Contents: The Subject of Justice: Gender as seriality: thinking about women as a social collective, Iris Marion Young The woman of legal discourse, Carol Smart Proof, Tricia Dearborn Liberal jurisprudence and abstracted visions of a human nature: a feminist critique of Rawl's theory of justice, Mari J. Matsuda 'Public man' and the critique of masculinities, Terrell Carver. The Limits of Formal Equality: Something is pushing them to the side of their own lives: a feminist critique of law and laws, Stella Tarrant 'Possession': erotic love in the law of rape, Ngaire Naffine Women and the law of armed conflict: why the silence?, Judith Gardam The equality pit or the rehabilitation of justice, Radha Jhappan. Distributive Justice: 100 million women are missing, Amartya Sen Human functioning and social justice: in defense of Aristotelian essentialism, Martha C. Nussbaum Theories of justice and the welfare state, Nicola Lacey After the family wage: a post industrial thought experiment, Nancy Fraser. The Qualities of Judgement: Impartiality: Stripped down like a runner or enriched by experience: bias and impartiality of judges and jurors, Martha Minow. Care: Portia in a different voice: speculations on a women's' lawyering process, Carrie Menkel-Meadow Justice and care, Robin L.West. Emotion: Reconstructing judgement: emotion and moral judgement, Kathleen Wallace Embodied diversity and the challenges to law, Jennifer Nedelsky. Just Punishment: Criminal justice ideologies and practices in different voices: some feminist questions about justice, Kathleen Daly Punishment, feminism and political identity: a case study in the expressive of law, Jean Hampton Name index.
内容:《正义的主体:作为序列性的性别:作为社会集体的女性思考》，《法律话语中的女性》，《卡罗尔·斯玛特·普罗文》，《特里西娅·迪尔伯恩》，《自由主义法学与人性的抽象愿景:罗尔正义理论的女性主义批判》，《松田玛丽·j·“公众人”与男性主义批判》，《特雷尔·卡佛》。《形式平等的极限》:有些东西把她们推到自己生活的一边:女权主义者对法律和法律的批判，斯特拉·塔兰特的《占有》:强奸法中的情爱，恩盖尔·纳芬妇女和武装冲突法:为什么沉默?《平等的坑或正义的恢复》，拉达·贾潘。分配正义:1亿女性失踪，Amartya Sen人类功能与社会正义:为亚里士多德本质主义辩护，Martha C. Nussbaum正义与福利国家理论，Nicola Lacey家庭工资之后:后工业思想实验，Nancy Fraser。评判的品质:不偏不倚:像赛跑运动员一样被剥去，或因经验而丰富:法官和陪审员的偏见和不偏不倚，玛莎·米诺。《关怀》:不同声音的鲍西娅:对女性律师诉讼程序的猜测、凯莉·门克尔-梅多的正义与关怀、罗宾·l·韦斯特。《情感:重构判断:情感与道德判断》，凯瑟琳·华莱士，《体现多样性与对法律的挑战》，詹妮弗·内德尔斯基。《正义的惩罚:不同声音下的刑事司法意识形态与实践:一些关于正义的女权主义问题》、《凯瑟琳·戴利的惩罚》、《女权主义与政治认同:法律表达的个案研究》、《简·汉普顿名称索引》。
{"title":"Gender and Justice","authors":"N. Naffine","doi":"10.4324/9781315093727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093727","url":null,"abstract":"Contents: The Subject of Justice: Gender as seriality: thinking about women as a social collective, Iris Marion Young The woman of legal discourse, Carol Smart Proof, Tricia Dearborn Liberal jurisprudence and abstracted visions of a human nature: a feminist critique of Rawl's theory of justice, Mari J. Matsuda 'Public man' and the critique of masculinities, Terrell Carver. The Limits of Formal Equality: Something is pushing them to the side of their own lives: a feminist critique of law and laws, Stella Tarrant 'Possession': erotic love in the law of rape, Ngaire Naffine Women and the law of armed conflict: why the silence?, Judith Gardam The equality pit or the rehabilitation of justice, Radha Jhappan. Distributive Justice: 100 million women are missing, Amartya Sen Human functioning and social justice: in defense of Aristotelian essentialism, Martha C. Nussbaum Theories of justice and the welfare state, Nicola Lacey After the family wage: a post industrial thought experiment, Nancy Fraser. The Qualities of Judgement: Impartiality: Stripped down like a runner or enriched by experience: bias and impartiality of judges and jurors, Martha Minow. Care: Portia in a different voice: speculations on a women's' lawyering process, Carrie Menkel-Meadow Justice and care, Robin L.West. Emotion: Reconstructing judgement: emotion and moral judgement, Kathleen Wallace Embodied diversity and the challenges to law, Jennifer Nedelsky. Just Punishment: Criminal justice ideologies and practices in different voices: some feminist questions about justice, Kathleen Daly Punishment, feminism and political identity: a case study in the expressive of law, Jean Hampton Name index.","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70629665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Millions of people now use the Internet to obtain access to recorded music. Internet music transmissions are likely to reshape the ways in which music is both created and delivered to consumers, although there is little agreement on which new model or models will emerge as predominant in the music industry. Copyright law should facilitate the development of legitimate dissemination of music over the Internet because such dissemination promises to significantly increase public access to copyrighted music. Copyright law, which fundamentally strives to increase the accessibility of creative works, should help rather than hinder dissemination of music over the Internet because of its potential for increasing the availability of music to users. Part I of the Article explains current copyright law governing music transmissions over the Internet. This existing legal framework is a very complex patchwork of overlapping and interacting provisions that have been shaped by a century of legislation and business practices, most of which developed in an era of traditional, non-networked exploitation of music. Part II examines how applying copyright law to downloading and streaming audio, the two major types of Internet music transmissions today, makes it very difficult for Internet transmitters to make such transmissions legally, even if their activities come within a copyright exemption or compulsory license. Current copyright law poses two main types of problems for those who wish to legitimately disseminate music over the Internet. First, there are transactions cost and potential "hold out" problems. Because any single piece of recorded music usually embodies two separate copyrighted works, and because transmitting that music over the Internet may involve two separate rights in each of those works, and because each right in each work may be owned by a different entity, the transactions costs involved in obtaining permission to transmit any volume of recorded music over the Internet can be significant. Second, although Congress has crafted a number of copyright exemptions and compulsory licenses in order to encourage activities that it concluded should not be under the exclusive control of copyright owners, Internet transmissions - by simultaneously implicating more than one right of the copyright owners - may make it impossible to engage in such Congressionally sanctioned activities without obtaining additional permission from a copyright owner, thus reducing the usefulness of, or entirely nullifying, the licenses and exemptions Congress granted. Finally, Part III suggests and evaluates possible solutions to these problems that would continue to protect copyright owners' ability to exploit their works while making legitimate Internet music transmissions more feasible for users of those works. The article recommends, at the least, extending existing compulsory licenses and exemptions for digital performance transmissions of sound recordings to also cover all
{"title":"Copyright and Internet Music Transmissions: Existing Law, Major Controversies, Possible Solutions","authors":"Ruth Anthony Reese","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.276333","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.276333","url":null,"abstract":"Millions of people now use the Internet to obtain access to recorded music. Internet music transmissions are likely to reshape the ways in which music is both created and delivered to consumers, although there is little agreement on which new model or models will emerge as predominant in the music industry. Copyright law should facilitate the development of legitimate dissemination of music over the Internet because such dissemination promises to significantly increase public access to copyrighted music. Copyright law, which fundamentally strives to increase the accessibility of creative works, should help rather than hinder dissemination of music over the Internet because of its potential for increasing the availability of music to users. Part I of the Article explains current copyright law governing music transmissions over the Internet. This existing legal framework is a very complex patchwork of overlapping and interacting provisions that have been shaped by a century of legislation and business practices, most of which developed in an era of traditional, non-networked exploitation of music. Part II examines how applying copyright law to downloading and streaming audio, the two major types of Internet music transmissions today, makes it very difficult for Internet transmitters to make such transmissions legally, even if their activities come within a copyright exemption or compulsory license. Current copyright law poses two main types of problems for those who wish to legitimately disseminate music over the Internet. First, there are transactions cost and potential \"hold out\" problems. Because any single piece of recorded music usually embodies two separate copyrighted works, and because transmitting that music over the Internet may involve two separate rights in each of those works, and because each right in each work may be owned by a different entity, the transactions costs involved in obtaining permission to transmit any volume of recorded music over the Internet can be significant. Second, although Congress has crafted a number of copyright exemptions and compulsory licenses in order to encourage activities that it concluded should not be under the exclusive control of copyright owners, Internet transmissions - by simultaneously implicating more than one right of the copyright owners - may make it impossible to engage in such Congressionally sanctioned activities without obtaining additional permission from a copyright owner, thus reducing the usefulness of, or entirely nullifying, the licenses and exemptions Congress granted. Finally, Part III suggests and evaluates possible solutions to these problems that would continue to protect copyright owners' ability to exploit their works while making legitimate Internet music transmissions more feasible for users of those works. The article recommends, at the least, extending existing compulsory licenses and exemptions for digital performance transmissions of sound recordings to also cover all","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"55 1","pages":"237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68300307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-01-01DOI: 10.7208/9780226314693-007
M. Mccann, William Haltom, Anne Bloom
{"title":"Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon","authors":"M. Mccann, William Haltom, Anne Bloom","doi":"10.7208/9780226314693-007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226314693-007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"64 1","pages":"113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71328446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As the century comes to a close, critical Latina/o theory has branched off from Critical Race Theory. This article considers how this burgeoning body of scholarship finds its roots in a long tradition of Chicana/o activism and scholarship, particularly the work of Chicana/o Studies scholar-activists. In the critical study of issues of enduring significance to the greater Latina/o community, we owe a deep intellectual debt to the generations of scholarship focusing on Chicana/os in the United States. This praise might strike some knowledgeable observers as odd. Chicana/o Studies developed with an exclusive focus on the subordination of persons of Mexican ancestry in the United States and still adheres generally to the view that investigation of the histories of other Latin American national origin groups is beyond its scope. In contrast, LatCrit theory from its inception has attempted to focus on the commonalities of the experiences of all persons tracing their ancestry to Latin America. We contend that, despite these differences in perspective, Chicana/o Studies offers important lessons for LatCrit theorists scrutinizing the legal system's treatment of all Latina/os. To this end, Part I of this article considers the link between Chicana/o Studies activism and Latina/o legal scholarship. Part II analyzes how LatCrit theory finds its intellectual roots in Chicana/o Studies scholarship. In this analysis, we establish the relationship between Chicana/o Studies activism and scholarship, which blossomed as a result of the 1960s Chicano Movement, and LatCrit theory. We also demonstrate how the Chicana/o Studies model helps us think about some vexing challenges posed to LatCrit theorists. Finally, we highlight a rich body of Chicana/o Studies scholarship on which future critical Latina/o scholarship may build in critically analyzing how law affects the Latina/o community.
{"title":"Crossover Dreams: The Roots of LatCrit Theory in Chicana/o Studies Activism and Scholarship","authors":"Kevin R. Johnson, George A. Martínez","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.205210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.205210","url":null,"abstract":"As the century comes to a close, critical Latina/o theory has branched off from Critical Race Theory. This article considers how this burgeoning body of scholarship finds its roots in a long tradition of Chicana/o activism and scholarship, particularly the work of Chicana/o Studies scholar-activists. In the critical study of issues of enduring significance to the greater Latina/o community, we owe a deep intellectual debt to the generations of scholarship focusing on Chicana/os in the United States. This praise might strike some knowledgeable observers as odd. Chicana/o Studies developed with an exclusive focus on the subordination of persons of Mexican ancestry in the United States and still adheres generally to the view that investigation of the histories of other Latin American national origin groups is beyond its scope. In contrast, LatCrit theory from its inception has attempted to focus on the commonalities of the experiences of all persons tracing their ancestry to Latin America. We contend that, despite these differences in perspective, Chicana/o Studies offers important lessons for LatCrit theorists scrutinizing the legal system's treatment of all Latina/os. To this end, Part I of this article considers the link between Chicana/o Studies activism and Latina/o legal scholarship. Part II analyzes how LatCrit theory finds its intellectual roots in Chicana/o Studies scholarship. In this analysis, we establish the relationship between Chicana/o Studies activism and scholarship, which blossomed as a result of the 1960s Chicano Movement, and LatCrit theory. We also demonstrate how the Chicana/o Studies model helps us think about some vexing challenges posed to LatCrit theorists. Finally, we highlight a rich body of Chicana/o Studies scholarship on which future critical Latina/o scholarship may build in critically analyzing how law affects the Latina/o community.","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"53 1","pages":"1143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67888820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the prominence of arguments for and against same-sex marriage and covenant marriage, the state regulation of marriage has again assumed prominence. The claim, prominent in both judicial opinions and commentaries, that states have a substantial interest in the marital status of their citizens, reflects a - usually unstated and unargued-for = view of federalism. Additionally, the claim runs up against certain constitutional provisions (e.g., the right to interstate travel and the right to privacy), certain pieces of federal legislation, and the reality of a mobile society, which combine to undermine the ability of individual states to regulate marriage, as well as the justifications for their doing so. The paper also considers whether it is coherent for states to claim a substantial interest in their citizens' being married, while simultaneously making exit from marriage easy (through no-fault divorce) and creating no significant disincentives for cohabitation or raising children outside of marriage.
{"title":"State of the Union: The States' Interest in the Marital Status of Their Citizens","authors":"B. Bix","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.224389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.224389","url":null,"abstract":"With the prominence of arguments for and against same-sex marriage and covenant marriage, the state regulation of marriage has again assumed prominence. The claim, prominent in both judicial opinions and commentaries, that states have a substantial interest in the marital status of their citizens, reflects a - usually unstated and unargued-for = view of federalism. Additionally, the claim runs up against certain constitutional provisions (e.g., the right to interstate travel and the right to privacy), certain pieces of federal legislation, and the reality of a mobile society, which combine to undermine the ability of individual states to regulate marriage, as well as the justifications for their doing so. The paper also considers whether it is coherent for states to claim a substantial interest in their citizens' being married, while simultaneously making exit from marriage easy (through no-fault divorce) and creating no significant disincentives for cohabitation or raising children outside of marriage.","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"55 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68026070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The constitutionality of statutes prohibiting and permitting physician-assisted suicide.","authors":"J R Rosenn","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"51 3","pages":"875-905"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1997-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22559338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1995-11-01DOI: 10.1080/14662049508447709
Dr. Ivelaw Lloyd Griffith
{"title":"Drugs and Democracy in the Caribbean","authors":"Dr. Ivelaw Lloyd Griffith","doi":"10.1080/14662049508447709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14662049508447709","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"53 1","pages":"869"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1995-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14662049508447709","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59947826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rethinking autonomy in long term care.","authors":"C W Lidz, R M Arnold","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"47 3","pages":"603-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25976605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Competency to refuse psychotropic medication: three alternatives to the law's cognitive standard.","authors":"E R Saks","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"47 3","pages":"689-761"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25976610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Silencing the different voice: competence, feminist theory and law.","authors":"S Stefan","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83419,"journal":{"name":"University of Miami law review","volume":"47 3","pages":"763-815"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25976614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：