Table of Contents

The Standardisation of Oil and Gas Law: Transnational Layers of Governance

Djakhongir T. Saidov, National University of Singapore (NUS) - Centre for Maritime Law

Justice for Veterans: Does Theory Matter?

Kristine A. Huskey, University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law

Risk Management in the Digital Constellation – A Constitutional Perspective

Ingolf Pernice, Humboldt University of Berlin

Comparative Law and Decolonizing Critique

Sherally K. Munshi, Georgetown University Law Center

The Rise of Human Rights Responsibilities R2P and CSR – Different Forms of the Same New Dialect

Tomer Shadmy, Tel Aviv University - Buchmann Faculty of Law

Positional Goods and Legal Orderings

Ugo Pagano, University of Siena - Department of Economics
Massimiliano Vatiero, Università della Svizzera italiana


LAW, NORMS & INFORMAL ORDER eJOURNAL

"The Standardisation of Oil and Gas Law: Transnational Layers of Governance" Free Download
NUS - Centre for Maritime Law Working Paper 17/10
NUS Law Working Paper No. 2017/017

DJAKHONGIR T. SAIDOV, National University of Singapore (NUS) - Centre for Maritime Law
Email:

This work examines the main sources, governing the international oil and gas operations around the world, with a view to examining whether we are witnessing the emergence of transnational petroleum law has emerged. The work explores the nature of governance in the petroleum industry and the extent to which the oil and gas industry is self-governed or governed by the state-made law. It assesses the degree of standardisation of governance to determine whether it is so high as to give rise to the emergence of lex petrolea. The main focus is on sources, specific to the oil and gas industry, such as: model contracts, industry usages, standards and guidelines promulgated by various industry organisations and associations. This work argues that lex petrolea is not yet a mature legal order. Its sources are best characterised as transnational layers of governance of the international exploration and production operations. As to the relationship between the alleged lex petrolea and the state-made law, it is demonstrated that the two are vitally important to and mutually dependent on each other.

"Justice for Veterans: Does Theory Matter?" Free Download
59 Arizona Law Review 697 (2017)
Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 17-24

KRISTINE A. HUSKEY, University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law
Email:

The Veterans Treatment Court (“VTC?) movement is sweeping the nation. In 2008, there were approximately five courts. Currently, there are over 350 VTCs and veteran-oriented tracks in the United States. Most view this rapid proliferation as a positive phenomenon. VTC growth, however, has occurred haphazardly and most often without deliberate foundational underpinnings.

While most scholars assume that a therapeutic jurisprudence (“TJ?) modality is the paradigm for VTCs, there has been little examination of other theories of justice as appropriate for veterans and the courts that treat them. This Article addresses whether an alternative theory of justice — specifically, restorative justice (“RJ?) — can inform the theoretical foundation of a VTC to enhance its beneficial impact on veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD?), traumatic brain injury (“TBI?), or substance abuse issues. A primary feature of the RJ philosophy is that it is community-driven: it involves the victim, offender, and “community of interests? in the solution, process of restoration, and prevention of future misconduct. These principles are well suited for a VTC, which is also collaborative, community-based, and places extreme importance on the reintegration of the veteran back into society. These characteristics stem from an evolved theory that the community is ultimately responsible for the misconduct that was caused by the defendant’s military service. A hypothetical criminal case common in a VTC illustrates that RJ principles and framework may enhance the beneficial impact of VTCs. RJ may be just the theory of justice that brings to bear Sebastian Junger’s notion of a tribe as a means for the successful reintegration of veterans back into the community.

"Risk Management in the Digital Constellation – A Constitutional Perspective" Free Download
HIIG Discussion Paper Series No. 2017-07

INGOLF PERNICE, Humboldt University of Berlin
Email:

The digital revolution is creating new risks, together with multiple opportunities for communication, commerce and political participation. What Ulrich Beck described as the world risk society, and – from another perspective – Jürgen Habermas calls the "postnational constellation" – is a challenge to our concepts of society and democracy. Digitisation is pushing this development towards a new dimension that allows us to speak of the "digital constellation". Social relations are denser across borders and continents; what happens abroad matters here, as if it were happening on our own doorstep. New kinds of risks are arising as a side-effect of the increasing use of information technologies, while the internet also offers – for the first time ever – an infrastructure that makes formerly unrealistic concepts of cosmopolitan democracy (David Held) a real option. This includes the establishment of a constitutional framework for normative processes aiming at, among other global challenges, effectively managing cyber-risks at national, supra-national and global levels in a coherent way. Multilevel Constitutionalism has been proposed as a means of providing a normative theory for conceptualising the constitutional structure of a layered system of governance that provides for a maximum degree of self-determination for the individual and, thus, for the democratic legitimacy of decisions made at each level, from local to global. Thus, the constitution for democratically legitimate action at the global level does not question democracy at other levels, but should be understood as complementary, based upon functioning states, and designed to deal with issues that are beyond their reach, including cyber-security.

"Comparative Law and Decolonizing Critique" Free Download

SHERALLY K. MUNSHI, Georgetown University Law Center
Email:

This essay seeks to reanimate comparative legal scholarship by reorienting it towards decolonizing critique. In his critical assessment of the state of the field, Pierre Legrand suggests that comparative law has become mired in a solipsistic and outmoded style of positivism. Drawing upon theoretical insights from critical theory, Legrand argues that comparative law might render itself more generative and more relevant by engaging in a more contextualized analysis of law and encouraging active interpretation beyond descriptive reporting. In this essay, I extend Legrand’s arguments to suggest that an emancipated, incorporative, and interdisciplinary comparative law might play an important role in decolonizing legal scholarship more broadly. Founded in a commitment to constrain an ethnocentric impulse in legal discourse, comparative law might be expanded to challenge the varieties of Eurocentrism that continue to define legal scholarship and study, while providing hospitable ground for critical and interdisciplinary projects aimed at exploring the colonial roots of both the contemporary nation-state system and globalized racial formations.

"The Rise of Human Rights Responsibilities R2P and CSR – Different Forms of the Same New Dialect" Free Download
Global Trust Working Paper Series 06/2016

TOMER SHADMY, Tel Aviv University - Buchmann Faculty of Law
Email:

This article recognizes the emergence of a new conceptualization of human rights obligations. It identifies this novel tendency in different families of normative mechanisms: the “Responsibility to Protect? (R2P) doctrine and the “Corporate Social Responsibility? (CSR) instruments. This article connects the dots between those mechanisms, and frames them together as a common interpretive development – the emergence of Human Rights Responsibilities (HRR) norms.

Although those mechanisms regulate different entities in different spheres and settings, they both share common characteristics. The common ground of those norms is their reliance on the concept of “responsibility? to describe human rights commitments, instead of the concepts of “duty? or “obligation.?

Human rights law has always considered the relationships between states and their citizens as the main source for human rights commitments. The HRR norms define new kinds of relationships as a source for human rights commitments, and at the same time modify fundamentally the content of the commitments.

"Positional Goods and Legal Orderings" Free Download
Forthcoming on the Encyclopedia of Law and Economics (Marciano A. and G. Ramello, Eds.; Springer)

UGO PAGANO, University of Siena - Department of Economics
Email:
MASSIMILIANO VATIERO, Università della Svizzera italiana
Email:

People consume because others consume, maintained Veblen in 1899. More recently, theoretical, empirical and experimental articles have argued that people constantly compare themselves to their environments and care greatly about their relative positions.

Given that competition for positions may produce social costs, we adopt a Law and Economics approach (i) to suggest legal remedies for positional competition, and (ii) to argue that, because legal relations are characterized in turn by positional characteristics, such legal remedies do not represent 'free lunches'.

^top

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

Submissions

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: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

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

Directors

LSN SUBJECT MATTER EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

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

Advisory Board

Law, Norms & Informal Order eJournal

LISA E. BERNSTEIN
Wilson-Dickinson Professor of Law, University of Chicago - Law School

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

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

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

DAN M. KAHAN
Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law & Professor of Psychology, Yale University - Law School

PAUL G. MAHONEY
David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor, University of Virginia School of Law

PHILIP N. PETTIT
L.S. Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values, Princeton University - Department of Political Science, Australian National University (ANU) - Research School of Social Sciences (RSSS)

ERIC A. POSNER
Kirkland and Ellis Professor of Law, University of Chicago - Law School

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

CHRIS WILLIAM SANCHIRICO
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

STEVEN SHAVELL
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)

THOMAS S. ULEN
Swanlund Chair, Director, Illinois Program in Law and Economics, University of Illinois College of Law

JAMES Q. WHITMAN
Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law, Yale Law School