Convergence under Replication of Rules to Adjudicate Conflicting Claims

We study the behavior of rules for the adjudication of con°icting claims when there are a large number of claimants with small claims. We model such situations by replicating some basic problem. We show that under replication, the random arrival rule (O'Neill, 1982) behaves like the proportional rule, the rule that is the most often recommended in this context. Also, under replication, the minimal overlap rule (O'Neill, 1982) behaves like the constrained equal losses rule, the rule that selects a division at which all claimants experience equal losses subject to no-one receiving a negative amount.Claims problems, Replication, Random arrival rule, Proportional rule, Minimal overlap rule, Constrained equal losses rule.

A New Solution to the Problem of Adjudicating Conflicting Claims

For the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims, we consider the requirement that each agent should receive at least 1/n his claim truncated at the amount to divide, where n is the number of claimants (Moreno-Ternero and Villar, 2004a). We identify two families of rules satisfying this bound. We then formulate the requirement that for each problem, the awards vector should be obtainable in two equivalent ways, (i) directly or (ii) in two steps, first assigning to each claimant his lower bound and then applying the rule to the appropriately revised problem. We show that there is only one rule satisfying this requirement. We name it the "recursive rule", as it is obtained by a recursion. We then undertake a systematic investigation of the properties of the rule.claims problems, recursive rule.

Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims

We define two families of rules to adjudicate conflicting claims. The first family contains the constrained equal awards, constrained equal losses, Talmud, and minimal overlap rules. The second family, which also contains the constrained equal awards and constrained equal losses rules, is obtained from the first one by exchanging, for each problem, how well agents with relatively larger claims are treated as compared to agents with relatively smaller claims. In each case, we identify the subfamily of consistent rules.claims problems, constrained equal awards rule, constrained equal losses rule, Talmud rule, minimal overlap rule, ICI rules, CIC rules, consistency.

Lower bounds rule!

We propose two axioms that introduce lower bounds into resource monotonicity requirements for rules for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. Suppose the amount to divide increases. The first axiom requires that two claimants whose lower bound changes equally experience an equal change in awards. The second axiom requires that extra resources are divided only among those claimants who experience a strictly positive change in their lower bound. We show that, in the two-claimant case, Concede-and-Divide is the only rule that satisfies both axioms when the axioms are defined over a large set of lower bounds that include the minimal rights lower bound and the secured lower bound. We also show that, in the n-claimant case where at least one claimant claims the total amount, the Minimal Overlap rule is the only rule that satisfies both axioms when the axioms are defined over the secured lower bound.claims problems, lower bounds, concede-and-divide, minimal overlap rule

Endowment additivity and the weighted proportional rules for adjudicating conflicting claims

We propose and study a new axiom, restricted endowment additivity, for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. This axiom requires that awards be additively decomposable with respect to the endowment whenever no agent’s claim is filled. For two-claimant problems, restricted endowment additivity essentially characterizes weighted extensions of the proportional rule. With additional agents, however, the axiom is satisfied by a great variety of rules. Further imposing versions of continuity and consistency, we characterize a new family of rules which generalize the proportional rule. Defined by a priority relation and a weighting function, each rule aims, as nearly as possible, to assign awards within each priority class in proportion to these weights. We also identify important subfamilies and obtain new characterizations of the constrained equal awards and proportional rules based on restricted endowment additivity

The First Principles of Standing: Privilege, System Justification, and the Predictable Incoherence of Article III

This Article examines the indeterminacy of standing doctrine by deconstructing recent desegregation, affirmative action, and racial profiling cases. This examination is an attempt to uncover the often unstated meta-principles that guide standing jurisprudence. The Article contends that the inherent indeterminacy of standing law can be understood as reflecting an unstated desire to protect racial and class privilege, which is accomplished through the dogma of individualism, equal opportunity (liberty), and "white innocence." Relying on insights from System Justification Theory, a burgeoning field of social psychology, the Article argues that the seemingly incoherent results in racial standing cases can be understood as unconscious attempts to preserve the status quo. The Article proposes moving "beyond the transcendental nonsense" of standing doctrine and its inevitable replication of economic and racial privilege by completely eliminating all standing limitations to the access of justice

Does the U.S. Constitution Need an Equal Rights Amendment?

For over 3 decades, those engaged in the battle over the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), along with many scholarly commentators, have argued that ratification of the amendment will lead U.S. courts (1) to elevate the standard of law they now use to adjudicate claims of sex discrimination, which, in turn, could lead them (2) to find in favor of parties claiming a denial of their rights. We investigate both possibilities via an examination of constitutional sex discrimination litigation in the 50 states—over a third of which have adopted ERAs. Employing methods especially developed for this investigation, we find no direct effect of the ERA on case outcomes. But we do identify an indirect effect: the presence of an ERA significantly increases the likelihood of a court applying a higher standard of law, which in turn significantly increases the likelihood of a decision favoring the equality claim

Lorenz comparisons of nine rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims.

Consider the following nine rules for adjudicating conflicting claims: the proportional, constrained equal awards, constrained equal losses, Talmud, Piniles’, constrained egalitarian, adjusted proportional, random arrival, and minimal overlap rules. For each pair of rules in this list, we examine whether or not the two rules are Lorenz comparable. We allow the comparison to depend upon whether the amount to divide is larger or smaller than the half-sum of claims. In addition, we provide Lorenz-based characterizations of the constrained equal awards, constrained equal losses, Talmud, Piniles’, constrained egalitarian, and minimal overlap rules.Rules; Claims problem; Bankruptcy; Constrained equal awards rule; Constrained equal losses rule; Talmud rule, Piniles’ rule; Random arrival rule; Minimal overlap rule;

Hokey Religions: Star Wars and Star Trek in the Age of Reboots

Disney’s recent “decanonization” of the decades-old Star Wars “Expanded Universe” in preparation for the release of The Force Awakens once again raises the question of the triangular relationship between the corporate ownership of intellectual property, the mainstream audience to whom the blockbuster films are addressed, and the much smaller hardcore fanbase whose loyalty sustains a franchise during its lean years. Considering fandom investment in the processes of world-building and continuity construction across the landscape of SF media forms, this article will focus specifically on two key franchises in mainstream SF, each in its own way paradigmatic of the “merely” science fictional, and each of which has recently undertaken a radical revision of its “expanded universe”: Star Wars and Star Trek. A concluding discussion extends these observations to other two franchises: Superman comics and the long-running British television series Doctor Who