Featured Articles
Sustainable Development and Market Liberalism’s Shotgun Wedding: Emissions Trading Under the Kyoto Protocol
- By David M. Driesen
- Published 10/3/2007
- Issue 1 (Forthcoming)
This article analyzes the international emissions trading regime at the heart of the world's effort to address global warming as a means of exploring broader international governance issues. The trading regime seeks to marry two models of global governance, market liberalism, which embraces markets as the model of global governance, and sustainable development, which seeks to change development patterns to protect future generations.
This article explores a previously unacknowledged tension between market liberalism's goal of maximizing short term cost effectiveness and sustainable development's goal of catalyzing technological change for the benefit of future generations. This article presents new data and theory unsettling the traditional view that market mechanisms encourage innovations vital to sustainable development. Market actors fail to take positive spillovers, e.g. benefits accruing to competitors and thence to future generations, into account in making technological choices. Because of this failure to take long-term economic development into account, the international trading markets have contributed far less to sustainable energy development than more targeted programs.
Consideration of these spillovers yields fresh insights. Market liberalism's ideal of comprehensive evaluation of costs and benefits conflicts with its preference for free markets. Conversely, sustainable development advocates' tendency to rely on collective decision-making to make difficult technological choices may prove unrealistic. This article unsettles prevailing notions of governance and seeks to stimulate a richer more subtle discourse about the roles of government and markets in addressing global problems.Recent Articles
The NCSC Sentencing Attitudes Survey: A Report on the Findings
- By ILJ Webmaster
- Published 10/7/2007
- Volume 82, Special Issue
The climate of public opinion toward crime and punishment in this country has changed considerably over the past decade. As the national crime rate has declined, crime is less likely to be in the forefront of people's minds and—with the exception of certain high-profile crimes and cases involving celebrities—is less prominent in media coverage. What had been a frequent polling topic ten years ago gets much less attention today. Moreover, recent surveys about crime often fail to specifically address public attitudes toward sentencing, or have examined the issue from one particular ideological point of view.
The NCSC Sentencing Attitudes Survey, a national poll of 1,502 randomly selected adults, was designed to fill this void by delivering specific, unbiased information about what people think and why. The new survey thoroughly examines the American public's views toward sentencing and related issues in an objective manner. The new survey was preceded by a review of past survey data. This review revealed that, similar to controversial issues like immigration, abortion, and capital punishment, sentencing is a topic on which public opinion cannot be properly characterized by simply relying on the general measures so commonly used. More specific lines of questioning were developed to dig deeper, clarify previous findings, and identify the competing values and concerns underlying sentencing attitudes. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]Evidence-Based Practices and State Sentencing Policy: Ten Policy Initiatives to Reduce Recidivism
- By Roger K. Warren
- Published 10/7/2007
- Volume 82, Special Issue
In this paper, I first summarize how greater reliance on evidence-based practices would allow the state courts to improve the effectiveness of state sentencing outcomes, reduce recidivism, and, at the same time, reduce over-reliance on incarceration and promote the utilization of community-based alternatives for appropriate offenders. Second, I then outline ten policy initiatives which the state courts could pursue in order to fully incorporate evidence-based practices into state sentencing policy. Finally, in an appendix I suggest twenty agenda topics for meetings of criminal justice policy teams interested in incorporating evidence-based practices into local sentencing practices. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]
“Administration of Justice Is Archaic”—The Rise of Modern Court Administration: Assessing Roscoe Pound’s Court Administration Prescriptions
- By ILJ Webmaster
- Published 10/7/2007
- Volume 82, Special Issue
This is a heavily edited and partially
reorganized version of the CCJ/COSCA panel on "The Rise of Modern Court
Administration." In it, Sue Dosal and Mary McQueen assess three changes
advocated by Pound in respect to the organization of courts, based on their
experiences as state court administrators in Minnesota and Washington, and
their familiarity with court administration in other states. Russell Wheeler
introduced the session, posed the questions, and was primarily responsible for
editing, annotating, and partially reorganizing the panel transcript, which
Dosal and McQueen edited as well.
A Look at Legal Education: The Globalization of American Legal Education
- By James P. White
- Published 10/7/2007
- Volume 82, Special Issue
On behalf of the American Bar Association's (ABA) Out of the Box Committee on Legal Education, I would like to thank Chief Justice Shepard for inviting me to participate in this symposium. The genesis for the creation of the Out of the Box Committee came from a program in the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar at the ABA annual meeting, held in London in July of 2000. At that meeting the Section's presentation was entitled: "Out of the Box" Thinking About the Training of Lawyers in the Next Millennium. It is my pleasure to report some of the committee's work to the Conference of Chief Justices. Specifically, this presentation will address three main areas of concern regarding globalization: Summer Abroad Programs, Joint Agreements between International Law Schools, and Cross-Border Practice. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]
Recent News
Indiana Law Journal & Indiana Law Journal Supplement Debut New Web Site
- Published 10/11/2007
The Journal will publish a formal introduction to the Supplement and its new Web site in both Issue 1 of Volume 83 and the Supplement. The Journal's recommended citation for the Supplement is Ind. L.J. Supp. The Supplement will consecutively paginate each electronic volume.
Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: Conflicts Law and Public Policy in a Globalizing Society
- Published 03/15/2007
Symposium to be Presented at the Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting
January 5th, 2007 at 3:30 p.m., Washington, D.C.
The Indiana Law Journal will publish papers from the Conflict of Laws Section of the Association of American Law Schools on the issue of Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: Conflicts Law and Public Policy in a Globalizing Society. The panel will examine the conflict of laws relevant to same-sex marriage. The speakers will address some questions of U.S. law triggered by recent developments: for instance, have Lawrence and Romer redrawn the constitutional limits on a state's right to deny recognition of a same-sex marriage celebrated elsewhere? Can traditional conflicts techniques adequately address the various substantive issues, such as succession rights and custody rights, that are folded into the conflict over recognition of marriage? More generally, the panelists will use the issue of same-sex marriage as a window onto some broader questions regarding the role of conflicts law in resolving policy differences within a globalizing society. They will address topics such as the following: what limits does existence within a union-for instance, the U.S. federal system or the European Union-place on the right of an individual governmental unit to assert local public policy in denying recognition to the acts of another unit? Is a distinction between interstate and international public policy still viable? Are state and national choice of law regimes successful in reconciling the imperatives of globalization-including the increased mobility of persons and the recognition of certain rights to freedom of movement-with the often countervailing pressure to protect local cultural priorities? Will those divergent regimes eventually give way to multilateral choice of law treaties? To harmonized substantive law? The panel will be moderated by Professor Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana University School of Law), and the speakers will be Dean Larry Kramer (Stanford Law School), Professor Peter Hay (Emory Law School), Professor Tobias Wolff (UC Davis School of Law), and Professor Katharina Boele-Woelki (University of Utrecht, The Netherlands).
Copyright © 2008 The Trustees of Indiana University. All rights reserved. Hosted by