Behavioral Law and Economics

• Schebesta, H. and Purnhagen, K. 2016,The Behaviour of the Average Consumer: A Little Less Normativity and a Little More Reality in the Court’s Case Law? Reflections on Teekanne, European Law Review, 22 (4).
• Sunstein, C.R. 2016. People prefer system 2 nudges (kind of), Duke Law Journal, 66(1): 121-168.

Benefit-Cost Analysis

• Masur, J.S. 2016. CBA at the PTO, Duke Law Journal, 65(8): 1701-1735.

Judicial review

• Bar-Siman-Tov, I. 2016, The dual meaning of evidence-based judicial review of legislation, The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Published online: 1-27.
• Benjamin, S.M. and A.K. Rai, 2016. Administrative power in the era of patent stare decisis, Duke Law Journal, 65(8): 1563-1599.
• Craig, P.P. 2016. Proportionality and Judicial Review: A UK Historical Perspective, ed. S. Vogenauer and S. Weatherill, Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 42/2016.
• Cruden, J. C. and M. R. Oakes, 2016. The Enduring Nature of the Chevron Doctrine, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 40(2): 189-209.
• Goldberg, R. C. 2016. Congress’ Chevron? Statutory Signposts as a Means of Clarifying Agency Deference, The Georgetown Law Journal Online, 104: 175-183.
• Golden, J.M. 2016. Working without Chevron: the PTO as prime mover, Duke Law Journal, 65(8): 1657-1699.
• Ismer, R. and Meßerschmidt, K. 2016, Evidence-based judicial review of legislation: some introductory remarks, The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Published online: 1-16.
• Ismer, R. and von Hesler, C. 2016, Ex post review of legislatorial prognoses by the European Court of Justice: the temporal dimension of rational law-making, The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Published online:  1-23 .
• Jacobs, S. B. 2016. Energy Deference, FERC v. EPSA Symposium essays, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 40: 40-57.
• Jordao, E. 2016. Le juge et l’administration. Entre le contrôle et la déférence,  Bruylant.
• Levin, R.M. 2016, Administrative Procedure And Judicial Restraint, Harvard Law Review, 129 (7): 338-349.
• Mantzari, D. 2016. Economic Evidence  in Regulatory Disputes: Revisiting the Court–Regulatory Agency Relationship  in the US and the UK, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 36(3): 565–594.
• Meßerschmidt, K. 2016, Evidence-based review of legislation in Germany, The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Published online: 1-27.
• Oliver-Lalana, A.D. 2016, On the (judicial) method to review the (legislative) method, The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Published online: 1-19.
• Popelier, P. and  De Jaegere, J. 2016, Evidence-based judicial review of legislation in divided states: the Belgian case The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Published online: 1-22.
• Renan, D. 2016. The Fourth Amendment as Administrative Governance, Stanford Law Review, 68 (5): 1039-1129.
• Roe, M. J 2016,The Trust Indenture Act of 1939 in Congress and the Courts in 2016: Bringing the SEC to the Table, Harvard Law Review, 129 (7): 360-377.

Regulatory agency

• Kovacic, W.E. and D.A. Hyman, 2016. Regulatory Leveraging: Problem or Solution?, George Mason Law Review, 23(5): 1163-1186.
• Sokol, D.D. and R. Comerford, 2016. Antitrust and Regulating Big Data, George Mason Law Review, 23(5): 1129-1161.
• Velikonja, U. 2016,  Securities Settlements in the Shadows, The Yale Law Journal, 126 (Forum Collection 124).

Regulatory Governance

• Coglianese, C. 2016. Administrative Law: The U.S. and Beyond, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Paper 1656.
• Král, R. 2016, On the Choice of Methods of Transposition of EU Directives, European Law Review, 22 (2).
• Petrin, M. 2016.  Regulatory Analysis in Corporate Law, The Modern Law Review, 79(4): 537–574.
• Wiseman, H. J. 2016. Disaggregating Preemption in Energy Law, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 40(2): 293-250.

Regulating innovation

• Ayres, I. and A. Kapczynski. 2015. Innovation Sticks: The Limited Case for Penalizing Failures to Innovate, The University of Chicago Law Review, 82(4): 1781-1852.
• Barry, J. M. and P.L. Caron. 2015. Tax Regulation, Transportation Innovation, and the Sharing Economy, University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 69-84.
• Cohen, M. and A. Sundararajan. 2015. Self-Regulation and Innovation in the Peer-to-Peer Sharing Economy, The University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 116-133.
• Epstein, R. A. 2015. The Political Economy of Crowdsourcing: Markets for Labor, Rewards, and Securities University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 35-52.
• Fisher, W.W. 2016. Regulating Innovation, The University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 251-267.
• Kaplan, R. A. and M.L. Nadler. 2015. Airbnb: A Case Study in Occupancy Regulation and Taxation, The University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 103-115.
• Kregor, B. 2015. Food Trucks, Incremental Innovation, and Regulatory Ruts, University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 1-15.
• Marian, O. 2015. A Conceptual Framework for the Regulation of Cryptocurrencies, University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 53-68.
• Rogers, B. 2015. The Social Costs of Uber, University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 85-102.
• Schindler, S. 2015. Regulating the Underground: Secret Supper Clubs, Pop-Up Restaurants, and the Role of Law, University of Chicago Law Review, 82: 16-34.

Disclosure

• Grzelak, A. 2016, Data Retention Saga Continues: Decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal of 30 July 2014 in Case K 23/11, European Public Law, 22 (3):  475–488.
• Jaffer, J. and Kaufman, B.M. 2016, A Resurgence of Secret Law, The Yale Law Journal, 126 (Forum Collection 232).
• Kwoka, M.B. 2016, Inside FOIA, Inc., The Yale Law Journal, 126 (Forum Collection 265).
• McCraw, D.E., The “Freedom From Information” Act: A Look Back at Nader, FOIA, and What Went Wrong, The Yale Law Journal, 126 (Forum Collection 232).
• Noveck B.S., Is Open Data the Death of FOIA?, The Yale Law Journal, 126 (Forum Collection 273).
• Pustay, M.A., Memorandums to Messages: The Evolution of FOIA in the Age of the Internet, The Yale Law Journal, 126 (Forum Collection 252).

(Articles selected by Paola Adami, Mariangela Benedetti and Barbara Neri)