Preempting Unintended Consequences

Sommer offers some insights on preemption. The case for preemption is that there is an inherent logic and consistency in having litigation involving nationally traded securities resolved in a single forum

Unintended consequences of crisis management

This contribution attempts to decipher the largely unintended, still predictable consequences of crisis management in the global economy. In a series of improvised, case-bycase and unilaterally demand-focused measures, governments tried to extend the Keynesian arsenal to a system whose basic features are unlike those of the national economy. While the collapse of output and employment, on par with the Great Depression, could indeed be averted, conditions for the resumption of sustainable finance and growth have been undermined

Land reform, inheritance rights and unintended consequences

No abstract available

Unintended Consequences: State Merger Statutes and Nonassignable Licenses

The confused state of most state corporate merger statutes allows many intellectual property licenses to find their way into unintended hands by way of corporate merger, in spite of non-assignment clauses. Clearly a detriment to licensors, corporate licensees too should be wary of depending upon the merger statute; a court ruling may not go their way. The states must clean up their collective act and bring some much needed certainty to a highly unpredictable intersection of corporate and intellectual property law

Charting a Path for Health Care Payment Reform: Recommendations for the Field

Outlines health policy experts' and stakeholders' suggestions for payment reform: identifying ways to improve quality and save costs, short- and long-term strategies, potential unintended consequences, technical assistance, and performance measurements

Responsibility for Unintended Consequences

The appropriateness of imposing criminal liability for negligent conduct has been the subject of debate among criminal law scholars for many years. Ever since H.L.A. Hart’s defense of criminal negligence, the prevailing view has favored its use. In this essay, I nevertheless argue against criminal negligence, on the ground that criminal liability should only be imposed where the defendant was aware he was engaging in the prohibited conduct, or where he was aware of risking such conduct or result. My argument relies on the claim that criminal liability should resemble judgments of responsibility in ordinary morality as closely as possible. I argue that responsibility judgments in ordinary morality are based on the agent’s having acted intentionally, and that an agent does intentionally what he chooses to do. Because agents choose to bring about those effects of their actions they foresee as reasonably likely to follow from what they do, they are responsible for such effects. They are not responsible for effects they do not foresee, or for effects they deem highly unlikely, and they ought not to be held criminally liable for them either