Comparative Law News
JOURNAL: Law Crime and History (2013) vol.3 Issue 2
The latest issue of LCH is now live at
http://www.pbs.plymouth.ac.uk/solon/hjournal2013Vol3p2.html
Editorial
General Articles
Joseph S. Bonica, The Unmanly Fear: Extortion Before the Twentieth Century, 1-29
John Walliss, Representations of Justice Executed at Norwich Castle: A Comparative Analysis of Execution Reports in The Norfolk Chronicle and Bury and Norfolk Post, 1805-1867, 30-51 War Crimes Related Articles
Lorie Charlesworth, On the Dangerous Game of Collaborating with Nazis: An Historico-Socio-Legal Reconstruction of that Forgotten Past Located within Silence, Absence and [Dis]Connections between Law’s History and Critical Legal Scholarship, 52-81 McKay M. Smith, Forgotten Victims: A Socio-legal Analysis of Escape and Evasion Report No.866, 82-115 G. H. Bennett, The Limits of West German Justice in the 1960s: The Post-War Investigation of Walter Gieseke (Oberstleutnant of the Gendarmerie and SS), 116-139 Gregory Kent, Justice and Genocide in Bosnia: An Unbridgeable Gap Between Academe and Law? 140-161 Discussion Piece
Ian Marsh, The Media Representation of Prisons: Boot Camps or Holiday Camps, 162-172 Casenote Genevieve Lennon, Vagrancy Laws in the US and Irish Supreme Courts, 173-179 Thesis Summary Leah Bleakley, ‘Those Unfortunates’: Victorian Prostitution, Local Communities And The Law 1850-1890, 180-182 Book Reviews John Carter Wood, Judith Rowbotham, Marianna Muravyeva and David Nash, (eds,) Shame, Blame and Culpability: Crime and Violence in the Modern State, 183-186 Dean Wilson, Barry Godfrey and David J. Cox, Policing the Factory: Theft, Private Policing and the Law in Modern England, 187-189 Judith Rowbotham, Denis Grube, The Margins of Victorian Britain. Politics, Immorality and Britishness in the Nineteenth Century, London, 190-192 Tony Ward, John Carter Wood (2012) “The Most Remarkable Woman in England”: Poison, Celebrity and the Trials of Beatrice Pace, 193-194 Conference Report Jo Turner, First AHRC Network Event, Our Criminal Past: Digitisation, Social Media and Crime History, 17 May 2013, 195-198 Jo Turner, Second AHRC Network Event, Our Criminal Past: Educating Historians of Crime: Classroom, Archive, Community, 6 September 2013, 199-204 SOLON New Members: Roddy Nilsson, Linnæus University, Växjö and Gothenburg University, Sweden, 205
Joseph S. Bonica, The Unmanly Fear: Extortion Before the Twentieth Century, 1-29
John Walliss, Representations of Justice Executed at Norwich Castle: A Comparative Analysis of Execution Reports in The Norfolk Chronicle and Bury and Norfolk Post, 1805-1867, 30-51 War Crimes Related Articles
Lorie Charlesworth, On the Dangerous Game of Collaborating with Nazis: An Historico-Socio-Legal Reconstruction of that Forgotten Past Located within Silence, Absence and [Dis]Connections between Law’s History and Critical Legal Scholarship, 52-81 McKay M. Smith, Forgotten Victims: A Socio-legal Analysis of Escape and Evasion Report No.866, 82-115 G. H. Bennett, The Limits of West German Justice in the 1960s: The Post-War Investigation of Walter Gieseke (Oberstleutnant of the Gendarmerie and SS), 116-139 Gregory Kent, Justice and Genocide in Bosnia: An Unbridgeable Gap Between Academe and Law? 140-161 Discussion Piece
Ian Marsh, The Media Representation of Prisons: Boot Camps or Holiday Camps, 162-172 Casenote Genevieve Lennon, Vagrancy Laws in the US and Irish Supreme Courts, 173-179 Thesis Summary Leah Bleakley, ‘Those Unfortunates’: Victorian Prostitution, Local Communities And The Law 1850-1890, 180-182 Book Reviews John Carter Wood, Judith Rowbotham, Marianna Muravyeva and David Nash, (eds,) Shame, Blame and Culpability: Crime and Violence in the Modern State, 183-186 Dean Wilson, Barry Godfrey and David J. Cox, Policing the Factory: Theft, Private Policing and the Law in Modern England, 187-189 Judith Rowbotham, Denis Grube, The Margins of Victorian Britain. Politics, Immorality and Britishness in the Nineteenth Century, London, 190-192 Tony Ward, John Carter Wood (2012) “The Most Remarkable Woman in England”: Poison, Celebrity and the Trials of Beatrice Pace, 193-194 Conference Report Jo Turner, First AHRC Network Event, Our Criminal Past: Digitisation, Social Media and Crime History, 17 May 2013, 195-198 Jo Turner, Second AHRC Network Event, Our Criminal Past: Educating Historians of Crime: Classroom, Archive, Community, 6 September 2013, 199-204 SOLON New Members: Roddy Nilsson, Linnæus University, Växjö and Gothenburg University, Sweden, 205
Categories: Comparative Law News
OPINION: Fictions and Fecklessness (On the Proposed Abolition of the Upper House of Parliament in the Republic of Ireland)
NOTE: The following paper relates to the current debate in the Republic of Ireland about whether or not to abolish its upper house of parliament (the Seanad). I include it here both because I believe that it might be of interest to many of you and because the referendum occurs this Friday and I wanted to make the text available. This version is the latest of those I've delivered at public debates on the subject. My more extended treatment of the subject is available here and here. For more information on the referendum, see here. - SPD
FICTIONS AND FECKLESSNESS Dr Seán Patrick Donlan
I’m not a party political man, but I’m a democrat to the bone. The Seanad is an irredeemable institution and an insult to the principles of our republic. Its failings include:
The fact that the Seanad is also unnecessary and unfit for purpose is only more damning.
For a more egalitarian republic and a more direct democracy, the Seanad should be abolished so that we can turn to more important matters, not least real reform of the Dáil, our democratic chamber. But abolition is no mere sideshow and serious parliamentary reform is dependent on sorting out its place in our constitutional order.
In short, the Seanad’s flaws are too fundamental to be fixed. We might tinker with its vocationalism, elitism, or patronage, though few on the NO side are committed to even these modest changes. But the Seanad is also redundant and even anti-democratic. To meaningfully widen its electorate would duplicate the Dáil’s popular mandate. The result could be gridlock and conflict between the houses over which chamber actually represents the people. And broadening the Seanad’s brief can only occur at the expense of our democratic chamber. They’d hardly agree to this. Nor should they.
Along with a majority of the people, both Government and opposition parties support abolition: Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin, and the Socialist Party. Not surprisingly, Fianna Fáil, the coalition’s perennial opponent, opposes them. In fact, except for Senators desperate to save their cushy seats, only other ghosts of Governments past are allies (ie, the Green Party and the PDs). Indeed, it’s no coincidence that those most sceptical of a more direct democracy, and of the Dáil itself, are those most recently denied parliamentary power by the people. No wonder they don’t trust them.
And, to my deep disappointment, there are also well-meaning fellow progressives who want to hold onto the Seanad to advance their politics without the hard and messy work of real democracy. This odd alliance is at once patronising towards the people and cynical in their campaign and condescending towards the people and defeatist about our ability to govern without the minders of the Seanad. In short, they don’t trust us or our democratic representatives.
In the NO crowd’s campaign of misinformation, they’ve spared no effort in whipping up paranoia about abolition, madly dashing everywhere to shout that ‘the sky is falling, the sky is falling’.
I’m not suggesting that the YES side is snowy white. It isn’t. The cost and number of our parliamentarians, the public focus of the Government campaign, is irrelevant. Our citizens would pay for good government. The coalition ought to have done better and acted more honourably.
But even today, the NO side has made vulgar comparisons between our Government and communism and fascism, between our Taoiseach and Kim Jong-un or Mussolini. And ‘Democracy Matters’, the leading group on the NO side, whose name is worthy of the doublethink of George Orwell’s 1984, suggests that a people’s free vote on the content of their Constitution is the equivalent of trampling on that document. This isn’t to be taken seriously. The amendment won’t bring constitutional crisis or autocracy or asteroids or plague or the end of days. It’ll hardly be noticed.
For example, the Seanad has never been a check on anyone. It was never meant to be and it should not be. The President, the courts, and general elections are our constitutional checks against legislative power. Most constitutional changes related to the referendum are mere editing. The NO side’s scaremongering about Articles 27 and 29 is spurious.
Similarly, the belief that our whip system is too strong, and it is, has nothing to do with the Seanad. The whip is a political, not a constitutional, matter. Insofar as it can be changed, only Dáil reform is relevant. If anything, abolition will remove a Taoiseach’s power to reward cronies with cushy jobs in Senate seats. And there will be higher thresholds for impeachments of judges and the President. Those are real, practical checks on the Government.
And the Seanad is unnecessary. One house of parliament works well throughout the world for states like ours. With minor alterations, unicameralism provides the heightened scrutiny and deliberation in law-making that we desire. And it would do so with a single mandate from the people through our genuinely democratic general elections. There’d be no tug-of-war between chambers.
We have bicameralism because the British did and because the Seanad once provided a safe haven for southern unionists. Bicameralism is largely a holdover from a feudal past. It isn’t made for democracy and in a modern state like ours, it muddies the popular will, it doesn’t protect it. We have bicameralism only because we’ve always had it. Its roots are
Bicameralism can make sense where it’s used to represent distinct territorial units or cultural groups. But as a small, unitary republic, there’s no reason for it here.
But the biggest lie of the NO side is as much their self-deception as their con. Not only is reform not on the ballot, but there has never been, and there is not now, any consensus on reform. At least four different polls have confirmed this in the last month, including one today. Those supporting reform make up 29% of the population, only two points above the number of undecided in this referendum; a mere 36% of those intending to vote. And those numbers have to be divided between at least six reform schemes, the largest two of which are fundamentally contradictory.
And we should be very grateful because the NO side want to solve the real problems of our republic with gimmicks and fantasy, even though that’s how we bungled the creation of the Seanad back in the 1930s. This is exciting perhaps, but the stuff of daydream and, with respect, the thought questions of undergraduate exams. In addition, the best-known schemes of current Senators and their patrician allies, still perpetuate the fiction of vocationalism, the elitism of university set-asides, and political patronage. They’re barely reforms at all. There most novel in their attempt to give special representation for special interests, but this neo-vocationalism has succeeded nowhere.
Ironically, the most radical scheme is that of Fianna Fáil itself, though no one is talking about it. This is true because it’s unworkable and because it conflicts fundamentally with the pet schemes of their own allies. But it hardly matters. There’s no reform consensus and not a word of it will become law. And I say this with optimism, the realism of a democrat who wants a more egalitarian republic and a more direct democracy than any of the so-called reforms provide for.
In conclusion, the Seanad must be abolished. It’s elitist, undemocratic, and wholly unnecessary. It shouldn’t be tolerated in a republic.
But it’s important to remember that abolition takes effect after the next general election. Government reforms already proposed, on Dáil committees and gender quotas, have real practical, potential. But like others, I believe that more can and should be done. It’ll be in the interest of the coalition, in the aftermath of a YES result, to show itself to be serious about Dáil reform.
And there’s so much potential for this, rooted not in speculative schemes, but in established political science. I hope, in future, to work alongside those who are now my opponents in this debate, to ensure meaningful Dáil reform. To hold the coalition’s feet to the fire. And if this coalition, or future Governments of any political persuasion, fails to deliver, we can always dump them, as we did, belatedly perhaps, with the last Government. That’s as it should be. That’s the ‘terrible beauty’ of democracy.
Our republic doesn’t need Seanad minders, but a more active and engaged citizenry. We need a more direct, unicameral democracy—not buck-passing bicameralism—to pressure our public representatives to do our bidding. Oversight of our politicians is our responsibility as citizens. And, unlike the NO side, I have faith that the Irish people can do this.
Don’t be conned. A NO result is a vote for the status quo. Vote YES for real change, and then make it happen.
FICTIONS AND FECKLESSNESS Dr Seán Patrick Donlan
I’m not a party political man, but I’m a democrat to the bone. The Seanad is an irredeemable institution and an insult to the principles of our republic. Its failings include:
- Its thinly-disguised partisanship, under the fiction of vocationalism
- Its explicit elitism, including special representation for specific classes
- Its political cronyism, the power it provides for political patronage
- Its distant, attenuated democracy; this referendum is more genuinely democratic than any Seanad election
The fact that the Seanad is also unnecessary and unfit for purpose is only more damning.
For a more egalitarian republic and a more direct democracy, the Seanad should be abolished so that we can turn to more important matters, not least real reform of the Dáil, our democratic chamber. But abolition is no mere sideshow and serious parliamentary reform is dependent on sorting out its place in our constitutional order.
In short, the Seanad’s flaws are too fundamental to be fixed. We might tinker with its vocationalism, elitism, or patronage, though few on the NO side are committed to even these modest changes. But the Seanad is also redundant and even anti-democratic. To meaningfully widen its electorate would duplicate the Dáil’s popular mandate. The result could be gridlock and conflict between the houses over which chamber actually represents the people. And broadening the Seanad’s brief can only occur at the expense of our democratic chamber. They’d hardly agree to this. Nor should they.
Along with a majority of the people, both Government and opposition parties support abolition: Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin, and the Socialist Party. Not surprisingly, Fianna Fáil, the coalition’s perennial opponent, opposes them. In fact, except for Senators desperate to save their cushy seats, only other ghosts of Governments past are allies (ie, the Green Party and the PDs). Indeed, it’s no coincidence that those most sceptical of a more direct democracy, and of the Dáil itself, are those most recently denied parliamentary power by the people. No wonder they don’t trust them.
And, to my deep disappointment, there are also well-meaning fellow progressives who want to hold onto the Seanad to advance their politics without the hard and messy work of real democracy. This odd alliance is at once patronising towards the people and cynical in their campaign and condescending towards the people and defeatist about our ability to govern without the minders of the Seanad. In short, they don’t trust us or our democratic representatives.
In the NO crowd’s campaign of misinformation, they’ve spared no effort in whipping up paranoia about abolition, madly dashing everywhere to shout that ‘the sky is falling, the sky is falling’.
I’m not suggesting that the YES side is snowy white. It isn’t. The cost and number of our parliamentarians, the public focus of the Government campaign, is irrelevant. Our citizens would pay for good government. The coalition ought to have done better and acted more honourably.
But even today, the NO side has made vulgar comparisons between our Government and communism and fascism, between our Taoiseach and Kim Jong-un or Mussolini. And ‘Democracy Matters’, the leading group on the NO side, whose name is worthy of the doublethink of George Orwell’s 1984, suggests that a people’s free vote on the content of their Constitution is the equivalent of trampling on that document. This isn’t to be taken seriously. The amendment won’t bring constitutional crisis or autocracy or asteroids or plague or the end of days. It’ll hardly be noticed.
For example, the Seanad has never been a check on anyone. It was never meant to be and it should not be. The President, the courts, and general elections are our constitutional checks against legislative power. Most constitutional changes related to the referendum are mere editing. The NO side’s scaremongering about Articles 27 and 29 is spurious.
Similarly, the belief that our whip system is too strong, and it is, has nothing to do with the Seanad. The whip is a political, not a constitutional, matter. Insofar as it can be changed, only Dáil reform is relevant. If anything, abolition will remove a Taoiseach’s power to reward cronies with cushy jobs in Senate seats. And there will be higher thresholds for impeachments of judges and the President. Those are real, practical checks on the Government.
And the Seanad is unnecessary. One house of parliament works well throughout the world for states like ours. With minor alterations, unicameralism provides the heightened scrutiny and deliberation in law-making that we desire. And it would do so with a single mandate from the people through our genuinely democratic general elections. There’d be no tug-of-war between chambers.
We have bicameralism because the British did and because the Seanad once provided a safe haven for southern unionists. Bicameralism is largely a holdover from a feudal past. It isn’t made for democracy and in a modern state like ours, it muddies the popular will, it doesn’t protect it. We have bicameralism only because we’ve always had it. Its roots are
- pre-modern aristocracies and elitism,
- colonial copying around the world,
- inertia and fear of change, and, as here,
- ‘jobs for the boys’
Bicameralism can make sense where it’s used to represent distinct territorial units or cultural groups. But as a small, unitary republic, there’s no reason for it here.
But the biggest lie of the NO side is as much their self-deception as their con. Not only is reform not on the ballot, but there has never been, and there is not now, any consensus on reform. At least four different polls have confirmed this in the last month, including one today. Those supporting reform make up 29% of the population, only two points above the number of undecided in this referendum; a mere 36% of those intending to vote. And those numbers have to be divided between at least six reform schemes, the largest two of which are fundamentally contradictory.
And we should be very grateful because the NO side want to solve the real problems of our republic with gimmicks and fantasy, even though that’s how we bungled the creation of the Seanad back in the 1930s. This is exciting perhaps, but the stuff of daydream and, with respect, the thought questions of undergraduate exams. In addition, the best-known schemes of current Senators and their patrician allies, still perpetuate the fiction of vocationalism, the elitism of university set-asides, and political patronage. They’re barely reforms at all. There most novel in their attempt to give special representation for special interests, but this neo-vocationalism has succeeded nowhere.
Ironically, the most radical scheme is that of Fianna Fáil itself, though no one is talking about it. This is true because it’s unworkable and because it conflicts fundamentally with the pet schemes of their own allies. But it hardly matters. There’s no reform consensus and not a word of it will become law. And I say this with optimism, the realism of a democrat who wants a more egalitarian republic and a more direct democracy than any of the so-called reforms provide for.
In conclusion, the Seanad must be abolished. It’s elitist, undemocratic, and wholly unnecessary. It shouldn’t be tolerated in a republic.
But it’s important to remember that abolition takes effect after the next general election. Government reforms already proposed, on Dáil committees and gender quotas, have real practical, potential. But like others, I believe that more can and should be done. It’ll be in the interest of the coalition, in the aftermath of a YES result, to show itself to be serious about Dáil reform.
And there’s so much potential for this, rooted not in speculative schemes, but in established political science. I hope, in future, to work alongside those who are now my opponents in this debate, to ensure meaningful Dáil reform. To hold the coalition’s feet to the fire. And if this coalition, or future Governments of any political persuasion, fails to deliver, we can always dump them, as we did, belatedly perhaps, with the last Government. That’s as it should be. That’s the ‘terrible beauty’ of democracy.
Our republic doesn’t need Seanad minders, but a more active and engaged citizenry. We need a more direct, unicameral democracy—not buck-passing bicameralism—to pressure our public representatives to do our bidding. Oversight of our politicians is our responsibility as citizens. And, unlike the NO side, I have faith that the Irish people can do this.
Don’t be conned. A NO result is a vote for the status quo. Vote YES for real change, and then make it happen.
Categories: Comparative Law News
CONFERENCE: The Centenary of the Societé d'Histoire du Droit (Paris, October 19, 2013)
What: CENTENAIRE DE LA SOCIETE D'HISTOIRE DU DROIT Where: Amphi 4, Université Panthéon-Assas, 12 Place du Panthéon, Paris When: October 19, 2013
For more information click HERE.
Program:
10h-12h30 : Accueil de M. Guillaume LEYTE, Président de l’Université Panthéon-Assas Assemblée générale de la Société, rapport de la Présidente. Antonio PADOA-SCHIOPPA, Anne LEFEBVRE-TEILLARD, Jean-Marie CARBASSE et Olivier GUILLOT, La Société d'Histoire du Droit : rétrospective et perspectives.
14h30-17h30 :
Gian Savino PENE VIDARI, Professeur à l’Université de Turin : Les professions juridiques (avocat-notaire-juge) en Italiependant le dernier siècle.
Laurens WINKEL, Professeur à l’Université de Rotterdam : Deux conceptions du droit naturel dans l'Antiquité.
Michaël RAINER, Professeur à l’Université de Salzbourg : L'aube des codifications en Europe.
José Javier de LOS MOZOS TOUYA, Professeur à l’Université de Valladolid: L’influence de l’École historique dans la codification du droit civil espagnol au dix-neuvième siècle.
Categories: Comparative Law News
CALL FOR PAPERS: International Conference on Police and Justice (Geneva, November 20-22, 2014)
What: Police et justice: le nœud gordien. Du temps des Lumières à l’État libéral (1750-1850)
Where: University of Geneva
When: November 20-22, 2014
Deadline: March 14, 2014
Organization Committee: Marco CICCHINI (Université de Genève), Vincent DENIS (Paris-I Sorbonne), Vincent MILLOT (Université de Caen), Michel PORRET (Université de Genève)
A title and an abstract of about 1000 characters should be submitted within March 14, 2014 to the following email address: marco.cicchini@unige.ch
All information HERE.
Deadline: March 14, 2014
Organization Committee: Marco CICCHINI (Université de Genève), Vincent DENIS (Paris-I Sorbonne), Vincent MILLOT (Université de Caen), Michel PORRET (Université de Genève)
A title and an abstract of about 1000 characters should be submitted within March 14, 2014 to the following email address: marco.cicchini@unige.ch
All information HERE.
Categories: Comparative Law News
CALL FOR PAPERS: SHAFR 2014 Annual Conference (Lexington, June 19-21 2014)
What: The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) 2014 Annual Conference
Where: Hyatt Regency Lexington - Lexington, Kentucky
When: June 19-21 2014
Deadline: December 1, 2013
The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) invites proposals for panels and individual papers at its 2014 Annual Conference, to be held June 19-21 at the Hyatt Regency Lexington in Lexington, Kentucky. Proposals must be submitted via the on-line interface by December 1, 2013 in order to be considered. SHAFR is dedicated to the scholarly study of the history of the U.S. in the world. This includes diplomacy, statecraft, and strategy, but it also includes other approaches pertaining to America's relations with the widerworld, including (but not limited to) global governance, transnational movements, religion, human rights, race, gender, trade and economics, immigration, borderlands, the environment, and empire. SHAFR welcomes those who study any time period of American foreign relations, from the colonial era to the present. The 2014 meeting in Lexington, Kentucky, will feature a plenary session on Thursday evening, titled "The Fall of the Wall: A 25th Anniversary Reassessment," featuring Jeffrey Engel (Southern Methodist University), Melvyn Leffler (University of Virginia), Mary Sarotte (University of Southern California), Tom Zeiler (University of Colorado), and Philip D. Zelikow (University of Virginia). The keynote address at the Saturday luncheon will be delivered by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, National Editor of The Washington Post and author of Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone and Little America: The War within the War for Afghanistan.
SHAFR is committed to holding as inclusive and diverse a conference as possible, and we encourage proposals from international scholars, women and minorities, and scholars from other disciplines (such as political science,anthropology, or American studies) or other subfields of history. Applicants are strongly encouraged to apply as part of a panel rather than as an individual. A complete panel usually involves either three papers plus chair and commentator (with the possibility of one person fulfilling the latter two roles) or a roundtable discussion with a chair and three to five participants. The Committee is open to alternative formats, which should be described briefly in the proposal. Each participant can only serve once in each capacity. For example, you can only serve once as a chair, once as a commentator, and once as a panelist. Since proposals for complete panels with a coherent theme will be favored over individual paper proposals, those seeking to create or fill out a panel should consult the "panelists seeking panelists" link on the SHAFR 2014 Annual Meeting web page or tweet #SHAFR2014. Graduate students, international scholars, and those participants who expand the diversity of SHAFR are eligible to apply for fellowships to subsidize the cost of attending the conference. Please visit the Conference Online Application Gateway for details and the online application form.
The application deadline for these fellowships is December 1, 2013.
CONTACTS: All proposals and funding applications should be submitted via the Conference Online Application Gateway at http://www.shafr.org/2014Conference.
Applicants requiring alternative means to submit the proposal should contact the program co-chairs via email at program-chair@shafr.org.
To help better prepare our graduate student membership for the job market, SHAFR will host a hands-on job search workshop during the 2014 conference. Students will have the opportunity to receive individualized feedback on their cover letters and cvs. Anyone submitting a paper or panel proposal for the conference will have the opportunity to indicate their interest in the Job Workshop by checking a box on the online submission form. However, you do not have to be a panelist to participate in the Workshop. The Job Workshop is open to all current graduate students and newly minted Ph.D.s. Priority will be given to first-time participants. For more details about the conference hotel, the panelists seeking panelists forum, travel funding opportunities, and the Job Workshop, please visit the conference website at http://www.shafr.org/conferences/annual/2014-annual-meeting/.
SHAFR 2014 Program Committee Andrew Preston and Sarah B. Snyder, co-chairs
Deadline: December 1, 2013
The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) invites proposals for panels and individual papers at its 2014 Annual Conference, to be held June 19-21 at the Hyatt Regency Lexington in Lexington, Kentucky. Proposals must be submitted via the on-line interface by December 1, 2013 in order to be considered. SHAFR is dedicated to the scholarly study of the history of the U.S. in the world. This includes diplomacy, statecraft, and strategy, but it also includes other approaches pertaining to America's relations with the widerworld, including (but not limited to) global governance, transnational movements, religion, human rights, race, gender, trade and economics, immigration, borderlands, the environment, and empire. SHAFR welcomes those who study any time period of American foreign relations, from the colonial era to the present. The 2014 meeting in Lexington, Kentucky, will feature a plenary session on Thursday evening, titled "The Fall of the Wall: A 25th Anniversary Reassessment," featuring Jeffrey Engel (Southern Methodist University), Melvyn Leffler (University of Virginia), Mary Sarotte (University of Southern California), Tom Zeiler (University of Colorado), and Philip D. Zelikow (University of Virginia). The keynote address at the Saturday luncheon will be delivered by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, National Editor of The Washington Post and author of Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone and Little America: The War within the War for Afghanistan.
SHAFR is committed to holding as inclusive and diverse a conference as possible, and we encourage proposals from international scholars, women and minorities, and scholars from other disciplines (such as political science,anthropology, or American studies) or other subfields of history. Applicants are strongly encouraged to apply as part of a panel rather than as an individual. A complete panel usually involves either three papers plus chair and commentator (with the possibility of one person fulfilling the latter two roles) or a roundtable discussion with a chair and three to five participants. The Committee is open to alternative formats, which should be described briefly in the proposal. Each participant can only serve once in each capacity. For example, you can only serve once as a chair, once as a commentator, and once as a panelist. Since proposals for complete panels with a coherent theme will be favored over individual paper proposals, those seeking to create or fill out a panel should consult the "panelists seeking panelists" link on the SHAFR 2014 Annual Meeting web page or tweet #SHAFR2014. Graduate students, international scholars, and those participants who expand the diversity of SHAFR are eligible to apply for fellowships to subsidize the cost of attending the conference. Please visit the Conference Online Application Gateway for details and the online application form.
The application deadline for these fellowships is December 1, 2013.
CONTACTS: All proposals and funding applications should be submitted via the Conference Online Application Gateway at http://www.shafr.org/2014Conference.
Applicants requiring alternative means to submit the proposal should contact the program co-chairs via email at program-chair@shafr.org.
To help better prepare our graduate student membership for the job market, SHAFR will host a hands-on job search workshop during the 2014 conference. Students will have the opportunity to receive individualized feedback on their cover letters and cvs. Anyone submitting a paper or panel proposal for the conference will have the opportunity to indicate their interest in the Job Workshop by checking a box on the online submission form. However, you do not have to be a panelist to participate in the Workshop. The Job Workshop is open to all current graduate students and newly minted Ph.D.s. Priority will be given to first-time participants. For more details about the conference hotel, the panelists seeking panelists forum, travel funding opportunities, and the Job Workshop, please visit the conference website at http://www.shafr.org/conferences/annual/2014-annual-meeting/.
SHAFR 2014 Program Committee Andrew Preston and Sarah B. Snyder, co-chairs
Categories: Comparative Law News
VACANCY: Postdoctoral researcher in International and European Sports Law
The T.M.C.Asser Institute is looking to appoint a full-time (38 hours per week) postdoctoral researcher in international and European Sports Law to join its dynamic and multinational research team.
The successful candidate will :
- conduct fundamental and applied, comparative research in the area of international and European sports law at an advanced level, leading to high-level academic publications and high quality advice/opinions for a multitude of clients;
- acquire and carry out externally financed research and academic service projects and participate in coordinating tasks in the management of projects;
- be expected, where possible and appropriate, to give presentations on your specific subject field;
- help organize dissemination activities such as trainings, workshops and conferences;
- maintain and further develop an international network of experts and stakeholders.
Requirements:
- you have recently completed your Ph.D. in an area of law relevant to sport;
- you have a good knowledge of EU law;
- you have a broad general knowledge of European and international sports law. Prior professional expertise in this specialist area, as can be demonstrated by publications and/or experience in legal practice, is desirable. It is more important, however, that you can demonstrate great potential and commitment to pursue a research career in the area of International and European sports law;
- you have an established record of research, publications, and acquisition of external funding for research and dissemination projects;
- you have experience in participating in collaborative research projects and are open to carry out inter-disciplinary research;
- you are an ambitious and motivated scholar with an international profile and an extensive professional network;
- you have excellent writing and presentation skills for promoting and reporting on research;
- you have an excellent command of English, both written and spoken. Knowledge of Dutch and other languages is an asset;
- you are flexible, proactive, and able to work both independently and as a strong team-player;
- you are capable of performing well under the stress of strict deadlines.
Applications should comprise a letter of motivation, curriculum vitae in EUROPAS format, a list of publications and the contact details of two referees. Applications must be sent in English, in MS-Word format to HRM@asser.nl before 16 October 2013.
Categories: Comparative Law News
CALL FOR PAPERS: Asian Journal of Law and Society
Cambridge University Press and KoGuan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University will be publishing the Asian Journal of Law and Society (AsianJLS).
This independent, peer-reviewed publication encourages empirical and multi-disciplinary research and welcomes articles on law and its relationship with society in Asia. AsianJLS will publish articles bringing an Asian perspective to socio-legal issues of global concern, and articles using Asia as a starting point for a comparative exploration of law and society topics.
Find out how to submit your paper to AsianJLS here.
This opportunity is forum for Asian and Western scholars to exchange ideas of interest to Asian scholars and professionals, those working in or on Asia, as well as all working on law and society issues globally.
Registration for free content alerts here.
This independent, peer-reviewed publication encourages empirical and multi-disciplinary research and welcomes articles on law and its relationship with society in Asia. AsianJLS will publish articles bringing an Asian perspective to socio-legal issues of global concern, and articles using Asia as a starting point for a comparative exploration of law and society topics.
Find out how to submit your paper to AsianJLS here.
This opportunity is forum for Asian and Western scholars to exchange ideas of interest to Asian scholars and professionals, those working in or on Asia, as well as all working on law and society issues globally.
Registration for free content alerts here.
Categories: Comparative Law News
ARTICLES: ISLAMIC LAW & LAW OF THE MUSLIM WORLD eJOURNAL
Articles: Islamic Law & Law of the Muslim World eJournal
The following articles from Islamic Law & Law of the Muslim World eJournal(2013), have been published on SSRN:
Islam and the Politics of Secularism in Europe
By Peter O'Brien
Modern secularism, as theorized by prominent liberal philosophers such as John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, prescribes that the state should treat all religions equally on condition that they and their adherents relinquish their theocratic aspirations and recognize the political sovereignty and superiority of man-made law. Convinced that the secular bargain undermines the moral virtue of society and its members, a small, fragmented, but nevertheless conspicuous number of Islamists in Europe prefers to observe Islamic law in all walks of life, private and public. Alarmed by Islamists and informed by Orientalist readings of Islam, an increasingly vehement and vociferous contingent of Islamophobes avers that Islam is inherently incompatible with democracy and urges European governments to treat neither Islam nor Muslims equally, but rather suspiciously as real or potential threats to the wellbeing of European societies. In contrast, advocates of Euro-Islam insist that Islam can be reformed, like Christianity, to meet the requirements of modern secularism. This paper contends that elements of all three of these vying positions have found their way into policymaking targeting Muslims in several European lands. The resulting inconsistency and contradiction – what I call policy “messiness” – corroborate the process of “mutual fragilization” theorized by Charles Taylor in which actors facing radical value pluralism develop solicitude regarding their own principles as well as greater tolerance for ambivalence. The latter, in particular, creates what Homi Bhabha terms a “third space” from which actors confronting cultural pluralism can freely and constructively explore cross-fertilizations and hybrid combinations with the potential to yield yet unimagined approaches and solutions to the problems of “super-diversity.” Just such creative hybridity does the paper identify among a younger generation of European Muslims whom many observers dub “post-Islamists.”
Governance Feminism's Imperial Misadventure: Progress, International Law, and the Security of Afghan Women
By: Cyra Akila Choudhury
After the September 11, 2001 attacks and the subsequent U.S. engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, the question of how to 'help' Muslim women progress towards greater liberty and rights has become a near obsession. A multitude of voices joined the throng of 'experts' on Islam, including conservative Islam-o-phobes, liberal feminists, and elite, western-trained Muslim women themselves relying on their identities to provide credibility to their claims. The plight of Muslim women as victims of their religion and their hyper-patriarchal menfolk has become such common knowledge that it can barely be refuted. There are many obvious reasons as to why Americans have become so intimately familiar with the orientalist stereotypes, the burka and Islamic punishments. They are the most compelling marks of barbarity that have been used to advance a number of different agendas from women’s rights to armed intervention. Liberal feminists in legal academia and practice, particularly governance feminists, have not been silent in this discussion nor have they necessarily drawn a nuanced picture about the situation of women in the War on Terror. In Afghanistan, the construction of women as abject victims has yielded positive results in both garnering international funding and foreign policy response. It seems entirely obvious that 'women’s rights' have to be improved in Afghanistan and that Afghan women have to be helped. However, some of the approaches that have been taken in 'solving' the Afghan women’s problem are troubling for many reasons.
In this chapter, I examine two of these: First, from a theoretical perspective many liberal feminists consider religion and culture as obstacles to achieving women’s equality and rights. They fail to account for the alternative views of flourishing forwarded by many Muslim women who stray from the Liberal script and for whom rights and 'equality' may not be a priority. I explore the linkages between Liberalism’s troubled history with universalism, rights, and progress with Governance Feminism that also shares this history and a desire to use state power to effectuate change. Second, I examine the problems that result from this theoretical position: the reliance on victim subjects that have resulted in fractured transnational alliances and Governance Feminism’s support for international intervention that ignores the victimization of men and its effects on women’s security.
The following articles from Islamic Law & Law of the Muslim World eJournal(2013), have been published on SSRN:
Islam and the Politics of Secularism in Europe
By Peter O'Brien
Modern secularism, as theorized by prominent liberal philosophers such as John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, prescribes that the state should treat all religions equally on condition that they and their adherents relinquish their theocratic aspirations and recognize the political sovereignty and superiority of man-made law. Convinced that the secular bargain undermines the moral virtue of society and its members, a small, fragmented, but nevertheless conspicuous number of Islamists in Europe prefers to observe Islamic law in all walks of life, private and public. Alarmed by Islamists and informed by Orientalist readings of Islam, an increasingly vehement and vociferous contingent of Islamophobes avers that Islam is inherently incompatible with democracy and urges European governments to treat neither Islam nor Muslims equally, but rather suspiciously as real or potential threats to the wellbeing of European societies. In contrast, advocates of Euro-Islam insist that Islam can be reformed, like Christianity, to meet the requirements of modern secularism. This paper contends that elements of all three of these vying positions have found their way into policymaking targeting Muslims in several European lands. The resulting inconsistency and contradiction – what I call policy “messiness” – corroborate the process of “mutual fragilization” theorized by Charles Taylor in which actors facing radical value pluralism develop solicitude regarding their own principles as well as greater tolerance for ambivalence. The latter, in particular, creates what Homi Bhabha terms a “third space” from which actors confronting cultural pluralism can freely and constructively explore cross-fertilizations and hybrid combinations with the potential to yield yet unimagined approaches and solutions to the problems of “super-diversity.” Just such creative hybridity does the paper identify among a younger generation of European Muslims whom many observers dub “post-Islamists.”
Governance Feminism's Imperial Misadventure: Progress, International Law, and the Security of Afghan Women
By: Cyra Akila Choudhury
After the September 11, 2001 attacks and the subsequent U.S. engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, the question of how to 'help' Muslim women progress towards greater liberty and rights has become a near obsession. A multitude of voices joined the throng of 'experts' on Islam, including conservative Islam-o-phobes, liberal feminists, and elite, western-trained Muslim women themselves relying on their identities to provide credibility to their claims. The plight of Muslim women as victims of their religion and their hyper-patriarchal menfolk has become such common knowledge that it can barely be refuted. There are many obvious reasons as to why Americans have become so intimately familiar with the orientalist stereotypes, the burka and Islamic punishments. They are the most compelling marks of barbarity that have been used to advance a number of different agendas from women’s rights to armed intervention. Liberal feminists in legal academia and practice, particularly governance feminists, have not been silent in this discussion nor have they necessarily drawn a nuanced picture about the situation of women in the War on Terror. In Afghanistan, the construction of women as abject victims has yielded positive results in both garnering international funding and foreign policy response. It seems entirely obvious that 'women’s rights' have to be improved in Afghanistan and that Afghan women have to be helped. However, some of the approaches that have been taken in 'solving' the Afghan women’s problem are troubling for many reasons.
In this chapter, I examine two of these: First, from a theoretical perspective many liberal feminists consider religion and culture as obstacles to achieving women’s equality and rights. They fail to account for the alternative views of flourishing forwarded by many Muslim women who stray from the Liberal script and for whom rights and 'equality' may not be a priority. I explore the linkages between Liberalism’s troubled history with universalism, rights, and progress with Governance Feminism that also shares this history and a desire to use state power to effectuate change. Second, I examine the problems that result from this theoretical position: the reliance on victim subjects that have resulted in fractured transnational alliances and Governance Feminism’s support for international intervention that ignores the victimization of men and its effects on women’s security.
Categories: Comparative Law News
EXPERT NEEDED: ABA-CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
EXPERT NEEDED: ABA-Center for Human Rights
The ABA-UNDP International Legal Resource Center (ILRC) has received a request from the ABA Center for Human Rights.
The Center is convening a group of Indian attorneys working on cases concerning atrocities committed against members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (“SC/ST communities”). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss litigation strategies and share best practices concerning the investigation and prosecution of atrocities.
The Center is seeking international experts in the investigation and prosecution of atrocities to participate in the meeting. The Center hopes the selected attorneys will be a resource for the Indian attorneys, who might have other questions that come up during a case, and could help advise or provide their expertise and to as mentors to Indian attorneys working on related cases. The meeting will be held over two days in early November or December in New Delhi, India. The Center will pay all expenses related to attending the meeting, but will not provide remuneration.
Training/Workshop:
- Present at workshop in New Delhi, India on issues of prosecuting hate crimes, effective investigations, or role of victim’s rights attorneys (depending on expertise)
- Workshop is likely to be at the end of October (2-day workshop)
- Experts are expected to participate on a pro bono basis
- The Center will cover all costs associated to travel
Interested experts should have the following background:
- Former prosecutor of hate crimes/atrocities (OR) victim’s rights attorney
- Background in prosecuting hate crimes in communities that are very hostile or discriminatory (i.e. witness intimidation, victim forced to recant incident, etc.), with little political will, and lack of strong investigations by police
- Previous related experience is an asset
- Previous experience India and knowledge of the context of the human rights and political landscape
- Strong interpersonal skills in a multi-cultural environment with sensitivity and respect for diversity
- Excellent presentation, communication, analytical, and writing skills
- Ability to speak and present in English
The application deadline is Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 5pm (EDT). Application materials must include a CV and a detailed cover letter. Please note that this is NOT a paid opportunity.
Completed applications must be sent to Jacqueline.Gichinga@americanbar.org.
The ABA-UNDP International Legal Resource Center (ILRC) has received a request from the ABA Center for Human Rights.
The Center is convening a group of Indian attorneys working on cases concerning atrocities committed against members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (“SC/ST communities”). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss litigation strategies and share best practices concerning the investigation and prosecution of atrocities.
The Center is seeking international experts in the investigation and prosecution of atrocities to participate in the meeting. The Center hopes the selected attorneys will be a resource for the Indian attorneys, who might have other questions that come up during a case, and could help advise or provide their expertise and to as mentors to Indian attorneys working on related cases. The meeting will be held over two days in early November or December in New Delhi, India. The Center will pay all expenses related to attending the meeting, but will not provide remuneration.
Training/Workshop:
- Present at workshop in New Delhi, India on issues of prosecuting hate crimes, effective investigations, or role of victim’s rights attorneys (depending on expertise)
- Workshop is likely to be at the end of October (2-day workshop)
- Experts are expected to participate on a pro bono basis
- The Center will cover all costs associated to travel
Interested experts should have the following background:
- Former prosecutor of hate crimes/atrocities (OR) victim’s rights attorney
- Background in prosecuting hate crimes in communities that are very hostile or discriminatory (i.e. witness intimidation, victim forced to recant incident, etc.), with little political will, and lack of strong investigations by police
- Previous related experience is an asset
- Previous experience India and knowledge of the context of the human rights and political landscape
- Strong interpersonal skills in a multi-cultural environment with sensitivity and respect for diversity
- Excellent presentation, communication, analytical, and writing skills
- Ability to speak and present in English
The application deadline is Friday, September 27th, 2013 at 5pm (EDT). Application materials must include a CV and a detailed cover letter. Please note that this is NOT a paid opportunity.
Completed applications must be sent to Jacqueline.Gichinga@americanbar.org.
Categories: Comparative Law News
MEETING AND CALL FOR PROPOSALS: Annual Law and Society Association Meeting and Call for Proposals
MEETING AND CALL FOR PROPOSALS: Annual Law and Society Association Meeting and Call for Proposals
The Law and Society Association has announced an annual meeting and a call for proposals.
Law and Inequalities: Global and Local
Recent decades have seen the persistence and growth of powerful inequalities within and between groups and within and among nations. The 2014 program theme returns to a question central to the Association’s founding: the role of law and legal institutions in sustaining, creating, interrogating, and ameliorating inequalities. The 2014 Program invites participants to explore and consider three questions: · How can Law and Society scholarship contribute to unearthing and understanding inequalities?
· How can Law and Society scholarship contribute to the critical interrogation of discourses of equality and inequality and help to reveal what is at stake in these concepts?
· What impact can we expect these scholarly contributions to have on the persistence of these inequalities and on public discourse about them?
Call for Proposals
The Program Committee invites proposals that engage with the program theme and other topics in law and society research. Proposals for individual papers or fully formed panels will be considered. As with every Annual Meeting, panels need not be centered on the conference theme. Submissions on any law and society topic are welcome. For more information about the Annual Meeting and Proposal Submission Instructions, please visit http ://www . lawandsociety . org/minneapolis2014/Minneapolis2014 . html
Law and Inequalities: Global and Local
Recent decades have seen the persistence and growth of powerful inequalities within and between groups and within and among nations. The 2014 program theme returns to a question central to the Association’s founding: the role of law and legal institutions in sustaining, creating, interrogating, and ameliorating inequalities. The 2014 Program invites participants to explore and consider three questions: · How can Law and Society scholarship contribute to unearthing and understanding inequalities?
· How can Law and Society scholarship contribute to the critical interrogation of discourses of equality and inequality and help to reveal what is at stake in these concepts?
· What impact can we expect these scholarly contributions to have on the persistence of these inequalities and on public discourse about them?
Call for Proposals
The Program Committee invites proposals that engage with the program theme and other topics in law and society research. Proposals for individual papers or fully formed panels will be considered. As with every Annual Meeting, panels need not be centered on the conference theme. Submissions on any law and society topic are welcome. For more information about the Annual Meeting and Proposal Submission Instructions, please visit http ://www . lawandsociety . org/minneapolis2014/Minneapolis2014 . html
Categories: Comparative Law News
JOURNAL: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, volume 20, no.2 - 2013
The Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law is a peer reviewed quarterly that focuses on
the ius commune Europaeum. It carries in-depth analyses of EU and international law, reports on recent legal
developments of interest in European countries, case note comparing Union and .national decisions, and book reviews.
ARTICLES:
After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Th e Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator? Gráinne de Búrca
The EU Constitution of Social Governance in an Economic Crisis: In Defence of a Transnational Dimension to Social Europe Dagmar Schiek
Withdrawal from the European Union: A Typology of Effects Phedon Nicolaides
Reconciling Different Legal Spheres in Theory and Practice: Pluralism and Constitutionalism in the Cases of Al-Jedda, Ahmed and Nada Christina Eckes and Stephan Hollenberg
Translation in the EU: Language and Law in the EU’s Judicial Labyrinth Martina Künnecke
The Contribution of the European Courts to the Common European Asylum System and Its Ongoing Recast Process Francesca Ippolito
European Union Fundamental Rights and Member States Action in EU Criminal Law Tony Margueryi
CASE NOTES
(Further) Signs of a Turn of the Tide in the CJEU’s Citizenship Jurisprudence, Case C-40/11 Iida, Judgment of 8 November 2012, not yet reported Alina Tryfonidou
LEGAL DEVELOPMENT
The New EU Directive on Energy Efficiency: A Critical View Gianni Lo Schiavo
BOOK REVIEW
J.M. Smits, Th e Mind and Method of the Legal Academic Tomi Tuominen ABOUT THE MAASTRICHT JOURNAL
Editorial Committee Michael Faure, Professor of Comparative and International Environmental Law (Co-Chair Jan M. Smits, Professor of European Private Law (Co-Chair) Phedon Nicolaides, Professor at College of Europe Raymond Luja, Professor of Comparative Tax Law Monica Claes, Professor of European and Comparative Constitutional Law Andrea Ott, Associate Professor of European Law Caroline Cauffman, Assistant Professor in Private Law and Lawyer specialised in Commercial Law Anne-Pieter van der Mei, Associate Professor of International and European Law Elise Muir, Assistant Professor of European Law
All members of the Editorial Committee are members of the Faculty of Law at the University of Maastricht, unless otherwise stated.
Executive Editor Thomas Biermeyer
Associate Editor Laura Tilindyte
Language Editors
Michael Forder (external) and Anjum Shabbir (internal)
Student Assistant Stephanie Kohl
Advisory Board Mark Dawson (Berlin), René de Groot (Maastricht), Bruno de Witte (Maastricht), Monica den Boer (Amsterdam), Albin Eser (MPI, Freiburg), Cees Flinterman (Maastricht), Caroline Forder (Amsterdam), Vassilis Hatzopoulos (Komotini/Bruges), Aalt Willem Heringa (Maastricht), Jaakko Husa (Lapland), Anselm Kamperman Sanders (Maastricht), Ralf Michaels (Duke, North Carolina), Olivier Moréteau (LSU, Louisiana), Luke Nottage (Sydney) Frans Pennings (Utrecht), Stephan Rammeloo (Maastricht), Dagmar Schiek (Leeds), Hildegard Schneider (Maastricht), Walter van Gerven, (Leuven/ Maastricht), Antoni Vaquer Aloy (Lleida), Luc Verhey (Leiden), Stefan Vogenauer (Oxford), Ellen Vos (Maastricht), Lisa Waddington (Maastricht) Joseph Weiler (NYU), Jan Wouters (Leuven), Jacques Ziller (Pavia) and Reinhard Zimmermann (Regensburg/Hamburg).
the ius commune Europaeum. It carries in-depth analyses of EU and international law, reports on recent legal
developments of interest in European countries, case note comparing Union and .national decisions, and book reviews.
ARTICLES:
After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Th e Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator? Gráinne de Búrca
The EU Constitution of Social Governance in an Economic Crisis: In Defence of a Transnational Dimension to Social Europe Dagmar Schiek
Withdrawal from the European Union: A Typology of Effects Phedon Nicolaides
Reconciling Different Legal Spheres in Theory and Practice: Pluralism and Constitutionalism in the Cases of Al-Jedda, Ahmed and Nada Christina Eckes and Stephan Hollenberg
Translation in the EU: Language and Law in the EU’s Judicial Labyrinth Martina Künnecke
The Contribution of the European Courts to the Common European Asylum System and Its Ongoing Recast Process Francesca Ippolito
European Union Fundamental Rights and Member States Action in EU Criminal Law Tony Margueryi
CASE NOTES
(Further) Signs of a Turn of the Tide in the CJEU’s Citizenship Jurisprudence, Case C-40/11 Iida, Judgment of 8 November 2012, not yet reported Alina Tryfonidou
LEGAL DEVELOPMENT
The New EU Directive on Energy Efficiency: A Critical View Gianni Lo Schiavo
BOOK REVIEW
J.M. Smits, Th e Mind and Method of the Legal Academic Tomi Tuominen ABOUT THE MAASTRICHT JOURNAL
Editorial Committee Michael Faure, Professor of Comparative and International Environmental Law (Co-Chair Jan M. Smits, Professor of European Private Law (Co-Chair) Phedon Nicolaides, Professor at College of Europe Raymond Luja, Professor of Comparative Tax Law Monica Claes, Professor of European and Comparative Constitutional Law Andrea Ott, Associate Professor of European Law Caroline Cauffman, Assistant Professor in Private Law and Lawyer specialised in Commercial Law Anne-Pieter van der Mei, Associate Professor of International and European Law Elise Muir, Assistant Professor of European Law
All members of the Editorial Committee are members of the Faculty of Law at the University of Maastricht, unless otherwise stated.
Executive Editor Thomas Biermeyer
Associate Editor Laura Tilindyte
Language Editors
Michael Forder (external) and Anjum Shabbir (internal)
Student Assistant Stephanie Kohl
Advisory Board Mark Dawson (Berlin), René de Groot (Maastricht), Bruno de Witte (Maastricht), Monica den Boer (Amsterdam), Albin Eser (MPI, Freiburg), Cees Flinterman (Maastricht), Caroline Forder (Amsterdam), Vassilis Hatzopoulos (Komotini/Bruges), Aalt Willem Heringa (Maastricht), Jaakko Husa (Lapland), Anselm Kamperman Sanders (Maastricht), Ralf Michaels (Duke, North Carolina), Olivier Moréteau (LSU, Louisiana), Luke Nottage (Sydney) Frans Pennings (Utrecht), Stephan Rammeloo (Maastricht), Dagmar Schiek (Leeds), Hildegard Schneider (Maastricht), Walter van Gerven, (Leuven/ Maastricht), Antoni Vaquer Aloy (Lleida), Luc Verhey (Leiden), Stefan Vogenauer (Oxford), Ellen Vos (Maastricht), Lisa Waddington (Maastricht) Joseph Weiler (NYU), Jan Wouters (Leuven), Jacques Ziller (Pavia) and Reinhard Zimmermann (Regensburg/Hamburg).
Categories: Comparative Law News
CALL FOR PAPER: LSA Conference Panel: Of Texts, Tweets, Social Media and the Law of Evidence (deadline: October 1, 2013)
LSA Conference Panel: Of Texts, Tweets, Social Media and the Law of Evidence, LSA Annual Meetings 2014
This panel considers the role of communication technology in judicial culture. As texts, status updates, voicemail, email and screenshots migrate into the world of adjudication, what questions and practices attend their use? How do courts receive such evidence as it relates to character, credibility, and corroboration? Drawing on work that spans different legal settings, this panel explores the ways in which evidence drawn from contemporary communication technologies is presented as authentic or shrouded with doubt.
Please send paper abstracts of no more than 250 words to sameena.mulla@marquette.edu by October 1st.
This panel considers the role of communication technology in judicial culture. As texts, status updates, voicemail, email and screenshots migrate into the world of adjudication, what questions and practices attend their use? How do courts receive such evidence as it relates to character, credibility, and corroboration? Drawing on work that spans different legal settings, this panel explores the ways in which evidence drawn from contemporary communication technologies is presented as authentic or shrouded with doubt.
Please send paper abstracts of no more than 250 words to sameena.mulla@marquette.edu by October 1st.
Categories: Comparative Law News
CONFERENCE (Deadline Extended): The Dynamics of Legal Development - Family & Succession Law
There is still limited space available
in the workshops of the three day conference on “The Dynamics
of Legal Development - Family & Succession Law” hosted by the
Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative and International Private Law (Hamburg)
from 17-19 October 2013.
The registration deadline has been extended to October 1, 2013.
The dynamics of legal development will be traced through lectures on the national laws of selected Islamic countries and workshops, in which the main actors of legal development will be examined in detail. Additionally, the findings of the research conducted by the Max Planck Research Group "Changes in God’s Law – An Inner Islamic Comparison of Family and Succession Law" established at the Institute in April 2009 will be presented to the audience. The language of the conference is English.
Further information can be found at http://www.mpipriv.de/en/pub/research/research_groups/research_group_on_family_and_s.cfm.
The registration deadline has been extended to October 1, 2013.
The dynamics of legal development will be traced through lectures on the national laws of selected Islamic countries and workshops, in which the main actors of legal development will be examined in detail. Additionally, the findings of the research conducted by the Max Planck Research Group "Changes in God’s Law – An Inner Islamic Comparison of Family and Succession Law" established at the Institute in April 2009 will be presented to the audience. The language of the conference is English.
Further information can be found at http://www.mpipriv.de/en/pub/research/research_groups/research_group_on_family_and_s.cfm.
Categories: Comparative Law News
CALL FOR PAPERS: International Conference, "The International Tracing Service and Holocaust Scholarship" (May 12-14, 2014)
What: International Conference, The International Tracing Service (ITS) Collections and Holocaust
Scholarship Where: Washington, DC - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum When: May 12-14, 2014 Deadline: 15 December 2013 Organizers:
Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
International Tracing Service, Bad Arolsen, Germany Call for Papers
The Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the International Tracing Service invite applications for an international conference designed to illustratethe broad academic research potential of the ITS collections. The conference will be held May 12-14, 2014 in Washington, D.C., at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Participants will present their papers in sessions open to the public and will also have the opportunity for discussion among the presenters on their experiences using the ITS archives.
The International Tracing Service (ITS) in Bad Arolsen, Germany, was, until November 2007, the largest closed archive in the world related to the Holocaust, forced labor, and Nazi persecution. Recently inscribed into the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Memory of the World Register, the ITS collection has opened important new potential for understanding the Holocaust and other Nazi-era crimes. Whileutilized for decades principally for tracing purposes, the documents provide opportunities for a better understanding of a broad range of topics related to persecution, incarceration, forced labor, mass murder, displacement, resettlement, and the legacies of these experiences as a result of World War II. Five years ago, in a workshop jointly organized by ITS and the Center, an international group of 15 scholars identified significant topical areas for which the ITS documents have great potential, including, but not limited to: social histories of camps and sites of forced labor spanning the entire 1933-1945 period; changing patterns of behavior, violence, and obedience to orders over time from the perspectives of perpetrators, prisoners, laborers, witnesses, and labor users; studies of prisoner categorization practices; medical practices and abuses; and studies of labor utilization in particular towns, regions, camps, or
institutions.
This conference will bring together scholars who have conducted significant new and original research using ITS collections in the above and other areas. Proposals to present new research findings are welcome from scholars in all relevant academic disciplines, including advanced doctoral students and immediate post-doctoral scholars. Applicants must be affiliated with an academic and/or research institution. Applicants interested in presenting a paper should be currently researching or completing projects that involve substantial research in ITS collections. Successful applicants will be required to submit a copy of their presentation 4 weeks in advance of the conference for circulation among commentators, other panelists, and conference participants.
The conference will be conducted in English. The deadline for receipt of proposals is December 15, 2013. Participants will be selected and notified no later than January 31, 2014.
To propose a paper for this conference, please send: (1) a cover letter addressing in detail your current research in the ITS Collection; (2) your curriculum vitae; and (3) an abstract of no more than 500 words of your proposed paper to Elizabeth Anthony, Curt C. and Else Silberman ITS Scholar, Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, at eanthony@ushmm.org, and to Professor Rebecca Boehling, Director, International Tracing Service in Bad Arolsen, at directorate@its-arolsen.org
.
Conference organizers will provide economy-class, direct round-trip airfare from the participant’s home institution; 4 nights of lodging for the duration of the conference; and a modest stipend to help defray meals and ground transportation costs.
This conference is made possible by the generosity of the Harris Family Foundation.
Scholarship Where: Washington, DC - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum When: May 12-14, 2014 Deadline: 15 December 2013 Organizers:
Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
International Tracing Service, Bad Arolsen, Germany Call for Papers
The Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the International Tracing Service invite applications for an international conference designed to illustratethe broad academic research potential of the ITS collections. The conference will be held May 12-14, 2014 in Washington, D.C., at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Participants will present their papers in sessions open to the public and will also have the opportunity for discussion among the presenters on their experiences using the ITS archives.
The International Tracing Service (ITS) in Bad Arolsen, Germany, was, until November 2007, the largest closed archive in the world related to the Holocaust, forced labor, and Nazi persecution. Recently inscribed into the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Memory of the World Register, the ITS collection has opened important new potential for understanding the Holocaust and other Nazi-era crimes. Whileutilized for decades principally for tracing purposes, the documents provide opportunities for a better understanding of a broad range of topics related to persecution, incarceration, forced labor, mass murder, displacement, resettlement, and the legacies of these experiences as a result of World War II. Five years ago, in a workshop jointly organized by ITS and the Center, an international group of 15 scholars identified significant topical areas for which the ITS documents have great potential, including, but not limited to: social histories of camps and sites of forced labor spanning the entire 1933-1945 period; changing patterns of behavior, violence, and obedience to orders over time from the perspectives of perpetrators, prisoners, laborers, witnesses, and labor users; studies of prisoner categorization practices; medical practices and abuses; and studies of labor utilization in particular towns, regions, camps, or
institutions.
This conference will bring together scholars who have conducted significant new and original research using ITS collections in the above and other areas. Proposals to present new research findings are welcome from scholars in all relevant academic disciplines, including advanced doctoral students and immediate post-doctoral scholars. Applicants must be affiliated with an academic and/or research institution. Applicants interested in presenting a paper should be currently researching or completing projects that involve substantial research in ITS collections. Successful applicants will be required to submit a copy of their presentation 4 weeks in advance of the conference for circulation among commentators, other panelists, and conference participants.
The conference will be conducted in English. The deadline for receipt of proposals is December 15, 2013. Participants will be selected and notified no later than January 31, 2014.
To propose a paper for this conference, please send: (1) a cover letter addressing in detail your current research in the ITS Collection; (2) your curriculum vitae; and (3) an abstract of no more than 500 words of your proposed paper to Elizabeth Anthony, Curt C. and Else Silberman ITS Scholar, Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, at eanthony@ushmm.org, and to Professor Rebecca Boehling, Director, International Tracing Service in Bad Arolsen, at directorate@its-arolsen.org
.
Conference organizers will provide economy-class, direct round-trip airfare from the participant’s home institution; 4 nights of lodging for the duration of the conference; and a modest stipend to help defray meals and ground transportation costs.
This conference is made possible by the generosity of the Harris Family Foundation.
Categories: Comparative Law News
CONFERENCE on Bartolus ex Saxoferrato (Todi and Perugia, 13-16 October 2013)
What: Bartolo da Sassoferrato nel VII centenario della nascita: diritto, politica, società.
Where: Todi-Perugia
When: 13-16 October 2013
Organized by: Centro italiano di studi sul basso medioevo - Accademia tudertina (Todi)
The entire program of the conference is available HERE (Storia del diritto medievale e moderno blog).
Scholarships: In order to facilitate the participation of young scholars (under 32), 12 grants of 330,00 EUR each are available. Applications have to be sent to the following address: Segreteria del Centro, presso la Fondazione C.I.S.A.M., Palazzo Ancaiani, Piazza della Libertà, 12 - 06049 Spoleto (PG), cisam@cisam.org (deadline: 27 September 2013 at noon).
All information about the scholarships are available at the bottom of the program.
List of speakers:
Mario Ascheri, Università di Roma Tre
Andrea Bartocci, Università di Teramo
Attilio Bartoli Langeli, Scuola storica nazionale per l’edizione delle fonti documentarie (ISIME)
Annalisa Belloni, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Milano
Severino Caprioli, Università di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Osvaldo Cavallar, Nanzan University - Japan
Vincenzo Colli, Max Planck Institut für europäische Rechtsgeschichte
Orazio Condorelli, Università di Catania
Victor Crescenzi, Università di Urbino
Gero Dolezalek, University of Aberdeen
Carla Frova, Sapienza - Università di Roma
Adolfo Giuliani, Univeristà di Macerata
Julius Kirshner, University of Chicago
Susanne Lepsius, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitäts München
Francesco F. Mancini, Università di Perugia
Paola Monacchia, Deputazione di storia patria per l’Umbria
Paolo Mari, Scuola storica nazionale per l’edizione delle fonti documentarie (ISIME)
Maria Grazia Nico, Università di Perugia
Alessandra Panzanelli, Università di Perugia
Berardo Pio, Università di Bologna
Diego Quaglioni, Università di Trento
Giovanni Rossi, Università di Verona
Claudia Storti Storchi, Università di Milano
Ferdinando Treggiari, Università di Perugia
Alain Wijffels, Universiteit Leiden, Université Catholique de Louvain
Andrea Zorzi, Università di Firenze
Categories: Comparative Law News
REMINDER: International School of Ius Commune, Erice 5-11 October 2013
What: 33rd International School of Ius Commune: Social crisis and science of law in medieval and modern world.
Director of the 33rd course: Andrea Padovani (University of Bologna).
Where: Erice (Sicily), Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture.
When: 5-11 October 2013
Contacts: Prof. Orazio Condorelli (University of Catania) - ocondorelli@lex.unict.it
More information HERE.
Purpose Human history fluctuates unceasingly between two opposite poles: violence and disorder on one side, and demands for settlement and peace on the other: that is a quest for rules, establishing uniformity and predictability for social behaviors. Between the two poles, a lawless society (anomia) and an order established by a legal system, there is embedded a combat between a stubborn defense of antiquated privileges and new claims of freedom. This struggle occurred again and again in European society from the time of Irnerius at the beginning of the twelfth century in different contexts and with different problems that jurists were asked to resolve. When confronted with these issues, from time to time the jurists wisely imposed limits on human behavior with the imposition of norms from positive law or from higher norms such as natural law. They imposed the ‘dogmata iuris’ to regulate the spontaneous but disordered emerging of vigorous new energies that were then adopted for common good of society.
Director of the 33rd course: Andrea Padovani (University of Bologna).
Where: Erice (Sicily), Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture.
When: 5-11 October 2013
Contacts: Prof. Orazio Condorelli (University of Catania) - ocondorelli@lex.unict.it
More information HERE.
Purpose Human history fluctuates unceasingly between two opposite poles: violence and disorder on one side, and demands for settlement and peace on the other: that is a quest for rules, establishing uniformity and predictability for social behaviors. Between the two poles, a lawless society (anomia) and an order established by a legal system, there is embedded a combat between a stubborn defense of antiquated privileges and new claims of freedom. This struggle occurred again and again in European society from the time of Irnerius at the beginning of the twelfth century in different contexts and with different problems that jurists were asked to resolve. When confronted with these issues, from time to time the jurists wisely imposed limits on human behavior with the imposition of norms from positive law or from higher norms such as natural law. They imposed the ‘dogmata iuris’ to regulate the spontaneous but disordered emerging of vigorous new energies that were then adopted for common good of society.
Categories: Comparative Law News
Article: Gilbert and Sullivan for Lawyers
Article: Kruger on Gilbert and Sullivan for Lawyers
Stephen Kruger's "Gilbert and Sullivan for Lawyers" in the Philosophy of Law eJournal (2013) is now available on SSRN.
One of the songs in The Mikado, by Gilbert and Sullivan, is “As Some Day It May Happen That a Victim Must be Found.” In the song, Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner, offers his list of Victorian “society offenders . . . who never would be missed.”
Usual practice, in present-day performances, is to update “As Some Day It May Happen” by mentions of present-day society offenders. The aim of an update is to make the song comprehensible by present-day audiences.
This essay offers an update of “As Some Day It May Happen,” with both legal references and social references. Among the legal references is, “And law profs who convey as truth the lies of Marbury.” Other legal references aren’t better.
In addition, this essay offers an update, with both legal references and social references, of “I Am the Very Model of a Modern General,” from The Pirates of Penzance, also by Gilbert and Sullivan. The legal references, such as to court-packing (Legal Tender Cases; President Roosevelt), should be, but are not, teachable moments.
Stephen Kruger's "Gilbert and Sullivan for Lawyers" in the Philosophy of Law eJournal (2013) is now available on SSRN.
One of the songs in The Mikado, by Gilbert and Sullivan, is “As Some Day It May Happen That a Victim Must be Found.” In the song, Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner, offers his list of Victorian “society offenders . . . who never would be missed.”
Usual practice, in present-day performances, is to update “As Some Day It May Happen” by mentions of present-day society offenders. The aim of an update is to make the song comprehensible by present-day audiences.
This essay offers an update of “As Some Day It May Happen,” with both legal references and social references. Among the legal references is, “And law profs who convey as truth the lies of Marbury.” Other legal references aren’t better.
In addition, this essay offers an update, with both legal references and social references, of “I Am the Very Model of a Modern General,” from The Pirates of Penzance, also by Gilbert and Sullivan. The legal references, such as to court-packing (Legal Tender Cases; President Roosevelt), should be, but are not, teachable moments.
Categories: Comparative Law News
SEMINAR: Authority in a Transnational Age
AUTHORITY IN A TRANSNATIONAL AGE
8-9 November 2013/A Modern Law Review
Seminar
Hosted by the Centre for
Law and Society in a Global Context, School of Law, Queen Mary University of
London
Contemporary jurisprudence – and legal scholarship and legal education more generally – is currently under serious challenge from the emergence of arguably new legal phenomena at the non-state or transnational level. This challenge is both substantive and methodological. Substantively, legal scholars are being confronted with, and asked to explain, phenomena which cannot easily be explained by theories which put the sovereign state at the centre. Such phenomena include internet regulation and the new lex mercatoria. New jurisprudential problems are also raised by the growth of transnational communities, which bring with them a variety of different legal traditions and understandings. Methodologically, in this context, traditional conceptual analysis is arguably ever more in need of being informed by empirical analysis – for the old concepts, and their universalistic tendencies, are being criticised as inadequate. One concept that calls for revision in the transnational context is authority. Considering how that concept, juristically and normatively, is being challenged by the transnational context is the focus of the seminar. Questions are being raised as to whether authority is better conceived of as capable of being shared, or held in degrees, or continuously negotiated amongst a group of communities or institutions. Questions are also raised about what kind of authority exists at the transnational level, and what it should be called – is it ‘legal’ or ‘regulalatory’? Further, it is being hotly debated whether authority so re-conceived is normatively desirable.
A number of scholars have argued that the reality at the transnational level is that communities or institutions have (legal or regulatory) authority in degrees; moreover, their sharing it, or negotiating it, with other communities or institutions, is perhaps a condition of their having it at all. This qualification of (legal or regulatory) authority in the transnational context, which we may call, following Roger Cotterrell, ‘relative authority’, demands serious analysis. In particular, it is imperative that jurisprudes and legal scholars consider how to assess the quality of relations between normative communities and institutions of relative authority: does such quality require, for instance, certain unfamiliar techniques of legal reasoning? Should the design of institutions change given the emphasis on communication and interaction between them? What are the limits that can be placed – and who could place them – on the claims to authority made by normative communities?
It is the aim of this seminar to engage in such questions, focusing on juristic and normative issues surrounding the concept of authority in the transnational context, but drawing on multiple methods and perspectives. In doing so, the seminar hopes to usher in a jurisprudence for the transnational age.
Additional information and the conference programme are available here.
Contemporary jurisprudence – and legal scholarship and legal education more generally – is currently under serious challenge from the emergence of arguably new legal phenomena at the non-state or transnational level. This challenge is both substantive and methodological. Substantively, legal scholars are being confronted with, and asked to explain, phenomena which cannot easily be explained by theories which put the sovereign state at the centre. Such phenomena include internet regulation and the new lex mercatoria. New jurisprudential problems are also raised by the growth of transnational communities, which bring with them a variety of different legal traditions and understandings. Methodologically, in this context, traditional conceptual analysis is arguably ever more in need of being informed by empirical analysis – for the old concepts, and their universalistic tendencies, are being criticised as inadequate. One concept that calls for revision in the transnational context is authority. Considering how that concept, juristically and normatively, is being challenged by the transnational context is the focus of the seminar. Questions are being raised as to whether authority is better conceived of as capable of being shared, or held in degrees, or continuously negotiated amongst a group of communities or institutions. Questions are also raised about what kind of authority exists at the transnational level, and what it should be called – is it ‘legal’ or ‘regulalatory’? Further, it is being hotly debated whether authority so re-conceived is normatively desirable.
A number of scholars have argued that the reality at the transnational level is that communities or institutions have (legal or regulatory) authority in degrees; moreover, their sharing it, or negotiating it, with other communities or institutions, is perhaps a condition of their having it at all. This qualification of (legal or regulatory) authority in the transnational context, which we may call, following Roger Cotterrell, ‘relative authority’, demands serious analysis. In particular, it is imperative that jurisprudes and legal scholars consider how to assess the quality of relations between normative communities and institutions of relative authority: does such quality require, for instance, certain unfamiliar techniques of legal reasoning? Should the design of institutions change given the emphasis on communication and interaction between them? What are the limits that can be placed – and who could place them – on the claims to authority made by normative communities?
It is the aim of this seminar to engage in such questions, focusing on juristic and normative issues surrounding the concept of authority in the transnational context, but drawing on multiple methods and perspectives. In doing so, the seminar hopes to usher in a jurisprudence for the transnational age.
Additional information and the conference programme are available here.
Categories: Comparative Law News
BOOK: Human Rights under State-enforced Religious Family Laws in Israel, Egypt and India
Cambridge University Press (CUP) has published Yüksel Sezgin’s Human Rights under State-enforced
Religious Family Laws in Israel, Egypt and India. In a nutshell, the book
looks at impacts of state-enforced (pluri-legal) religious family laws on
human/women’s rights in Israel, Egypt and India, and identifies resistance
strategies successfully mobilized by rights activists in these jurisdictions:
About one-third of the world's population currently lives under pluri-legal systems where governments hold individuals subject to the purview of ethno-religious rather than national norms in respect to family law. How does the state-enforcement of these religious family laws impact fundamental rights and liberties? What resistance strategies do people employ in order to overcome the disabilities and limitations these religious laws impose upon their rights? Based on archival research, court observations and interviews with individuals from three countries, Yüksel Sezgin shows that governments have often intervened in order to impress a particular image of subjectivity upon a society, while people have constantly challenged the interpretive monopoly of courts and state-sanctioned religious institutions, re-negotiated their rights and duties under the law, and changed the system from within. He also identifies key lessons and best practices for the integration of universal human rights principles into religious legal systems.
The Table of Contents includes:
1. Introduction
2. Personal status, nation-building, and the postcolonial state
3. The impact of state-enforced personal status laws on human rights
4. A fragmented confessional system: state-enforced religious family laws and human rights in Israel
5. A unified confessional system: state-enforced religious family laws and human rights in Egypt
6. A unified semi-confessional system: state-enforced religious family laws and human rights in India
7. Conclusion: upholding human rights under religious legal systems.
Note that there is a discount code (SEZGIN13) if you order the book from CUP.
All royalties are donated to the UN Women’s Fund for Gender Equality.
About one-third of the world's population currently lives under pluri-legal systems where governments hold individuals subject to the purview of ethno-religious rather than national norms in respect to family law. How does the state-enforcement of these religious family laws impact fundamental rights and liberties? What resistance strategies do people employ in order to overcome the disabilities and limitations these religious laws impose upon their rights? Based on archival research, court observations and interviews with individuals from three countries, Yüksel Sezgin shows that governments have often intervened in order to impress a particular image of subjectivity upon a society, while people have constantly challenged the interpretive monopoly of courts and state-sanctioned religious institutions, re-negotiated their rights and duties under the law, and changed the system from within. He also identifies key lessons and best practices for the integration of universal human rights principles into religious legal systems.
The Table of Contents includes:
1. Introduction
2. Personal status, nation-building, and the postcolonial state
3. The impact of state-enforced personal status laws on human rights
4. A fragmented confessional system: state-enforced religious family laws and human rights in Israel
5. A unified confessional system: state-enforced religious family laws and human rights in Egypt
6. A unified semi-confessional system: state-enforced religious family laws and human rights in India
7. Conclusion: upholding human rights under religious legal systems.
Note that there is a discount code (SEZGIN13) if you order the book from CUP.
All royalties are donated to the UN Women’s Fund for Gender Equality.
Categories: Comparative Law News
CALL FOR PAPERS: Peer Production, Disruption and the Law
PEER PRODUCTION, DISRUPTION AND THE LAW
Editors: Steve Collins, Macquarie University and Angela Daly, Swinburne University of Technology
The disruption caused by new technologies and non-conventional methods of organisation have posed challenges for the law, confronting regulators with the need to balance justice with powerful interests. Experience from the “disruptions” of the late 20th century has shown that the response from incumbent industries can lead to a period of intense litigation and lobbying for laws that will maintain the status quo. For example, following its “Napster moment”, the music industry fought to maintain its grip on distribution channels through increased copyright enforcement and the longer copyright terms it managed to extract from the legislative process. The newspaper industry has similarly seen its historical revenue stream of classified ads disrupted by more efficient online listings, and responded to its own failure to capitalise on online advertising by launching legal campaigns against Google News in various European countries.
Though the law as it stands may not be well-equipped to deal with disruptive episodes, the technological innovations of the last twenty years have created an environment that generates disruption. The Internet, the Web and networked personal computers have converged into the ubiquitous post-PC media device, leaving twentieth century paradigms of production, consumption and distribution under considerable threat. The latest technology to be added to this group of disruptive innovations may be 3D-printing, which in recent times has become increasingly available and accessible to users in developed economies, whilst the manufacturing capacity of 3D-printers has dramatically grown. Although current offerings on the market are far from a Star Trek-like “replicator”, the spectre of disruption has once again arrived, with the prospect of 3D-printed guns inspiring a moral panic and raising questions of gun control, regulation, jurisdiction and effective control. In addition, 3D-printing raises a number of issues regarding intellectual property, going far beyond the copyright problems that file-sharing brought about due to its production of physical objects.
This special issue of the Journal of Peer Production calls for papers that deal with the intersection of peer production, disruptive technologies and the law. Potential topics include, but are not restricted to:
- The threat posed by peer production to legacy industries - The regulation of disruptive technologies through the rule of law or embedded rights management - Lobbying strategies of incumbent players to stymie disruptive technologies - Emergent economies or practices as a result of disruptive technologies - Extra-legal norm formation in peer production communities around disruptive technologies - Historical perspectives on the legal status of collaborative projects - Critical legal approaches to technology, disruption and peer production - The role and ability of the law (which differs across jurisdictions) in regulating autonomous production - The resilience of law in the face of social and technological change - The theories and assumptions which continue to underpin laws rendered obsolete by social and technological change 500-word abstracts are due by 15th November 2013 and should be sent to disruptlawissue@peerproduction.net. Accepted submissions will be notified during December 2013 and full papers (approximately between 4,000 and 10,000 words) are due by 12th May 2014. All article submissions are peer reviewed according to JoPP review policies.
- The threat posed by peer production to legacy industries - The regulation of disruptive technologies through the rule of law or embedded rights management - Lobbying strategies of incumbent players to stymie disruptive technologies - Emergent economies or practices as a result of disruptive technologies - Extra-legal norm formation in peer production communities around disruptive technologies - Historical perspectives on the legal status of collaborative projects - Critical legal approaches to technology, disruption and peer production - The role and ability of the law (which differs across jurisdictions) in regulating autonomous production - The resilience of law in the face of social and technological change - The theories and assumptions which continue to underpin laws rendered obsolete by social and technological change 500-word abstracts are due by 15th November 2013 and should be sent to disruptlawissue@peerproduction.net. Accepted submissions will be notified during December 2013 and full papers (approximately between 4,000 and 10,000 words) are due by 12th May 2014. All article submissions are peer reviewed according to JoPP review policies.
Categories: Comparative Law News