Table of Contents

GM v Organic Farming: Marsh v Baxter

Michael Leslie Blakeney, University of Western Australia - Faculty of Law

Judicial Patriarchy and Domestic Violence: A Challenge to the Conventional Family Privacy Narrative

Elizabeth Katz, Harvard University - Department of History

Private Solutions to Global Crises

Gregory Day, Oklahoma State University - Stillwater - Spears School of Business


"GM v Organic Farming: Marsh v Baxter" Free Download
(2014) 14 (2) Bio Science Law Review 48
UWA Faculty of Law Research Paper 2014-45

MICHAEL LESLIE BLAKENEY, University of Western Australia - Faculty of Law

The Supreme Court of Western Australia recently had to adjudicate a claim for economic loss which an organic farmer in Western Australia claimed had been lost because of the harvesting practices of a neighbouring GM farmer. This is the first reported case of GM damages litigation between farmers. Previous litigation has been between a farmer and the supplier of GM seed and between a farmer and the government instrumentality which had approved GM cultivation.

"Judicial Patriarchy and Domestic Violence: A Challenge to the Conventional Family Privacy Narrative" Free Download
William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, Vol. 21, No. 2, Winter 2015

ELIZABETH KATZ, Harvard University - Department of History

According to the conventional domestic violence narrative, judges historically have ignored or even shielded “wife beaters� as a result of the patriarchal prioritization of privacy in the home. This Article directly challenges that account. In the early twentieth century, judges regularly and enthusiastically protected female victims of domestic violence in the divorce and criminal contexts. As legal and economic developments appeared to threaten American manhood and traditional family structures, judges intervened in domestic violence matters as substitute patriarchs. They harshly condemned male perpetrators — sentencing men to fines, prison, and even the whipping post — for failing to conform to appropriate husbandly behavior, while rewarding wives who exhibited the traditional female traits of vulnerability and dependence. Based on the same gendered reasoning, judges trivialized or even ridiculed victims of “husband beating.� Men who sought protection against physically abusive wives were deemed unmanly and undeserving of the legal remedies afforded to women.

Although judges routinely addressed wife beating in divorce and criminal cases, they balked when women pursued a third type of legal action: interspousal tort suits. The most prominent example of this response is Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U.S. 611 (1910), in which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to allow a wife to sue her husband in tort for assaulting her. Judges distinguished tort actions from divorce and criminal suits because tort’s assertive legal posture and empowering remedy seemingly subverted established gender roles. In a world in which women appeared to be radically advancing in work and politics, male judges used the moral theater of their courtrooms to strongly and publicly address domestic violence but only in ways that reinforced gender and marital hierarchies.

"Private Solutions to Global Crises" Free Download
St. John's Law Review, Forthcoming

GREGORY DAY, Oklahoma State University - Stillwater - Spears School of Business

Corporations rarely suffer liability for violating human rights. This is because most abuses occur in developing countries where local authorities cannot, or refuse, to prosecute multinational companies. The courts of western nations also seldom hear human rights cases because disputes arising from foreign events can implicate serious sovereignty and jurisdictional issues. Several international regimes governing human rights exist but similarly lack authority to sanction abuses. In turn, human rights observers assert that, without the threat of liability, little compels transnational companies to adopt socially responsible behaviors.

However, an effective and particularly unlikely means to redress corporate abuses has emerged despite receiving only scant attention. A new generation of contracts and international agreements are using arbitration as a means to enforce human rights. The oddity of this solution is that most popular and scholarly writings consider arbitration to be overwhelmingly biased towards corporations. But, in actuality, the arbitral process overcomes most of the obstacles that have frustrated prior human rights litigants. So if arbitration now offers a remedy to victims in the developing world, this article asks, not only what has changed, but why might arbitration be better able than courts of law to resolve human rights cases?

Supported by interviews with prominent lawyers and practitioners, this article pursues several goals. The first of which is to bring attention to an emerging legal phenomenon that could alter the nature of transnational tort litigation, human rights enforcement, and international arbitration. In fact, several notable organizations — such as the United Nations, International Labor Organization, and the International Olympic Committee — are parties to, or are considering ratifying, agreements and contracts merging human rights and arbitration. And on a theoretical level, this article finds that arbitration is better structured than courts of law to hear certain disputes, including human rights violations. In turn, private solutions might be the best, or possibly the only, means to redress foreign corporate torts.


About this eJournal

This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts dealing with torts, product liability, and insurance law. Related articles may also be published in other Legal Scholarship Network journals, including Law and Economics; Litigation, Procedure, and Dispute Resolution; Health Law and Policy; Employment and Labor Law; and Environmental Law and Policy.


To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email:

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)



Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Torts & Products Liability Law eJournal

Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law , New York University School of Law, Stanford University - Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Chicago - Law School

Sheila Lubetsky Birnbaum Professor of Civil Litigation, New York University School of Law

Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law

William B. Graham Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

A. Calder Mackay Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University - Law School, Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University - Department of Economics, University Distinguished Professor of Law, Economics, and Management, Vanderbilt University - Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University - Strategy and Business Economics

Professor of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology - Chicago-Kent College of Law