View the Table of Contents.
Read the Introduction.

"This collection, with its prominent contributors broad range of topics, cutting-edge research, and thought-provoking discussion, is surely a fine piece of work which will bring the understanding of the Chinese legal system to a deeper level."
--"International Journal of Legal Information"

This volume brings together ten original essays by leading Chinese law experts in the United States and beyond. Employing a variety of perspectives and materials, these writings tackle important issues that range from ancient Chinese legal history to aspects of the contemporary legal process in the People's Republic of China. For example, how was law theorized and practiced during China's Warring States period circa 4th century B.C? What was the role of case precedents in the Qing (1616-1911) judicial process? What role has law played in China's on going transformation from central planning to a market economy? Does the current practice of village-level elections foretell a greater and more genuine development of democracy in China? And, given the complexities of its legal tradition, how can one best understand contemporary Chinese law and anticipate the pace and direction of its future development?

The contributors are William P. Alford, Albert H. Chen, Tsung-fu Chen, Donald C. Clarke, Alison W. Conner, R. Randle Edwards, Jamie P. Horsley, William C. Jones, Natalie G. Lichtenstein, and Susan Roosevelt Weld.

This collection of essays is dedicated to Jerome A. Cohen, Professor, New York University Law School, in honor of his pioneering role during the past forty years in American scholarship on law in China.

"Must reading for anyone who seeks a better understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court's role in race relations policy."
--"Choice"

"Beware Those committed to the Supreme Court as the ultimate defender of minority rights should not read Race Against the Court. Through a systematic peeling away of antimajoritarian myth, Spann reveals why the measure of relief the Court grants victims of racial injustice is determined less by the character of harm suffered by blacks than the degree of disadvantage the relief sought will impose on whites. A truly pathbreaking work."
--Derrick Bell

As persuasive as it is bold. Race Against The Court stands as a necessary warning to a generation of progressives who have come to depend on the Supreme Court of the perils of such dependency. It joins with Bruce Ackerman's We, the People and John Brigham's Cult of the Court as the best in contemporary work on the Supreme Court.
--Austin Sarat, William Nelson, Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

The controversies surrounding the nominations, confirmations, and rejections of recent Supreme Court justices, and the increasingly conservative nature of the Court, have focused attention on the Supreme Court as never before. Although the Supreme Court is commonly understood to be the guardian of minority rights against the tyranny of the majority, Race Against The Court argues that the Court has never successfully performed this function. Rather the actual function of the Court has been to perpetuate the subordination of racial minorities by operating as an undetected agent of majoritarian preferences in the political preferences. In this provocative, controversial, and timely work, Girardeau Spann illustrates how the selection process for Supreme Court justices ensures that they will share the political preferences of the elite majority that runs the nation. Customary safeguards that are designed to protect the judicial process from majoritarian predispositions, Spann contends, cannot successfully insulate judicial decisionmaking from the pervasive societal pressures that exist to discount racial minority interests.

The case most often cited as the icon of Court sensitivity to minority rights, Brown v. Board of Education, has more recently served to lull minorities into believing that efforts at political self-determination are futile, fostering a seductive dependence and overreliance on the Court as the caretaker of minority rights. Race Against The Court demonstrates how the Court has centralized the law of affirmative action in a way that stymies minority efforts for meaningful political and economic gain and how it has legitimated the legal status quo in a way that causes minorities never even to question the inevitability of their subordinate social status.

Spann contends that racial minorities would be better off seeking to advance their interests in the pluralist political process and proposes a novel strategy for minorities to pursue in order to extricate themselves from the seemingly inescapable grasp of Supreme Court protection. Certain to generate lively, heated debate, "Race Against The Court" exposes the veiled majoritarianism of the Supreme Court and the dangers of allowing the Court to formulate our national racial policy.

Dominance is an integral aspect of strategy. Strategy, whether in war, sports or business, is about how one can place themselves in a competitive position that gives them an advantage over competitors. If that position can be made so overwhelming by one competitor that others are effectively taken out of effective competition, that competitor is dominant. Dominance wins. The game is over. Everyone else is playing for second place or lower. Creating Dominance describes how successful law firms have gone about dominating their marketplaces - be they a practice area, a city or an industry. The book begins by describing the characteristics that identify a dominant firm and the precise strategies law firms can use to put themselves in a position of dominance.

Lack of access of the poor and middle class to civil courts, suits that benefit only lawyers, litigation tactics devoted to victory rather than truth or justice, and inefficient courts are some of the issues addressed by Judge Gerber in his outspoken critical appraisal of America's legal profession and judiciary. The author suggests practical--and in some cases radical--remedies needed to make the system responsive to the public and to give substance to the ideal of equal justice for all. Gerber's criticisms of the legal profession today are far-reaching, and the self-reflection in which he asks us to engage is difficult, even uncomfortable. But it is a necessary step in the continuing efforts we all must make to ensure that our profession upholds the highest ideals of professional responsibility. Sandra Day O'Connor, Supreme Court of the United States Lack of access of the poor and middle class to civil courts, suits that benefit only lawyers, litigation tactics devoted to victory rather than truth or justice, and inefficient courts are some of the issues addressed by Judge Gerber in his outspoken critical appraisal of America's legal profession and judiciary. The author suggests practical--and in some cases radical--remedies needed to make the system responsive to the public and to give substance to the ideal of equal justice for all. Following an introductory overview of the troubled condition of our legal system, Judge Gerber considers the narrow process by which future lawyers are selected and the financial motivations that commonly inspire them to study law. He next takes a hard look at legal education, noting that the litigation model now in vogue inculcates a mentality of combat and downgrades peacemaking and negotiating skills. In a discussion of bar exams, Judge Gerber points out that these tests measure neither ethics nor competency and fail to provide for specialty licensing, for which he recommends periodic reexamination and peer review. Commenting on the complexity, confusion, delays, and extortionate costs that prevent equal access to justice, the author offers specific suggestions for streamlining court procedures and revamping the court system by managerial and procedural changes. He examines ethical abuse by courtroom litigators, contending that periodic ethical review and specialized training are needed to insure that justice is served. Concluding with a critical analysis of major competing jurisprudential theories, Judge Gerber argues that a return to natural law ideals is needed to reinspire lawyers and judges with a philosophical sense of the foundations of justice. This important new work is particularly relevant for legal educators and professionals and for courses dealing with the legal profession, legal ethics, the judiciary, and the court system.

In June of 1972, the Democratic National Party headquarters in Washington, D.C., was the site of one of the most famous burglaries in U.S. history. The abortive Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up is reexamined in this book from the unique perspective of the Supreme Court judges, who grappled with its political and legal ramifications. Howard Ball presents the litigation in the U.S. vs. Nixon case from the inside out, analyzing the constitutional issues that faced the court and the way in which the justices worked to resolve conflicts, overcome obstacles, and arrive at an institutional opinion. In recounting the tragedy of Watergate from the viewpoint of the judges, the book makes use of a number of important original sources, including interviews and letters from the justices. Perhaps most important in telling this story, though, are the conference notes and docket sheets of the Court members, especially those of Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., and William O. Douglas. To set the Watergate tapes litigation against the proper background, Ball also examines the role of the federal judiciary in the political system, the crucial concept of judicial review, and the Supreme Court's processes and personnel at the time of the litigation. A selected bibliography and comprehensive index conclude the work. As a unique chronicle of the Watergate scandal, this book will be a valuable resource for courses in American history, legal studies, and the Supreme Court, as well as a significant addition to academic, legal, and public libraries.

The public image of judges has been stuck in a time warp; they are invariably depicted in the media - and derided in public bars up and down the country - as 'privately educated Oxbridge types', usually 'out-of-touch', and more often than not as 'old men'. These and other stereotypes - the judge as a pervert, the judge as a right-wing monster - have dogged the judiciary long since any of them ceased to have any basis in fact. Indeed the limited research that was permitted in the 1960s and 1970s tended to reinforce several of these stereotypes. Moreover, occasional high profile incidents in the courts, elaborated with the help of satirists such as 'Private Eye' and 'Monty Python', have ensured that the 'old white Tory judge' caricature not only survives but has come to be viewed as incontestable. Since the late 1980s the judiciary has changed, largely as a result of the introduction of training and new and more transparent methods of recruitment and appointment. But how much has it changed, and what are the courts like after decades of judicial reform? Given unprecedented access to the whole range of courts - from magistrates' courts to the Supreme Court - Penny Darbyshire spent seven years researching the judges, accompanying them in their daily work, listening to their conversations, observing their handling of cases and the people who come before them, and asking them frank and searching questions about their lives, careers and ambitions. What emerges is without doubt the most revealing and compelling picture of the modern judiciary in England and Wales ever seen. From it we learn that not only do the old stereotypes not hold, but that modern 'baby boomer' judges are more representative of the people they serve and that the reforms are working. But this new book also gives an unvarnished glimpse of the modern courtroom which shows a legal system under stress, lacking resources but facing an ever-increasing caseload. This book will be essential reading for anyone wishing to know about the experience of modern judging, the education, training and professional lives of judges, and the current state of the courts and judiciary in England and Wales.

In his Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy (Oxford 2004), the American-French scholar Mitchel Lasser has, among other things, tried to re-establish the strengths of the French cassation system. Using Lasser's approach and ideas as a starting point, in this book judges from the French, Belgian and Dutch Cassation Courts reflect on the challenges that their Courts are facing. The book also contains a series of contributions from scholars analyzing the wide range of factors that determine the legitimacy of these courts' decisions. Specific attention is given to the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights that has been so important for the moral legitimacy of the European legal order, and to courts in post-communist systems, which face many similar challenges and are even under greater pressure to modernize. The book is a multidisciplinary contribution to the international debate about the legitimacy of the highest courts' rulings as well as the concept of judicial leadership and offers a new perspective in the USA versus Europe debate. It is recommended reading for academics, judges, policymakers, political scientists and students. Nick Huls is a Professor of socio-legal studies at the Faculty of Law of the Erasmus University Rotterdam and Leiden University's Faculty of Law, The Netherlands. Maurice Adams is a Professor of law at Tilburg University, The Netherlands, and part-time Professor of comparative law at Antwerp University in Belgium. JaccoBomhoff is a Lecturer in law at the Law Department of the London School of Economics in the UK.

This collection of original essays surveys the evolution of sentencing policies and practices in Western countries over the past twenty-five years. Contributors address plea-bargaining, community service, electronic monitoring, standards of use of incarceration, and legal perspectives on sentencing policy developments, among other topics. Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries provides a range of scholars' and students' excellent cross-national knowledge of sentencing laws and practices, when and why they have changed over time, and with what effects.

This is the first major treatment of the conflict of laws within the UK, a subject often dealt with only incidentally in the main texts on private international law. In particular, the book examines the effect of the UK's changing constitutional arrangements on questions of jurisdiction, choice of law and issues of recognition and enforcement which arise within the UK.
The book offers practical guidance on the applicable rules in intra-UK conflicts situations with sections devoted to forum shopping within the UK, and other procedural matters. A chapter is also included on the impact of EU legislation on intra-UK conflicts, concluding with a discussion on how "Europeanization" might affect the conflict of laws in the UK. There is also coverage of how public policy functions in the conflict of laws. The book's approach to the treatment of intra-UK conflicts is enhanced by a comparative analysis of the recent response of Canada and Australia to, respectively, interprovincial and interstate conflicts.

Lopeman examines the impact advocacy of intentional judicial activism by a justice of a state supreme court can have on establishing the court as a policy maker. He examines the attitudinal model and the judicial role model of decision making and concludes that, while the attitudinal model might describe the decision-making process in the U.S. Supreme Court, the judicial role model better describes decision making in state supreme courts. This judicial role model allows the activist to transform a court into a policy maker.

The traditions, recent history, and biographies of recent justices of the Indiana, West Virginia, and Ohio courts are examined to establish a significant relationship between the presence of an activist advocate justice and active policy making by the courts. These courts' decisions in cases with policy making potential are contrasted with decisions in similar cases of three state supreme courts that did not have an advocate justice. Lopeman argues that the presence of an activist advocate explains a court's transformation to active policy making, and that other apparent explanations are insufficient. He emphasizes that the motives of an activist advocate are likely to determine the permanence of policy making in the court. This volume is an important resource for political scientists, legal scholars, and other researchers involved with judicial decision making, state politics, and state constitutional law.

It has been many years since O. J. Simpson walked free from a downtown Los Angeles courtroom. For many, it was the demolition of the fundamental principle of right and wrong, and many debated the deficiencies of the American justice system. Since then, we have witnessed the Casey Anthony case, and others, that remind us of issues unaddressed and questions unanswered. In Fixing the Engine of Justice, author David Tunno presents the symptoms of a defective jury system and offers comprehensive, intelligent, and thought-provoking solutions. Tunno, a trial consultant for more than twenty years, has studied and researched key trials and has gleaned stories from his personal experiences to show a system beset with representation issues, incompetence, bias, misconduct, and lack of support and public perception based on misconceptions. He analyzes the flaws in the jury selection process, its lack of effectiveness, and the ways in which it contributes to the delivery of justice. Often humorous and irreverent, Fixing the Engine of Justice offers a diagnosis of the problems and a list of needed repairs to the American legal system. With the prime focus on juries, Tunno also takes aim at judges, attorneys, and other issues relevant to the health of the system.

This book provides the first in-depth analysis of a wide variety of legal problems and policy issues that directly involve the judiciary, together with a discussion of the historical context of these issues and their current implications. The methods of nominating, appointing, and electing justices, and the provisions and prohibitions governing judicial compensation, are first examined. Grounds for judicial disqualification are presented, and the regulation of political activity on the part of judges and judicial candidates is considered. Three chapters relating to judicial discipline deal with removal and other disciplinary actions, as well as the criminal and civil liability of judges. The authors focus on both the grounds for imposing discipline and the various methods employed to evaluate and punish alleged misconduct.

This book presents a hotly debated issue concerning the ownership of trust property in China. The book describes various conventional interpretations of Chinese Trust Law submitted by legal scholars and compares diverse approaches regarding the ownership of trust property provided by jurisdictions globally. The book does not directly answer the question "Who is the owner of trust property in China?" Instead, using a social capital perspective, it develops a more practical perspective to explain why Chinese trust business has grown rapidly even in lack of legal certainty regarding the location of ownership of trust property. The book also further predicts under what conditions is the time ripe to clarify the location of the ownership of trust property in China. By employing those sociological concepts often used to depict and analyze society, this book outlines the structure of the Chinese trust business and related social relations in different stages, i.e., the current rapid development stage, and the possible transitional stage in the near future. The focus is on how the social network structure affects the behavior of actors (such as the settlor, the trustee, and the beneficiaries, and/or their potential candidates) within the relevant section of Chinese society. The book provides readers with an intensive analysis of the impacts of historical, cultural, and social elements on the legislation and development of trust law in China. It will appeal both to lawyers interested in the Chinese trust business and to comparative law researchers and social scientists.

The effect of modern and communication technology on civil procedure first appeared on the agenda of the conference organized by the International Association of Procedural Law in 1999, verifying Lord Woolf's statement from the 90's, that "IT will not only assist in streamlining and improving our existing systems and process; it is also likely, in due course, itself to be catalyst for radical change as well...."

At the conference in Pecs in the autumn of 2010 participants from three continents and twenty-five countries examined all aspects of the impact of modern information technology on civil procedure beginning with the electronic submission of the application, ranging from electronic service of documents and electronic means of proof supported by modern information technology. In addition to the practical issues they discussed the possible impact of electronic procedures on traditional principles of civil procedure. The conference book contains seven main reports and eleven correferates, the foreword was written by Prof. Peter Gottwald, the President of the International Association of Procedural Law.

This study proposes a multilateralist method of choice of law in order to alleviate the great disarray that currently exists in American choice law. In the early 20th century, there was a fairly-uniform multilateralist method of choice law. In the 1920s and 30s, however, scholars adn courts began to reject this method. Viewed as too mechanical the method sometimes resulted in the choice of law of a state with only a tenuous connection to the controversy. Currently, state courts use four different approached to choice law with numerous material variations. This study rejects these approaches on normative, constitutional, and practical grounds. Instead, it advocates that courts adopt a multilateralist approach to choice of law that is forum- and content-neutral and that respects the rights of both individuals and states. The study also argues that such an approach should satisfy a constitutional standard that requires a court not choose one state's law when another state has a significantly closer connection to controversy.

The proposed method consists of two parts. The first part determines the states that have created legal relations applying to the dispute. When more than one state has created a legal realtions applying to the dispute. When more than one state has created a legal relation that applies to the controversy, the second part adopts the law of the state that had the closest connection. The study then applies the suggested method to numerous choice of law problems.

Although the right to trial by jury is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, in recent years both criminal and civil juries have been criticized as incompetent, biased, and irresponsible. For example, the O.J. Simpson criminal jury's verdict produced a racial divide in opinions about that trial. And many Americans still hold strong views about the jury that awarded millions of dollars to a woman who spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee on herself. It's said that there are "judicial hellholes" where local juries provide "jackpot justice" in medical malpractice and product liability cases with corporate defendants. Are these claims valid? This monumental and comprehensive volume reviews over fifty years of empirical research on civil and criminal juries and returns a verdict that strongly supports the jury system. Rather than relying on anecdotes, Vidmar and Hans-renowned scholars of the jury system-place the jury system in its historical and contemporary context, giving the stories behind important trials while providing fact-based answers to critical questions. How do juries make decisions and how do their verdicts compare to those of trial judges and technical experts? What roles do jury consultants play in influencing trial outcomes? Can juries understand complex expert testimony? Under which circumstances do capital juries decide to sentence a defendant to die? Are juries biased against doctors and big business? Should juries be allowed to give punitive damages? How do juries respond to the insanity defense? Do jurors ignore the law? Finally, the authors consider various suggestions for improving the way that juries are asked to carry out their duties. After briefly comparing the American jury to its counterparts in other nations, they conclude that our jury system, despite occasional problems, is, on balance, fair and democratic, and should remain an indispensable component of the judicial process for the foreseeable future.

In modern societies, full criminal trials are avoided on many occasions. This book is concerned with mechanisms that either divert from or speed up the proceedings. Koen Vriend argues that the fair trial rights as established by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 6 ECHR provide a normative framework that does not only apply in a full criminal trial, but that it can also be used for diverted and shortened proceedings. He shows that the concept of fairness-as derived from ECtHR case law-is a fundamental principle that underlies all criminal law enforcement. It provides for the appropriate framework to assess whether diverted or shortened proceedings are fair and legitimate. The book is intended for criminal law scholars and practitioners and human rights scholars. Dr. Koen Vriend is a Lecturer of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedural Law at the University of Amsterdam.

Things are not always as they appear, as Cyril Wecht shows in this behind-the-scenes look at nine famous murder cases. Drawing on police reports, deopsitions, trial testimony, and autopsy reports, he raises important issues and offers fresh perspectives on each case.

These essays, written in honour of retired ECJ judge Pernilla Lindh, reflect on the development of courts and judging in the EU since the founding of the Union. In particular they focus on recent reforms and proposals aimed at further increasing public confidence and democratic accountability throughout the EU judicial system.

This book positions inquiries into the historical abuse of children in care within the context of transitional justice. It examines investigation, apology and redress processes across a range of Western nations to trace the growth of the movement, national particularities and the impact of the work on professionals involved.

Many critics attack federal judges as anti-democratic elitists, activists out of step with the mainstream of American thought. But others argue that judges should stand alone as the ultimate guardians of American values, placing principle before the views of the people. In The Most Democratic Branch, Jeffrey Rosen disagrees with both assertions. Contrary to what interest groups may claim, he contends that, from the days of John Marshall right up to the present, the federal courts by and large have reflected the opinions of the mainstream. More important, he argues that the Supreme Court is most successful when it defers to the constitutional views of the American people, as represented most notably by Congress and the Presidency. And on the rare occasion when they departed from the consensus, the result has often been a disaster. To illustrate, Rosen provides a penetrating look at some of the most important Supreme Court cases in American history-cases involving racial equality, affirmative action, abortion, gay rights and gay marriage, the right to die, electoral disputes, and civil liberties in wartime. Rosen shows that the most notorious constitutional decisions in American history-the ones that have been most strenuously criticized, such as Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade-have gone against mainstream opinion. By contrast, the most successful decisions-from Marbury v. Madison to Brown v. Board of Education-have avoided imposing constitutional principles over the wishes of the people. Rosen concludes that the judiciary works best when it identifies the constitutional principles accepted by a majority of Americans, and enforces them unequivocally as fundamental law. Jeffrey Rosen is one of the most respected legal experts writing today, a regular contributor to The New York Times Magazine and the Legal Affairs Editor of The New Republic. The provocative arguments that he puts forth here are bound to fuel heated debate at a time when the federal judiciary is already the focus of fierce criticism.

A fascinating exploration of the first two Supreme Courts and how they laid the groundwork for the modern-day Court. When the Supreme Court was established in 1789, no other country had a judicial body quite like it. The early justices struggled to give definition to such concepts as "judicial review" and "separation of powers." The early court approached its role in ways that would be startling today, often using its power to support the new government rather than merely serving as an independent arbiter. The Jay-Ellsworth Courts were the first to take up the role of interpreting the constitution, and their approach influenced constitutional debates for the next two centuries. Clearly, this is a book for any reader who wishes to understand how the court was initially set up and how it functioned in our early judicial history. Biographies of key justices such as Oliver Ellsworth, John Marshall, and John Jay Background reference section containing A-Z entries on the people, such as George Washington and John Adams; laws and constitutional provisions, including the First Judiciary Act and Article III; and concepts, such as "judicial review" and "separation of powers," that are important to an understanding of the Jay and Ellsworth Courts

In The Judicial Role in a Diverse Federation, Robert Schertzer uses the example of the Supreme Court of Canada to examine how apex courts manage diversity and conflict in federal states. Schertzer argues that in a diverse federation where the nature of the federal system is contested the courts should facilitate negotiation between conflicting parties, rather than impose their own vision of the federal system. Drawing on a comprehensive review of the Supreme Court federalism jurisprudence between 1980 and 2010, he demonstrates that the court has increasingly adopted this approach of facilitating negotiation by acknowledging the legitimacy of different understandings of the Canadian federation. This book will be required reading both for those interested in Canada's Supreme Court and for those engaged in broader debates about the use of federalism in multinational states.

An important contribution to constitutional literature, this collection of ten unpublished decisions by the Warren Court puts the decision making process of the Supreme Court in a new light. By following the major changes that occur in each case from the circulation of tentative majority opinions to the final issuance of opinion, the book portrays how the justices communicate with each other and how they are influenced by each other's arguments. Interpretations and commentaries by the author illuminate the significance of each case and provide insight into the different judicial philosophies and personal styles of the justices. This book will be of substantial value to law schools, law libraries, bar associations, and lawyers practicing in the field of constitutional law.

In the United States, lawyers are very much accountable for their actions--or nonactions. When they represent a client, they have a legal obligation to act professionally, responsibly, and ethically. Unfortunately, all too many lawyers do not live up to these established standards. If you have been victimized by your attorney, legal recourse is available. "How & When to Sue Your Lawyer was designed to help you protect yourself from the effects of legal malpractice. Written in plain English, "How & When to Sue Your Lawyer spells out what you need to know to take appropriate legal action against your attorney. The first part of the book begins by explaining the American Bar Association's categories of malpractice--substantive, administrative, client relations, and intentional wrongs. It next details the "model rules" of professional responsibilities established by both national and state bars. Finally, it discusses the all-important differences between guidelines and actual laws set by legal precedent. The second part of the book explains the steps you must take to establish a solid case against your attorney. From developing the facts to gathering the hard evidence to proving the allegation, it's all here. If you feel that you have lost a case because of your counsel's mismanagement or incompetence, or if you have been taken advantage of financially or sexually by your attorney, "How & When to Sue Your Lawyer will help you gain satisfaction, compensation, and justice.