A positive psychological theory of judging in hindsight
The legal system has built-in mechanisms for reducing the likelihood of hindsight bias in juries' and judges' decisionmaking. General psychological studies and those geared specifically to the legal system have shown that once an outcome is known, its occurrence is perceived to be more likely. This bias has a direct impact on tort elements such as foreseeability and objective standards of reasonableness. Control mechanisms such as not allowing into evidence post-event facts and ex ante arrangement enforcement could be supplemented with legislative awareness of hindsight bias.
Publication Name: University of Chicago Law Review
Judging the Security Council
The International Council of Justice, or World Court, should be able to judicially review UN Security Council decisions and, in fact, is already doing so through the Court's advisory jurisdiction. Both bodies should acknowledge the evolving opportunities presented by the many possible modes of Council legal decisions and Court review.
Publication Name: American Journal of International Law
- Abstracts: Preventing terrorist fundraising in the United States. Auditing systems: SHARP at LDDC. Preventing fraudulent reporting; auditing for honesty
- Abstracts: A problem of mixed motives: applying Unocal to defensive ESOPs. Throwing caps out of the ring; limits on personal injury damages are being challenged, with mixed results
- Abstracts: Organizing worth its salt: the protected status of paid union organizers. Milking capitalism for all it's worth
- Abstracts: Can emissions trading work beyond a national program?: some practical observations on the available tools. Slogans - protectable marketing tools?