Putting the War Back in Just War Theory: A Critique of Examples

Analytic just war theorists often attempt to construct ideal theories of military justice on the basis of intuitions about imaginary and sometimes outlandish examples, often taken from non-military contexts. This article argues for a sharp curtailment of this method and defends, instead, an empirically and historically informed approach to the ethical scrutiny of armed conflicts. After critically reviewing general philosophical reasons for being sceptical of the moral-theoretic value of imaginary hypotheticals, the article turns to some of the special problems that this method raises for appraisals of warfare. It examines some of the hypothetical examples employed in the construction of Jeff McMahan’s revisionist just war theory, and finds that they sometimes stipulate incompre- hensible conditions, lead to argumentative impasses of diverging yet uncertain intuitions, and distract attention away from the real problems of war as we empirically know it. In contrast, empirical and historical studies of warfare rein- force the deep connections between facts and values, and compel theorists to face uncomfortable moral ambiguities. Perhaps most importantly, the analytic method of focusing on imaginary hypothetical examples can not only be distracting, but it can also be genuinely dangerous. Hence, the article pays special attention to the way in which a seemingly innocuous fiction like the famous Ticking Time Bomb scenario can come to frame a new paradigm of inhumanity in the treatment of prisoners of war

National Security Pedagogy: The Role of Simulations

This article challenges the dominant pedagogical assumptions in the legal academy. It begins by briefly considering the state of the field of national security, noting the rapid expansion in employment and the breadth of related positions that have been created post-9/11. It considers, in the process, how the legal academy has, as an institutional matter, responded to the demand. Part III examines traditional legal pedagogy, grounding the discussion in studies initiated by the American Bar Association, the Carnegie Foundation, and others. It suggests that using the law-writ-large as a starting point for those interested in national security law is a mistake. Instead, it makes more sense to work backwards from the skills most essential in this area of the law. The article then proposes six pedagogical goals that serve to distinguish national security law: (1) understanding the law as applied, (2) dealing with factual chaos and uncertainty, (3) obtaining critical distance—including, inter alia, when not to give legal advice, (4) developing nontraditional written and oral communication skills, (5) exhibiting leadership, integrity, and good judgment in a high-stakes, highly-charged environment, and (6) creating continued opportunities for self-learning. Equally important to the exercise of each of these skills is the ability to integrate them in the course of performance. These goals, and the subsidiary points they cover, are neither conclusive nor exclusive. Many of them incorporate skills that all lawyers should have—such as the ability to handle pressure, knowing how to modulate the mode and content of communications depending upon the circumstances, and managing ego, personality, and subordination. To the extent that they are overlooked by mainstream legal education, however, and present in a unique manner in national security law, they underscore the importance of more careful consideration of the skills required in this particular field. Having proposed a pedagogical approach, the article turns in Part IV to the question of how effective traditional law school teaching is in helping to students reach these goals. Doctrinal and experiential courses both prove important. The problem is that in national security law, the way in which these have become manifest often falls short of accomplishing the six pedagogical aims. Gaps left in doctrinal course are not adequately covered by devices typically adopted in the experiential realm, even as clinics, externships, and moot court competitions are in many ways ill-suited to national security. The article thus proposes in Part V a new model for national security legal education, based on innovations currently underway at Georgetown Law. NSL Sim 2.0 adapts a doctrinal course to the special needs of national security. Course design is preceded by careful regulatory, statutory, and Constitutional analysis, paired with policy considerations. The course takes advantage of new and emerging technologies to immerse students in a multi-day, real-world exercise, which forces students to deal with an information-rich environment, rapidly changing facts, and abbreviated timelines. It points to a new model of legal education that advances students in the pedagogical goals identified above, while complementing, rather than supplanting, the critical intellectual discourse that underlies the value of higher legal education

The DTSA’s Federalism Problem: Federal Court Jurisdiction over Trade Secrets

The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) greatly expanded federal protection of trade secrets. But how many trade secrets were “federalized”? The short answer is: many, but not all. At the heart of the DTSA lies a mammoth jurisdictional problem: Congress only federalized certain trade secrets. Unlike copyrights and patents, Congress has no independent constitutional basis to regulate trade secrets. Instead, like trademarks, trade secrets are regulated under the commerce clause and must satisfy a jurisdictional element, which requires a nexus between interstate commerce and trade secrets. But unlike trademarks, Congress chose not to legislate to the fullest extent of its commerce clause power, excluding some trade secrets from federal protection. In short, the DTSA’s jurisdictional element ensures that only “technical” trade secrets—i.e., formulae, manufacturing processes, etc.—qualify for federal protection. “Business information” secrets are protected, if at all, only under state law. This Article is the first to explain the DTSA’s jurisdictional element in depth and explore its practical and theoretical implications. Interpretation of the jurisdictional element in the DTSA is the Act’s key judicial dilemma. The jurisdictional element imposes two requirements on a federal plaintiff’s trade secret: (1) that the trade secret closely relates to a product or service; and (2) that the product or service actually flows in interstate commerce. As a practical matter, the old trade secret tort has been split in two—with technical trade secrets federalized and business information remaining protected solely by state law. Theoretically, this interpretation brings trade secret policy in line with other species of federal intellectual property policies

Hypotheses and their dynamics in legal argumentation

We investigate some legal interpretation techniques from the viewpoint of the Argentinian jurisprudence. This allows the proposal of a logical framework –from a computer science perspective– for modeling such specific reasoning techniques towards an appropriate construction of legal arguments. Afterwards, we study the usage of assumptions towards construction of hypotheses. This is proposed in the dynamic context of legal procedures, where the referred argumentation framework evolves as part of the investigation instance prior to the trial. We propose belief revision operators to handle such dynamics, preserving a coherent behavior with regards to the legal interpretation used. Abduction is finally proposed to construct systematic hypothesization, with the objective to bring semi-automatic recommendations to push forward the investigation of a legal case

Oral Argument Tactics on the Supreme Court Bench: A Comparative Analysis of Verbal Tools Used by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch

Oral argument scholars like Adam Feldman have categorized the Supreme Court justices’ behavior during oral argument using the approach-based method, labeling each as one-sided, even-handed, or restrained. This approach is too narrowly constructed. Scholars sometimes categorize justices in terms of the tools they use, which include questions, hypotheticals, declarations, interruptions, tone of voice, and silence (Feldman 2018a). Neither of these methods alone produce a nuanced analysis of each justice’s actions during an individual case or across a Term. As the Court’s composition and dynamics are continuously changing, scholarship on oral argument needs to adapt to become more effective in capturing the dynamics on the bench. Accordingly, this thesis builds upon other scholarship by analyzing the content of vocalizations executed by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch during the Court’s 2017 Term oral arguments in order to classify and better understand each justice’s overall style during oral argument. It seeks to fill the scholarly void on oral argument, particularly by crafting an analysis at the individual-justice level and at a comparative level to understand the Court’s motivations as an institution. This research attempts to surpass the limitations of isolated statistical analysis through its content-based approach and advocates methodological change

Protecting the Profession Through the Pen: A Proposal for Liberalizing ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 to Allow Multidisciplinary Firms

abstrac

The Advocate

Headlines Include: Vicinanzo, Toner, Take Wormser; One Night At a Stein; Special Examination Introhttps://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/student_the_advocate/1019/thumbnail.jp