KAL RAUSTIALA, University of California, Los Angeles - School of Law
Email: Raustiala@law.ucla.edu

This is the preface and opening chapter of a forthcoming book on Oxford University Press about the way that geography shapes legal rules and understandings - and how fundamental changes in American power and in world politics have challenged and sometimes altered the traditionally territorial system of legal jurisdiction. Do the laws of the United States stop at the water's edge? If not, do they operate differently beyond American territory? These questions often arise today with regard to hot-button issues such as the future of Guantanamo. But they have a long and fascinating history, dating back to the American Revolution and encompassing episodes as varied as the military occupation of parts of Mexico, the U.S. District Court for China, American empire after the Spanish-American War, extraterritorial regulation, and postwar Status of Forces Agreements. This book explores changes in territoriality and extraterritoriality through these episodes, covering questions of both constitutional and statutory law, world and domestic politics, and internal and external borders. Two main arguments are advanced. First, instances of extraterritoriality, while varied, share a common ground in their focus on managing and minimizing legal difference, differences that are a direct result of the territorial basis of sovereign rule, which has been the organizing principle of the international system for centuries. Second, American law has long employed what I call intraterritoriality as a way to facilitate the power of the United States. The United States comprises a complicated mix of territory. Within the states constitutional rights apply fully, but throughout much of American history only a limited set of rights have applied in other U.S. territories. Intraterritoriality is in a sense a mirror of extraterritoriality. Extraterritoriality generally serves to mitigate difference, whereas intraterritoriality generally serves to establish difference. Throughout the book I contend that we cannot understand the evolution of extraterritoriality and intraterritoriality in U.S. law without understanding the broader international context. American notions and doctrines of territoriality were themselves drawn from international law. Yet these notions and doctrines evolved over time to reflect American national interests. As the United States grew from a weak state to a global superpower, and as the nature of world politics itself changed, principles of both extraterritoriality and intraterritoriality have been transformed.

MATT STAHL, affiliation not provided to SSRN
Email: mstahl@uwo.ca

Authorship and ownership exist in a curious relation in U.S. copyright law. In theory and common sense, authorship underwrites and is the condition of ownership, but in practice ownership can establish authorship retroactively. Distinctions between proprietary and non-proprietary creative cultural workers, in this view, turn in no essential way on evidence of creativity or the investment of personality in cultural creation. This paper examines a legislative struggle between recording artists and the recording industry over the status of their stock-in-trade, sound recordings. In 2000, recording artists obtained the repeal of a 1999 law allocating authorship and ownership of recordings to their record company contractors through the former's assertions not of authorship in the commonsense understanding, but through the artists' legal ability to alienate their employed backup musicians, engineers and other creative personnel. Analyzing this struggle against the backdrop of a historical/theoretical consideration of the dynamics of domination and dispossession naturalized in the employment relationship, I show how the political-economic organization of creative production in the cultural industries depends crucially on and further naturalizes this legal furniture of the social world (Ellerman, 1992), as much or more than it does on immanent aspects of cultural products or production processes.

RICHARD J. ROSS, University of Illinois College of Law, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Department of History
Email: rjross@law.uiuc.edu

Early Massachusetts (c1630-1660) is famous for the intensity of its drive for moral righteousness and a more fully Christianized society. This essay explores the reasons for this intensity by situating the colony in two frameworks seldom brought together: first, the comparative exploration of post-Reformation campaigns for godly discipline and confession building; and second, the comparative investigation of legal pluralism among New World settlements. A study of early Massachusetts allows consideration in a colonial context of the suggestion, raised by European historians, that there was an inverse relationship between the effectiveness of godly discipline and a polity's degree of social complexity and legal pluralism. Contemporary presbyterian critics of Massachusetts discipline provide a way into the problem. They viewed the New England Way as deficient in the sorts of mechanisms for coordinating among congregations and between the civil and ecclesiastical realms available in Reformed polities such as Calvin's Geneva and early seventeenth-century lowland Scotland, places of special significance in debates between presbyterians and congregationalists. These critics predicted that schism, oscillations between enthusiasm and lethargy, and inconsistent standards of judgment and administration among clashing churches and civil authorities would together undermine Massachusetts discipline. Part of the reason why they were wrong was that Massachusetts displayed low levels of social complexity (relative to European Reformed polities) and a modest degree of legal pluralism (by the standards of other New World settlements). Treating early Massachusetts as a case study within the context of scholarship on post-Reformation godly discipline and New World legal pluralism suggests alterations to these two flourishing literatures and offers ways to connect them. The colony's experiences challenge the trajectory of change assumed by scholars of New World legal pluralism. The historiography on European confession building provides new ways of perceiving family resemblances among settlements in different empires that were pursuing parallel programs of intense godly discipline and Christian education. Evidence from the New World could contribute to debates among scholars of the post-Reformation European confessional age by demonstrating, in a number of colonial settings, how civil and clerical leaders committed to the pursuit of godly discipline benefited from modest levels of legal pluralism.

ANDERS WALKER, Saint Louis University School of Law
Email: awalke16@slu.edu

Few racially motivated crimes have left a more lasting imprint on American memory than the death of Emmett Till. Yet, even as Till's murder in Mississippi in 1955 has come to be remembered as a catalyst for the civil rights movement, it contributed to something else as well. Precisely because it came on the heels of the Supreme Court's 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, Till's death convinced Mississippi Governor James P. Coleman that certain aspects of the state's handling of racial matters had to change. Afraid that popular outrage over racial violence might encourage federal intervention in the region, Coleman removed power from local sheriffs, expanded state police, and modernized the state's criminal justice apparatus in order to reduce the chance of further racial violence in the state. Though his results proved mixed, many of Coleman's reforms lived on, contributing to the end of public torture and lynching as an accepted mode of punishment in the state. This article discusses those changes, suggesting that they not only influenced the fight for civil rights, but encouraged the modernization of criminal justice in the South.