"Governing Knowledge Commons -- Introduction & Chapter 1" Free Download
Governing Knowledge Commons, Brett M. Frischmann, Michael J. Madison and Katherine J. Strandburg, eds., Oxford University Press, 2014
Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 438
U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-32
NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 14-49

BRETT M. FRISCHMANN, Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
MICHAEL J. MADISON, University of Pittsburgh - School of Law
KATHERINE J. STRANDBURG, New York University School of Law

“Knowledge commons? describes the institutionalized community governance of the sharing and, in some cases, creation, of information, science, knowledge, data, and other types of intellectual and cultural resources. It is the subject of enormous recent interest and enthusiasm with respect to policymaking about innovation, creative production, and intellectual property. Taking that enthusiasm as its starting point, Governing Knowledge Commons argues that policymaking should be based on evidence and a deeper understanding of what makes commons institutions work. It offers a systematic way to study knowledge commons, borrowing and building on Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize-winning research on natural resource commons. It proposes a framework for studying knowledge commons that is adapted to the unique attributes of knowledge and information, describing the framework in detail and explaining how to put it into context both with respect to commons research and with respect to innovation and information policy. Eleven detailed case studies apply and discuss the framework exploring knowledge commons across a wide variety of scientific and cultural domains.

"Effective Aggressiveness and Inconsistencies in the Bijuridical Treatment of Aggressive Behaviour: Mixed Martial Arts, Bullying, and Sociolegal Quandaries" Free Download
Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 61/ 014

SARA ROSS, York University - Osgoode Hall Law School

This paper seeks to address effective aggressiveness and the treatment of aggressive behaviour in the context of MMA in comparison to the balance of the formal Canadian legal landscape. I choose anti-bullying legislation, and its treatment of aggressive behaviour, as a counterexample to the treatment of aggressive behaviour within the MMA regulatory framework. By intertextually linking and superimposing these two categories of legislation, a critical lens drawing on institutional ethnography is applied in order to question and deconstruct the differential treatment of aggressive behaviour and the rationale behind the legislative mixed message sent. The quandary faced within the fabric of the MMA community regarding its own treatment of aggressive behaviour, where it is both reified as well as castigated through anti-bullying advocacy, will also be examined.

"Getting Paid in the Naked Economy" Free Download
Hofstra Labor and Emploment Law Journal, Vol. 32, Forthcoming

MEREDITH R. MILLER, Touro College - Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

“It’s the end of work as we know it,? reports consulting firm Accenture in a paper about the “rise of the extended workforce.? (Gartside, Silverstone, Farley & Cantrell, Trends Reshaping the Future of HR: The Rise of the Extended Workforce, at 3 (Accenture 2013). The report predicts that, “[i]n the future, organizations’ competitive success will hinge on. . . workers who aren’t employees at all.? The legal nature of employment is changing and has been changing for quite some time; fewer and fewer workers are “employees.?

It is not new or novel to recognize that, from a legal perspective, there are many benefits to employers who hire independent contractors rather than employees. There have long existed incentives for employers to characterize workers as independent. What is shifting, however, is the workers’ narrative about independence. At least for creative and highly skilled workers, the changing narrative is one of free agency: ditch the man and chart your own course, which writers and entrepreneurs Ryan Coonerty and Jeremy Neuner have dubbed the “naked economy.? (Coonerty & JNeuner, The Rise of the Naked Economy: How to Benefit from the Changing Workplace (Palgrave MacMillan 2013)).

Why is this economy “naked?? While acknowledging vulnerability, the reference to nudity appears to emphasize freedom: “stripping work bare? to reinvent it with the essentials required for productivity and satisfaction. This frame of mind places high value on control and flexibility. It eschews the rigid 9-5 workday, with its commute and face time. It emphasizes work-life balance, changes in technology that allow for flexibility and the dream of charting one’s own destiny. All of these factors are coalescing to push people (at least, creative and highly skilled people) to choose independence.

Independent work, however, has its drawbacks. One of the significant problems in the independent workforce is nonpayment of invoices. 40% of respondents to a Freelancers Union survey reported trouble collecting unpaid fees from clients. (Freelancers Union, Independent, Innovative, and Unprotected: How the Old Safety Net Is Failing America’s New Workforce (2010). Of those respondents, 83% reported getting paid late; 33% reported never getting paid; and 28% reported getting paid less than billed.

This short paper addresses independent workers’ very specific and all-too-common difficulties in getting paid. It is written for a mixed audience; it is intended to be both practical and accessible. There is hope that it will further the academic conversation, but it is also written for attorneys, policymakers and independent workers. Part I defines the naked economy and tracks the rise in independent work. Part II discusses the problem of nonpayment. Parts III, IV and V, respectively, provide an overview of the contractual tools, legislative reforms and market responses that are evolving to minimize the risk of nonpayment. The paper concludes that technology and private enterprise are evolving to meet the challenges of the independent workforce; however, contracting norms and legal structures must also rise to address the vulnerabilities of free agency.

"How Conceptions of Justice Associated with the Nation-State Obstruct Our View on Possibilities of Transnational Commercial Law" Free Download
(2014) 25 King's Law Journal, Forthcoming

THOMAS SCHULTZ, King's College London – The Dickson Poon School of Law

This article discusses axiological interferences of conceptions of justice associated with the nation-state in epistemological projects on transnational commercial law. It argues that the justice beliefs underlying classical legal positivism, which make us see law exclusively in state law, constitute an obstacle in our search for the rules and regimes that best fulfill the fundamental requirements of the rule of law. This is illustrated by focusing on one of the more polemical areas of this field: consumer protection, which provides a particularly clear illustration of the expansion of formal law in the twentieth century. The focus is put more specifically on the resolution of small cross-border consumer disputes. The study shows that international consumer protection requires a strict application of the provisions of a national law, even when the application of transnational non-state law would be more apt to attain the core political ideal that the rule of law seeks to further. This, it is argued, is due to mistaken conceptions of justice.

"Real Men Advance, Real Women Retreat: Stand Your Ground, Battered Women's Syndrome, and Violence as Male Privilege" Free Download
University of Miami Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 4, 2014

MARY ANNE FRANKS, University of Miami School of Law

Proponents of Stand Your Ground laws cynically exploit the image of vulnerable women to defend expansions of self-defense doctrine, despite the fact that such laws actually reinforce and exacerbate existing gender divides in self-defense law that disproportionately harm women. The appropriation of women’s right to self-defense by Stand Your Ground supporters masks the law’s hostility toward women’s use of force and obscures the real achievement of such legislation: the normalization and promotion of (often white) male violence in an ever-expanding variety of scenarios. Battered Women’s Syndrome, the chief narrative available to women who fight back, forces women to plead for mercy and subjects their behavior to extensive scrutiny and evaluation. Stand Your Ground, the chief narrative men can now use to justify provoking deadly fights, often allows men to escape evaluation altogether by granting immunity from prosecution and even from arrest. This two-track system of self-defense — Battered Women’s Syndrome for women and Stand Your Ground for men — has far-reaching implications outside of the courtroom. Battered Women’s Syndrome sends the legal and social message that women should retreat even from their own homes in the face of objective, repeated harm to their bodies; Stand Your Ground sends the legal and social message that men can advance against strangers anywhere on the basis of vague, subjective perceptions of threats. Male violence is not only tolerated, but celebrated; women’s violence is not only discouraged, but stigmatized. Invoking the image of vulnerable women to promote aggressive self-defense rhetoric serves to distract from the reality that violence remains chiefly a male privilege.


About this eJournal

This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts concerning the interaction of formal and informal order. Topics include social and group norms, conventions, customs, customary law, folk law, legal pluralism, private organizational rules, civil society, self-enforcing contracts, informal sanctions (such as gossip, shame, and guilt), self-help (including feuds), and the origins of law and legal institutions.


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

Law, Norms & Informal Order eJournal

Wilson-Dickinson Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

Australian Research Council Federation Fellow, Australian National University - Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University (ANU) - Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet)

Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law, Yale Law School

Marion Butler McLean Professor in the History of Ideas, Wellesley College - Department of Anthropology

Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law & Professor of Psychology, Yale University - Law School, Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

Dean, University of Virginia School of Law

L.S. Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values, Princeton University - Department of Politics

Kirkland and Ellis Professor of Law, University of Chicago - Law School

Dan and Catherine M. Dalton Professor, Indiana University - Kelley School of Business - Department of Business Economics & Public Policy

Samuel A. Blank Professor of Law, Business, and Public Policy, University of Pennsylvania Law School, University of Pennsylvania Wharton School - Business Economics and Public Policy Department

Director, John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business, Samuel R. Rosenthal Professor of Law and Economics, Harvard Law School, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Swanlund Chair, Director, Illinois Program in Law and Economics, University of Illinois College of Law

Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law, Yale Law School