LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Dare to Innovate: Lela Love, Professor of Law (Emerita) and Founding Director of the Kukin Program for Conflict Resolution
No full textThis year, as we mark 50 years of Cardozo, we are honoring the community members—past and present—who have dared to make a difference in the legal world. Throughout the year, we will celebrate the faculty, staff, and alumni who have shaped Cardozo across five decades.
Today we honor Lela Porter Love, Professor (Emerita) and Founding Director of the Kukin Program for Conflict Resolution, who dared to reimagine how lawyers resolve conflict. A renowned mediator and dispute resolution pioneer, Professor Love joined Cardozo in 1985 and founded the Cardozo Mediation Clinic, one of the nation’s first programs to train law students as mediators. In 1990, she helped establish the Kukin Program through a generous gift from Ira and Doris Kukin.
The Kukin Program includes four clinical offerings, the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, the International Advocate for Peace Award, and a comprehensive dispute resolution curriculum. Cardozo is now ranked the fifth-best dispute resolution law program in the country by U.S. News—a lasting testament to her vision.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/daring-daily-commemorative-visuals/1002/thumbnail.jp
Law, Ethics and the Office of the Jurist
No full textThe genealogy of legal office is pieced together here to rediscover the scope and ambition of a role that has been largely lost to conscious self-reflection. Organized around a concern with the inheritance of juristic traditions, institutions, and forms of life, the contributors to this book take up the question of how a jurist might learn to live, or die, with law. The collection invites readers to reconsider fundamental questions: What responsibilities accompany the jurist’s role? How do different traditions conceptualize the ethical obligations of legal interpretation? What happens when established norms face modern challenges? By reconstructing the genealogy of legal office across diverse traditions, the contributors recover aspects of juridical identity that have faded from contemporary awareness.
Law, Ethics, and the Office of the Jurist will appeal to legal scholars, practitioners, and students, as well as those in adjacent fields concerned with professional ethics, institutional history, and the evolving relationship between law and society in our complex global landscape.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-edited/1045/thumbnail.jp
AI Arbitrators: Bridging Human and Machine Judgment in Construction Law
No full textIn an industry guided by complex contracts, intense regulations, and narrow margins, disputes within construction are bound to occur. Internationally, arbitration has long established itself as a go-to method for resolving these disputes. On November 3, 2025, the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“AAA-ICDR”) launched an AI-powered arbitrator tool which will revolutionize the future of construction arbitration. This machine learning system was created to recreate the human-like decision making process, yet still emphasizes the importance of human input as human arbitrators remain on board for reviewing final drafts. The AI arbitrator assesses claims “emulate[ing] human judgment,” provide recommendations, and draft awards to be reviewed by human arbitrators, ensuring transparency and proper verification.
The print edition of the issue has also been released. This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on January 12, 2026
Early Faculty and Leadership of Cardozo Law
No full textFlashback@Fifty From the very beginning, Cardozo’s faculty have dared to shape the future of legal education. This throwback faculty photo from 1997 captures the scholars and teachers who helped build the foundation of Cardozo School of Law.How many professors and faculty can you identify?https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/daring-daily-commemorative-visuals/1001/thumbnail.jp
Cardozo Law News Brief: January 9, 2026
No full textHighlights from the January 9, 2026, Cardozo Law News Brief include:
Dean Melanie Leslie was named one of The National Jurist’s Most Influential People in Legal Education.
Professor Rebecca Ingber was quoted in The New York Times on the legality of proposed U.S. military involvement in Venezuela.
Professor Matthew Wansley commented in The New York Times on robotaxi safety concerns after a power outage stranded Waymo vehicles in San Francisco.
Professor Jessica Roth spoke to Bloomberg about the release of redacted Epstein-related DOJ files.
Faculty news includes:
Professor Michel Rosenfeld appeared on Canadian TV to discuss U.S. legal issues surrounding the Maduro operation.
Professor Zalman Rothschild received the Harold Berman Award for his article “The Impossibility of Religious Equality” and wrote a tribute in The New York Times newsletter Believing
IX International Moot Court Competition in Law & Religion
No full textAfter many successful editions, the International Moot Court Competition in Law and Religion (9th ed.) is happening in 2026 in the glittering city of marbles: Rome, Italy!
The Program will run from March 12 to March 14, 2026 at the St. John’s University Rome campus.
Teams from different countries will argue a case before the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States. Pre-eminent scholars and actual judges from the two jurisdictions will sit as judges of the two Courts.
In the past editions, Teams from the United States, Hungary, Russia, Spain, the UK, Belgium, Ukraine and Italy gathered together and pleaded before prominent Judges.
The new case, the rules and the deadline of the Competition will be available at https://linktr.ee/imcclr
Stay tuned and do not miss a terrific opportunity to engage in a global conversation on Law and Religion!https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1053/thumbnail.jp
Dare to Create: Monrad G. Paulsen, First Dean of Cardozo Law (1976–1982)
No full textIn celebration of 50 years of Cardozo we are honoring past and current community members who have dared to make a difference in the legal world. Today we honor Monrad Paulsen, the first dean of Cardozo School of Law, who dared to create the foundation of our institution. Monrad\u27s legacy lives on through the Paulsen Competition, sponsored by the Moot Court Honor Society, which gives second- and third-year students a forum to compete for recognition as Cardozo’s top advocates.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/daring-daily-commemorative-visuals/1000/thumbnail.jp
Policy Recommendations and Ways Forward
No full textThis chapter discusses how the transformative ideas presented by the contributors can be applied in concrete and meaningful ways to policy, practice, and research. The chapter begins with a discussion of principles that were both crucial to the articulation of the recommendations and are similarly crucial to any proposal to address identity-based mass violence. The human-centered values of this volume demand a focus not only on outcomes but also on process, as these principles attest. The chapter then focuses on practical areas of action, from capacity building to funding to shifting narratives, and more. This chapter shifts from prescriptive policy solutions toward a way of thinking about policy that is more appreciative of the themes of identity, power, and space as a transformative, preventative agenda.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-chapters/1115/thumbnail.jp
Standard Textualism
No full textFor as long as legal scholars have been writing about the rules-versus-standards distinction, textualism has been understood to produce characteristically rule-like law. This Article argues for the opposite view. Far from generating the “law of rules” that Scalia famously envisioned, the rule of modern textualism produces a law of standards—much more so than anybody, proponent of textualism or critic, appears to have recognized.
Two aspects of today’s textualism produce this result. The first is its emphasis on ordinary language and communication. Modern textualism typically produces standards because ordinary language and communication are typically standard-like. The second is modern textualism’s drive to resolve as many cases as possible using only the text’s clear communicative content. In close cases, the search for something both case-dispositive and “clearly” communicated by the text leads to minimalist, fact-bound, standard-like interpretations.
This Article reviews every divided statutory interpretation decision from the Supreme Court’s 2020, 2021, and 2022 terms. The cases in the dataset rarely pose the kinds of conflict that decades of statutory interpretation literature might lead one to expect. Instead of pitting text-based, rule-producing interpretations against purpose-based, standard-producing ones, today’s split decisions typically concern the interpretation of standard-like statutory text; the more strictly text-based the interpretation, the more standard-like the resulting legal content.
That’s not to say that the Court’s self-proclaimed textualists abide by their theory in practice. Every member of the Court, textualist or not, routinely substitutes justice-made rules for legislature-made standards. But modern textualism is uniquely incapable of justifying that practice, let alone guiding or constraining those engaging in it. Modern textualism was not made for judicial rule creation, and it shows.
After criticizing textualist practice on this score, this Article argues that “standard textualism” (i.e., modern textualism, understood in light of its tendency to produce standards) may turn out to be a surprisingly attractive prescriptive theory of interpretation for traditional textualists and modern progressives alike. Granted, modern textualism might be no more constraining than its alternatives when it comes to determining who wins and who loses in a given case. But by limiting the justices’ freedom to create rules that will replace statutory standards going forward, the method forecloses what is often the more consequential, if less frequently discussed, exercise of discretionary power on today’s Court
Academic Success Session in Professionalism
No full textOutlining for Law Schoolhttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1007/thumbnail.jp