king embodied two particular political typologies: Prince and Tyrant. As such, he was “unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” This constitutional justification for regicide had been developed by British historian Catharine Macaulay in the fourth volume of her History of England. Macaulay’s history from James I to the execution of Charles I provided a historical model, theoretical explanation, and blueprint for would-be patriots. Because of Macaulay, on the far side of the Atlantic, American revolutionaries renounced their allegiance to the king–and to any king–without the complications and consequences of executing one.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

McKoski on David Davis, Abraham Lincoln's Favorite Judge

Ray McKoski, University of Illinois, Chicago, School of Law, has published David Davis, Abraham Lincoln's Favorite Judge (University of Illinois Press, 2025) Book sections - Introduction and Biographical Sketch of David Davis. Here is the abstract.

David Davis, Abraham Lincoln’s Favorite Judge explores two aspects of Judge David Davis’s interesting and important life. First, the book traces Davis’s unmatched contribution to the political rise of Abraham Lincoln. Davis’s unbreakable loyalty to Lincoln forged while they traveled the central Illinois court circuit, their shared Whig origins, Davis’s voluminous political and personal contacts, his organizational skills, and as Lincoln put it, Davis’s knack “of making a man do a thing whether he wants to or not,” all combined to make the judge Lincoln’s strongest and most effective political supporter. In evaluating Davis’s role in Lincoln’s assent to the presidency, the book engages in a long overdue examination of the professional and personal relationship between the two friends. Second, the book details Davis’s vital contribution to the fabric of the legal system—impartiality on the bench. Off the bench Davis left no stone unturned in advancing the political career of Lincoln and made no secret of his personally held “fixed opinions” on subjects such as Democrats, temperance, and abolitionists. In court, however, Judge Davis set aside his beliefs and relationships and rendered decisions free from personal, political, and social views; friendships; public pressure; and partisan loyalties. Even Davis’s sharpest critics on the political front acknowledged his judicial impartiality and honesty. And Davis’s independence was on full display after Lincoln appointed Davis to the U.S. Supreme Court. To the disdain of Republicans, in Ex parte Milligan Davis disallowed the use of military commissions created by President Lincoln to try civilians in non-seceding states in which the courts were open. Then in Railroad Company v. Catharine Brown, Davis rejected the argument that “separate but equal” passenger cars complied with the railroad’s congressional charter. Davis found that segregated cars were prohibited as a “badge of slavery.” Twenty-three years later in Plessey v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court would ignore Davis’s reasoning and uphold the separate but equal doctrine.

The extracts are not available from SSRN.

Muñoz on History and Tradition in the Trump Justices' Church-State Jurisprudence

Vincent Phillip Muñoz, University of Notre Dame, Department of Political Science, has published History and Tradition in the Trump Justices’ Church-State Jurisprudence. Here is the abstract.

This article analyzes conservative Supreme Court justices' recent use of history and tradition in First Amendment religious liberty cases. It argues that these justices have failed to articulate a persuasive rationale as to why exactly the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings and that they have failed to adequately show that history supports their "no-coercion" construction of what constitutes a prohibited establishment. Concerning the Free Exercise Clause, the court's conservatives have dismissed history by disregarding historical practices that do not conform to their approach to the text. The court's use, misuse, and nonuse of history cannot help but give the impression that policy preferences-more than history or the actual original understanding of the First Amendment-have determined recent church-state decisions.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Hrdy and Brean on Testing the Gernsback Hypothesis: Science Fiction's Influence on Patents and Innovation

Camilla Alexandra Hrdy, Rutgers Law School; Yale University Information Society Project, and Daniel Harris Brean, Senior In-House Intellectual Property Counsel, Respiratory Care, Philips; Intellectual Property Expert in Residence, Duquesne University Kline School of Law, are publishing Testing the Gernsback Hypothesis: Science Fiction's Influence on Patents and Innovation in the 2025 Symposium Issue of the Houston Law Review. Here is the abstract.

A common thesis in the science fiction community is that science fiction has an impact on innovation because it inspires readers and even professional scientists to perfect and put into practice the inventions they learn about through science fiction. We call this the "Gernsback hypothesis," because it was posited most clearly by the science fiction editor and inventor, Hugo Gernsback. This paper reveals that patents provide an invaluable source of information for testing the Gernsback hypothesis. It explains several approaches for using patents to test whether, and how, science fiction influences inventors. It reveals the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches. This paper should be of particular interest today, when powerful tech moguls admit that science fiction deeply influenced their pursuits, from artificial intelligence, to virtual reality, to space travel. It would be helpful to gain a more precise lens into how science fiction affects inventors. Patents could provide a resource for gaining insights into this process.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Murray on Liberalism, the Founding, and American Criminal Justice

Brian Murray, Seton Hall Law School, is publishing Liberalism, the Founding, and American Criminal Justice in volume 101 of the Notre Dame Law Review (2025-2026). Here is the abstract.

In the past decade, two groups have taken aim at the American political and legal experiment: critics of modern liberalism and contemporary criminal justice reformers. Liberal critics point to the corrosive effect of liberal ideas on governmental, legal, social, and private institutions. Criminal justice critics lament systemic racism and classism, power imbalances, over-criminalization, and mass incarceration. Broadly, both groups argue the American political and legal experiment was destined to fail, and has failed, given its ideological roots. This Article puts both into conversation and makes two arguments. First, it explores whether criticism of the liberal paradigm offers another explanatory horizon for the ills of American criminal justice. Second, it suggests there is strong evidence that these trends were not the original design of the Founders, who, while operating within the liberal tradition, sought to entrench certain pre-modern ideas into American criminal justice. Four developments in the modern American criminal legal system—relating to lawmaking, procedure, adjudication, and punishment—provide evidence of the critique of the excesses of modern liberalism. First, the system has become almost entirely positivist, leaving officials to exclusively determine the boundaries of criminal law and definitions of punishment. Over-criminalization and confusion about what punishment is has resulted. In the procedural realm, core doctrines are nominalist and utilitarian in how they attempt to protect privacy and liberty. Third, the liberal, social contractarian ethic that permits equating voluntary agreement with justice, however artificial or divorced from the truth, persists in plea-bargaining norms and practices, separating the legitimacy of criminal adjudication from reality. Finally, modern liberal premises manifest in a sentencing system primarily concerned with controlling risk—through quantified instrumentalization. While these trends align with the pathologies of modern liberalism identified by critics, Founding thinking directly contradicts these developments. The Founders were not legislative positivists, either generally or with respect to criminal law and punishment. Second, criminal procedure protections were tethered to the world of things, not sentiments about interests. Third, juries were tasked with adjudicating criminal matters, determining truth, and injecting their normative views into the legal system. Finally, the moral underpinnings of criminal law animated Founding thought on sentencing and punishment. Thus, while modern liberal premises and excesses help to explain some systemic developments lamented by criminal justice scholars, these trends contradict aspects of the original design, meaning they are paradigmatic rather than originally intended.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Werner on The Physics of Law

Swen Werner, My Digital Truth, has published The Physics Of Law. Here is the abstract.

This paper interrogates the structural preconditions of lawful decision-making by showing that law is a symbolic system grounded in logical coherence, semantic stability, and operational consistency. It argues that contemporary legal interpretation increasingly abandons these foundational requirements, leading to a form of institutional dysfunction where law devolves into a belief system. Drawing from Roman legal architecture, computational logic, and legal theory, the paper reframes rights not as normative entitlements but as structurally necessary constraints within a rule-based system. It proposes a non-normative justification for private property as a logical gate enabling coherent legal action among actors with equal rights and no default duties. Through critical analysis of machine adjudication, AI unreliability, and copyright enforcement, it illustrates how legal coherence is undermined when the symbolic form of law is severed from its functional logic. The paper concludes by presenting a framework to restore lawful governance through epistemic clarity and constraint-based reasoning, arguing that legal systems must enforce coherence or collapse into ritualized control. Law is not opinion - it is computation.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Dojcinovic on War Crimes: Definition, History, Practice

Predrag Dojcinovic, University of Connecticut, Gladstein Family Human Rights Institute; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1998-2017), has published War Crimes: Definition, History, Practice. Here is the abstract.

This encyclopedic entry on war crimes provides insights into their definition, historical development, and application in major international criminal trials. As some of the gravest offenses under international law, war crimes involve serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during armed conflict. Defined in Article 8 of the 1998 Rome Statute, they include targeting civilians, torture, and using child soldiers. Rooted in ancient norms and shaped by Grotius, the Lieber Code, and the Hague Conventions, the concept evolved significantly through the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols (APs), which extended protections to civilians and non-international conflicts. Enforcement by tribunals like Nuremberg, ICTY, ICTR, and the ICC has established clear jurisprudence, affirming individual criminal responsibility and refining the legal elements of war crimes.

Download the entry from SSRN at the link.