Laws of war Part 10

REFORMING DIVORCE REFORM
Allen M. Parkman
Santa Clara Law Review
Volume 41, Number 2, 2001 p.379

This article discusses a reform of the no-fault divorce laws that were introduced as a reform of the existing American divorce laws between 1970 and 1985. For most of the history of the United States, it was difficult to dissolve a marriage because plaintiffs had to prove that their spouses had committed acts that constituted the fault grounds for divorce. These grounds usually consisted of adultery, desertion, or cruelty. Frustration with these fault grounds after World War II led to a reform movement that resulted in the fault grounds either being replaced by the no-fault grounds of irretrievable break-down or incompatibility or having the no-fault grounds added to them. The optimism associated with the shift in the grounds for divorce has been moderated by the eventual recognition of their subtle, but perverse repercussions. Initially, it was noted that many divorced women and their children were worse off due to the new legal environment. More recently, concerns about the effect of no-fault divorce on other members of society, especially members of intact families, have arisen because no-fault divorce creates incentives for many adults to focus more on their own self-interest and less on that of their family. In response to those concerns, this article presents a case for reforming the earlier divorce reforms, arguing that a combination of no-fault, mutual consent and fault grounds for divorce would improve the incentives that spouses face providing a substantial improvement for them and their children. Any new reforms, however, will only have a limited effect on the perverse incentives created by no-fault divorce because spouses frequently have little control over the grounds for divorce that will be applied to their marriage. Therefore, they have to be concerned about a no-fault divorce even though they were either married in or are living in a state in which divorce is more difficult. This occurs because marriage is treated as a status that accompanies either spouse so that the grounds for divorce are controlled by the domicile of either spouse at the time of a divorce rather than the state in which the couple was married or the one in which they may have lived during most of the marriage. For any new reforms to be effective, marriage must be treated as a contract rather than as a status. Subject to government regulations, especially to protect any children, treating marriage as a contract that includes the grounds for dissolution would base divorce on the agreement entered into at marriage rather than the domicile at dissolution. This agreement, like all contracts, would not change as either spouse moved from state to state or even abroad. The more predictable outcomes due to marriage being a contract would encourage spouses to focus more closely on the best interests of their family.

Teaching the Laws of war : Much Too Important to be Left to Military Academies?
Ivan Shearer
ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 7, Number 2, Spring 2001 p.441

NATO Air Campaign Against Serbia and the Laws of War
American Journal of International Law
Volume 94, Number 4, October 2000 p.690

Briefer Notices: Stein, 826; Reflections on Law and Armed Conflicts: The Selected Works on the Laws of War by The Late Professor Colonel G. I. A. D. Draper, OBE,
American Journal of International Law
Volume 94, Number 4, October 2000 p.827

Fated Boy: Billy Budd and the Laws of War
Edwin M. Yoder, Jr.
Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce
Volume 31, Number 4, October 2000 p.615

War Games Meets the Internet: Chasing 21st Century Cybercriminals With Old Laws and Little Money
Jonathan B. Wolf
American Journal of Criminal Law
Volume 28, Number 1, Fall 2000 p.95

The Laws of War on Land
George H. Aldrich
American Journal of International Law
Volume 94, Number 1, January 2000 p.42

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

Laws of war.