The Forms and Limits of Adjudication.¶
Fuller, L. L., & Winston, K. I. (1978). The Forms and Limits of Adjudication. Harvard Law Review, 92(2), 353-409.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Adjudication (Dispute Resolution)
- Adjudication and dispute resolution refers to the formal or semi-formal process by which a neutral third-party authority—such as a court, arbitrator, mediator, ombudsperson, regulator, or review panel—examines competing claims from two or more disputing parties and renders a binding decision, recommended outcome, or facilitated settlement, a structure Fuller (1978) characterized as the distinctive social ordering in which parties present proofs and reasoned arguments to a decider bound by them.
This sourceDefines adjudication as a distinctive mode of social ordering in which affected parties present proofs and reasoned arguments to a third-party decider whose judgment is constrained by them — directly supports the Core-Idea definition (D49-001).
- Adjudication and dispute resolution refers to the formal or semi-formal process by which a neutral third-party authority—such as a court, arbitrator, mediator, ombudsperson, regulator, or review panel—examines competing claims from two or more disputing parties and renders a binding decision, recommended outcome, or facilitated settlement, a structure Fuller (1978) characterized as the distinctive social ordering in which parties present proofs and reasoned arguments to a decider bound by them.
- Red Teaming In Strategy
- Red teaming is dual to the role of an advocate: just as adversarial legal systems install both prosecution and defence to expose what each alone would miss, red teaming installs an opponent within an institution whose default is consensus, and the same dual structure recurs in peer review, in notice-and-comment rule-making, and in legislative opposition; where the dual is missing — single-party planning, internal-only review — the structural prediction is that the failures the dual would have caught will land in production.
This sourceAnalyzes the adversary system as a dual structure installing opposed advocates so each exposes what the other would miss.
- Red teaming is dual to the role of an advocate: just as adversarial legal systems install both prosecution and defence to expose what each alone would miss, red teaming installs an opponent within an institution whose default is consensus, and the same dual structure recurs in peer review, in notice-and-comment rule-making, and in legislative opposition; where the dual is missing — single-party planning, internal-only review — the structural prediction is that the failures the dual would have caught will land in production.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:0c2a11f03e04 · see in the full table