The Italian National Reports from the 2010 IACL Congress are now available on the Cardozo Electronic Law Bulletin.
The Bulletin is also now listed on our blog links.
23 September 2010
18 September 2010
WANTED: Assistant Professor of Legal Anthropology (McGill)
I just received the following notice:
McGill University, Department of Anthropology seeks a full-time tenure-track assistant professor in legal anthropology with a strong research and publication record based on ethnographic field research. The appointment is to begin August 1, 2011. The Department is especially interested in applicants with research backgrounds in the following: human rights, development, humanitarian intervention, and other transnational normative structures; legal pluralism; emergent and contested identities; conflict and social control; and the shaping of public opinion and public policy. The successful candidate will have a Ph.D. in hand, will be expected to develop a competitive, externally-funded research program involving graduate students, and contribute actively to teaching and service. Area of specialization is open, though some preference will be given to those candidates working in Asia (particularly South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia) and Africa (particularly West and South Africa).
All qualified applicants are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. McGill University is committed to equity in employment and diversity. It welcomes applications from indigenous peoples, visible minorities, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, women, persons of minority sexual orientations and gender identities and others who may contribute to further diversification.
McGill University, Department of Anthropology seeks a full-time tenure-track assistant professor in legal anthropology with a strong research and publication record based on ethnographic field research. The appointment is to begin August 1, 2011. The Department is especially interested in applicants with research backgrounds in the following: human rights, development, humanitarian intervention, and other transnational normative structures; legal pluralism; emergent and contested identities; conflict and social control; and the shaping of public opinion and public policy. The successful candidate will have a Ph.D. in hand, will be expected to develop a competitive, externally-funded research program involving graduate students, and contribute actively to teaching and service. Area of specialization is open, though some preference will be given to those candidates working in Asia (particularly South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia) and Africa (particularly West and South Africa). Applicants should send one copy of each of the following: C.V.; letter describing research and teaching experience; one writing sample (in electronic format) such as an offprint, article in press, or thesis chapter; and names of 3 referees (with phone, fax, and e-mail addresses). Applications should be sent before November 15 to Prof. Ronald Niezen, Chair, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2T7. Fluency in French is an asset. For further information, e-mail ronald.niezen@mcgill.ca
All qualified applicants are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. McGill University is committed to equity in employment and diversity. It welcomes applications from indigenous peoples, visible minorities, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, women, persons of minority sexual orientations and gender identities and others who may contribute to further diversification.
16 September 2010
NOTICE: Esin Örücü, Mixed Legal Systems, and New Frontiers
Somehow I neglected announcing the publication of Esin Örücü (e d), Mixed Legal Systems at New Frontiers (May 2010) by Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing. Part of the JCL [Journal of Comparative Law] Studies in Comparative Law Series,
The aim of this volume is to provide the reader with original views on and insight into mixed legal systems in general, and some mixed legal systems and ongoing mixes in particular.
The hope is that the analyses to be found in the eleven contributions will be helpful for scholars, students and practitioners who have a general interest in comparative law and a special interest in mixed legal systems, and provide inspiration to pursue further inquiries.
The contributions are a selection of papers presented at the 2007 Second World Congress of the World Society of Mixed Jurisdiction Jurists, 'The Boundaries of Unity: Mixed Systems in Action'. As can he gleaned from the title of the Congress, the emphasis has shifted from the closed family of 'mixed jurisdictions' towards a wider embrace, considering 'mixed systems', in addition to the classical 'mixed jurisdictions".
Following the introduction, the first two pieces inform the reader of the multiplicity of approaches to mixed legal systems and widen the horizon, offering expansion, though retaining exclusivity. Then follow chapters throwing new light on Commonwealth Caribbean, United States Novojo law, Turkey, South Africa, Sri Lanka, England and Ireland, the European Union, and Public International Law and International Trade Law; all showing that we are entering an era of legal studies involving looking at all legal systems anew.
The contributions are
- Esin Örücü, 'General introduction: mixed legal systems at new frontiers'
- Vernon Valentin Palmer, 'Two rival theories of mixed legal systems'
- Esin Örücü, 'What is a mixed legal system: exclusion or expansion?'
- Jane Matthews Glenn, 'Mixed jurisdictions in the Commonwealth Caribbean: mixing, unmixing, remixing'
- Dale Beck Furnish, 'The law of the Navajo Nation: a three-ingredent mix of consensual (indigeous) and adversary (common law) systems'
- Esin Örücü, 'Turkey's synthetic legal system and her indigenous socio-cuture(s) in a "covert" mix'
- Marissa Herbst and Willemien Du Plessis, 'Customary law v common law marriages: a hybrid approach in South Africa'
- Christa Rauterbach, 'Mixing South African common law and customary law of intestate succession: "Potjiekos" in the making'
- Anton Cooray, 'Oriental and occidental laws in harmony: the case of trusts in Sri Lanka'
- Seán Patrick Donlan, '"All this together make up our Common law": legal hybridity in England and Ieland, 1704-1804'
- Jan M Smits, 'Mixed jurisdictons: lessons for European harmonisation'
- Colin B Picker, 'Beyond the usual suspects: application of the mixed jurisdiction methodology to public international law and international trade law'
07 September 2010
NOTICE: CRASSH Fellowship
The University of Cambridge's Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH) has announced a very interesting competition for a visiting fellowship there during 2011-12 on the theme of 'Cultures and Politics of the Transregional':
Borders – regional as much as national – are constantly being crossed, both in reality and in fantasy, in socio-political systems of lived experience and in socio-cultural systems of representation. They are crossed by the flow of travellers and longer-term migrants; by the transit of goods, symbols and technologies; by the transfer of new narratives and forms of language; and by the transmission of political and other ideas. At the same time, borders are selective barriers to movement, calibrated for imbalance in the relationships between East and West, North and South and the regions that are aligned with these. Transregional flows – transactions or translations on human, cultural, intellectual, political and economic levels – are conditioned by the interests of those who govern the borders in question.
Historically, geographical and legal borders have delimited the reach of regional identities, which were constructed against those perceived as ‘other’ and instituted or reinforced binary divisions in culture, language, institutions and ideas of selfhood. Today, the dynamics of import and export – sustained not least by new technologies – are more able to cross borders, whether political, cultural, linguistic or economic. And the dynamics in question are driven by changing factors: resource depletion, climate change, hegemonic shifts, and economic disparities. This increase in human and cultural traffic transforms not only borders between regions but also circulating values, objects, practices, meanings and identities.
In an age of more globalised movement and exchange, flows across regional borders and the filtering or blocking systems that control them are ever more large-scale and complex in character. Accordingly, they demand rethinking in interdisciplinary and comparative ways. The new transregional constellations can also prompt us to reassess historical forms of relationship between global regions, which may have been obscured by the tendency to focus attention on the regional as a category of understanding and disciplinary organisation.
Adopting a wide comparative perspective in both geographical and historical terms, and considering both bilateral and multilateral forms of relationship, the work on the theme of Cultures and Politics of the Transgregional will focus on achieving a better understanding of the dynamics of flow and the systems of regulation and resistance that operate between and across regions.
This seems very closely related to our aims. The deadline is 1 November 2010 and fellowship details are available here.
Borders – regional as much as national – are constantly being crossed, both in reality and in fantasy, in socio-political systems of lived experience and in socio-cultural systems of representation. They are crossed by the flow of travellers and longer-term migrants; by the transit of goods, symbols and technologies; by the transfer of new narratives and forms of language; and by the transmission of political and other ideas. At the same time, borders are selective barriers to movement, calibrated for imbalance in the relationships between East and West, North and South and the regions that are aligned with these. Transregional flows – transactions or translations on human, cultural, intellectual, political and economic levels – are conditioned by the interests of those who govern the borders in question.
Historically, geographical and legal borders have delimited the reach of regional identities, which were constructed against those perceived as ‘other’ and instituted or reinforced binary divisions in culture, language, institutions and ideas of selfhood. Today, the dynamics of import and export – sustained not least by new technologies – are more able to cross borders, whether political, cultural, linguistic or economic. And the dynamics in question are driven by changing factors: resource depletion, climate change, hegemonic shifts, and economic disparities. This increase in human and cultural traffic transforms not only borders between regions but also circulating values, objects, practices, meanings and identities.
In an age of more globalised movement and exchange, flows across regional borders and the filtering or blocking systems that control them are ever more large-scale and complex in character. Accordingly, they demand rethinking in interdisciplinary and comparative ways. The new transregional constellations can also prompt us to reassess historical forms of relationship between global regions, which may have been obscured by the tendency to focus attention on the regional as a category of understanding and disciplinary organisation.
Adopting a wide comparative perspective in both geographical and historical terms, and considering both bilateral and multilateral forms of relationship, the work on the theme of Cultures and Politics of the Transgregional will focus on achieving a better understanding of the dynamics of flow and the systems of regulation and resistance that operate between and across regions.
This seems very closely related to our aims. The deadline is 1 November 2010 and fellowship details are available here.
NOTICE: Janke and Licari on France and Louisiana
Two new articles co-written by Benjamin West Janke (Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC) and François-Xavier Licari (University of Metz (Paul-Verlaine), Faculty of Law) have been posted on the SSRN. Each explores legal connections between France and Louisiana:
In this essay, François-Xavier Licari and Benjamin W. Janke will show that the relationship between Louisiana and France is not limited to written law; it also exists in one important extra-codal and equitable principle of prescription law: contra non valentem agere non currit praescriptio. In this regard, the juridical parenthood is tight. They will show that contra non valentem in Louisiana is the fruit of French doctrine and jurisprudence. Furthermore, they will bring to light the noticeable similarity of the maxim’s fate in France and Louisiana. Courts in both jurisdictions proclaimed it as dead, but despite the antagonism it faced, contra non valentem evolved as a major component of prescription’s institution. Finally, they will dispel a deep-rooted myth that contra non valentem does not apply to the domain of acquisitive prescription and reveal another strong convergence between Louisiana and France.
'The French Revision of Prescription: A Model for Louisiana?' (forthcoming, Tulane Law Review)
Though the draftsmanship of the French and Louisiana Civil Codes is generally celebrated, prescription in both Codes is notoriously defective. Located at the end of both Codes as almost an afterthought, the titles of prescription do not share the same general, relative style contained elsewhere. Part of the cause of the prescription title’s shortcoming is attributable to the content.
The provisions that ring loudest are spelled out in numbers rather than letters. Numbers are blind, arbitrary, cold, and inanimate - ace of society accelerates, prescription becomes anachronistic. It is worth questioning whether the very nature of prescription eludes the capacity for codification.
Prescription’s inherent difficulties have created turmoil for both the French and Louisiana civilian systems. Both have struggled with the arbitrariness of any one particular prescriptive period, attempting to balance objectivism against subjectivism, relativity against certainty, and generality against particularity. Though both France and Louisiana began with what might be considered excessively long general periods of prescription, the French and Louisiana legislatures either whittled down the general period or chiseled out particular actions from it. Over time, these piecemeal amendments eviscerated the core components of the doctrine, causing a desperate need for substantial revision.
In 2008, the French legislature took the necessary step and drastically reformed prescription. The general period is now shorter and unified (five years); there are new grounds for suspension (including codified contra non valentem); and a long-stop period is introduced. Louisiana has yet to make any substantial reform to prescription, and revision is long overdue.
This essay will outline the faults in Louisiana and France’s original prescriptive regimes and identify the main innovative trends in the French revision. It then will offer a critical appraisal of the French revision, endorse it as a basis for a Louisiana revision, and discuss how Louisiana jurisprudence is uniquely positioned to integrate the revision in French law. We offer the following as a true dialogue from both the French and Louisiana perspectives about the continuing influence of the French Civil Code in Louisiana, the nature of prescription and its placement in a Civil Code, and the unique opportunity for the Louisiana experience to influence the interpretation of the French revision.
'Contra Non Valentem in France and Louisiana: Revealing the Parenthood, Breaking a Myth' (forthcoming, Louisiana Law Review)
'The French Revision of Prescription: A Model for Louisiana?' (forthcoming, Tulane Law Review)
Though the draftsmanship of the French and Louisiana Civil Codes is generally celebrated, prescription in both Codes is notoriously defective. Located at the end of both Codes as almost an afterthought, the titles of prescription do not share the same general, relative style contained elsewhere. Part of the cause of the prescription title’s shortcoming is attributable to the content.
The provisions that ring loudest are spelled out in numbers rather than letters. Numbers are blind, arbitrary, cold, and inanimate - ace of society accelerates, prescription becomes anachronistic. It is worth questioning whether the very nature of prescription eludes the capacity for codification. Prescription’s inherent difficulties have created turmoil for both the French and Louisiana civilian systems. Both have struggled with the arbitrariness of any one particular prescriptive period, attempting to balance objectivism against subjectivism, relativity against certainty, and generality against particularity. Though both France and Louisiana began with what might be considered excessively long general periods of prescription, the French and Louisiana legislatures either whittled down the general period or chiseled out particular actions from it. Over time, these piecemeal amendments eviscerated the core components of the doctrine, causing a desperate need for substantial revision.
In 2008, the French legislature took the necessary step and drastically reformed prescription. The general period is now shorter and unified (five years); there are new grounds for suspension (including codified contra non valentem); and a long-stop period is introduced. Louisiana has yet to make any substantial reform to prescription, and revision is long overdue.
This essay will outline the faults in Louisiana and France’s original prescriptive regimes and identify the main innovative trends in the French revision. It then will offer a critical appraisal of the French revision, endorse it as a basis for a Louisiana revision, and discuss how Louisiana jurisprudence is uniquely positioned to integrate the revision in French law. We offer the following as a true dialogue from both the French and Louisiana perspectives about the continuing influence of the French Civil Code in Louisiana, the nature of prescription and its placement in a Civil Code, and the unique opportunity for the Louisiana experience to influence the interpretation of the French revision.
CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS (REMINDER): Mediterranean Hybridity Project Roundtable (Catana, 25 October 2010)
An interdisciplinary roundtable on the legal and normative hybridity of the Mediterranean region will be held in Catania on Monday, 25 October 2010. Organised with Juris Diversitas and hosted at the University of Catania, the event is part of the Mediterranean Hybridity Project launched in Malta in June 2010.
The extraordinary legal and normative hybridity of the Mediterranean was produced in a complex history of conquest, colonisation, and social and legal diffusion across shifting and porous boundaries. But studies of the subject have been isolated, sporadic, and too often framed within narrow jurisdictional and disciplinary constraints.
The Mediterannean Hybridity Project is creating a collaborative interdisciplinary network of experts to study both (i) the state laws that are the domain of lawyers and (ii) the wider normative orders typically studied by social scientists. The project marries conceptual and empirical models from the legal and social sciences, especially earlier analyses of ‘mixed legal systems’ and legal/normative pluralism.
Our intention is to create multidisciplinary jurisdictional reports, resulting in a published collection, and a database on the laws and non-state norms of the region. The roundtable will allow the project leaders to select the participants involved over the course of the project, to finalise the questions to be posed, and to consider our options for collaboration and funding.
The outcome of the project will be more accurate, useful, and accessible accounts of Mediterranean legalities. It may produce an analytical model more useful than existing taxonomies and methods for new research in the region, in Europe, and around the world.
The project leaders are Dr Seán Patrick Donlan (University of Limerick), Dr David Zammit (University of Malta), and Dr Simon Mercieca (University of Malta).
Anyone interested in attending should contact Dr Seán Patrick Donlan (sean.donlan@ul.ie) or Dr Biagio Andò (bando@lex.unict.it). While the organisers are not able to fund expenses, there is no cost to attend. We are especially eager to include participants (i) from the Balkans, the Levant, and North Africa and (ii) anthropologists, geographers, historians, and sociologists. Individuals or institutions interested in participating or sponsoring our work should contact us.
03 September 2010
NOTICE: Legal Pluralism and Democracy: When does Legal Pluralism enhance, when does it erode Legitimacy of and Trust in Democratic Institutions? (9-11 June 2011; Oñati, Spain, )
I only just became aware of this, now expired, Call for Papers. I thought our members might still be interested in hearing about it.
CALL FOR PAPERS
Legal Pluralism and Democracy: When does Legal Pluralism enhance, when does it erode Legitimacy of and Trust in Democratic Institutions?
Workshop to be held at the International Institute for the Sociology of Law (IISJ) in Oñati, Spain, June 9-11, 2011 and convened by Mirjam Künkler (Princeton University) and Yüksel Sezgin (Harvard Divinity School)
The introduction of colonial (secular) law notwithstanding, many countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America have since independence adopted schemes of legal pluralism and multiple jurisdictions where pockets of law are adjudicated based on (positivized) religious and customary legal norms. Colonial administrations seldom imposed their own law in the realm of family- or personal status law, and sometimes also adjudicated in matters of criminal law based on local norms (or colonial interpretations thereof), rather than on the basis of standards in criminal law prevalent in their own societies. Since independence, many post-colonial states therefore function with multiple jurisdictions, often in order to accommodate cultural particularity. As a result, differentiations based on religion, gender and culture in both rights and duties often exist within the same politicolegal space. On the one hand, such differentiations, including group rights, may protect cultural particularity and enhance trust in central/national administrations by alleviating the burden of assimilation into a national culture. On the other, they may introduce unequal legal standards undermining internationally recognized civil and human rights. Especially in countries that have democratized and thus carry the promise of international rights standards, tensions may arise between accommodating for cultural particularity on the one hand, and delivering upon the promise of universal and equal citizenship on the other – both of which are crucial sources of legitimacy and trust in nascent democracies.
This workshop examines the implications of legal pluralism and multiple jurisdictions for the quality of post-colonial democracies. From Indonesia to Senegal, India to Peru, the Philippines to Mongolia, states have been faced with the trade-off between difference and inclusion, unity and equality, accommodating for particularity in their legal systems versus delivering upon their promise of unitary rights standards. The legitimacy and trust in democratic regimes hinge upon these mutually exclusive projects.
For the purposes of the workshop, we understand as having legal pluralism both those tates that officially recognize multiple jurisdictions (such as Indonesia with special qadi courts), those that within a unified judicial system apply different codes of law (such as India with “sharia” law for Muslims), and those states where informal justice is a common phenomenon (as in the application of non-codified customary law through nonstate authorities like village elders).
We welcome paper proposal that specifically address questions such as: when does legal pluralism hinder or advance the support for and trust in democratic values and institutions? When and how can legal pluralism reconcile competing demands for equality, unity and particularity without disrupting democratic institutions and processes?
While the workshop will focus on post-colonial democracies, we also welcome paper proposals that draw comparisons to democracies that did not emerge from a colonial context, but whose legal systems are plural.
The Workshop shall bring together junior and senior scholars of Law, Political Science, Anthropology and Sociology, as well as practitioners and activists involved in legal reform. We hope to strike a balance between accounts based on rich ethnographies, and those based on comparative-institutional analyses. Both types should allow us to inform a better theoretical understanding of the consequences of legal pluralism for the quality of long-standing and nascent democracies and the trade-offs states face in designing legal and judicial institutions that are perceived as culturally legitimate but also comply with universal rights standards.
Each participant will be asked to present a paper of 6,000-8,000 words, and panels will be organized comparatively. To open the discussion, one participant will be asked to offer a ten-minute commentary on a given paper, before the floor will be opened for discussion of the paper among all participants. Papers shall be circulated eight weeks ahead of the workshop, and shall afterwards be edited and submitted for publication in the IISL working paper or book series.
Please email paper abstracts of 350 words and a short bio until August 10, 2010 to the Workshop Directors at legalpluralism-onati@hotmail.com
Legal Pluralism and Democracy: When does Legal Pluralism enhance, when does it erode Legitimacy of and Trust in Democratic Institutions?
Workshop to be held at the International Institute for the Sociology of Law (IISJ) in Oñati, Spain, June 9-11, 2011 and convened by Mirjam Künkler (Princeton University) and Yüksel Sezgin (Harvard Divinity School)
The introduction of colonial (secular) law notwithstanding, many countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America have since independence adopted schemes of legal pluralism and multiple jurisdictions where pockets of law are adjudicated based on (positivized) religious and customary legal norms. Colonial administrations seldom imposed their own law in the realm of family- or personal status law, and sometimes also adjudicated in matters of criminal law based on local norms (or colonial interpretations thereof), rather than on the basis of standards in criminal law prevalent in their own societies. Since independence, many post-colonial states therefore function with multiple jurisdictions, often in order to accommodate cultural particularity. As a result, differentiations based on religion, gender and culture in both rights and duties often exist within the same politicolegal space. On the one hand, such differentiations, including group rights, may protect cultural particularity and enhance trust in central/national administrations by alleviating the burden of assimilation into a national culture. On the other, they may introduce unequal legal standards undermining internationally recognized civil and human rights. Especially in countries that have democratized and thus carry the promise of international rights standards, tensions may arise between accommodating for cultural particularity on the one hand, and delivering upon the promise of universal and equal citizenship on the other – both of which are crucial sources of legitimacy and trust in nascent democracies.
This workshop examines the implications of legal pluralism and multiple jurisdictions for the quality of post-colonial democracies. From Indonesia to Senegal, India to Peru, the Philippines to Mongolia, states have been faced with the trade-off between difference and inclusion, unity and equality, accommodating for particularity in their legal systems versus delivering upon their promise of unitary rights standards. The legitimacy and trust in democratic regimes hinge upon these mutually exclusive projects.
For the purposes of the workshop, we understand as having legal pluralism both those tates that officially recognize multiple jurisdictions (such as Indonesia with special qadi courts), those that within a unified judicial system apply different codes of law (such as India with “sharia” law for Muslims), and those states where informal justice is a common phenomenon (as in the application of non-codified customary law through nonstate authorities like village elders).
We welcome paper proposal that specifically address questions such as: when does legal pluralism hinder or advance the support for and trust in democratic values and institutions? When and how can legal pluralism reconcile competing demands for equality, unity and particularity without disrupting democratic institutions and processes?
While the workshop will focus on post-colonial democracies, we also welcome paper proposals that draw comparisons to democracies that did not emerge from a colonial context, but whose legal systems are plural.
The Workshop shall bring together junior and senior scholars of Law, Political Science, Anthropology and Sociology, as well as practitioners and activists involved in legal reform. We hope to strike a balance between accounts based on rich ethnographies, and those based on comparative-institutional analyses. Both types should allow us to inform a better theoretical understanding of the consequences of legal pluralism for the quality of long-standing and nascent democracies and the trade-offs states face in designing legal and judicial institutions that are perceived as culturally legitimate but also comply with universal rights standards.
Each participant will be asked to present a paper of 6,000-8,000 words, and panels will be organized comparatively. To open the discussion, one participant will be asked to offer a ten-minute commentary on a given paper, before the floor will be opened for discussion of the paper among all participants. Papers shall be circulated eight weeks ahead of the workshop, and shall afterwards be edited and submitted for publication in the IISL working paper or book series.
Please email paper abstracts of 350 words and a short bio until August 10, 2010 to the Workshop Directors at legalpluralism-onati@hotmail.com
CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS - REMINDER: COMPARATIVE LEGAL THEORY PROJECT (Roundtable, 29 October, Catania)
Participants are being sought for a collaborative project in legal theory.
The Comparative Legal Theory Project aims to study legal philosophy in context to better understand the relationship between changing conceptions of legal thought across time and space and a more genuinely general or universal jurisprudence.
The project will take place over the next few years. Participants will first produce jurisdictional reports on the basis of a questionnaire prepared by the project managers. The resulting reports will provide thick descriptions of contemporary legal theory in diverse social and historical contexts. While participants need not be comparatists, a comparative perspective will be encouraged through ongoing collaborative meetings and the circulation of draft reports throughout the life of the project. This collaboration will also include the analysis of the reports by the managers and reporters. Finally, the reports and analysis will be published.
To achieve these aims, a preliminary roundtable will be held at the University of Catania, Italy on Friday, 29 October 2010. Those attending the roundtable will be able to assist in the final formulation of the project, the creation of the questionnaire to be used, and the identification of potential reporters.
The project managers are Seán Patrick Donlan (Limerick), Margaret Martin (Western Ontario), and Alessio Lo Giudice (Catania). Please email sean.donlan@ul.ie for additional information on the project or alogiudice@lex.unict.it for practical advice on accommodation, etc.
Please feel free to circulate this message to other individuals, institutions, blogs, etc.
The Comparative Legal Theory Project aims to study legal philosophy in context to better understand the relationship between changing conceptions of legal thought across time and space and a more genuinely general or universal jurisprudence.To achieve these aims, a preliminary roundtable will be held at the University of Catania, Italy on Friday, 29 October 2010. Those attending the roundtable will be able to assist in the final formulation of the project, the creation of the questionnaire to be used, and the identification of potential reporters.
The project managers are Seán Patrick Donlan (Limerick), Margaret Martin (Western Ontario), and Alessio Lo Giudice (Catania). Please email sean.donlan@ul.ie for additional information on the project or alogiudice@lex.unict.it for practical advice on accommodation, etc.Please feel free to circulate this message to other individuals, institutions, blogs, etc.
17 August 2010
NOTICE: Chair in Law (Civil law, public law, or the Scottish legal tradition) at the University of Aberdeen
The following notice may be of interest:
We seek to appoint to a Professorial post in Civil Law, Public Law or the Scottish Legal Tradition. We welcome applications from high quality candidates who have very considerable teaching experience and a very significant high quality publication portfolio. We seek a scholar of international standing who can make an excellent contribution to the research quality profile of the school. The successful candidate would be expected to take on appropriate administrative responsibilities, and leadership experience is required.
Informal enquiries can be made to Head of School Professor Margaret Ross (tel: 01224 272421 or e-mail m.l.ross@abdn.ac.uk) or Deputy Head of School Dr John Paterson (tel 01224 273888, email j.paterson@abdn.ac.uk).
Salary will be at an appropriate placement according to qualifications and experience.
Should you require a visa to undertake paid employment in the UK you will be required to fulfil the minimum points criteria to be granted a Certificate of Sponsorship and Tier 2 visa. As appropriate, at the time an offer of appointment is made you will be asked to demonstrate that you fulfil the criteria in respect of financial maintenance and competency in English. Please do not hesitate to contact Louise Alford, HR Adviser, for further information on this.
To apply online for this position visit www.abdn.ac.uk/jobs
Job Reference Number: 1151338.
The closing date for the receipt of applications is Friday 27 August 2010.
Promoting Diversity and Equal Opportunities throughout the University
We seek to appoint to a Professorial post in Civil Law, Public Law or the Scottish Legal Tradition. We welcome applications from high quality candidates who have very considerable teaching experience and a very significant high quality publication portfolio. We seek a scholar of international standing who can make an excellent contribution to the research quality profile of the school. The successful candidate would be expected to take on appropriate administrative responsibilities, and leadership experience is required.
Informal enquiries can be made to Head of School Professor Margaret Ross (tel: 01224 272421 or e-mail m.l.ross@abdn.ac.uk) or Deputy Head of School Dr John Paterson (tel 01224 273888, email j.paterson@abdn.ac.uk). Salary will be at an appropriate placement according to qualifications and experience.
Should you require a visa to undertake paid employment in the UK you will be required to fulfil the minimum points criteria to be granted a Certificate of Sponsorship and Tier 2 visa. As appropriate, at the time an offer of appointment is made you will be asked to demonstrate that you fulfil the criteria in respect of financial maintenance and competency in English. Please do not hesitate to contact Louise Alford, HR Adviser, for further information on this.
To apply online for this position visit www.abdn.ac.uk/jobs
Job Reference Number: 1151338.
The closing date for the receipt of applications is Friday 27 August 2010.
Promoting Diversity and Equal Opportunities throughout the University
CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS: Comparative Legal Theory Project
Participants are being sought for a collaborative and comparative project in legal theory.
The Comparative Legal Theory project aims to place legal theory in its social, historical, and comparative context. Our goal is to produce jurisdictional reports on legal theory on the basis of a questionnaire prepared by the project organisers and through ongoing collaborative workshops.
A roundtable on the project will be held in Catania on Friday, 29 October 2010. Participants will be able to assist in creating the questionnaire to be used and to identify potential reporters.
The project managers are Seán Patrick Donlan (Limerick), Margaret Martin (Western Ontario), and Alessio Lo Giudice (Catania). Please email sean.donlan@ul.ie for additional information.
Please feel free to circulate this message to other individuals, institutions, blogs, etc.
The Comparative Legal Theory project aims to place legal theory in its social, historical, and comparative context. Our goal is to produce jurisdictional reports on legal theory on the basis of a questionnaire prepared by the project organisers and through ongoing collaborative workshops.
A roundtable on the project will be held in Catania on Friday, 29 October 2010. Participants will be able to assist in creating the questionnaire to be used and to identify potential reporters.
The project managers are Seán Patrick Donlan (Limerick), Margaret Martin (Western Ontario), and Alessio Lo Giudice (Catania). Please email sean.donlan@ul.ie for additional information.
Please feel free to circulate this message to other individuals, institutions, blogs, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)