Washington University Journal of Law and Policy最新文献

{"title":"Fear and Greed in Tax Policy: A Qualitative Research Agenda","authors":"Christopher C. Fennell, L. Fennell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.474360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.474360","url":null,"abstract":"In this piece, prepared for a symposium on the empirical study of taxation, we consider the intriguing possibility that taxes generate disutility for taxpayers in excess of the dollar amounts involved. While most people dislike paying taxes, the extent to which a phenomenon of \"tax aversion\" exists is empirically unknown, as are the causes and constituent elements of any such aversion. Investigation of these questions could provide important lessons for tax policy. If people are averse to taxes above and beyond the financial losses the taxes represent, they would tend to spend more time and money on tax avoidance than economic analysis would predict, creating additional deadweight losses for society. Even where avoidance is not pursued at elevated levels, tax aversion would increase the disutility associated with the payment of the tax, generating psychic costs and potentially impacting compliance levels. Hence, a better understanding of the magnitude and components of tax aversion could advance comprehension of taxpayer behavior and spur useful innovation in tax design. Towards those ends, we survey and mine existing bodies of empirical work for the light they might shed on tax aversion, and identify avenues for further study. We give particular attention to the growing body of experimental games used to model the provision of public goods. Anthropological studies of public goods provision and the effective use of norms of reciprocity in group contexts can help to parse and import richer meaning into the findings obtained in these controlled experimental settings. We close by discussing some possible ways of importing greater transparency and voice into the taxpaying interface, to test the hypothesis that these features can serve as proxies for some of the components present in successful reciprocal interactions.","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"4 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133218182","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":"Addressing the Patent Gold Rush: The Role of Deference to PTO Patent Denials","authors":"A. Rai","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.223758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.223758","url":null,"abstract":"In the past few years, we have witnessed a proliferation of patents in the two industries that are central to our information economy - computer software and biotechnology. Many commentators fear that the rush to patent in these economically vital industries will lead to restricted information flow and retarded innovation and development. The proliferation of high-technology patents directly implicates the two institutions that are primarily responsible for administering the patent system - the Patent and Trademark Office (\"PTO\"), which grants patents, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (\"CAFC\"), which hears all patent appeals. Moreover, given that the CAFC's reversal of PTO decisions denying patent protection to certain biotechnology and computer program inventions has been a major reason for the recent proliferation of patents, it is important to reassess the relationship between the CAFC and the PTO. This paper argues that, from the standpoint of institutional competence, the CAFC should not independently review the PTO's decisions denying patentability. Rather, it should apply traditional administrative principles of deference to the PTO's patentability denials.","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2000-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122861873","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":"Access to Justice and the Global Clinical Movement","authors":"F. Bloch","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1022685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1022685","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133658604","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":"Introduction: Evolving Standards in Juvenile Justice from Gault to Graham and Beyond","authors":"Mae C. Quinn","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3425300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3425300","url":null,"abstract":"Professor Abrams will set the stage for the program, recounting the development of the United States juvenile justice system, with particular emphasis on Missouri. He will outline doctrinal developments from the nation’s first juvenile court, to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gault providing due process protections for youth, to the Court’s recent sentencing decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida defining youth as categorically less culpable than adults. This session will also provide an update on two cases currently before the Supreme Court, which seek to further prohibit life without parole sentences for youth.","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131703955","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":"What Makes a Good Teacher","authors":"David L. Going","doi":"10.4324/9781315041636-17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315041636-17","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127418333","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":"Human Rights of Women","authors":"A. Martínez","doi":"10.1007/978-981-10-4550-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4550-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114557245","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 Road not Taken: A Comparison of the E.U. and U.S. Insider Trading Prohibitions","authors":"Franklin A. Gevurtz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3062793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3062793","url":null,"abstract":"This essay, written for a symposium on insider trading in the Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, explores the different paths taken by the United States and the European Union with respect to who is subject to the prohibition on insider trading. After providing an overview of the difference between the U.S. and the E.U. prohibition, the essay explores the different outcomes that would occur under U.S. versus E.U. law in several high profile insider trading cases of recent years. The essay also addresses the jurisdictional reach of each regime’s prohibition and considers the normative lessons of this real world experiment in taking different paths. * Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. 2017 / The Road Not Taken 2 My introduction to the prohibition on insider trading came as a law student in Berkeley in 1976. My notes indicated that the law in the United States—-we did not think much about law outside the United States—-was uncertain regarding whom the prohibition reached. They also pointed out, however, that authority from the Second Circuit, particularly the landmark decision in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulfur,1 stated that the prohibition reached anyone in possession of material nonpublic information. Four years later, the United States Supreme Court, in Chiarella v. United States,2 held this was wrong. Instead, the Supreme Court redirected the prohibition on insider trading under United States law into a narrower and more complex approach. One wonders what would have happened if the Supreme Court had seen things differently and upheld the Second Circuit’s broad prohibition in Chiarella. A utility of comparative law is that it sometimes allows us to explore the impacts of different choices regarding legal rules without performing a gedanken experiment, searching the multiverse for another Earth on which this particular law is different, or watching the movie Sliding Doors as made by lawyers. The European Union’s adoption of a rule similar to the Second Circuit’s preChiarella approach makes this one of those times. This essay explores the different paths taken by the U.S. and the E.U. with respect to who is subject to the prohibition on insider trading. Part I provides an overview of the different approaches taken by the U.S. and the E.U. law. Part II moves from the general to the specific by exploring the different outcomes that would occur under U.S. versus E.U. law in several high profile cases of recent years. Part III explores a practical implication of this divergence by discussing the jurisdictional reach of each regime’s prohibition. Finally, Part IV considers what normative lessons we can draw from this real world experiment in taking different paths. I. OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. VERSUS E.U. INSIDER TRADING PROHIBITIONS A. The U.S. Prohibition Early in the 1960s, the United States established what appears to be the world’s first prohibition of trading on inside information.3 The Securities","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130737847","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":"Conceiving Open Systems","authors":"C. Kelty","doi":"10.1215/9780822389002-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389002-008","url":null,"abstract":"Openness is an unruly concept. While free tends toward ambiguity (free as in speech, or free as in beer?), open tends toward obfuscation. Everyone claims to be open, everyone has something to share, everyone agrees that being open is the obvious thing to do-after all, but for all its nt of Free Software. It is never quite clear whether being open is a means or an end. Worse, the opposite of open in this case","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134095570","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":"When litigation is not the only way: consensus building and mediation as public interest lawyering","authors":"Carrie Menkel-Meadow","doi":"10.4324/9781315257600-26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315257600-26","url":null,"abstract":"British social philosopher Stuart Hampshire recently articulated the fundamental and foundational principles of the modern conflict resolution movement (and I do call it a movement). He asserted that, “there will always be a plurality of different and incompatible conceptions of the good and there cannot be a single comprehensive and consistent theory of human virtue.” Correspondingly, “our political enmities in the city or state will never come to an end while we have diverse life stories and diverse imaginations.” Hampshire, a socially progressive, socialist philosopher hoped to articulate","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124922142","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":"Revolutionary Lawyering: Addressing the Root Causes of Poverty and Wealth","authors":"William P. Quigley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3362062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3362062","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":438020,"journal":{"name":"Washington University Journal of Law and Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133123691","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}