Archive
Call for Papers: AALS 2014 Joint Program on Sections on Poverty Law and Clinical Legal Education
In honor of the 50th Anniversary of the “War on Poverty,” the AALS sections on Poverty Law and Clinical Legal Education will sponsor a joint program at the AALS Annual Meeting, entitled 50 Years After the “War on Poverty:” Evaluating Past Enactments and Innovative Approaches for Addressing Poverty in the 21st Century.
The program will explore the effectiveness of the federal “War on Poverty” programs in addressing/eradicating poverty, and participants will discuss how amendments to those laws have had an impact on their effectiveness. The “War on Poverty” programs include: Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (“TANF,” formerly Assistance for Families and Dependent Children), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP,” formerly known as food stamps), federally funded legal services (originally under the Office of Economic Opportunity, and now the Legal Services Corporation), Head Start, and the No Child Left Behind Act (originally the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), among others. In addition, the joint program will explore newer ways that the federal government has attempted to address poverty, such asthe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Family and Medical Leave Act and others.
Among the questions to be considered are: In what ways were individual “War on Poverty” programs effective and why? How and why were those programs ineffective? How did amendments to the War on Poverty enactments affect their efficacy in ameliorating poverty? What impact have exclusions from the poverty programs on such grounds as immigration status had on poverty? How do more recent federal laws affect poverty? Do they work with or in opposition to prior federal laws? Can the walls between federal poverty programs be broken down to more effectively address poverty? If so, how? How have communities responded to the “War on Poverty” programs and what impact has their efforts had on reshaping the poverty programs? What are concrete and innovative ways for the federal government to address poverty in the 21st Century for both individuals and communities? In collaboration with the Boston College Journal on Law and Social Justice, the joint program seeks papers for presentation and publication relating to the program’s topic. Submissions may include papers, on substantive law, interdisciplinary innovation or analysis, policy, empirical work, or clinical pedagogy, that either evaluate the effectiveness of the federal role in addressing poverty over the past 50 years, address how the federal government can address poverty in the 21st Century, or both.
The Boston College Journal of Law and Social Justice will publish selected papers, no more than two of which will be selected for presentation at the joint program in New Orleans. Selected authors must agree not to publish their work in another journal. Not all papers selected for publication will be presented at the annual meeting.
Submission information: Papers should be submitted by email attachment to aals.waronpoverty.papers@gmail.com. As the Planning Committee will use a blind review process, a cover letter with the author’s name and contact information should accompany the paper. The paper itself, including the title page and footnotes must not contain any references identifying the author or the author’s school. The submitting author is responsible for taking any steps necessary to redact self-identifying text or footnotes. Near complete papers should be submitted by August 9, 2013. Authors of papers chosen for presentation and/or publication will be notified by September 27, 2013. Final papers are due by December 2013.
Eligibility: Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit papers. Foreign, visiting (without a full-time position at an AALS member law school), and adjunct faculty members; graduate students; fellows and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit. Faculty at fee-paid non-member schools are also ineligible.
For more information, please contact Emily Suski, Planning Committee Co-Chair for the Poverty Law Section at esuski@gsu.eduor Hina Shah, Planning Committee Member for the Clinical Legal Education Section at hshah@ggu.edu.
Psychology and Lawyering: Coalescing the Field
University of Nevada Las Vegas
|
The 8th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law – Military Objectives and Objects of War: An Uneasy Relationship
Conference Call For Papers
The 8th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law – Military Objectives and Objects of War: An Uneasy Relationship
Jerusalem, 24-25 November 2013
The Minerva Center for Human Rights, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Delegation in Israel and the Occupied Territories
INTRODUCTION: The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied Territories are organizing an international conference that seeks to explore the concept of “military objective”, which is foundational to the law governing the conduct of hostilities. The conference, the eighth in the series of Minerva/ICRC annual international conferences on International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with the cooperation of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, is scheduled for 24-25 November 2013 in Jerusalem.
Recipients of this call for papers are invited to submit proposals to present a paper at the conference. Authors of selected proposals will be offered full or partial flight and accommodation expenses. Submission deadline: 15 June 2013
BACKGROUND: The 8th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law aims to explore zones of real or apparent indeterminacy linked to the concept of “military objective”.
In recent years, much attention has been given to the distinction between persons who are legitimate targets of attack in armed conflict and those who are not. Far less attention seems to have been given to the equally fundamental distinction between those objects which may be targeted (i.e. military objectives) and those which may not. However, the proliferation of armed conflicts involving hostilities in areas where civilian and military elements are intermingled, as well as the increased deployment of highly accurate weaponry capable of striking precise points, have highlighted the need for a clearer articulation of the exact points in space and time at which an object can be attacked. Finally, the increased prevalence of asymmetric conflicts that are unlikely to result in a clear military victory raises questions concerning the continued viability and/or desirability of following existing definitions of military objectives.
Indeed, while conventional and customary IHL establish a detailed definition of military objectives, there still remains a troubling degree of ambiguity as to when and to what extent objects constitute a legitimate target of attack.
One very fundamental point which seems to require further clarification is the question of how to define the physical limits, or contours, of the military objective. Thus, for example, when a part of a complex of structures or even a single structure is used in a manner that effectively contributes to military action, and its destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, would afford a definite military advantage, questions remain about whether the entire complex/structure can be considered a military object, or whether the opposing belligerent is, always or sometimes, required to differentiate between the components of the object, some of which may be considered military and others civilian. A related question concerns the degree of precision required to determine the spatial confines or the exact location of the military objective. An attack would be unlawful if the location of the objective was not ascertained with sufficient precision – but what degree of precision would suffice? If an attack were launched against an entire neighbourhood known to host a military objective while it was not known in which precise part of the neighbourhood the objective is situated, it would clearly be unlawful. However, the case becomes less clear the more narrowly the objective can be confined to a specific point. For example, where do the contours of an objective situated in a room on a floor in a particular building end?
Questions about the spatial contours of military objectives and the degree of precision required in determining their location are pertinent not only for the proper application of the principle of distinction, but also in determining the interplay between this principle and the principle of proportionality. Indeed, under the IHL rules governing the conduct of hostilities, the principle of distinction has lexical priority over the principle of proportionality. In light of this and in view of the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks emanating from the principle of distinction, proportionality calculations can only be employed in relation to an attack that is directed at a specific military objective. To illustrate, consider a case (such as which occurs frequently in contemporary armed conflicts) where it is known that munitions are located somewhere within a compound, but – despite all feasible efforts – it was not possible to determine which exact part of the compound contains the munitions. In such case, if the entire compound were deemed to constitute a single military objective the legality of the attack would depend on an evaluation of proportionality – it would be lawful to attack it if the expected incidental harm to civilians is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the destruction of the objective. On the other hand, if it is only the munitions or the specific part of the compound holding them which constitutes a military objective then it would be indiscriminate and therefore unlawful to direct an attack at the entire compound irrespective of the military advantage anticipated.
Questions about the precise spatial contours of military objectives have become particularly pertinent in light of the increased availability of precision guided munitions (PGM). Indeed, now that it is possible to strike at a very precise part of a structure, there appear to be grounds to question whether it would be lawful to treat an entire building (and certainly a whole compound or complex) as a military objective, or whether instead the military objective includes only the particular part of the building/complex/compound holding an object whose destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, would offer a definite military advantage, or indeed the specific object itself. Related questions that may arise concern the extent to which the availability of PGMs affect the application of IHL rules on targeting. For example, it may be asked to what extent, if at all, does a party in possession of PGM incur extra obligations when launching attacks? Is it compelled to use the PGM in its possession? Is it required to direct its attacks at more finely defined objectives (e.g. at a rocket launcher on the second floor, rather than at the floor or the entire building)? Are parties not in possession of PGMs prohibited from launching certain attacks that those in possession of PGM may undertake (e.g. if there attack would destroy the whole building rather than just the rocket launcher on the 2nd floor)?
Another set of questions that comes up involves dual use targets. Such questions may have a temporal dimension – the duration of the period during which an object qualifies as a military objective. Thus, for example, if a structure is used by an armed group as a place from which to direct and coordinate military operations, does the structure constitute a military objective only while in fact being used for military purposes, or can it be said that its designated use (its “purpose”) justifies targeting it even, say, when no enemy personnel are using it or present in it at the time of attack? Another relevant dimension involves the increased reliance by the military on civilian infrastructure, such as telecommunication or Internet networks, private mapping services (such as google earth) and private equipment manufacturers. Under these circumstances of complete intermingling of civilian and military infrastructures the very identification of a military objective may raise difficult issues (separately from questions relating to the proportionality of targeting such civilian infrastructure).
Finally, the shifting goals of armed conflicts in an era of asymmetric conflict – moving away from military subjugation of the adversary to more abstract political goals such as winning hearts and minds, deterrence, communicating certain messages to the adversary etc. – may invite a re-evaluation of the continued relevance of the definition of military objectives found in the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Put differently, a question may be raised as to whether the changing nature of conflicts merits redefinition of military objectives, with a view to offering stronger humanitarian protections to victims of war, and preventing excessive harm to human lives and property. For example, can one take the position that targeting empty government buildings -designed to induce the adversary to discontinue the conflict – may be preferable to targeting military camps leading to loss of lives of enemy combatants and civilian collaterally harmed? Can one assert that a military engaged in a campaign aimed at winning hearts and minds should not target low-level military objectives that do not pose a short-term threat to the said military?
In light of the dramatic humanitarian implications and significant practical and legal ramifications at stake, there is a pressing need for legal scholars and practitioners to clarify these and other related questions in an effort to establish greater clarity in delineating which objects constitute military objectives and, conversely, which are those that remain protected from direct attack.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Researchers interested in addressing these and other questions related to the conference topic are invited to respond to this call for papers with a 1-2 page proposal for an article and presentation, along with a brief CV. Proposals should be submitted by email to the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (mchr@savion.huji.ac.il) by 15 June 2013.
Applicants should expect notification of the committee’s decision by mid-July 2013. Written contributions (of approx. 10-25 pages) based on the selected proposals will be expected by 1 November 2013. The Israel Law Review (a Cambridge University Press publication) has expressed interest in publishing selected full length papers based on conference presentations, subject to its standard review and editing procedures.
Call for Papers: First Annual Workshop for Corporate & Securities Litigation
The University of Illinois College of Law and the University of Richmond School of Law invite submissions for the First Annual Workshop for Corporate & Securities Litigation. This workshop will be held on Friday, November 8, 2013, in Chicago, Illinois.
OVERVIEW: This annual workshop will bring together scholars focused on corporate and securities litigation to present their works-in-progress. Papers addressing any aspect of corporate and securities litigation or enforcement are eligible. Appropriate topics include, but are not limited to, securities litigation, fiduciary duty litigation, or comparative approaches to business litigation. We welcome scholars working in a variety of methodologies, including empirical analysis, law and economics, law and sociology, and traditional doctrinal analysis.
Authors whose papers are selected will be invited to present their work at a workshop hosted by the University of Illinois College of Law in Chicago, Illinois, on Friday November 8, 2013. Local costs (lodging and workshop meals) will be covered. Participants are asked to pay for their own travel expenses.
The workshop is designed to maximize discussion and feedback. All participants will have read the selected papers. The author will provide a brief introduction to the paper, but the majority of the individual sessions will be devoted to collective discussion of the paper involved.
SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: If you are interested in participating, please send an abstract of the paper you would like to present to Jessica Erickson at jerickso@richmond.edu not later than Friday, May 31, 2013. Please include your name, current position, and contact information in the e-mail accompanying the submission. Authors of accepted papers will be notified by Friday, June 28.
QUESTIONS: Any questions concerning the workshop should be directed to the organizers—Professor Verity Winship (vwinship@illinois.edu) and Professor Jessica Erickson (jerickso@richmond.edu).
Call for Papers: Northeastern People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference 2013
Northeastern People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference 2013
Universidad de Puerto Rico
Call for Papers, WIPs and AwardNominations
December 5 – 8, 2013
Our initial announcement back in February was met with a lot of excitement and enthusiasm and now the Northeastern People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference (NEPOC) Planning Committee is pleased topresent the call for papers for our 2013 conference at the University of Puerto Rico-School of Law from December 5 to 8, 2013.
More than half of the speaking opportunities at NEPOC are selected from our call for papers. Please note that this call for papers is divided into several sections and is more accurately a call for panel presentations, works in progress, professional workshop presentations, and award nominations. We tried to streamline the process as much as possible but please read each section carefully. For example, the person to whom to submit your materials and the deadlines vary with what you are submitting.
If you have any questions, please email Elaine Chiu at chiue1@stjohns.edu.
The theme of this year’s conference is Defining Vice: Evolving Standards of Morality, Law and Governance. Thus, there are several substantive panels on various vices including drugs, guns, violence, homophobia, misogyny, etc. In addition, we are also celebrating our host jurisdiction with several showcase panels on Puerto Rico-inspired topics. You are invited to submit both individual and group proposals.
Additionally, professional development has been the center of NEPOC since the inception of our gatherings. This year we plan to kick things up a notch with a mix of innovative, tried-and-true professional development programs, as well as our Works-In-Progress or WIP sessions. You are invited to submit both individual and group proposals.
Finally, we are also proud to be working with the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) in organizing a BA to JD pipeline program to kick off NEPOC during the morning / early afternoon of Thursday,December 5th. As many of us are painfully aware, the numbers of Latina/o students and in particular students of Puerto Rican descent are alarmingly low in law schools and it is now more important than ever to redouble our diversity pipeline efforts. We are finalizing the details of the program and will release soon. Please join us in this important program.
Call For Papers: The 8th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law
Call For Papers
The 8th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law – Military Objectives and Objects of War: An Uneasy Relationship
Jerusalem, 24-25 November 2013
The Minerva Center for Human Rights, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Delegation in Israel and the Occupied Territories
INTRODUCTION: The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied Territories are organizing an international conference that seeks to explore the concept of “military objective”, which is foundational to the law governing the conduct of hostilities. The conference, the eighth in the series of Minerva/ICRC annual international conferences on International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with the cooperation of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, is scheduled for 24-25 November 2013 in Jerusalem.
Recipients of this call for papers are invited to submit proposals to present a paper at the conference. Authors of selected proposals will be offered full or partial flight and accommodation expenses. Submission deadline: 15 June 2013
BACKGROUND: The 8th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law aims to explore zones of real or apparent indeterminacy linked to the concept of “military objective”.
In recent years, much attention has been given to the distinction between persons who are legitimate targets of attack in armed conflict and those who are not. Far less attention seems to have been given to the equally fundamental distinction between those objects which may be targeted (i.e. military objectives) and those which may not. However, the proliferation of armed conflicts involving hostilities in areas where civilian and military elements are intermingled, as well as the increased deployment of highly accurate weaponry capable of striking precise points, have highlighted the need for a clearer articulation of the exact points in space and time at which an object can be attacked. Finally, the increased prevalence of asymmetric conflicts that are unlikely to result in a clear military victory raises questions concerning the continued viability and/or desirability of following existing definitions of military objectives.
Indeed, while conventional and customary IHL establish a detailed definition of military objectives, there still remains a troubling degree of ambiguity as to when and to what extent objects constitute a legitimate target of attack.
One very fundamental point which seems to require further clarification is the question of how to define the physical limits, or contours, of the military objective. Thus, for example, when a part of a complex of structures or even a single structure is used in a manner that effectively contributes to military action, and its destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, would afford a definite military advantage, questions remain about whether the entire complex/structure can be considered a military object, or whether the opposing belligerent is, always or sometimes, required to differentiate between the components of the object, some of which may be considered military and others civilian. A related question concerns the degree of precision required to determine the spatial confines or the exact location of the military objective. An attack would be unlawful if the location of the objective was not ascertained with sufficient precision – but what degree of precision would suffice? If an attack were launched against an entire neighbourhood known to host a military objective while it was not known in which precise part of the neighbourhood the objective is situated, it would clearly be unlawful. However, the case becomes less clear the more narrowly the objective can be confined to a specific point. For example, where do the contours of an objective situated in a room on a floor in a particular building end?
Questions about the spatial contours of military objectives and the degree of precision required in determining their location are pertinent not only for the proper application of the principle of distinction, but also in determining the interplay between this principle and the principle of proportionality. Indeed, under the IHL rules governing the conduct of hostilities, the principle of distinction has lexical priority over the principle of proportionality. In light of this and in view of the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks emanating from the principle of distinction, proportionality calculations can only be employed in relation to an attack that is directed at a specific military objective. To illustrate, consider a case (such as which occurs frequently in contemporary armed conflicts) where it is known that munitions are located somewhere within a compound, but – despite all feasible efforts – it was not possible to determine which exact part of the compound contains the munitions. In such case, if the entire compound were deemed to constitute a single military objective the legality of the attack would depend on an evaluation of proportionality – it would be lawful to attack it if the expected incidental harm to civilians is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the destruction of the objective. On the other hand, if it is only the munitions or the specific part of the compound holding them which constitutes a military objective then it would be indiscriminate and therefore unlawful to direct an attack at the entire compound irrespective of the military advantage anticipated.
Questions about the precise spatial contours of military objectives have become particularly pertinent in light of the increased availability of precision guided munitions (PGM). Indeed, now that it is possible to strike at a very precise part of a structure, there appear to be grounds to question whether it would be lawful to treat an entire building (and certainly a whole compound or complex) as a military objective, or whether instead the military objective includes only the particular part of the building/complex/compound holding an object whose destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, would offer a definite military advantage, or indeed the specific object itself. Related questions that may arise concern the extent to which the availability of PGMs affect the application of IHL rules on targeting. For example, it may be asked to what extent, if at all, does a party in possession of PGM incur extra obligations when launching attacks? Is it compelled to use the PGM in its possession? Is it required to direct its attacks at more finely defined objectives (e.g. at a rocket launcher on the second floor, rather than at the floor or the entire building)? Are parties not in possession of PGMs prohibited from launching certain attacks that those in possession of PGM may undertake (e.g. if there attack would destroy the whole building rather than just the rocket launcher on the 2nd floor)?
Another set of questions that comes up involves dual use targets. Such questions may have a temporal dimension – the duration of the period during which an object qualifies as a military objective. Thus, for example, if a structure is used by an armed group as a place from which to direct and coordinate military operations, does the structure constitute a military objective only while in fact being used for military purposes, or can it be said that its designated use (its “purpose”) justifies targeting it even, say, when no enemy personnel are using it or present in it at the time of attack? Another relevant dimension involves the increased reliance by the military on civilian infrastructure, such as telecommunication or Internet networks, private mapping services (such as google earth) and private equipment manufacturers. Under these circumstances of complete intermingling of civilian and military infrastructures the very identification of a military objective may raise difficult issues (separately from questions relating to the proportionality of targeting such civilian infrastructure).
Finally, the shifting goals of armed conflicts in an era of asymmetric conflict – moving away from military subjugation of the adversary to more abstract political goals such as winning hearts and minds, deterrence, communicating certain messages to the adversary etc. – may invite a re-evaluation of the continued relevance of the definition of military objectives found in the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Put differently, a question may be raised as to whether the changing nature of conflicts merits redefinition of military objectives, with a view to offering stronger humanitarian protections to victims of war, and preventing excessive harm to human lives and property. For example, can one take the position that targeting empty government buildings -designed to induce the adversary to discontinue the conflict – may be preferable to targeting military camps leading to loss of lives of enemy combatants and civilian collaterally harmed? Can one assert that a military engaged in a campaign aimed at winning hearts and minds should not target low-level military objectives that do not pose a short-term threat to the said military?
In light of the dramatic humanitarian implications and significant practical and legal ramifications at stake, there is a pressing need for legal scholars and practitioners to clarify these and other related questions in an effort to establish greater clarity in delineating which objects constitute military objectives and, conversely, which are those that remain protected from direct attack.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Researchers interested in addressing these and other questions related to the conference topic are invited to respond to this call for papers with a 1-2 page proposal for an article and presentation, along with a brief CV. Proposals should be submitted by email to the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (mchr@savion.huji.ac.il) by 15 June 2013.
Applicants should expect notification of the committee’s decision by mid-July 2013. Written contributions (of approx. 10-25 pages) based on the selected proposals will be expected by 1 November 2013. The Israel Law Review (a Cambridge University Press publication) has expressed interest in publishing selected full length papers based on conference presentations, subject to its standard review and editing procedures.
CONFERENCE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE:
Prof. Yuval Shany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Chair)
Mr. Anton Camen, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied Territories
Adv. Eitan Diamond, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied Territories
Adv. Danny Evron, Minerva Center for Human Rights, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Yael Ronen, Israel Law Review
Mr. Charles Shamas, Mattin Group, Ramallah
Call for Papers: Constitutional Conflict and Development: Perspectives from South Asia and Africa
Call for Papers
On behalf of the AALS Section on Law & South Asian Studies and the Section on Africa, we are pleased to announce this Call for Papers for the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) 2014 Annual Meeting to be held in New York in January 2014.
Constitutional Conflict and Development: Perspectives from South Asia and Africa
Recent times have brought extraordinary constitutional change in both Africa and South Asia. From the revolutions and constitution-building efforts in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt and the continued evolution of constitutional jurisprudence in South Africa, to efforts to stabilize legal processes through judicial review in Pakistan and expand the power of the central government in India, vast and profound constitutional changes are occurring in these regions.
The AALS Section on Africa and Section on Law & South Asian Studies will be holding a Joint Program at the 2014 Annual Meeting. We invite the submission of drafts or abstracts that explore any aspect of constitutional conflict, development, change and evolution in these regions. Topics relating to any country within Africa or South Asia (including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) would be appropriate.
Papers selected from this Call for Papers will be presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting. The Joint Program will include both the speakers whose papers have been selected from this Call for Papers and as well as invited speakers. There is a strong possibility that the papers presented will be published in a journal.
Please send a 500-1000 word proposal or abstract by June 15, 2013 to the Chair of the Section on Africa: Matthew Charity (matthew.charity@law.wne.edu) or Chair of the Section on Law & South Asian Studies: Sudha Setty (sudha.n.setty@gmail.com).
Authors will be notified by June 30 regarding the selection of their papers.
Please consider submitting a paper and/or encouraging others to do so as well. We encourage you to circulate this Call for Papers to your networks.
Best regards,
Matthew Charity & Sudha Setty
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law / Roy C. Palmer Civil Liberties Prize
Entries will be accepted through July 1, 2013, for the IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law/Roy C. Palmer Civil Liberties Prize, a scholarly writing competition that honors an outstanding article or book on a topic exploring the tension between civil liberties and national security in contemporary American society. The winner will receive a cash stipend of $10,000.
The article or book must be in draft form or have been published within one year prior to the July 1 deadline. As a condition of accepting the award, the winner will present his or her work at Chicago-Kent. All reasonable expenses will be paid.
Please submit entries to Ms. Tasha Kincade, assistant to Dean Harold J. Krent, at tkincade@kentlaw.iit.edu.
Call for Papers: Business and Human Rights: Moving Forward, Looking Back
Business and Human Rights: Moving Forward, Looking Back Call for Papers
September 23 – 24, 2013
West Virginia University College of Law, Morgantown, WV
***SUBMISSION DEADLINE: June 1, 2013***
Conference Chair: Jena Martin (WVU College of Law)
The West Virginia University Festival of Ideas in conjunction with the West Virginia University College of Law invites the submission of papers and abstracts for its conference entitled “Business and Human Rights: Moving Forward, Looking Back.” The conference will examine the United Nation’s recent work on business and human rights issues, an area that has grown substantially in the last ten years. Highlights of the subject’s growth include the United Nations’ establishment of a Working Group on Business and Human Rights and its adoption of the Guiding Principles for business and human rights. Participants will use these two major events as a focal point for discussing the roles that corporations, civil society and states can all play in advancing the cause of human rights.
Potential topics for the conference include: Implementation – a discussion of best practices for implementing the Guiding Principles; the History of Business and Human Rights – examining the history of business and human rights as a precursor to the work in its present form; and The Framework – examining what principles or philosophies should be used to guide the business and human rights agenda.
For the second day of the conference, a special discussion group will bring together experts from a disparate number of fields, such as labor, trade, investment, and corporate social responsibility. The aim is to spotlight the impacts a business and human rights agenda has on different disciplines. Rather than following the format of a typical panel, the discussion group will be a less structured session that will allow both experts and participants to engage in a lightly moderated but productive conversation.
Please submit papers on substantial, original, and unpublished research related to all aspects of business and human rights, including but not limited to the topics discussed above. In addition, we encourage submissions of interdisciplinary research including research in law, practice, and economics.
Papers that are selected for the conference are expected to be published as part of an edited volume on the subject. Initial submissions in response to the Call for Papers can be either full drafts (of no more than 15,000 words) or detailed abstracts (of no more than 1,000 words). Scholars that have their abstracts accepted in lieu of a paper are expected to have a final draft submitted by September 1. Each paper submitted should be an original that has not been published in a prior work.
Important Dates
Paper Submission Deadline: June 1, 2013 Notification of Acceptance of a Paper: June 30, 2013 Poster Submission Deadline: August 15, 2013 Conference Dates: September 23 – 24, 2013
Conference Venue
West Virginia University is one of the nation’s premier institutions of higher education. The Princeton Review has ranked West Virginia University College of Law as a “Tier 1 Law School,” and it is a Top Institution for Public Interest Law. Located in beautiful Morgantown, WV, West Virginia University boasts both the beautiful scenery of pastoral life with the progressiveness of a large college town. This is the first conference of its kind in the United States, and West Virginia University hopes to continue its promotion of freethinking and human rights throughout the world.
Contact
If you have any questions regarding this conference or this call for papers, please e-mail dblanke4@mix.wvu.edu.
Call for Papers: New Ground Research Journal of Legal Studies Research and Essays
The New Ground Research Journal of Legal Studies Research and Essays (NGRJLSRE) is a peer-reviewed, international multi-disciplinary, open access journal that is dedicated to provide an active forum to the global academic community for rapid publication and disseminating high quality (on monthly basis) of original research articles as well as review articles in all its coverage areas of the subject such as Administrative Law, Criminal Law, Insurance Law, Admiralty, Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Agriculture Law, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, International Law, Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Education Law, Jurisprudence, Bankruptcy Law, Energy Law, Labor & Employment Law, Civil Procedure, Entertainment & Sports Law, Law & Economics, Civil Rights, Environmental Law, Legal History, Theory & Process, Commercial Law, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Legal Writing & Research, Communications Law, Evidence, Litigation, Conflicts of Law, Family Law, Probate, Trusts & Estates, Constitutional Law, Health Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Construction Law, Immigration Law, Remedies, Contracts, Indian and Native Peoples Law, Securities Law, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Injury and Tort Law, Tax Law etc. NGRJLSRE is published by New Ground Research Journals and is currently accepting manuscripts for publication. It is dedicated to the proliferation of the depth of the subject across disciplines with the fundamental aim of expanding knowledge of the subject. Our goal is to inform authors of the decision on their manuscript shortly after submission. Upon acceptance, a paper will be published in the next available issue.
The journal welcomes and encouraged the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria of significance and scientific excellence, and will publish:
- Original articles in basic and applied research.
- Case Studies
- Critical reviews, surveys, opinions, commentaries and essays.
We request you to submit manuscripts as e-mail attachment to the Editorial Office at: ngrjlsre@newgroundresjournals.org or ngrjlsre.newgroundresjournals@gmail.com . Submitted manuscript should carry the following information:
- Your name and institution with full address details;
- Title or name of journal you wish to submit a manuscript to;
- Title of your paper
See Guide for Authors on our website.
