Table of Contents

When Souls Shudder: A Brief History of Disgust and the Law

Carlton Patrick, University of Central Florida

The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War

Alec D. Walen, Rutgers School of Law, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - Department of Philosophy

Private Accountability in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Sonia Katyal, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law Study Group

Introduction to Natural Justice

Shivaraj Huchhanavar, Durham University, Law School


"When Souls Shudder: A Brief History of Disgust and the Law" Free Download
Forthcoming, Research Handbook on Law and Emotions (Susan Bandes, Jody Lyneé Madeira, Kathryn Temple, and Emily Kidd White)

CARLTON PATRICK, University of Central Florida

This chapter takes a look back at the past three decades of disgust and the law. Reviewing many of the empirical findings of the behavioral sciences as well as the normative scholarship of legal scholars and other social scientists, it attempts to provide a bird’s eye view of the links between disgust, morality, and jurisprudence, and of the debates that emanate from those links.

"The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War" Free Download
The Mechanics of Claims and Permissible Killing in War, Oxford University Press, 2019

ALEC D. WALEN, Rutgers School of Law, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - Department of Philosophy

This book operates on two levels. On the more practical level, its overarching concern is to answer the question, When is it permissible to use lethal force to defend people against threats? The deeper concern of the book, however, is to lay out and defend a new account of rights, the mechanics of claims. This framework constructs rights from the premise that rights provide a normative space in which people can pursue their own ends while treating each other as free and equal fellow-agents whose welfare morally matters. According to the mechanics of claims, rights result from first weighing competing patient-claims on an agent, then determining if the agent has a strong enough agent-claim to act contrary to the balance of patient-claims on her, and then looking to see if special claims limit her freedom. The strength of claims in this framework reflects not just the interest in play but the nature of the claims. Threats who have no right to threaten have weaker claims not to be harmed than bystanders who might be harmed as a side effect, all else equal. With this model, a central problem in just war theory can be pushed to the margins: determining when people have forfeited their rights and are liable to harm. Threats may lack a right not to be killed even if they have done nothing to forfeit it.

"Private Accountability in the Age of Artificial Intelligence" Free Download
66 UCLA L. REV. 54 (2019)
UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper

SONIA KATYAL, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law Study Group

In this Article, I explore the impending conflict between the protection of civil rights and artificial intelligence (AI). While both areas of law have amassed rich and well-developed areas of scholarly work and doctrinal support, a growing body of scholars are interrogating the intersection between them. This Article argues that the issues surrounding algorithmic accountability demonstrate a deeper, more structural tension within a new generation of disputes regarding law and technology. As I argue, the true promise of AI does not lie in the information we reveal to one another, but rather in the questions it raises about the interaction of technology, property, and civil rights.

For this reason, I argue that we are looking in the wrong place if we look only to the state to address issues of algorithmic accountability. Instead, we must turn to other ways to ensure more transparency and accountability that stem from private industry, rather than public regulation. The issue of algorithmic bias represents a crucial new world of civil rights concerns, one that is distinct in nature from the ones that preceded it. Since we are in a world where the activities of private corporations, rather than the state, are raising concerns about privacy, due process, and discrimination, we must focus on the role of private corporations in addressing the issue. Towards this end, I discuss a variety of tools to help eliminate the opacity of AI, including codes of conduct, impact statements, and whistleblower protection, which I argue carries the potential to encourage greater endogeneity in civil rights enforcement. Ultimately, by examining the relationship between private industry and civil rights, we can perhaps develop a new generation of forms of accountability in the process.

"Introduction to Natural Justice" Free Download

SHIVARAJ HUCHHANAVAR, Durham University, Law School

Man is a rational animal, what is just and unjust is written in him by nature itself. With the growth of civilization, the problem of harmonizing the social, associational, economic and political relations between governed and government and individuals inter se became more complex. The want of establishing orderly and peaceful society continuously constrained man to be in search of higher norms, which can effectively regulate the human behaviour and ensure justice to the deserved. Though nature has its own law to govern all animate and inanimate life forms, yet its rules are subtle and un-manifest, subtle norms of natural laws were construed differently by individuals according to their own perceptions, self-interests and ideologies. Consequently, time and again, laws were made by the might (ruler) to the disadvantage of the weak (subjects). To protect himself against the excesses of organized power man always appealed to the omnipotent or someone beyond his own creation. The wise man from time to time argued that there are certain principles of justice regarded as fundamental and foundational to almost all legal systems which are called ‘principles of natural justice’. In this sense, natural justice implies fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. It represents higher procedural principles developed by judges, which shall be followed by the judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies in making a decision affecting the rights or status of an individual.

In this milieu, the first segment of the Module is designed to study the meaning of ‘justice’ and ‘natural justice’ in the first place and followed by a brief discussion on the history of the principles of natural justice, both in India and England. The Second part focuses on the fundamental components of natural justice namely, the rule against bias, fair hearing and reasoned decisions. Thereafter, the third segment includes a brief discussion on the principles of natural justice in the Indian Constitution, followed by exclusion of natural justice and concluding remarks. To make content more comprehensible to the readers wherever required illustrations are used, read them carefully.


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.

Editor: Richard H. McAdams, University of Chicago


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 - Pritzker 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, University of Oxford - Centre for Corporate Reputation

Australian Research Council Federation Fellow, Australian National University (ANU) - Research School of Social Sciences (RSSS), School of Regulation & Global Governance (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

David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor, University of Virginia School of Law

L.S. Rockefeller University Professor of Human Values, Princeton University, Australian National University (ANU) - Research School of Social Sciences (RSSS)

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