Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Japan’S Transnational War Reparations Litigation: An Empirical Analysis, Timothy Webster Jan 2022

Japan’S Transnational War Reparations Litigation: An Empirical Analysis, Timothy Webster

Faculty Scholarship

Negotiating war reparations is traditionally the province of the political branches, yet in recent decades, domestic courts have presided over hundreds of compensation lawsuits stemming from World War II. In the West, governments responded to these lawsuits with elaborate compensation mechanisms. In East Asia, by contrast, civil litigation continues apace. This Article analyzes eighty-three lawsuits filed in Japan, the epicenter of Asia’s World War II reparations movement. While many scholars criticize the passivity of Japanese courts on war-related issues, this Article detects a meaningful role for Japanese courts in the reparations process: awarding compensation, verifying facts, and allocating legal liability. …


Jurisprudence—Merely Judgment: A Fallibilist Account Of The Rule Of Law, Bruce K. Miller Jan 2020

Jurisprudence—Merely Judgment: A Fallibilist Account Of The Rule Of Law, Bruce K. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

How should judges decide the cases presented to them? In our system the answer is, “according to law,” as opposed to the judges’ preferred outcomes. But for at least a century, skeptics have cast doubt on whether adjudication under law is possible. Judge Richard Posner, now retired from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has, for example, argued that the indeterminacy of legal argument and the influence of judges’ predispositions show that it is not. Judge Posner thus recommends that judges give up on the rule of law in contested cases and instead candidly base their decisions …


Jurisprudence—Merely Judgment: A Fallibilist Account Of The Rule Of Law, Bruce K. Miller Jan 2020

Jurisprudence—Merely Judgment: A Fallibilist Account Of The Rule Of Law, Bruce K. Miller

Western New England Law Review

How should judges decide the cases presented to them? In our system the answer is, “according to law,” as opposed to the judges’ preferred outcomes. But for at least a century, skeptics have cast doubt on whether adjudication under law is possible. Judge Richard Posner, now retired from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has, for example, argued that the indeterminacy of legal argument and the influence of judges’ predispositions show that it is not. Judge Posner thus recommends that judges give up on the rule of law in contested cases and instead candidly base their decisions …


Reflections Of A Child Of The Sixties—I Have Lived To See The Post-Constitutional Era Through Guantánamo Bay Litigation, Stewart “Buz” Eisenberg Jan 2016

Reflections Of A Child Of The Sixties—I Have Lived To See The Post-Constitutional Era Through Guantánamo Bay Litigation, Stewart “Buz” Eisenberg

Western New England Law Review

This Article provides examples of how the Constitution’s Article III courts craft ways to amplify the voice of the voiceless and are the caretakers of a delicate constitutional democracy -- a democracy specifically designed to require its protection, governed by the Rule of Law. The Author described cumulative change in the wake of the atrocities of World War II from the Sixties when he was a child through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Warren Court, the Voting Rights Act, post-September 11, and finally to the dreadful theatre of Guantánamo Bay. Without the judiciary’s vigilance of the delicate balance …


Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf Jan 2013

Preliminary Injunction Standards In Massachusetts State And Federal Courts, Arthur D. Wolf

Western New England Law Review

Concurrent jurisdiction frequently allows attorneys the choice of filing a complaint in state or federal court. State courts presumptively have jurisdiction over claims rooted in federal law. At times, state courts are required to entertain federal claims. Similarly, federal courts have authority over state claims because of diversity, federal question, and supplemental jurisdiction. Many claims are rooted in both state and federal law, such as antitrust, civil rights, environmental, consumer protection, and civil liberties. Confronted with the choice of state or federal court, the attorney must evaluate a variety of factors before deciding in which court to file.

In a …


The Role Of Counsel And The Courts In Addressing Foreign Language And Cultural Barriers At Different Stages Of A Criminal Proceeding, Richard W. Cole, Laura Maslow-Armand Jan 1997

The Role Of Counsel And The Courts In Addressing Foreign Language And Cultural Barriers At Different Stages Of A Criminal Proceeding, Richard W. Cole, Laura Maslow-Armand

Western New England Law Review

No abstract provided.