Podcasts about foreign law

Shen v. Garland, No. 16-71315 (9th Cir. July 24, 2024)administrative notice of foreign law; forced abortion; 2003 change in law for Chinese premarital checkups; exhaustion of sub-arguments; Alam; credibility; mistaken memory may lead to change in testimony; DHS misstating facts on cross-examination   Colin-Villavicencio v. Garland, No. 22-507 (9th Cir. July 23, 2024)derivative citizenship; former INA § 321 (repealed); Cheneau; paternity established by legitimation; Baja California Mexico Code Gonzalez-Rivas v. Garland, No. 21-3364 (8th Cir. July 23, 2024)hardship standard; best interests of the child; mixed question of law and fact; Wilkinson L.N. v. Garland, No. 23-60203 (5th Cir. July 25, 2024)standards of review; reweighing evidence; asylum; CAT analysis in the aggregate; Angola  Castillo v. Att'y Gen. U.S., No. 23-2123 (3d Cir. July 24, 2024)petition for review venue; Matter of Garcia; filing of NTA; Costello Sandoval Reynoso v. Garland, No. 23-2480 (7th Cir. July 23, 2024)non-LPR cancellation of removal; discretion; Patel; Kucana; Wilkinson Elgebaly v. Garland, No. 24-0154 (6th Cir. July 23, 2024)Form I-751 waiver petitions; good faith marriage; Egyptian marriage; credibility; duty to develop record with pro se respondents; motion to reopen; JarkesySponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the Show.

Guest: Jan Peter Schmidt (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law). In this episode Jan Peter Schmidt discusses the long-standing tradition that the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and Private International Law (MPI) has of providing expert opinions on foreign law for German courts. To this end, the MPI supports judges in resolving cross-border cases which according to the rules of private international law are to be decided not according to German law but to foreign law. (Audio Production: www.citysoundstudio.de)

The Bar Council of India's recent announcement to allow foreign lawyers and foreign law firms to enter the Indian legal market paves way for them to advise Indian clients on international legal issues, including international arbitration. What are the new rules and, how will it impact the legal industry? More, importantly, can the new rules help India become a hub for international arbitration? businessline's Senior Deputy Editor KR Srivats explains in the latest episode of News Explained. Tune in to BL Podcast for more such stories. ------ businessline Podcast is a daily series of podcasts from The Hindu businessline newspaper. In this series, we take a look at news that matter from around the world and stories to provide quick, critical analysis. Our reporters, analysts and experts provide context to help you understand what happened, why is it important and how it impacts you. Listen in as we decode a wide range of topics from politics, policy, Indian economy and the world of business. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/business-line/message

With no guests and (almost) no preparation, Saadia, Brian and Joel discuss three issues and ask more questions than they are giving answers. First up is the ICC Court's scrutiny of draft arbitral awards [TIME 10:50], followed by tribunals' power to disqualify counsel [TIME 29:14]. Happy Fun Time gives the episode its name: how do we plead (and decide cases) based on foreign law, i.e. a law that we are not formally qualified in [TIME: 46:57?

To be convicted of a crime, a person must be proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”Indeed, “reasonable doubt” is one of the hallmarks of our modern criminal justice system. It's typically understood as a legal rule intended to help determine the facts of a specific case and protect the accused.But what if everything we think we know about “reasonable doubt” is wrong? What if its original purpose was actually to shield the souls of judges and juries from eternal damnation? What if it was conceived, not as a tool of the secular law, but as a moral concept steeped in a distinct theological tradition of the Middle Ages and Christendom? A tradition that was preoccupied not with facts, but with the spilling of blood?Our guest for this episode makes this exact argument. Dr. James Whitman has taught at Yale Law School since 1994 and currently serves as the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law. He is the author of numerous books and articles, including his award-winning work honoured by the American Bar Association, The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial.00:00 - Introduction03:45 - Defining reasonable doubt (or not)07:50 - The theology of blood12:00 - What an "ordeal"!17:30 - Fourth Lateran Council bans blood-shedding by priests21:30 - Emergence of trial by jury23:20 - Got doubt? Better not act27:50 - Court testimony: the Middle Ages' risky business35:00 - "It is the law that condemns and not I"36:40 - Reasonable doubt: fact finding or moral comfort formula?40:00 - John Adams echoes Pope Innocent III42:30 - Things get fuzzy as public morality fades 46:20 - Presumption of innocence vs. presumption of mercy49:35 - ConclusionIf you enjoyed this episode, please consider supporting Crown and Crozier with a tax-deductible donation here:  DONATE  Documents/Websites referenced Dr. James Whitman (biography)Dr. James Whitman, “The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial” (2008)Catholic Encyclopedia, “Fourth Lateran Council”History.com, “Why John Adams Defended British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials”Magna Carta (English translation)Please note that this podcast has been edited for length and clarity.Support the show (http://missionoftheredeemer.com/crownandcrozier/)

Should foreign law play a role in U.S. jurisprudence? In light of the upcoming case on abortion in Mississippi, M. Christian Green outlines the debate in the U.S. Supreme Court between justices Kennedy and Scalia about whether foreign rulings should be considered when deciding U.S. law. This conversation becomes even more pressing when speaking about abortion rights. Scholars have pointed out that “the right to make individual reproductive health decisions is a fundamental human right, protected under international law.” Whether or not foreign law should have an influence in the U.S. court system has implications for abortion rights, reproductive freedom, and the bodily autonomy of women everywhere.  Is dismissal of foreign law in U.S. decisions just another instance of American exceptionalism? Could the influence of international law lead to a more democratic America, especially for women? Find out in today's episode. Explore other new publications from the Center for the Study of Law and Religion in our https://cslr.law.emory.edu/scholarship/cslrbooks2016-2021.pdf (book brochure).

Here are the prominent news highlights from Sri Lanka - සවන්දෙන්න ගෙවීගිය සතියේ ශ්‍රී ලංකාවෙන් වාර්තා වුනු නවතම පුවත් වල ඇතුලාන්ත තොරතුරු SBS සිංහල සේවයේ සෑම සඳුදා දිනකම ගෙනෙන 'සතියේ ශ්‍රී ලාංකික පුවත් විමසුමෙන්"

When Papa Balla Ndong launched his ambitious SIETAR Art Project, I had no idea how profound his initiative would have. The work spans hundreds of pages and threads together work, perspective and letters from contributors around the globe. It started in Europe, debuting in Paris, and has found it's way to Japan, Switzerland and countless other places across the globe. As a product of SIETAR, the Art Project embodies what both SIETAR and Papa Balla personify - unity. And while Papa Balla is a member of SIETAR, after speaking with him, it became clear that he is an ambassador for a great and global movement. Papa Balla Ndong sat down with 54Lights to take us through his selfless work and life mission. One that has landed him on the front lines of supporting migrants in Spain find a way and a home. Papa Balla explained how his educational background inspired him to discover more about migrants and how different cultures can collide and clash but also how they can collude and conspire for good.  He candidly takes us through his work and how he's been navigating tensions to create safe and productive spaces where migrant communities can flourish. His generosity, spirit and passion are clear reasons why he's been successful at working with policy-makers to influence progressive changes in government. And while a lot of his work lies with government and the migrant community, he somehow finds time to work with youth to educate them about racism - cutting it off before it takes root. As he took us through his journey, he explained the stark realities and challenges that face migrants...the systematic racism that they face...and the hard work that we all have to do to collectively open up our communities.   Notable Words of Wisdom during our conversation One hand doesn't clap... Papa Balla's perspective on working together You are not born with racism, you are taught racism...Papa Balla's perspective on racism and why he works with youth on curbing it About our guestPapa Balla Ndong, from Senegal, is a Human Migration Expert and holds a Masters degree in International Migration from the faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia. He has worked in Solans Lawyers Office, specializing in Foreign Law and participated in training courses in the General Council of the Spanish Judicial Power (CGPJ). Currently he performs the following charges: President of the Alternative Forum on Immigration, Coordinator of the Citizens Assembly Against Racism, Accredited Intercultural Mediator from Valencia Government, General Secretary of SOS Racisme Pais Valencia, Vice President of the Local Council of Immigration and Interculturality of the City of Valencia.Find out more on the SIETAR Art Project here

This episode covers defenses against application of foreign law! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

This episode covers proof of foreign law! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

With James Q. Whitman, Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School. His books include Harsh Justice, The Origins of Reasonable Doubt, The Verdict of Battle, and his latest, Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law.   The post The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law appeared first on KPFA.

James Q. Whitman is the guest on this week's episode of The Chauncey DeVega Show. He is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and author of the new book Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law. During this episode of The Chauncey DeVega Show, Professor Whitman and Chauncey discuss the connections between American "race scientists" and their peers in Germany, what the Nazis and Adolf Hitler learned from America's racial order, as well as how American anti-miscegenation laws and Jim and Jane Crow were admired by the Nazis. Professor Whitman also shares his thoughts on the troubling parallels between Donald Trump's rise to power, the recent events in Charlottesville, and Hitler's genocidal authoritarian regime.   On this week's show, Chauncey DeVega reflects on Hurricane Harvey and what its devastating aftermath reveals about the color line, income inequality, and disaster capitalism. Chauncey also ponders the morality of trying to profit from the inevitable rebuilding efforts. At the end of the this week's podcast Chauncey also "connects the dots" between the high level of support for Donald Trump among America's police, disinformation about the Black Lives Matter movement, and how the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies have now labeled anti-fascists as "terrorists".

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact...

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, began researching the book that became Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law (Princeton University Press, 2017) by wondering whether Jim Crow laws in the U.S. had any impact on the development of the Nuremberg Laws. Some scholars have denied any influence. Professor Whitman came to a very different conclusion, and what he learned deserves to be much more widely appreciated than it is. For the United States was the global pioneer of explicitly racist law–and not just, by any means, in the Jim Crow South. Strikingly, American law was most helpful to the most radical Nazi jurists. In the early years of the Third Reich, 1933 to 1936, conservative nationalist lawyers in Germany debated with Nazi radicals about how to create a body of anti-Semitic law, but one consonant with German legal traditions, which emphasized strict adherence to carefully-articulated concepts. The radicals found their model in U.S. citizenship and anti-miscegenation law, and in a legal culture that, from their point of view, was refreshingly open to innovation. Yet even the most radical Nazi jurists found the notorious one-drop rule, and the extreme punishments some U.S. states meted out for entering into racially-mixed marriages, too harsh and inhumane. Professor Whitman’s unsettling, learned, and deeply-engaging book deserves a large audience. Monica Black is Associate Professor and Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She teaches courses in modern European and German history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Whitman wants to revise our understanding of warfare during the eighteenth century, the period described by my late colleague and friend Russell Weigley as the “Age of Battles.” We commonly view warfare during this period as a remarkably restrained affair, dominated by aristocratic values, and while we recognize their horrors for the participants, we often compare battles to the duels those aristocrats fought over private matters of honor. Not true, claims Whitman, who argues instead that battles during the period 1709 (Battle of Malplaquet) and 1863/1870 (Gettysburg/Sedan) were understood by contemporaries not to be royal duels but “legal procedure[s], a lawful means of deciding international disputes through consensual collective violence.” [3] Understanding war as a form of trial is what gave warfare of the era its decisiveness (sorry Russ) and forces us, according to Whitman, to change the way we interpret, for example, Frederick the Great’s invasion of Silesia. Whitman, who is the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School and an academically trained historian (PhD Chicago 1987), brings the perspective of both lawyer and historian to his work ways that teach us much about both the military history and the law of the period he considers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. In its classic form, a “decisive” pitched battle was a beautifully contained event, lasting a single day, killing only combatants, and resolving legal questions of immense significance. Yet since the mid-nineteenth century, pitched battles no longer decide wars, which now routinely degenerate into general devastation. Why did pitched battle ever work as a conflict resolution device? Why has it ceased working since 1860? James Q. Whitman is Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School. This Maurice and Muriel Fulton Lecture in Legal History was recorded May 7, 2009.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. In its classic form, a “decisive” pitched battle was a beautifully contained event, lasting a single day, killing only combatants, and resolving legal questions of immense significance. Yet since the mid-nineteenth century, pitched battles no longer decide wars, which now routinely degenerate into general devastation. Why did pitched battle ever work as a conflict resolution device? Why has it ceased working since 1860? James Q. Whitman is Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School. This Maurice and Muriel Fulton Lecture in Legal History was recorded May 7, 2009.

Jeremy Waldron speaks on the topic whether it is ever appropriate for American judges to be influenced in their decision by what they know of the laws of other countries. The Storrs Lectures, one of Yale Law School's oldest and most prestigious lecture programs addresses fundamental problems of law and jurisprudence. This is lecture one of a three part lecture series

Jeremy Waldron, University Professor New York University speaks on the topic whether it is ever appropriate for American judges to be influenced in their decision by what they know of the laws of other countries. The Storrs Lectures, one of Yale Law School's oldest and most prestigious lecture programs, addresses fundamental problems of law and jurisprudence. This lecture three of a three part series

Jeremy Waldron speaks on the topic whether it is ever appropriate for American judges to be influenced in their decision by what they know of the laws of other countries. The Storrs Lectures, one of Yale Law School's oldest and most prestigious lecture programs addresses fundamental problems of law and jurisprudence. This is lecture two of a three part lecture series

Oct 24, 2006 - Discussion with Profs. Jeff Powell and Neil Siegel.