To address growing concerns about the negative effects of corporations on their stakeholders, supporters of stakeholder governance (“stakeholderism”) advocate a governance model that encourages and relies on corporate leaders to serve the interests of stakeholders and not only those of shareholders. We conduct a conceptual, economic, and empirical analysis of stakeholderism and its expected consequences. Stakeholderism, we conclude, is an inadequate and substantially counterproductive approach to addressing stakeholder concerns.
This Article represents the first comprehensive examination of the antiquated patchwork of state regulatory frameworks that currently, or might soon, govern these new institutions. It finds that these frameworks are characterized by significant heterogeneity and often fail to meaningfully enhance the credibility of the promises that these institutions make to the holders of their monetary liabilities. Put bluntly: these institutions are issuing bad money. This Article therefore proposes a National Money Act designed to strengthen and harmonize the regulatory frameworks governing these new institutions and promote a more level competitive playing field.
This Article offers one of the first critiques of these new systems of artificial intelligence. It shows that automated legal guidance currently relies upon the concept of “simplexity,” whereby complex law is presented as though it is simple, without actually engaging in simplification of the underlying law. While this approach offers potential gains in terms of efficiency and ease of use, it also causes the government to present the law as simpler than it is, leading to less precise advice and potentially inaccurate legal positions. Using the Interactive Tax Assistant as a case study, the Article shows that the use of simplexity in automated legal guidance is more powerful and pervasive than in static publications because it is personalized, non-qualified, and instantaneous. Further, it argues that understanding the costs as well as the benefits of current forms of automated legal guidance is essential to evaluating even more sophisticated, but also more opaque, automated systems that governments are likely to adopt in the future.
Philip J. Duggan, B.A., St. Lawrence University, 2015; J.D., Cornell Law School, 2021. With thanks to my friends and family for their steady love and support.
The debate about how to determine a proper venue exemplifies this shifting legal landscape. Recently, statutory and constitutional questions of venue have divided courts and sewn uncertainty as to where defendants charged with in-flight crimes can face justice. This Note calls upon Congress to revise a well-known statute in order to fix the escalating problem of in-flight venue and bring this aspect of criminal procedure into the twenty-first century.
Disparate Defense in Tribal Courts: The Unequal Rights to Counsel as a Barrier to Expansion of Tribal Court Criminal Jurisdiction
Samuel Macomber, J.D., Cornell Law School, 2020. I thank the Cornell Native American Law Students Association for friendship, community, and learning. I am also grateful to the staff of the Cornell Law Review for their diligent assistance.
This Note argues that modifying the right to counsel for Indians will help expand tribal court criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Fixing the discrepancy in representation between Bryant and Jaimez may increase U.S. Congress’s faith in tribal courts and thus encourage Congress to extend tribal jurisdiction over more non-Indian offenders. This Note arises from a deeply held belief in both the rights of the accused as presumptively innocent and the rights of tribes as sovereign nations.
Cornell Law Review is proud to announce Vol. 106, Issue 1. Thank you to our amazing authors for their outstanding collaboration and patience with us during the COVID-19 pandemic. Please see below for a complete list of Vol. 106, Issue 1 authors and their scholarship. Articles The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance Lucian A. Bebchuk, James Barr…
Compelling Code: A First Amendment Argument Against Requiring Political Neutrality in Online Content Moderation
The Internet’s most important law is under attack. Section 230, the statute that provides tech companies with legal immunity from liability for content shared by their users, has recently found its way into the spotlight, becoming one of today’s most hotly debated topics. The short but mighty provision ensures that tech companies can engage in…
Cornell Law Review is proud to announce Vol. 105, Issue 7. Thank you to our amazing authors for their outstanding collaboration and patience with us during the COVID-19 pandemic. Please see below for a complete list of Issue 7 authors and their scholarship. ARTICLES Constitutional Rights in the Machine-Learning State Aziz Z. Huq, Frank and…
On Friday, October 30, 2020, 11:00 AM EST to 1:00 PM EST, Cornell Law Review Online will host, Women on the Frontlines: COVID and Beyond, an online symposium that examines the political, economic, social, and legal status of women in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, political turmoil, and racial unrest. To attend the event, register here: https://bit.ly/375nJce….
Cornell Law Review is proud to announce Vol. 105, Issue 6. Thank you to our amazing authors for their outstanding collaboration and patience with us during the COVID-19 pandemic. Please see below for a complete list of Issue 6 authors and their scholarship. ARTICLES Against Prosecutors I. Bennett Capers, Professor of Law and Director of the…
A consumer saves up to buy a used car. Unbeknownst to him, the vehicle has a design defect—and in a crash, the airbag fails to deploy, leaving his passenger severely injured. Under state law, the injured party has a right to sue the vehicle manufacturer: but where? The obvious forum is the plaintiff’s home forum—it’s…
Cornell Law Review is proud to announce Vol. 105, Issue 5, with Articles, Essays, and Notes exploring Multidistrict Litigation as a Category; Why Has Antitrust Law Failed Workers?; Legitimate Interpretation—Or Legitimate Adjudication?; Chevron as Construction; International Cultural Heritage Law; and Demanding Trust in the Private Genetic Data Market. Thank you to our amazing authors for…
We are honored to announce Cornell Law Review’s Vol. 105, Issue 3, a symposium issue created after the Lynn Stout Memorial Conference, held in memory of Professor Lynn Stout. Professor Stout was a well-respected colleague and dear friend of the Cornell Law community, and the Cornell Law Review is proud to be a part of this memorial issue.
Cornell Law Review is proud to announce Vol. 105, Issue 4, with Articles and Essays exploring Tort as Private Administration; Justice Scalia’s Campaign Against Legislative History; Corporate Privacy; Product Liability Law; and Student Notes that explore the Racial Gap in Financial Services and a Crime-Fraud Exception to Executive Privilege. Thank you to our amazing authors for their outstanding collaboration and patience with us during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Professor Sonia Katyal’s Article The Paradox of Source Code Secrecy was selected for inclusion in the 2020 edition of the Intellectual Property Law Review, an anthology published annually by Thomson Reuters (West). This article was originally published in 104 Cornell L. Rev. 1183 (2019). Abstract In Lear v. Adkins, the Supreme Court precipitously wrote, “federal…