<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>UCLA Law Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://uclalawreview.org</link>
	<description>UCLA Law Review</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:57:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Multijurisdictionality and Federalism: Assessing San Remo Hotel’s Effect on Regulatory Takings (Comment)</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=971</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=971#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issue 57:5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=971</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=971</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What We Talk About When We Talk About Gender</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=969</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=969#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:14:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issue 57:5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=969</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=969</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Raping Like A State</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=958</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=958#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:17:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issue 57:5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=958</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Dissident Citizen</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=956</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=956#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issue 57:5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=956</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=956</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sticky Intuitions and the Future of Sexual-Orientation Discrimination</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=954</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=954#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issue 57:5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=954</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Productive Sexual/Gender Variation and Anti-Normalization</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=952</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=952#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issue 57:5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=952</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=952</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawyering for Marriage Equality</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=950</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=950#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:13:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issue 57:5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=950</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Sex Discount: Liberty, Equality and Illicit Sex</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=948</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=948#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issue 57:5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=948</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Volume 57, Issue 5</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=946</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=946#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:11:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Forthcoming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=946</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sexuality and Gender Law: Assessing the Field, Envisioning the Future]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Sexuality and Gender Law: Assessing the Field, Envisioning the Future]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=946</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Revising the Revision: Procedural Alternatives to the Arbitration Fairness Act</title>
		<link>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=942</link>
		<comments>http://uclalawreview.org/?p=942#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:12:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Comments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issue 57:4]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volume 57]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uclalawreview.org/?p=942</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the past decade, debate on the fairness of pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate has intensified.  Recently, Congress has joined the chorus of opposition to these agreements and is attempting to outlaw them via the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act (AFA).  Both proponents and critics of the AFA, including certain members of Congress, take hard-line stances on the perceived ills or benefits of arbitration rather than trying to address some of its criticisms while simultaneously preserving some of its benefits.  The purpose of this Comment is twofold: first, it is a response to Congress’ rash and overbroad response to outlaw pre-dispute agreements; second, it is an attempt to salvage some of the benefits of pre-dispute agreements while ameliorating some of the critics’ concerns about its pitfalls.  This Comment proposes that businesses should shoulder the costs associated with arbitration and that an institutional middle-man should be involved in arbitral proceedings.  These proposals will help both balance the disproportionate influence of businesses in the proceedings and eliminate the potential for arbitrator bias with which critics and Congress take issue.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[In the past decade, debate on the fairness of pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate has intensified.  Recently, Congress has joined the chorus of opposition to these agreements and is attempting to outlaw them via the proposed Arbitration Fairness Act (AFA).  Both proponents and critics of the AFA, including certain members of Congress, take hard-line stances on the perceived ills or benefits of arbitration rather than trying to address some of its criticisms while simultaneously preserving some of its benefits.  The purpose of this Comment is twofold: first, it is a response to Congress’ rash and overbroad response to outlaw pre-dispute agreements; second, it is an attempt to salvage some of the benefits of pre-dispute agreements while ameliorating some of the critics’ concerns about its pitfalls.  This Comment proposes that businesses should shoulder the costs associated with arbitration and that an institutional middle-man should be involved in arbitral proceedings.  These proposals will help both balance the disproportionate influence of businesses in the proceedings and eliminate the potential for arbitrator bias with which critics and Congress take issue.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://uclalawreview.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=942</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
