Earthscan has released a new peer-reviewed journal: “Climate and Development.”
Published in partnership with the Global Change System for Analysis, Research and Training (START), and supported by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)
Unfortunately, the cost is $608 for U.S. institutions. Some free content from Voulme 1, Issue 1 is currently available on the journal Web site:
Climate and Development
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=29957
hat tip to Joan Policastri.
The University of San Diego School of Law has published the inaugural issue of the San Diego Journal of Climate and Energy Law. $27 per issue.
San Diego Journal of Climate and Energy Law
http://www.sandiego.edu/law/news/blogs_publications/publications/journals/climate/
Table of Contents of Volume 1, 2009
Ist Annual Climate & Energy Law Symposium: Federal Preemption or State Prerogative: California inteh Face of National Climate Policy - Richard Lazarus
Energy Efficiency and Federalism – Ann Carlson
State Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Federal Climate Change Legislation, and the Preemption Sword - William Buzbee
The History of State Action in the Environmental Realm: A Presumption Against Preemption in Climate Change Law – Victor Flatt
Regional Climate Regulation: From State Competition to State Collaboration – Lesley McAllister
Decentralizing Cap and Trade? The Question of State Stringency – Alice Kaswan
The Clean Water Act and Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structrures – John Minan
Climate Law and Policy in North America: Prospects for Regionalism – Neil Craik and Joseph Dimento
Climate Adaption and Federalism: Mapping the Issues – Daniel Farber
On Tuesday, January 12th, Stanford Law Library is co-hosting the first Law.gov workshop with Carl Malamud.
The keynote of the workshop is the 1pm talk entitled, “Law.gov: A Revolution in Legal Affairs.” The speakers at this panel include: Jonathan Zittrain (Harvard Law), Anurag Acharya (Google), Carl Malamud (Public.Resource.Org) and Roberta Morris (Lecturer, Stanford Law) will serve as moderator.
The day’s agenda is full and the workshop sessions will include a discussion of the Law.gov movement, technical considerations, and other issues.
One of the main goals of the workshop(s) is to define a National Inventory of Legal Materials and think about how we go about building it.
Some of the questions that we plan to raise with our workshop attendees on Tuesday include:
-What items should be included in this inventory? Think primary legal materials, plus…
-What information would we want to collect for items in the inventory? For example: what formats are available, costs, scope, etc.
-Should the inventory take the form of a wiki while in development? Or?
-How should we note potential copyright issues in the inventory? For example, some states assert copyright over statutory codes. Also, what about the IP issues regarding briefs and filings.
-How do we organize the effort to create the inventory? Should this be done by individuals across the US? Should this be developed in partnership with organizations (for example, NOCALL)?
-What about legislative efforts: will we need to work on legislation to make this a reality at the state and federal level?
-What about legal publishers and vendors? Can/will/how should they help?
-What about authentication concerns and standards?
I am anxious to hear what our attendees have to contribute on these topics and more. If you have additional questions or issues that you think should be raised at our workshop, please let me know. Also, we welcome your comments and answers to the above questions. Feel free to comment on this posting or send me a note.
Vive la revolution!
The French government has published a report (Creation et Internet) on the future regulation of the Internet. The report discusses intellectual property and proposals to tax search engines, such as Google. Patrick Zelnik, Jacques Tubon, and Guillaume Cerutti authored the report on behalf of the French Ministry of Culture and Communication. Text available in French.
Creation et Internet (January 2010)
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/mcc/Espace-Presse/Dossiers-de-presse/Rapport-Creation-et-Internet
Article available on SSRN:
Staying Alive: Public Interest Law in Contemporary Latin America
Stephen Melli
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1518002
Abstract:
This paper explores the current state of public interest lawyering in three Latin American countries: Argentina, Brazil and Chile. Based on a series of open-ended interviews with lawyers, judges and social movement activists, it compares public interest lawyering in these countries now with how it was practiced when the author interviewed some of the same individuals in the early to mid 1990s. Its analysis is set within the context of important geopolitical and socio-legal phenomena: the current global economic crisis and the judicialization of politics and constitutionalization of rights that has swept across the region over the past two decades. The paper explores how these developments have influenced public interest lawyers, particularly in their interactions with various social movements. It also highlights the opportunities and challenges that these developments pose for public interest lawyers throughout Latin America.
The Bing search engine seems to be indexing specific resources from LexisNexis. For example, a search of [france lexis] produced the following result in position number four:
Full Search results: http://www.bing.com/search?q=lexis+france&entrypoint=IE-SearchBox&FORM=LENIE
This link leads directly to LexisNexis’ Doing Business in France (File Name DBFRAN). Although very useful, Bing does not provide a title for the link; it only provides the www.lexis.com title. Similar searches for Russian statutes [russia lexis laws] lead directly to LexisNexis’ Economic Laws of the Russian Federation database , but again failed to include the publication name in the link.
Full search results for [russia lexis laws]: http://www.bing.com/search?q=russia+lexis+laws&entrypoint=IE-SearchBox&FORM=LENIE
Bing’s searching of LexisNexis resources is welcome, but here’s hoping that the links can be made much more informative.
I was not able to locate specific Westlaw database links using Bing, or at least they did not appear in the top 5 results.
Bing Search Engine
Global Warming Policy Foundation is a UK based climate change site (more Bjorn Lomborg than Al Gore)
From the Web Site’s Information Page
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity
Our main purpose is to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant.
The GWPF’s primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration
Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and its economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.
We intend to develop alternative policy options and to foster a proper debate (which at present scarcely exists) on the likely cost and consequences of current policies.
We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.
Global Warming Policy Foundation http://www.thegwpf.org/
On 31 December 2009, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts issued its annual year-end report on the federal judiciary.
See “2009 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.”
Cross-posted in Law Library Blog.
Perspectives, Vol. 18, No. 2, Winter 2010
University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-52
SUSAN J. HANKIN, University of Maryland – School of Law
This article uses an unpublished case interpreting New York’s animal cruelty law as an object lesson to teach why grammar matters. In People v. Walsh, 2008 WL 724724 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. Jan. 3, 2008), the court’s interpretation of the statute turned, in part, on the serial comma rule (sometimes called the “Oxford comma” rule). The court followed a mandatory approach to interpret the statute’s meaning, even though most contemporary grammar and style books make such use of a comma optional. One of the many benefits of using a case example to teach why grammar matters is that it focuses students on the expectations of an important legal reader: the judge who may be using her own understanding of grammar rules to interpret language in a statute. The article explores what can happen when the legislators drafting statutes and the courts interpreting them may be operating on different sets of rules – in this case, rules of grammar. It then uses this exploration to recommend ways of using the case and statute as a teaching tool to impress upon students, among other lessons, the importance of avoiding ambiguity in legal writing.
Source: LSN Law & Rhetoric Vol. 3 No. 1, 01/04/2010
