Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Accidents (1)
- Assignment of accident costs (1)
- Consent (1)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (1)
- Criminal Sentencing (1)
-
- David Hume (1)
- Democratic community standard theory (1)
- Dispute Resolution (1)
- Dworkin (1)
- Enforcement (1)
- Foundation (1)
- Hobbes (1)
- International courts (1)
- International law (1)
- Ius cogens (1)
- John Locke (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Justice (1)
- Kantian normative political theory (1)
- Kantian rights-based theories (1)
- Legal Ethics (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Philosophy (1)
- Legitimation of international law (1)
- Moral and Political Philosophy (1)
- Practice and Procedure (1)
- Precaution (1)
- Rawls (1)
- Reasonable person theory (1)
- Rights (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Rights-Based Theories Of Accident Law, Gregory J. Hall
Rights-Based Theories Of Accident Law, Gregory J. Hall
All Faculty Scholarship
This article shows that extant rights-based theories of accident law contain a gaping hole. They inadequately address the following question: What justifies using community standards to assign accident costs in tort law?
In the United States, the jury determines negligence for accidental harm by asking whether the defendant met the objective reasonable person standard. However, what determines the content of the reasonable person standard is enigmatic. Some tort theorists say that the content is filled out by juries using cost benefit analysis while others say that juries apply community norms and conventions. I demonstrate that what is missing from this …
Advocacy Revalued, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Dana A. Remus
Advocacy Revalued, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Dana A. Remus
All Faculty Scholarship
A central and ongoing debate among legal ethics scholars addresses the moral positioning of adversarial advocacy. Most participants in this debate focus on the structure of our legal system and the constituent role of the lawyer-advocate. Many are highly critical, arguing that the core structure of adversarial advocacy is the root cause of many instances of lawyer misconduct. In this Article, we argue that these scholars’ focuses are misguided. Through reflection on Aristotle’s treatise, Rhetoric, we defend advocacy in our legal system’s litigation process as ethically positive and as pivotal to fair and effective dispute resolution. We recognize that advocacy …
Punishment As Contract, Claire Oakes Finkelstein
Punishment As Contract, Claire Oakes Finkelstein
All Faculty Scholarship
This paper provides a sketch of a contractarian approach to punishment, according to a version of contractarianism one might call “rational contractarianism,” by contrast with the normative contractarianism of John Rawls. Rational contractarianism suggests a model according to which rational agents, with maximal, rather than minimal, knowledge of their life circumstances, would agree to the outlines of a particular social institution or set of social institutions because they view themselves as faring best in such a society governed by such institutions, as compared with a society governed by different institutional schemes available for adoption. Applied to the institution of punishment, …
The Legitimating Role Of Consent In International Law, Matthew J. Lister
The Legitimating Role Of Consent In International Law, Matthew J. Lister
All Faculty Scholarship
According to many traditional accounts, one important difference between international and domestic law is that international law depends on the consent of the relevant parties (states) in a way that domestic law does not. In recent years this traditional account has been attacked both by philosophers such as Allen Buchanan and by lawyers and legal scholars working on international law. It is now safe to say that the view that consent plays an important foundational role in international law is a contested one, perhaps even a minority position, among lawyers and philosophers. In this paper I defend a limited but …