jump to navigation

jotwell: coslovsky & locke on global supply chains December 6, 2013

Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , add a comment

My latest Jotwell contribution, discussing Salo V. Coslovsky & Richard M. Locke, Parallel Paths to Enforcement: Private Compliance, Public Regulation, and Labor Standards in the Brazilian Sugar Sector, 41 Pol & Soc 496 (2013) is here.

jotwell: review of kraus and raso November 13, 2012

Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , add a comment

I reviewed Bruce R. Kraus & Connor Raso’s article on Rational Boundaries for SEC Cost-Benefit Analysis in Jotwell.

corporate jotwell: december 2011 December 12, 2011

Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , add a comment

This month I am recommending Kimberly Krawiec’s paper: Don’t ‘Screw Joe the Plummer’: The Sausage-Making of Financial Reform.

jotwell: rosen recommends langevoort April 20, 2011

Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , add a comment

In today’s corporate jotwell post, Rob Rosen recommends Donald C. Langevoort, Chasing the Greased Pig Down Wall Street: A Gatekeeper’s Guide to the Psychology, Culture and Ethics of Financial Risk-taking, Cornell L. Rev. (forthcoming).

jotwell: woo recommends ayotte & skeel March 10, 2011

Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , add a comment

In today’s corporate jotwell post, Sarah Woo recommends Kenneth Ayotte & David A. Skeel, Jr., Bankruptcy or Bailouts?, 35 J. Corp. L. 469 (2010).

jotwell: bradley recommends affolder February 7, 2011

Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , add a comment

In today’s Jotwell corporate law posting I’m recommending Natasha Affolder’s article: The Market for Treaties 11 Chicago J. Int’l L. 159 (2010).

gordon smith recommends john armour January 7, 2011

Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , add a comment

In the latest Jotwell Corporate Law post.

jotwell November 23, 2009

Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , comments closed

My first jotwell post is up.

jotwell call for papers October 31, 2009

Posted by Bradley in : jotwell , comments closed

Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots) seeks short reviews of (very) recent scholarship related to the law that the reviewer likes and thinks deserves a wide audience. The ideal Jotwell review will not merely celebrate scholarly achievement, but situate it in the context of other scholarship in a manner that explains to both specialists and non-specialists why the work is important.

Although critique is welcome, reviewers should choose the subjects they write about with an eye toward identifying and celebrating work that makes an original contribution, and that will be of interest to others. First-time contributors may wish to consult the Jotwell Mission Statement for more information about what Jotwell seeks, and what it seeks to achieve.

Reviews need not be written in a particularly formal manner. Contributors should feel free to write in a manner that will be understandable to scholars, practitioners, and even non-lawyers.

Ordinarily, a Jotwell contribution will

Initially, Jotwell particularly seeks contributions relating to:

We intend to add more sections in the coming months.

References

Authors are responsible for the content and cite-checking of their own articles. Jotwell editors and staff may make editorial suggestions, and may alter the formatting to conform to the house style, but the author remains the final authority on content appearing under his or her name.

Technical

Jotwell publishes in HTML, which is a very simple text format and which does not lend itself to footnotes; textual citations are much preferred.

Contributors should email their article, in plain text, in HTML, or in a common wordprocessor format (Open Office, WordPerfect, or Word) to ed.jotwell@gmail.com and we will forward the article to the appropriate Section Editors. Or you may, if you prefer, contact the appropriate Section Editors directly.