Prof. Susan Franck

W&L Law Professor Susan Franck‘s essay Empiricism And International Law: Insights For Investment Treaty Dispute Resolution was recently listed on SSRN’s Top Ten download list for: Political Methods: Qualitative & Multiple Methods eJournal.  Here is the abstract:

While scholars in the United States increasingly focus on the empirical dimension of legal scholarship, there have been challenges in using empiricism to explore international legal issues. Rather than relying on logic or instinct alone, empirical methodologies can provide scholars with tools to gain new facts, see existing ideas through a different lens, and engage in a more nuanced analysis of international law phenomena. There appears to be a natural synergy between empiricism and international investment treaty dispute resolution. With calls for trade time outs by U.S. presidential candidates, there is interest in how investment treaties function, whether they achieve their goals, and at what cost. Given the implications for public policy, international relations, and allocation of domestic financial resources, empirical assessment of international investment law is not misplaced. This Essay considers the efficacy of using empirical methodologies to gain insights about the resolution of investment treaty disputes and international investment law. Part I considers the historical tensions between international law and empiricism and moves towards reintegration. Part II explores what form empiricism might take and argues for a broad understanding of empiricism. Part III analyzes how to develop an empirical approach in light of the costs and benefits and proposes five steps to facilitate the creation of an empirical research agenda for international investment treaty dispute resolution. While recognizing that empiricism is not a panacea, the Essay suggests that the benefits of making empiricism part of the methodological landscape of investment treaty dispute resolution scholarship are worth the costs. Empiricism offers a chance to obtain accurate information about investment disputes, correct misperceptions about existing dispute resolution processes, permits considered analysis of legal issues affecting the public, and facilitates informed decisions about the negotiation and revision of investment treaties.

You may download the article at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1127052
.  To view a discussion of the essay by Prof. Franck and Prof. David Zaring on Opinion Juris, visit 
http://opiniojuris.org/tag/vjil-symposium-vol-48-4/
.

This year the format of our Junior Scholars Paper Competition is changed in a way that we hope will enable more emerging scholars to submit their work.

In previous years, submissions were restricted to papers for which no offer of publication had yet been accepted. This year, to enable more people who have submitted their summer projects for publication to compete in our Junior Scholars competition, papers are eligible if they have not yet been published or posted to the internet on September 1,  2013.  However, the paper can be accepted for publication as of that date. So please plan to submit your summer projects, but hold off on posting them to the internet, in order to preserve anonymity.

The other eligibility requirements for the competition remain unchanged. The deadline remains September 1^st. The competition is limited to those who have been teaching for six years or fewer as of July 1, 2013. Papers submitted by previous competition winners are not eligible.

To facilitate anonymous review, please submit papers in electronic form, with all identifying information removed (except for a cover sheet with your name, the year you began law teaching, and a confirmation that the paper has not yet been published or posted to the internet as of September l, 2013) to CJS Secretary Giovanna Shay at gshay@law.wne.edu. Please note “CJS Junior Scholars Paper Competition” in the subject line.  Papers will be selected after review by members of the CJS Executive Committee.

Prof. Tim Jost

W&L Law Professor Timothy Jost has published the Seventh Edition of Health Law: Cases, Materials, and Problems with the West Publishing Company.  The Health Law casebook has been widely used throughout the United States for teaching health law since the first edition was published in 1987, and is credited as having defined the modern health law discipline.  The book, which is over 1800 pages long, is also being published in an abridged (900 page) edition and as three separate “spin-off” books covering bioethics, health care organization and financing, and liability and quality.  All books will be available this summer for classes in the fall.  Professor Jost wrote chapters dealing with health care cost and access issues, private health insurance regulation, the Affordable Care Act, ERISA, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.  These chapters have been extensively rewritten since the sixth edition because of changes made by the Affordable Care Act.

INTRODUCTION: The Searle Civil Justice Institute (SCJI) is seeking proposals for empirical research projects. The SCJI will select proposals in a two-stage process.

The SCJI is a public policy institute within the Law & Economics Center at George Mason University School of Law. The SCJI’s core mission is to provide policy-relevant empirical research in the field of law & economics.

SCJI research projects typically involve large original data sets, performance of statistical and econometric analyses, and the production of an SCJI Public Policy Report within a timeframe of 6-12 months. SCJI research projects follow a research protocol and undergo external peer review. An in-house research team of economists and lawyers, as well as significant financial resources, allows the SCJI to engage in data collection and outreach efforts that often exceed the means of individual academics.

STAGE 1: CALL FOR PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS OF RESEARCH PROJECTS: The SCJI requests Preliminary Statements of Research Projects, not to exceed 1,000 words. The Preliminary Statements should include a brief description of the policy issue(s), the empirical research question, the proposed methodology, and the availability of data necessary to answer the research question. Although all policy-relevant and topical proposals will be considered, the SCJI is interested in research that pertains to the following topics:
- Antitrust
- Arbitration
- Class Actions and Aggregate Litigation
- Criminalization of Corporate Conduct
- Litigation Financing
- Privacy and Data Security
- States Attorneys General Scope of Enforcement Authority/Retention of Private Counsel
- State Consumer Protection Acts
- State and/or Federal False Claims Acts/Qui Tam/Whistleblowers

Special consideration will be given to proposals with an expected completion time of six months or less.

STAGE 2: DEVELOPMENT OF FORMAL RESEARCH PROPOSAL AND PRESENTATION AT RESEARCH WORKSHOP: Upon review of the Preliminary Statements, the SCJI will select a small number of authors to prepare and present a Formal Research Proposal. The SCJI will pay selected authors an honorarium of $5,000 to prepare and present this research proposal.

These second stage research proposals must include the following elements: an executive summary of two pages or less describing the proposal for a non-academic audience; a clear statement of the policy issue(s) to be studied; background and motivations; the specific empirical research questions; potential policy implications; proposed analyses and basic research plan; data needs, sources, and estimated costs; and a timeline detailing milestones and deliverables.

Selected authors will present their Formal Research Proposals at a Research Workshop at George Mason University School of Law. The SCJI will utilize the workshop to determine which proposals to accept for funding.

ACCEPTED PROPOSALS: The SCJI will support accepted proposals in the following manner: paying authors honoraria to lead the research project; providing access to SCJI staff with economic, statistical, and legal expertise to assist on the research project; paying for necessary data (which may include research assistants to collect and code data that might otherwise be unavailable); and funding a comprehensive communications strategy for the final Public Policy Report. On average, the SCJI spends between $50,000 – $100,000 to research and promote each project.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Initial Preliminary Statements of Research Proposals, not to exceed 1,000 words, must be received by June 28, 2013, to receive full consideration. Please send Preliminary Statements electronically to: sthallam@gmu.edu

The SCJI will notify authors selected to present a Formal Research Proposal by July 15, 2013.

The SCJI Empirical Research Workshop will take place in late August 2013.

FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information, please contact:

James Cooper
Director, Research and Policy
Law & Economics Center
George Mason University School of Law
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
jcoope20@gmu.edu
703-993-9582/indent>

For additional information about the Law & Economics Center, please visit: 
http://www.MasonLEC.org

For additional information about the Searle Civil Justice Institute, please visit 
http://www.MasonSCJI.org

Prof. Russell Miller

On June 3-4 Prof. Miller was in Lausanne, Switzerland to present the methodological portion of his research project “Germany’s Plural Legal Culture” at the annual meeting of the comparative law association Juris Diversitas.  The two-day conference – hosted by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law – featured paper presentations and commentary from comparative law scholars from around the world.  The program’s website  is:

http://www.isdc.ch/d2wfiles/document/5323/4018/Programme_Diffusion.pdf

Prof. Lyman Johnson

A new article by Washington and Lee law professor Lyman Johnson is featured on the popular Legal Theory Blog, managed by Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum. Here is the posting, which includes the paper abstract.

Johnson on Virtue Ethics, New Institutional Economics, & Delaware LLC Fiduciary Law

Prof. Russell Miller

A 1999/2000 alum of the Robert Bosch Foundation Fellowship Program, Prof. Russell Miller was elected by the 450 members of the alumni association to serve as Co-President for the 2012-2013 term.  That service concluded Friday and Saturday (May 30 / June 1) in Berlin with a two-day program organized by Miller (and his Co-President Emily Olman).

Responding to German President Gauck’s query “How is it that Germans and Americans have such a different understanding of freedom?” – the program had the title “Freedom in the Transatlantic Sphere” and featured a keynote address from Former German Constitutional Court Justice Dieter Grimm and two panels that pursued a transatlantic dialogue on “Freedom as Rights” and “Freedom as Social or Economic Liberty”.  The program’s website is:

http://www.boschalumni.org/node/295

Prof. Moliterno

W&L Law Professor Jim Moliterno has posted his article entitled The Trouble with Lawyer Regulation on SSRN, where it has become a top 10 download in its category.  Here is the abstract:

The American legal profession has been a backward-looking, change-resistant institution. It has failed to adjust to changes in society, technology, and economics, despite individual lawyers’ efforts to change their own practices and entrepreneurs’ efforts to enter the legal marketplace to serve the needs of middle- and lower-income clients. When change does come, the legal profession is a late-arriver, usually doing no better than catching up to changes around it that have already become well ensconced. This failure robs the society of what could be a positive role of the legal profession in time of change, and it deprives the profession itself of being as robust and successful as it could be.

The article may be downloaded by visiting 
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2264351
.

Chicago, IL October 4-5, 2013

Preceded by the Junior Faculty Development Workshop on October 3, sponsored by LatCrit & SALT

Global neoliberalism is rapidly reshaping a new social structure of accumulation (“SSA”). The new SSA dramatically alters the landscape for collective bargaining by workers in the name of “right to work” laws, allows unlimited corporate influence in federal elections in the name of “free speech,” transforms public goods and services into private commodities in the name of “efficiency” or “deficit-reduction,” and creates tensions and contradictions inherent in a system that seeks to hoard racial and economic privilege for the few. The current failure of neoliberal economic policies creates an interesting moment of possibility for progressive alliances and alternatives. Communities are pushing back against the attack on labor union organizing, the dehumanization of immigrants, the rollback of reproductive autonomy, the retreat from race, and attempts to cabin gender, sexuality, and family formation. For LatCrit 2013, we welcome all LatCrit scholars, old and new, to submit proposals, particularly those that reference or incorporate any of the following themes: Theorizing Resistance; Organizing Resistance; and Building Cross-Sector Theories and Movements.

While we will structure plenary panels to focus on the theme of LatCrit 2013, we will continue the practice of creating spaces within the conference for an inclusive conversation among scholars and activists extending beyond the primary theme, including papers or panels that focus on the multiple dimensions of Latina/o identity and its relationship to current legal, political and cultural regimes or practices; that are especially salient to Chicago and the midwestern United States; that elucidate cross-group histories or experiences with law and power; that connect or contrast LatCrit theory to or contrast it with other genres of scholarship, both within and beyond law and legal theory; or that highlight praxis with scholarship that builds on histories and transformative practices of social justice movements.

The deadline to submit proposals is Monday, June 10, 2013. Proposals should be submitted via our paper submission site located on the LatCrit web site: http://latcrit.org/latcrit2013-online-submission-form/. Be advised that PowerPoint will not be available for panel and WIP presentations. Papers for inclusion in the conference symposium issue will be due December 31, 2013. More detailed guidelines will be available at the conference.

The conference will take place at the Hilton Chicago O’Hare Airport, the only hotel located within O’Hare Airport. A block of rooms has been reserved at $149/night, including free in-room Internet, continental breakfast, and complimentary access to the hotel gym. To reserve a room, visit
http://www.hilton.com/en/hi/groups/personalized/C/CHIOHHH-LCR-20131002/index.jhtml
 (group code LCR).

For general information and questions about the event please email Andrea Freeman at agfreeman@usfca.edu.

Save the dates … and make your plans

ALL RESPONSES DUE: ASAP, and no later than June 10, 2013.

Prof. Tim Jost

Washington and Lee law professor Timothy Jost has published “The  Affordable Care Act and the Constitution:  Beyond National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius” in  The Health Care Case:  The Supreme Court’s Decision and its Implications, published by Oxford University Press. The book features well-respected and ideologically diverse authors, some of whom participated in ACA litigation. It is among the first scholarly books to address the healthcare decision, perhaps the most significant decision of the Roberts Court to date, with major implications for constitutional law, the Roberts Court itself, and healthcare. Below is excerpt from Professor Jost’s chapter:

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB),  the Supreme Court concluded that Congress had acted within its constitutional authority in adopting the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s individual responsibility provision (although as an exercise of its taxing power, not its commerce power) but that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional as written. The chapters in this book address the NFIB decision, its history, meaning, and ramifications for the future.

But the ACA and its implementation raise many other constitutional issues not settled by the NFIB case; issues that have been and continue to be litigated in the federal courts. While these challenges have not attracted the attention the NFIB case garnered, and most have either failed or are likely to fail, they are significant politically. Like the NFIB litigation, most of these other cases have been driven by political considerations.  They have given support and encouragement to the ACA’s enemies, offering state officials politically opposed to the ACA reasons to refuse to cooperate in its implementation and opponents in Congress ammunition to call for its repeal. On the other hand, the tables could have been turned had an administration come to power in Washington opposed to ACA implementation, with the ACA’s supporters then resorting to litigation to salvage health reform. This chapter considers a number of constitutional issues presented by the ACA that were not raised in NFIB. Some of these issues have been decided by the courts, while others continue to be litigated with no decision yet, and others could have been raised had President Barack Obama not been reelected in November 2012, and might still be relevant as ACA implementation moves forward.

The book is available now from the Oxford Press website.