Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims

We consider the problem of dividing some amount of an infinitely divisible and homogeneous resource among agents having claims on this resource that cannot be jointly honored. A "rule" associates with each such problem a feasible division. Our goal is to uncover the structure of the space of rules. For that purpose, we study "operators" on the space, that is, mappings that associate to each rule another one. Duality, claims truncation, attribution of minimal rights, and convex combinations are the four operators we consider. We first establish a number of results linking these operators, such as idempotence, commutativity, and distributivity. Then, we determine which properties of rules are preserved under each of these operators, and which are not.Conflicting claims, Division rules, Operators, Minimal rights, Maximal claims, Duality, Convexity.

A Unifying Framework for the Problem of Adjudicating Conflicting Claims

In a recent paper, Thomson and Yeh [Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims, Journal of Economic Theory 143 (2008) 177-198] introduced the concept of operators on the space of rules for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. They focussed on three operators in order to uncover the structure of such a space. In this paper, we generalize their analysis upon presenting and studying a general family of operators inspired by three apparently unrelated approaches to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. We study the structural properties of this family and show, in particular, that most of Thomson and Yeh’s results are specific cases of our study.rationing; operators; baselines; composition; claims

A unifying framework for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims

Clasificación JEL: D63In a recent paper, Thomson and Yeh [Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims, Journal of Economic Theory 143 (2008) 177-198] introduced the concept of operators on the space of rules for the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. They focussed on three operators in order to uncover the structure of such a space. In this paper, we generalize their analysis upon presenting and studying a general family of operators inspired by three apparently unrelated approaches to the problem of adjudicating conflicting claims. We study the structural properties of this family and show, in particular, that most of Thomson and Yeh¿s results are specific cases of our study.Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Departamento de Economía, Métodos Cuantitativos e Historia Económic

Dispute Resolution in Commodities Futures

The commodities futures industry is experiencing rapid growth and a consequential rise in disputes between industry professionals and customers. In response to the growing number of disputes, the industry offers customers several methods for resolution, including the recently added National Futures Association (NFA). The NFA fills a gap in previously available forums, as it offers a much needed uniform and nationwide system of arbitration with jurisdiction over multi-exchange disputes. This Note suggests that requiring the exchanges to refer disputes to NFA and to include NFA as the forum for arbitration in pre-dispute arbitration agreements would greatly enhance the effectiveness of this new arbitration forum

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

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

Additive adjudication of conflicting claims

In a “claims problem” (O’Neill 1982), a group of individuals have claims on a resource but its endowment is not sufficient to honour all of the claims. We examine the following question: If a claims problem can be decomposed into smaller claims problems, can the solutions of these smaller problems be added to obtain the solution of the original problem? A natural condition for this decomposition is that the solution to each of the smaller problems is non-degenerate, assigning positive awards to each claimant. We identify the only consistent and endowment monotonic adjudication rules satisfying this property; they are generalizations of the canonical “constrained equal losses rule” sorting claimants into priority classes and distributing the amount available to each class using a weighted constrained equal losses rule. The constrained equal losses rule is the only symmetric rule in this family of rules

Political activity of brazilian adjudication: some dimensions

Since de advent of what is known as new constitucionalism, jurists have faced a difficult task in order to overcome some failures of normative positivism. In this context, the judiciary has played a renewed role, which can be justified on grounds of legal theory and on institutional reasons. However, this new role has led legal philosophers to several concerns, such as the relationship between law and ethics. On one hand, Critical Legal Studies points out that the judge always acts informed by his own convictions. On the other hand, according to R. Forst (within another context, but also relevant here), this is not really a problem, because a rule can be provided with ethics, but not ethically justified. This openness of law to moral makes it difficult for the interpretative judicial discourse to be taken as claimed by K. Günther: as a discourse of application only, and not of justification. All these controversies, however, lead to a common statement: the constitutional adjudication has been exercising a different activity. Some legal systems allows such activity legitimacy in some extent, like Brazilian’s, for example, which i) states a very broad adjudication, ii) provides an extensive catalog of basic rights, and iii) contains several procedural mechanisms for their protection. This empowers the adjudication to exercise what can be called a political activity. Therefore, a series of moral issues which were once exclusive to the political arena have been brought to the judiciary, such as: gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, religious freedom, federation, separation of powers, distribution of scarce resources. In a democracy, these moral questions ought to be mainly decided through deliberation outside the judiciary, but not always this is what happens. The paper discusses these issues, showing also how the Brazilian Supreme Court has dealt - technically, or not - with this relationship between law and justice in a complex and pluralist society