Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:53:26.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to Commentators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Richard H. McAdams
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , Winter 2017 , pp. 76 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 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

Bilz, Kenworthey. 2007. The Puzzle of Delegated Revenge. Boston University Law Review 87:1059–1112.Google Scholar
Brooks, Richard R. W., and Rose, Carol M. 2013. Saving the Neighborhood: Racially Restrictive Covenants, Law, and Social Norms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 2008. The Household: Informal Order Around the Hearth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Robert C. 2016. Forceful Self‐Help and Private Voice: How Schauer and McAdams Exaggerate a State's Ability to Monopolize Violence and Expression. Law & Social Inquiry 42:49–59.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Joel. 1970. The Expressive Function of Punishment. In Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility, 95–118. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom, and McAdams, Richard H. 2004. Adjudicating in Anarchy: An Expressive Theory of International Dispute Resolution. William and Mary Law Review 45:1229–1339.Google Scholar
Hadfield, Gillian K., 2016. The Problem of Social Order: What Should We Count as Law? Law & Social Inquiry 42:16–27.Google Scholar
Hadfield, Gillian K., and Weingast, Barry R. 2012. What Is Law? A Coordination Model of the Characteristics of Legal Order. Journal of Legal Analysis 4:471–514.Google Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 1989. Why a Constitution? In The Federalist Papers and the New Institutionalism, ed. Bernard Grofman and Donald Wittman, 101–20. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
Herzog, Don. 2017. Democracy, Law, Compliance. Law & Social Inquiry 42:6–15.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 1997. Social Influence, Social Meaning, and Deterrence, Virginia Law Review 83:349–95.Google Scholar
Kar, Robin Bradley. 2017. The Evolutionary Game‐Theoretic Foundations of Law. Law & Social Inquiry 42:38–48.Google Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. 1995 The Regulation of Social Meaning. University of Chicago Law Review 62:943–1045.Google Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. 1996. Social Meaning and Social Norms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 144:2181–89.Google Scholar
Levinson, Daryl. 2017. The Inevitability and Indeterminacy of Game‐Theoretic Accounts of Legal Order. Law & Social Inquiry 42:28–37.Google Scholar
McAdams, Richard H. 2001. Signaling Discount Rates: Law, Norms, and Economic Methodology. Yale Law Journal 110:625–89.Google Scholar
McAdams, Richard H. 2015. The Expressive Powers of Law: Theories and Limits. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nadler, Janice. 2017. Expressive Law, Social Norms, and Social Groups. Law & Social Inquiry 42:60–75.Google Scholar
Robinson, Paul H., and Darley, John M. 2007. Intuitions of Justice: Implications for Criminal Law and Justice Policy. Southern California Law Review 81:1–67.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 2015. The Force of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sunshine, Jason, and Tyler, Tom R. 2003. The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law & Society Review 37:513–48.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R. 1997 . The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law. American Political Science Review 91:245–63.Google Scholar