Defining “Pollutant”: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You

A fundamental question reported in hundreds of court decisions and evaluated every day by claims adjusters is whether a constituent that caused injury and damage is a “pollutant.” If yes, the claim will most often not be covered under general liability, professional, property, umbrella, or other policies because of the applicability of a pollution exclusion. Based upon our review of 200 cases, we determined that in 140, or 70 percent of the time, the constituent was considered a “pollutant” and the insurance claim was denied. In order to have insurance for “irritants” or “pollutants,” an insured must obtain specific pollution coverage.     

What You Should Know About Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) for Environmental Claims

The rapid evolution of legal and regulatory developments related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has already resulted in some high-dollar legal settlements and is expected to generate numerous environmental claims. Currently, most major PFAS sites are associated with the primary chemical production of select PFAS and the application of fire-fighting foams at airfields, refineries, fire training facilities and bulk fuel-storage facilities. In addition, PFAS are also used in the manufacture of consumer products designed to resist heat, stains, grease, water and reduce friction. Manufacturing facilities that produce these products may discharge PFAS to wastewater treatment plants, which are not designed to remove PFAS, and thus become dischargers also. The ultra-low detection limits and regulatory thresholds for PFAS, combined with the manufacturing and use of numerous PFAS-containing products, suggests the number of sites that require PFAS cleanup will increase in the coming years and decades. Therefore, understanding current capabilities and limitations of sampling, remediation, and forensics is critical to assessing PFAS-related environmental claims.     

You Got What You Deserved

The Philosophy of Criminal Law collects 17 of Doug Husak’s articles on legal theory, 16 of which have been previously published, spanning a period of over two decades. In sum, these 17 articles make a huge and lasting contribution to criminal law theory. There is much wisdom contained in them; and I find surprisingly little to disagree with, making my job as a critical reviewer quite challenging. Most of the points on which Doug and I disagree can be found in my other published work in this field, so I will have little to say about them, except where they illuminate those few points of disagreement that arise in the particular essays I discuss. Most of what I will say will be in accord with Doug’s views and will principally explore their wider implications. The 17 essays in the book cover too many and too varied topics for one review essay. Therefore, I will focus on just three of them: “Rapes Without Rapists: Consent and Reasonable Mistake” (co-authored by George C. Thomas); “Mistakes of Law and Culpability”; and “Already Punished Enough.” Although I generally agree with the upshots of Doug’s arguments in these chapters, I think the issues they raise are worth further exploration.     

What We Know About Aggression

Research on aggressive behavior has woven a complex tapestry representing a range of phenomena within typologies of aggression. This issue of Peace Review presents essays on some currently concerning aspects of aggression. Here we sketch the historical origins of some of the threads of this tapestry in ourselves and other animals as background for the essays that follow.     

“I didn't Know You were Fighting So Hard for me”: Attorneys' Perceptions of Youth Participation in Child Dependency Proceedings

This study examined attorneys' perceptions of youth participation in child dependency proceedings. Surveys and semi‐structured interviews were conducted with attorneys who represent adolescents in child dependency proceedings. Three dimensions of participation were identified: receiving information, providing information, and self‐advocacy. Barriers to youth participation included individual‐level factors, such as the youth or the attorney not wanting the youth to attend, and system‐level factors, such as the scheduling of court hearings, large caseloads, long waits, and cases being adjourned multiple times. Recommendations for enhancing youth participation in child dependency proceedings are presented.     

股东知情权制度之重构

公司法领域的相对确定性往往旨在实现相关法律主体的利益平衡,股东知情权制度的创设正是平衡公司内外各方利益的体现。某一制度的创设除非业已遵循最为基本的法律原则,否则不会获得成功,股东知情权制度构造与重建也必须接受这些原则的指导。知情权的行使涉及公司商业秘密,理应先行尊重公司自治,但与此同时,法律必须明确各方主体的权利与义务。而法官更要在司法实践中注意把握自由裁量的尺度,以真正实现公司法所要求的利益平衡。     

论我国环境知情权的发展完善

环境知情权是一项新兴的环境法律权利,并随着社会的发展得到不断的完善,我国环境知情权虽然也有了很大的发展但还存在具体的缺陷,对环境知情权存在的问题做出分析后,借鉴国外的经验和教训,提出完善我国环境知情权应做出的努力。针对目前环境知情权制度,要求加强环境信息公开力度,明确政府职责,注重加强公众参与机制,推动相关立法的不断完善,不断完善环境知情权的法律规范,创建符合我国具体国情的法律机制。     

消费者的知情权

在信息社会中 ,知情权日益受到人们的重视。消费者的知情权是消费者权利体系中的基础性权利。消费者与生产者、经营者之间的信息不对称是法律赋予消费者知情权的原因。知情权作为确立消费者人格的基础 ,除了要求生产者、经营者履行信息披露义务之外 ,还要求政府的积极保护 ,实现对消费风险的事先控制 ,从而更好地保护消费者。     

论知情权

知情权是当代法治社会中的一项基础性人权,但现存法律制度对知情权却存在着规范供给严重缺乏、理论支撑相当乏力的重大缺陷。本文试图从法理学的视角对知情权的概念与范围、知情权的理论基础和法律价值、知情权的特征和行使原则、方式、知情权的法律缺失与对策等系列问题进行系统探索,以期对知情权有一个全面和理性的认识。     

知情权的权利属性探讨

本文以“政策──原则”分析框架为基础 ,探讨了知情权的权利属性及其对中国信息公开制度建设的启示意义。作为原则维度 ,知情权在信息公开立法的地位与功能虽不容忽视 ,但其重要性却远不及信息公开立法的政策维度。知情权至今在大多数国家既不是宪法性基本权利 ,也不是必然的法定权利 ,但其主体、客体、内容、界限却已基本成型。认清知情权的这些特点对进行符合中国实际的信息公开立法 ,推进民主行政、透明行政和依法行政具有深远的指导意义     

Business Adaptation to Regulation: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?

There is, predictably, a gap between the normative model and empirical pictures of regulation drawn from many societies. We may get an approximation of the goals of much regulation, but often regulatory policy is not carried out exactly as legislated. Agencies pursue enforcement strategies in light of their priorities and resources. They engage in soft law enforcement and bargain with the targets of regulation. Regulated businesses have many tactics available to blunt or evade regulation. We can fashion plausible normative arguments both for and against these common empirical pictures. To a great extent, however, these normative positions rest on unexamined empirical assumptions. Future research might profitably focus on the roles played by those individuals who act for business associations and cope with regulation. Attention should be paid particularly to the roles played by business lawyers in such coping. James Gould Cozzens' novel , Guard of Honor, suggests how lawyers comply narrowly, evade, cover up and otherwise divert the impact of regulation, all in the service of what they see as the greater good. Cozzens' story suggests important empirical and normative questions for future consideration.     

So You Love Me

This essay uses the work of Gilles Deleuze, in some detail, to argue for a new practice of criticism. Not in order to purify, refine, or generally redeem anything, but rather to encourage a focusing upon the production of fields of experience as an ethical event. As such, the piece re-problematizes what it means to raise questions, and demonstrates the underlying responsibility of doing so.     

Psychological Injuries and Legal Decision Making in Civil Cases: What We Know and What We Do not Know

Civil plaintiffs frequently seek monetary compensation for their psychological injuries. Despite the increased study of psychological injury within the legal system, there has been little empirical examination of how psychological injury evidence impacts legal decisions. To illuminate what is known (and not known) on this topic, this paper reviews legal and empirical research regarding how legal decision makers (judges and jurors) perceive and use psychological injury evidence to render civil judgments. A few themes emerged from this review: (1) Courts generally devalue psychological injury, often making it difficult for plaintiffs to pursue and succeed on these claims; (2) these difficulties are a likely byproduct of legal decision-makers’ misperceptions of mental illness; and (3) despite a recent surge in empirical research on how jurors perceive and use psychological injury evidence to render civil decisions, many unexplored areas remain. Specific recommendations for legal policy and suggestions for future research are highlighted throughout this review.     

Justice of Conjugal Divisions of Labor—You Can't Always Get What You Want

The new intramarital distributions of 190 young parents in their third month of first parenthood were studied in a multifaceted distributive and procedural justice framework. For a large majority, justice was an important dimension in their intramarital distributions of household labor, child care, leisure time, breadwinning. Justice ratings of various principles in general were more liberal than the reported practice, in women even more than in men. The practice reported was mainly traditional, with a gender-segregated distribution of labor. A pattern of marked consistencies and inconsistencies between the principles rated as just and factual practice emerged. Inconsistencies occurred more often in women than in men.