October in The Pocket Part

YLJ-Pocket-Part-2.jpg

This October, The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part published a variety of articles. To access the following pieces, click on the links below, or find them on our Most Recent tab online at www.thepocketpart.org.

The Capabilities Approach and Ethical Cosmopolitanism: A Response to Noah Feldman

In response to Professor Noah Feldman’s book review, Cosmopolitan Law?, Professor Martha C. Nussbaum distinguishes her political theory, the capabilities approach, from the ethical doctrine of cosmopolitanism. Furthermore, Professor Nussbaum clarifies the relationship between her theory and that of Rawls, Pogee, and Beitz.


Promises of Nonstate Representatives

In response to Jose Coleman Tio’s Comment, Six Puerto Rican Congressmen Go to Washington, Ezra Rosser offers a unique historical perspective on the question of nonstate representatives. In this article, Rosser argues that early treaties with Native American tribes suggests that statehood was not understood by the framers to be a necessary requirement for representation in Congress.

Interbranch Communication: A Note on “Article III En Banc”

In response to Jacob Scott’s Comment, Article III En Banc: The Judicial Conference as an Advisory Intercircuit Court of Appeals, Robert A. Katzmann and Russell R. Wheeler present a detailed look at the Governance Institute. The Governance Institute is a small Washington D.C. think tank dedicated to increasing communication between courts and Congress. In this Commentary, Judge Katzmann and Dr. Wheeler examine the origins of the project and its recent efforts at improving statutory drafting.

Symposium: Intellectual Property as Propery

In this Symposium, Professor Henry E. Smith presents his recent Journal article, Intellectual Property as Property. Professor Smith argues that intellectual property resembles property in its modularity. That is, intellectual property relies on information-cost savings strategies for delineating entitlements that are characteristic of property.

In his response, Why Modularity Does Not (and Should Not) Explain Intellectual Property, Professor Michael A. Carrier argues that the modularity model cannot account many defining features of intellectual property. Therefore, modularity cannot replace dominant paradigms of intellectual property.

In contrast, Professor F. Scott Kieff argues that modularity does not go far enough. In, On Coordinating Transactions in Intellectual Property: A Response to Smith’s Delineating Entitlements in Information, Professor Kieff articulates three additional benefits of treating intellectual property as property.

Protecting National Security or Covering Up Malfeasance: The Modern State Secrets Privilege and Its Alternatives

In recent challenges to the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program, the United States government has repeatedly asserted the state secrets privilege. In this Commentary, Nicole Hallett argues that the absolute state secrets privilege is outdated. The United States should follow our democratic allies, who have adopted a privilege that balances national security with the public interest in the adjudication of constitutional claims.

You may also like...