Results by title

A rigorous interdisciplinary inquiry into how classical rhetorical traditions continue to inform, challenge, and enrich modern legal reasoning and jurisprudence.

Classical Rhetoric and Contemporary Law: A Critical Reader is a rich work that analyzes the interplay between ancient rhetorical traditions and modern legal practice, reestablishing the lost connections between law and classical rhetoric. From Isocrates’s Panegyricus in 380 BCE to the landmark US Supreme Court case Trump v. Hawaii in 2018, and from Antiphon’s fifth century BCE First Tetralogy to 1995’s O. J. Simpson trial, the volume draws on an array of sources to illuminate how ancient rhetorical insights may even today challenge and enrich our grasp of contemporary legal principles.

The collection opens with a brisk review of the historical development of rhetoric. The second part examines a pair of rhetorical theorists whose works frame the period across which classical rhetoric declined as a mode of thought. A contemporary appellate case contrasts with the work of Giambattista Vico, an eighteenth-century professor of rhetoric who warned of the separation of law from rhetoric. The analysis of the work of twentieth-century scholars Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrects-Tyteca shows that where Cartesian rationality fails, the humanistic tradition of rhetoric allows the law to respond to the needs of justice. In the third part, ten case studies bring together a classical rhetorical theorist with a contemporary court case, demonstrating the abiding relevance of the classical tradition to contemporary jurisprudence.

With its cross-disciplinary appeal, Classical Rhetoric and Contemporary Law encompasses the work of legal, rhetorical, English, and communication scholars alike, catalyzing interactive exploration into the profound ways ancient rhetorical insights continue to shape our comprehension of today’s legal landscape.

CONTRIBUTORS
Vasileios Adamidis / Elizabeth C. Britt / Kirsten K. Davis / David A. Frank / Michael Gagarin / Eugene Garver / Mark A. Hannah / Catherine L. Langford / Brian N. Larson / Craig A. Meyer / Francis J. Mootz III / Susan E. Provenzano / Nick J. Sciullo / Kristen K. Tiscione / Laura A. Webb

An examination of how the legal doctrine of command responsibility was applied during military tribunals for Japanese war criminals, often inconsistently and ineffectively.

Between 1945 and 1951, the Allied powers prosecuted over 5,700 suspected Japanese war criminals across the Asia-Pacific region before one international and many national tribunals using a new legal doctrine known as command responsibility. Command responsibility holds officers criminally liable for the crimes of their subordinates even if they did not order the crimes to occur. Allied authorities believed that the structure of the Japanese military had allowed the crimes to occur and that pursuing guilt for war crimes should extend beyond enlisted soldiers who were the direct perpetrators of war crimes to those who had been in a position of command.

Command on Trial shows that the application of command responsibility in the courtroom was highly unstable and open to manipulation, especially in the trials of lower-ranking officers, resulting in outcomes that were legally, morally, and philosophically inconsistent. A clear illustration of the pitfalls of command responsibility, this book shows that the trials—and command responsibility—did not achieve comprehensive justice and left unanswered the question of who was actually responsible for many of the war crimes that were perpetrated.

The story of NAACP’s sole female attorney. She shaped civil rights history as lead strategist and litigator from 1946–1964, arguing landmark desegregation cases and defending Martin Luther King Jr. and countless freedom fighters.

Constance Baker Motley was an African American woman; the daughter of immigrants from Nevis, British West Indies; a wife; and a mother who became a pioneer and trailblazer in the legal profession. She broke down barriers, overcame gender constraints, and operated outside the boundaries placed on black women by society and the civil rights movement. In Constance Baker Motley: One Woman’s Fight for Civil Rights and Equal Justice under Law, Gary L. Ford Jr. explores the key role Motley played in the legal fight to desegregate public schools as well as colleges, universities, housing, transportation, lunch counters, museums, libraries, parks, and other public accommodations.
 
The only female attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Motley was also the only woman who argued desegregation cases in court during much of the civil rights movement. From 1946 through 1964, she was a key litigator and legal strategist for landmark civil rights cases including the Montgomery Bus Boycott and represented Martin Luther King Jr. as well as other protesters arrested and jailed as a result of their participation in sit-ins, marches, and freedom rides.
 
Motley was a leader who exhibited a leadership style that reflected her personality traits, skills, and strengths. She was a visionary who formed alliances and inspired local counsel to work with her to achieve the goals of the civil rights movement. As a leader and agent of change, she was committed to the cause of justice and she performed important work in the trenches in the South and behind the scene in courts that helped make the civil rights movement successful.

"Highly recommended."
—CHOICE

Demonstrating how emotion became central to the legal and literary meanings of piracy in nineteenth-century America

Pirates have long occupied a central yet unstable place in American law and national identity. In the decades leading up to and including the U.S. Civil War, the charge of piracy was leveled against an unusually wide range of figures: foreign heads of state, imperial filibusters, transoceanic enslavers, enslaved mutineers, radical abolitionists, and others who challenged established forms of authority. Early American literature reflects this instability, portraying pirates who vary dramatically in politics, race, gender, and allegiance. As Mark B. Kelley shows, these characters are united less by ideology than by their challenge to landed social norms and fixed national belonging. The pirate, in both law and literature, emerges as an individual defined by multiplicity rather than political coherence. 

Crimes Against Feeling examines how Americans made sense of this ambiguous figure by turning to emotion. Drawing on legal materials including treaties, trial transcripts, congressional debates, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as popular sentimental fiction (often written by women), Kelley argues that piracy was codified as an offense against moral feeling rather than being a singular political position. Legal thinkers and writers such as John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Catharine Maria Sedgwick, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Maria S. Cummins relied on shared affective frameworks—sympathy, sentiment, and domestic vulnerability—to render piracy legible and punishable. American pirate law, Kelley demonstrates, was shaped by the same emotional logics that structured the era’s popular fiction. 

By tracing piracy across debates over domestic sovereignty, global enslavement and abolition, imperial expansion, postbellum reparations, and international copyright, Crimes Against Feeling reveals the pirate as a key figure for understanding gender, home, family, and nation in early America. Reading law and literature together, the book shows how emotional judgment—not political consensus—became a foundational tool for managing oceanic violence and transnational disorder in the nineteenth-century United States.