Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side ofEverything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner is certainlypopular. Indeed, my search for something comparable took meback more than 120 years.¹ Even with the uncertainty about whatconstitutes a best seller, it is clear that the book has reacheda huge audience, especially for a book about "economics." AsI write this, it has been on the New York Times best-sellerlist for 46 weeks, and having started on the Publisher’sWeekly Hardcover Nonfiction best-seller list in the 12th positionon April 25, 2005, it has hovered in the top ten thereafter.Moreover, as reported on the Freakonomics web site, the bookhas garnered a large international audience, and the book ison various "best of" lists. Levitt and Dubner have sought abroad and diverse audience for their collection of stories:Levitt has been on "The 700 Club" (a talk show by conservativebusinessman and religious broadcaster Pat Robertson) and "TheDaily Show with Jon Stewart" (a center–left parody ofthe news and news reporting) among other places. Both the authorswrite a column for the New York Times Magazine as well as participatein an active blog (just navigate from the book’s web siteto the URL http://www.freakonomics.com, where, among other things,they respond to a large number of readers’ inquiries²).The book comes complete with more than 20(!) pages of referencesand citations as diverse as a radio talk show caller’sunverified claim that her niece was named "Shithead" (pronouncedSHUH-teed) as well as Kenneth Arrow’s "A Theory of Discrimination"and includes a two-and-a-half page tabulation of average yearsof mother’s education by child’s first name. Theextensive footnotes should not mislead: Freakonomics does nottake its subjects very seriously. In Freakonomics, Levitt’sscholarship and the scholarship of others are put in the serviceof telling a "good story" rather than the other way around.Indeed, if the many reviews of the book are any guide, manyfind the book "entertaining" even if they felt that "Levitt’sonly real message is to encourage confrontational questions"(Berg, 2005). One reviewer found the stories so compelling thathe went so far as to suggest that "criticizing Freakonomicswould be like criticizing a hot fudge sundae" (Landsburg, 2005).     

Markem v Zipher--the Court of Appeal provides guidance on entitlement proceedings

Legal and practical context. The Markem v Zipher Court of Appealjudgment provides useful guidance on patent entitlement proceedingsand, more generally, on the conduct of litigation. Key points. (i) Patent entitlement. To bring an entitlementaction under sections 8, 12, and 37 a party must invoke a breachof some rule of law. Validity is only relevant in entitlementproceedings where a patent or part of it is clearly and unarguablyinvalid. A claim-by-claim approach is not appropriate in proceedingsunder sections 8, 12, and 37 and ‘invention’ inthese sections refers to information in the specification. Theproper approach to entitlement should be to identify who contributedto the invention and determine whether he has any rights tothe invention. (ii) Litigation generally. A witness should be cross-examinedas to the truthfulness of his evidence whenever a party wishesto challenge that evidence. Where a party has more than onecause of action relating to the same factual background, considerationshould be given to bringing all causes of action in the sameproceedings to avoid a future claim being struck out for abuseof process. Practical significance. This case highlights the importanceof a properly pleaded case and of the ongoing need to reviewthe case strategy throughout proceedings.     

The Shifting and Multiple Border and International Law

The question of how the ‘border’ is conceived ininternational law, and how it shapes identity and peoples’lives, remains largely unexplored in the international legalliterature. This article seeks to contribute to our understandingof the meaning of the border in international law, and in thecontemporary context, by drawing on the work of the philosopherand political theorist, Étienne Balibar, and by reflecting,in the light of his work, on the recent decision of the Houseof Lords in R v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport. It isshown that international law's focus on the territorial bordermay render invisible other borders which are significant forsubaltern groups, and thereby fail to address the manner inwhich borders affect lives and determine outcomes. Borders arenot stable and ‘univocal’, but instead, ‘multiple’,shifting in meaning and function from group to group. They arealso being ‘exported’ such that a person may experiencea foreign border while still within the territory of their owncountry. In highlighting the multiplicity of borders, the articleseeks to prompt further reflection on the articulation and applicationof norms of international law in a way that addresses the realitiesof the contemporary context.     

Jesting at scars that never felt a wound: The US Supreme Court's new doctrine of licensee standing without breach

Until recently, it was assumed that patent licensees in compliancewith terms of their licence agreements would lack ‘standing’to sue their licensors, but in MedImmune v Genentech, the SupremeCourt of the United States held that federal courts in the UShave jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions by patentlicensees asserting the invalidity, unenforceability, or non-infringementof a licensed patent, even where the licensee is in full compliancewith the licence agreement.     

Competition Law and IP Licensing: a refreshing analysis of the modern approach

Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules is a refreshing,invigorating ‘from first principles’ explanationof how IP licensing agreements should be analysed for compliancewith the new EU competition law regime. The modernized competitionlaw regime is only ‘new’ in the sense that it hasbeen in existence for less than three years, but the authorscan be forgiven this slightly liberal use of the word, giventhat their aim throughout the book is very obviously to shakeintellectual property and competition lawyers out of the oldcomfortable, rigid, formulaic approach to IP, and into a worldwhere a much more fluid and arguably sophisticated approachis required.     

The WTO's First Antitrust Case - Mexican Telecom: A Sleeping Victory for Trade and Competition

A World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel has decided theWTO’s first antitrust case. It resolved the matter infavour of the United States’ claim that Mexico had anticompetitivelyfacilitated exploitative prices and a cartel that raised theprice of terminating cross-border telephone calls in Mexicoand thereby harmed trade and competition. The case is Mexico– Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services (April2004) (‘the Mexican telecom case’). This essay arguesthat if the WTO’s antitrust clause was in fact triggered(which is a point of contention), Mexico’s conduct violatedits obligations. Furthermore, it argues that the GATS antitrustobligation in the telecommunications sector should be acknowledgedas occupying an important place at the intersection of trade,competition and industrial policies. Antitrust law is the otherside of the coin of liberal trade law. Antitrust law opens marketsby prohibiting private and other commercial restraints, whiletrade law opens markets by prohibiting public restraints. BeforeMexican telecom, no legal discipline was regarded as copiousor flexible enough to address combined public and private restraints.In particular, nations were allowed free rein to privilege nationalchampions that harmed competition in and out of their country,imposing costs on outsiders as well as on their own people.A positive reading of the antitrust clause helps to fill thegap.     

Injunctive relief in US patent practice

Legal context. Injunctive relief is available in civil actionsin the United States. Patent litigation is no exception andthe US patent statute explicitly permits it. Because it is aneffective remedy, injunctive relief is commonly sought togetherwith the monetary (legal) remedies which are available to patentowners when enforcing patent rights. Key points. On 15 May 2006 the US Supreme Court in eBay, Incet al v MercExchange, LLC altered the prevailing practice sayingthat ‘the decision whether to grant or deny injunctiverelief rests within the equitable discretion of the districtcourts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistentwith traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes noless than in other cases governed by such standards’. Practical significance. This article will focus on the availabilityof permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions in lightof the Supreme Court's recent ruling in eBay, Inc et al v MercExchange,LLC.     

Exemplary Damages in Equity: A Law and Economics Perspective

In Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd (2003) 56 NSWLR 298, the NewSouth Wales Court of Appeal held that exemplary (or punitive)damages are not available for breach of fiduciary duty or otherequitable obligation. The decision runs counter to authoritiesin Canada, New Zealand and some U.S. states. Punitive (exemplary)damages is a hotly debated topic in the United States and ithas attracted considerable interest among law and economicsscholars, particularly in the tort litigation context. Thisarticle analyzes the Digital Pulse case from a law and economicsperspective. Polinsky and Shavell (among others) argue thatthe function of punitive damages is to achieve optimal deterrencein cases where the probability that the plaintiff will discoverand successfully litigate the defendant’s wrongdoing isless than 1. Given the high costs of monitoring fiduciary behaviour,it might be tempting to conclude that exemplary damages shouldbe routinely awarded for breach of fiduciary obligation. Thearticle explains why this view is wrong. On the other hand,given the availability of gains-based remedies (the accountof profits and the like) for breach of fiduciary obligation,it might be tempting to conclude that exemplary damages arenever justified in fiduciary cases. The article explains whythis view is wrong too. The main conclusions are that: (1) exemplarydamages should be available for breach of fiduciary duty andthe like, but not as a matter of course; and (2) exemplary damageswere probably not warranted in Digital Pulse itself.     

Does Dworkin Commit Dworkin's Fallacy?: A Reply to Justice in Robes

In an article entitled ‘Dworkin's Fallacy, Or What thePhilosophy of Language Can't Teach Us about the Law’,I argued that in Law's Empire Ronald Dworkin misderived hisinterpretive theory of law from an implicit interpretive theoryof meaning, thereby committing ‘Dworkin's fallacy’.In his recent book, Justice in Robes, Dworkin denies that hecommitted the fallacy. As evidence he points to the fact thathe considered three theories of law—‘conventionalism’,‘pragmatism’ and ‘law as integrity’—inLaw's Empire. Only the last of these is interpretive, but each,he argues, is compatible with his interpretive theory of meaning,which he describes as the view that ‘the doctrinal conceptof law is an interpretive concept’. In this Reply, I arguethat Dworkin's argument that he does not commit Dworkin's fallacyis itself an example of the fallacy and that Dworkin's fallacypervades Justice in Robes just as much as it did Law's Empire.     

The Proprietary Foundations of Corporate Law

Recent work in both the theory of the firm and of corporatelaw has called into question the appropriateness of analysingcorporate law as ‘merely’ a set of standard formcontracts. This article develops these ideas by focusing onproperty law's role in underpinning corporate enterprise. Rightsto control assets are a significant mechanism of governancein the firm. However, their use in this way predicates somearrangement for stipulating which parties will have controlunder which circumstances. It is argued that ‘propertyrules’—a category whose scope is determined functionally—protectthe entitlements of parties to such sharing arrangements againsteach other's opportunistic attempts to grant conflicting entitlementsto third parties. At the same time, the legal system uses arange of strategies to minimize the costs such protection imposeson third parties. The choice of strategy significantly affectsco-owners’ freedom to customize their control-sharingarrangements. This theory is applied to give an account of the‘proprietary foundations’ of corporate law, whichhas significant implications for the way in which the subject'sfunctions are understood and evaluated.     

Liberal Values in International Criminal Law: A Critique of Erdemovic

Using the Erdemovi decision as its starting point, the articleexamines the philosophical foundations of international criminallaw. It asserts that international criminal law, properly understood,represents a liberal legal system, emphasizing the rights ofthe accused over the interests of the prosecution or the goalsof international peace and security. Using the work of RonaldDworkin, it argues that international jurists should apply principlesthat invoke a respect for human rights and individual autonomyover ‘policy’. Thus, it argues that the reasoningof the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia was flawed when it determined thatduress did not constitute a complete defence in Erdemovi.     

International Law and Detention of US Asylum Seekers: Contrasting Matter of D-J- with the United Nations Refugee Convention

US refugee law reflects an ever-increasing conception that theapplication of international standards would constitute an unacceptablerisk to national security. CSR Article 31(2)’s requirementthat refugees ‘shall not’ be detained unless ‘necessary’appears among the chief casualties of such suspicions. US jurisprudenceremains strikingly devoid of reference to Article 31, and 2003’sMatter of D-J- is a prime example. D-J- was an administrativedecision in which the US Attorney General held that nationalsecurity required all US asylum seekers who successfully arrivevia boat must be subject to mandatory detention throughout thecourse of removal proceedings. Despite US accession to the Protocol,Article 31(2) was not mentioned. This article explores what might have happened to D-J- if theRefugee Convention had indeed been applied to his case. Utilizingthe international methodology for treaty interpretation, itapplies Article 31(2) to various aspects of the Attorney General'sdecision. Part 2 argues that under the Supreme Court's CharmingBetsy rule, statutory discretion to detain must be interpretedconsistently with US international obligations. Part 3 concludesthat Article 31(2) of the Refugee Convention grants asylum seekersa right to release whenever their detention is not ‘necessary’.Part 4 proposes a three-part ‘pyramid’ approachto explain the elemental phases of the decision to detain anasylum seeker and examines necessity at each stage. Finally,Part 5 discusses Article 31(2)’s implications regardingevidence and proportion. The premise throughout is that, hadit been applied, the Refugee Convention could have protectedthe interests of both D-J- and ‘national security’.     

Light Treatment of a Complex Problem: The Law of Self-Defence in the Wall Case

In its recent Wall Opinion, the International Court of Justicegave rather short shrift to Israel’s claims that the constructionof the wall could be justified as an act of self-defence inthe sense of Article 51 United Nations Charter. This articleassesses the Court’s approach and places it in the broadercontext of ICJ pronouncements on the use of force. It suggeststhat the Court failed to appreciate the complex legal problemsto which Israel’s claim gave rise, in particular the problemof self-defence against attacks by non-state actors. It showsthat the Court’s restrictive understanding of self-defence,while following the 1986 merits judgment in the Nicaragua case,is difficult to bring in line with modern state practice, andincreases the pressure to admit other, non-written, exceptionsto Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.     

A Critical Appraisal of 'Triple Divorce' in Islamic Law

The issue of the ‘triple divorce’ is regarded ashighly sensitive among the Muslims, not only in India but elsewhere.The Holy Qur’an is very cautious in matters of divorce.Three talaqs have to be spaced over a period of 3 months togive husband and wife time for reconciliation through the interventionof relatives and friends. Moreover, talaq can be pronouncedonly when the wife is in a state of tuhur, ie purity after menstruation.Yet, despite clear Qur’anic injunctions to the contrary,immediate triple divorce is permitted, destroying marital lifein one breath. The practice of immediate triple divorce is widespreadamong Sunni Muslims and has legal validity. Even then the juristscall it a talaq-e-Bidat (innovative form of divorce). The disputehas been highlighted by reports of some Muslims instantly divorcingtheir wives by mail, over the telephone, and even through mobilephone text messages. This article explains the different theoriesof divorce prevailing in the contemporary Muslim world and whatchecks and restraints have been imposed by Islam over the exerciseof husband's power of talaq. The article critically appraisesthe ‘innovative triple divorce’ by examining whetherit is sanctioned by the Holy Quran or the sunnah and if thereis a consensus of opinion (ijma) on the effectiveness of tripledivorce.     

House of Lords simplifies the law on patent entitlement

The House of Lords has held that, to claim entitlement to another'spatent or patent application, a person need only prove thathe was the inventor of the subject-matter of the patent, anddoes not also need to invoke ‘some other rule of law’as required previously by the Court of Appeal in Markem v Zipher[2005] RPC 31.     

Stateless Law: Kelsen's Conception and its Limits

Hans Kelsen’s claim that the state and the law are identicalis surrounded by a somewhat mystical air. Yet, the ‘identitythesis’ loses much of its mystical aura when it is seenas an attempt to recast the state, qua social fact, in deontologicalterms. The state is seen as a condition necessary to accountfor the validity of legal acts. Indeed, the meaning of the stateis reduced to the function performed by a conception of orderin the reproduction of a system of norms. No further socialfact would attest to its existence. From a sociological pointof view, all law is essentially, and principally, law sans state.     

Duress, International Criminal Law and Literature

This paper uses parallels between Sophocles’ Theban Playsand the House of Lords decision in Dudley and Stephens, to questionthe decision in the Erdemovi case before the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia. One should distinguish betweencausal, moral and criminal responsibility. If a man who commitsa crime, not by the action of his free will, is to be foundguilty, we are essentially equating causal responsibility withcriminal guilt. This logic clearly does not correspond withthat of the rest of international criminal law. The storiesof Erdemovi, Oedipus, Dudley and Stephens are tragedies. Eachof the victims/perpetrators felt an overwhelming sense of remorse.Whether they should be considered morally guilty of murder isa matter of individual conscience. The International CriminalTribunal for the Former Yugoslavia majority erred in using anabsolute moral position in Erdemovi. The majority's moral condemnationof the killing of innocents was confused with the question ofwhether Erdemovi should have been criminally punished. The contentof the majority opinion is largely of an irreproachably moralisticnature, though shrouded and mystified by the discussion of precedent.More generally, the decision to try Erdemovi at the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was itself self-defeating.Erdemovi should never have stood trial at The Hague. The internationalcommunity should not aid in self-flagellation. While his actionscannot be approved of, they should not be punished internationally.He could have been helped, supported and reintegrated with fargreater benefit to all.         ‘Heroesare hard to find in an atmosphere of total terror.’¹     

Irish 'Lipitor' litigation: High Court favours broad claim construction

In its first significant judgment on claim construction in over25 years, Ireland's High Court approved the principles laiddown by the English House of Lords in Kirin-Amgen, holding thatWarner-Lambert's ‘Lipitor’ patent is not limitedto a racemic mixture and refusing Ranbaxy a declaration of non-infringement.     

Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique

‘Before the game begins players should agree on a dictionaryto use in case of a challenge.’ (from the Official Rulesof SCRABBLE®)

Treaty interpretation in WTO law continues to represent a topicof highly theoretical and practical importance. The Panel’sand the Appellate Body’s reports in the recent US –Gambling dispute have critically turned on ascertaining themeaning of the United States’ GATS Schedule and ArticleXVI GATS on the basis of the public international law rulesof treaty interpretation as codified in the Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties. The paper’s principal aim is toreview the interpretative approach followed in particular bythe Appellate Body in reaching its decision in US – Gambling.Its main argument is that, although the Appellate Body appearsto be trying to emancipate itself from a rigorous textual approach,it has not yet embraced a holistic approach to treaty interpretation,one in which the treaty interpreter looks thoroughly at allthe relevant elements of the general rule on treaty interpretationpursuant to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention.