Doctrine

About: Doctrine is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 21901 publications have been published within this topic receiving 204282 citations.

Essential Industry and the NIMBY Phenomenon

Abstract: Preface Introduction The Flawed Process of Public Choice LULU Siting, The Massachusetts Experience The Practical Limits of Participatory Democracy Myth, Reality, and the politics of Disillusionment The Failure of the Remedial Process Private Law Public Law The Inadequacy of Nuisance Doctrine The Complex Dimensions of Neighbor's Loss Structuring a Solution A Recapitulation of the Problem A Proposed Solution Conclusions Bibliography Index

Tracing the Foundations of the Best Interest of the Child Standard in American Jurisprudence

Abstract: The best interests of the child doctrine is at once the most heralded, derided and relied upon standard in family law today. It is heralded because it espouses the best and highest standard; it is derided because it is necessarily subjective; and it is relied upon because there is nothing better. And in every case, a judge must decide what is “best” for any child at any time under any particular circumstance. This standard, so central to family law, is of critical importance, yet surrounded by a muddled legal haze of judicial confusion over just how to determine what “the best” really is. Discerning the roots of the legal standard applied to children in literally every early American case, this article thoroughly analyzes the English roots of common law and case law which established legal principle in family sovereignty. Impressions of judicial review of the standard begs for assistance in the proper use of judicial discretion in cases involving children, yielding a more appropriate analysis of the most suitable application of the best interests standard. The article demonstrates that the best interest of the child doctrine is as old as the American colonies and can be traced to America’s earliest case law foundations, concluding that though scattered in and out of English law, the best interests of the child doctrine is uniquely American in its development. This strong base has in turn caused a near global adoption of the concept. The doctrine, however it may be derided or heralded, is the American legacy America to global family law. The article argues, nonetheless, that the application of this standard has turned toward near pure judicial discretion in contemporary judging causing litigators and advocates to have no rule of law to rely upon. While setting out the basis for the doctrine, this article calls for a rebuilding of the legal foundations of the best interests of the child standard not only in America and in western tradition, but worldwide.

Having Too Much

Abstract: This paper defends the limitarian doctrine, which entails the view that it is morally objectionable to be rich. I examine how limitarianism can be spelled out and whether it can be convincingly defended. As is the case with egalitarianism and other distributive views, one can distinguish between intrinsic limitarianism and non-intrinsic limitarianism; and a variety of justifications can be explored. I defend non-intrinsic limitarianism based on two different arguments: the democratic argument and the argument from unmet urgent needs. An account of what ‘riches’ entails is also developed, since any plausible account of limitarianism requires a sufficiently clear account of the threshold. I also discuss whether limitarianism should be defended as a moral or rather as a political doctrine. Finally, I analyze and reject two important objections, claiming that limitarianism violates equality of opportunities and that limitarianism does not take incentive considerations into account. The paper concludes with an outline of a future research agenda on limitarianism.