Explosions in the Sky: Coverage for Non-Contaminating Properties of Pollutants

Pollution liability and general liability insurance policies, in theory, should afford complementary rather than overlapping coverage. While this works well in theory, non-traditional pollution events challenge this outcome. This article focuses on loss events resulting from explosions, and in particular whether the resulting harms should be considered for coverage under a pollution policy or a general liability policy.     

The Common Law and the Forms of Reasoning

The purpose of this article is to examine how various forms of reasoning both can and should be used to decide cases in the common law tradition. I start by separating positive questions about what the law is from normative questions about what the law ought to be. Next, I present a Peircean account of three main forms of reasoning – deduction, induction and abduction – and examine how they can be used by judges to decide cases in the common law. Finally, I argue that the three forms of reasoning can be used to answer both kinds of questions, but in different ways. All three forms of reasoning can be used to answer questions of positive law, while questions of normative law present a special case that may require the use of aesthetic judgments of taste in the formation of a legal hypothesis.     

A near miss: The North Korean nuclear crisis

Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas (New York: Addison‐Wesley, 1998), xvii, 472 pp./$30.00 cloth; Leon V. Sigal, Disarming Strangers (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), xi, 321 pp./$29.95 cloth.