David Little has pioneered the study of religion, human rights, and religious freedom during fifty-five years of distinguished scholarly work at Yale, Harvard, Virginia, Georgetown, and the United States Institute of Peace. Starting with his first major book, Religion, Order, and Law: A Study in Pre-Revolutionary England, he has traced cardinal principles like freedom of conscience and free exercise of religion from their earliest formulations in Stoic philosophy and Roman law, through the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, the medieval canonists and scholastics, and their many early modern heirs. Among the latter, he has explored most deeply the contributions of Protestants to the Western understanding of human rights and religious freedom, with special focus on John Calvin, John Locke, Roger Williams, and Reinhold Niebuhr, all of whose ideas he connects to each other and to the broader Western tradition in fresh and inventive ways. He has written astutely on the vexed questions arising under the First Amendment's guarantees of no government establishments of religion and no prohibitions on its free exercise. And he has charted many of the religious sources and dimensions of modern human rights, particularly the fundamental international protections of freedom of thought, conscience, and belief, freedom from religious hatred, incitement, and discrimination, and freedom for religious and cultural self-determination.

“CLS” was an acronym with two very different meanings when I was a fledgling law student some thirty-five years ago. For most, it meant “critical legal studies,” a burgeoning new movement of sundry neo-Marxist jurists and philosophers collectively bent on exposing the fallacies and false equalities of modern law. Many of my first-year law professors were the high priests of this CLS movement. They were making serious waves at the time with their denunciation of much that was considered sound and settled in the law. The best CLS professors taught black letter doctrine—and then shredded it with rhetorical and analytical power. That instruction appealed to my native ethic of semper reformanda—always reforming and working to improve our traditions. Other professors simply taught their pet critical topics, sending us students scrambling to the bookstore in search of study guides that would acquaint us with the legal basics. After a year of such CLS instruction, I could not wait to take the upper-level electives that would no doubt unveil the new and better legal system CLS had in mind. Little was on offer. The “crits,” I soon learned, were better at deconstruction than reconstruction of the law. Not surprisingly, this movement has now faded and fractured into sundry special interest groups.

Economic arguments in support of linking emissions trading schemes suggest that such linking could provide access to lower cost abatement options and increase market stability. The decisions of whether and how to link emissions trading schemes often focus on the design features of the relevant schemes, but an additional factor which has the potential to undermine the efficiency of linked schemes is taxation. This article systematically tests two alternative approaches to the direct (income) taxation of cross-border transfers of emission allowances for differential tax outcomes. Four hypothetical transactions are considered under three different linking mechanisms and on the assumption that a tax treaty based on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital is in force. This analysis evidences that, in some cases – and especially if the relevant jurisdictions adopt different approaches to the taxation of allowance transactions under domestic law – there is the potential for timing differences or double taxation that could impact on the efficiency of the linked trading schemes. It is therefore important for tax implications to be considered as part of any linking proposal.

Over the past 30 years, a growing amount of scholarly attention has been paid to forms of constitutional interpretation other than judicial review, ranging from departmentalism to explicitly removing judicial review from the court's purview. As many of these works have recognized, such skepticism is not new, but has a strong historical tradition. What has not often been noted, however, is that differing conceptions of judicial review—even opposition to judicial oversight of legislative actions—existed nearly from the moment that Marbury v. Madison was decided. This article examines some of these divergent opinions on judicial review in the Early Republic by studying how it was perceived by the Old Republicans, the conservative faction of the Virginia Jeffersonians.

In modern populations, inequalities in oral health have been observed between urban and rural communities, but to date the impact of the place of residence on oral health in archaeological populations has received only limited attention. This meta-study analyses dental palaeopathological data to examine the relationship between place of residence and oral health in Roman, early medieval, and late medieval Britain. Published data on ante-mortem tooth loss, calculus, caries, dental abscesses, and periodontal disease were analysed from cemeteries in urban and rural locations from each period. The results indicate that the place of residence influenced oral health in Roman and late medieval times, with urban populations enjoying better oral health than rural populations in Roman Britain, but poorer oral health in the late Middle Ages. These findings may reflect changes in the nature of urban settlements and in their relationship with their rural hinterlands over time.