Write two essays each of which is about 2 pp. or 600 words and discusses an issue in a way that draws on two works from the second half of the course. The main works addressed by your essays should be different (making a total of at least 4), and these works (or the issues you consider) should not have been the main topic of your third paper.

You are free to design your own topics (and I encourage you to choose issues that interest you to write about), but I'll offer some suggestions below:

(1) As Gerald Dworkin notes, Mill was a utilitarian so one would expect his harm principle to have a utilitarian justification. Consider how it might be given one along the lines Rawls suggests for the utilitarian justification of rules and practices, and compare this to the alternative justification of the harm principle that Dworkin considers.

(2) Although Duff's focus is on criminal law, the two different forms of subjectivism he considers could be applied to the form of responsibility used in tort law. Consider the dispute between Posner and Coleman concerning the source of compensation-would choice and character theorists tend to take different sides?

(3) Take one of the issues concerning the legitimacy of advantage-taking that Kronman discusses and consider how a utilitarian might approach it (using either of the sorts of utilitarianism described by Rawls). Compare this to Kronman's "Paretian" approach to this issue.

(4) Treaties are the analogues of contracts in international law. What would a Paretian approach to advantage-taking in treaties be like? Which of the perspectives on international law outlined by Koskenniemi would be most sympathetic to such an approach?

(5) Discuss the way in which Mill's harm principle would fit into Hohfeld's scheme of legal relations. (Don't feel obliged to locate as just a single one of his eight relations; he himself considers legal ideas that involve relations of several sorts.)

(6) Hart's view of international law is one of those Koskenniemi has in mind in his critique although he has few explicit comments about it. Discuss the way in which you think Koskenniemi's critique might apply to Hart and the relative strength of their positions.

Although this has the format of an exam, you should think of it more as a pair of papers. In particular, I'll be happy to discuss your essays with you as you write them. Also, don't suppose I have right answers in mind for the questions asked above; my evaluation of your essays will be based on the strength of your explanations you offer for whatever answers you give.

As usual, I'll be happy to accept your essays either on paper or electronically. Since these may come in shortly before you are leaving campus, I would encourage you to check for confirmation that I have received yours. (I'll send that by e-mail even if you turn the essay in on paper.)