Complexity and Reconstruction as Contemporary Legal Thought: Law–Conflict Interactions and Judicial Work

Michal Alberstein

doi:10.1017/9781316584361.025

24 - Complexity and Reconstruction as Contemporary Legal Thought: Law–Conflict Interactions and Judicial Work

from Part III - Structures of the Legal Contemporary

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 December 2017

Michal Alberstein

Edited by

Justin Desautels-Stein and

Christopher Tomlins

Show author details

Justin Desautels-Stein: Affiliation:
University of Colorado School of Law
Christopher Tomlins: Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley School of Law

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Searching for Contemporary Legal Thought , pp. 465 - 476

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316584361.025 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited – Chapter 24

Alberstein, Michal 2002. Pragmatism and Law: From Philosophy to Dispute Resolution. United Kingdom: Dartmouth.Google Scholar

Alberstein, Michal 2008. “ADR and collective trauma: constructing the forum for the traumatic fuss,” Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10: 11–42.Google Scholar

Alberstein, Michal 2009. “Measure of legal formalism in traumatic cases: stylistic analysis,” Hamishpat 6: 349–408 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

Alberstein, Michal 2012. “Measuring legal formalism: reading hard cases with soft frames,” in Sarat, Austin (ed.) Studies in Law, Politics, and Society Vol. 57. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, pp. 161–99.Google Scholar

Alberstein, Michal 2016. “The ‘law of alternatives’: conflict resolution as the art of reconstruction,” in Sarat, Austin (ed.) Studies in Law, Politics, and Society Volume 70. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, pp. 149–80.Google Scholar

Burton, John W. 1997. Violence Explained: The Sources of Conflict, Violence and Crime and Their Prevention. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Fiss, Owen M. and Resnik, Judith 2003. Adjudication and its Alternatives: An Introduction to Procedure. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.Google Scholar

Fiss, Owen M. 1979. “The Supreme Court, 1978 term. Foreword: the forms of justice,” Harvard Law Review 93: 1–58.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fiss, Owen M. 1982. “Objectivity and interpretation,” Stanford Law Review 34: 739–64.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fiss, Owen M. 1984. “Against settlement,” Yale Law Journal 93: 1073–92.CrossRef Google Scholar

Golding, Martin P. 1979. “The nature of compromise: a preliminary inquiry,” Nomos 21: 3–25.Google Scholar

Hansford, Justin. 2014. “Cause judging,” Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 27: 1–54.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Duncan 1976. “Form and substance in private law adjudication,” Harvard Law Review 89: 1685–778.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kennedy, Duncan 1986. “Freedom and constraint in adjudication: a critical phenomenology,” Journal of Legal Education 36: 518–62.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Duncan 2006. ”Three globalizations of law and legal thought: 1850–2000,” in Trubek, and Santos, (eds.), pp. 19–73).CrossRef Google Scholar

Kretzmer, David 2002. The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Mnookin, Robert H. and Kornhauser, Lewis 1979. “Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce,” Yale Law Journal 88: 950–97.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rothman, Jay and Land, Randy 2004. “The Cincinnati police-community relations collaborative,” Criminal Justice 18: 34–42.Google Scholar

Rothman, Jay 2006. “Identity and conflict: collaboratively addressing policy-community conflict in Cincinnati, Ohio,” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 22: 105.Google Scholar

Rothman, Jay 2012. “Applying action evaluation on a large scale: Cincinnati police-community relations collaborative–successes, failures and lessons learned,” In Rothman, Jay (ed.) From Identity-Based Conflict to Identity-Based Cooperation. New York: Springer, pp. 191–205.CrossRef Google Scholar

Scenes from a Mediation 1983 (VHS video). Mill Valley, CA: Center for the Development of Mediation in the Law.Google Scholar

Simon, William H. 2004. “Solving problems vs. claiming rights: the pragmatist challenge to legal liberalism,” William & Mary Law Review 46: 127–212.Google Scholar

Sinai, Yuval and Alberstein, Michal 2016. [Forthcoming]. “Expanding judicial discretion: between legal and conflict considerations,” Harvard Negotiation Law Review 21: 221–78.Google Scholar

Trubek, David M. and Santos, Alvaro (eds.) 2006. The New Law and Economic Development: A Critical Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Weinrib, Ernest J. 1988. “Legal formalism: on the immanent rationality of law,” Yale Law Journal 97: 949–1016.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cases Cited – Chapter 24

Floyd v. City of New York (2013) 959 F. Supp. 2D 540.Google Scholar

Plonit and Ploni (Prospective Adoptive Parents) v Attorney-General [2005] AFA 377/05.Google Scholar

Chalfa v. Gold [1987] 48 Israeli SC (1) 22, CA 724/87.Google Scholar