July 31, 2017

Georgetown Law Center to Host 2018 ASLCH Annual Meeting @GeorgetownLaw

Just announced:

Georgetown Law Center will host the 2018 annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and the Humanities (ASLCH). The meeting will be held March 16-17, 2018. Link to the association website here. More information will be available in the coming weeks.




Composer/Lawyer Derrick Wang Joins the Peabody Institute To Teach Law and Music

Composer and attorney Derrick Wang ("Scalia/Ginsburg") will join the Peabody Institute in the fall to teach law and music, both on the undergraduate and graduate levels, according to the Institute.   He received his B.A. from Harvard and his M.M. in music from Yale. He received his j.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law. 

Mr. Wang's opera made its premiere in 2015 at the Castleton Festival and got rave reviews. Its libretto has footnotes (befitting a lawyer) and is published at 38 Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts. Justices Ginsburg and Scalia contributed prefaces to the piece.

More about Professor Wang here.

Mendenhall on Jeffrey Rosen's Depiction of Louis Brandeis as the Jeffersonian Jurist @allenmendenhall

Allen Mendenhall, Faulkner University School of Law, is publishing The Jeffersonian Jurist? a Reconsideration of Justice Louis Brandeis and the Libertarian Legal Tradition in the United States in volume 9 of the Elon Law Review (2017). Here is the abstract.
This article explores Jeffrey Rosen’s depiction of Justice Brandeis as a “Jeffersonian prophet,” “the leader of a Jeffersonian tradition,” and “the Jewish Jefferson” to examine the meaning of the term “libertarian” in the context of American constitutional jurisprudence. It argues that Rosen unsettles the characterization of Brandeis as non-libertarian or anti-libertarian and, consequently, destabilizes the very meaning of “libertarianism” as that term is used by self-described libertarians in current scholarship about American constitutionalism. Whether Brandeis was a pure or true libertarian does not concern me. What interests me is the way in which scholars have invoked Brandeis to delimit the nature of libertarian jurisprudence in the American constitutional context. Brandeis simultaneously illuminates and problematizes the designation “libertarian.” His formative influence on American constitutional law elicits dogged attempts to categorize or classify him. He continues to attract admirers and provoke antagonists, both of whom express firm opinions about his association with libertarianism. At stake in the debate over Brandeis’s association with libertarianism is the meaning and import of “libertarian” jurisprudence in our constitutional tradition. Disturbing any consensus regarding the term “libertarian” in the context of American constitutional jurisprudence is significant because it necessitates two questions: what, exactly, is “libertarian” jurisprudence, and who decides? Answers to these questions may disrupt the momentum that self-identified libertarian legal scholars have enjoyed over the last decade and underscore claims to libertarianism that are at odds with that consensus.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

July 30, 2017

Leading Female Detectives In Fiction

In the Guardian, Kristin Lepionka (The Last Place You Look) lists her choices for the top ten female detectives in fiction, including Tana French's Antoinette Conway and Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone. More here.

July 27, 2017

Justin Trudeau and "The West Wing"

From The Hill: Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he watched the hit TV show "The West Wing" to prep for debates against the incumbent Stephen Harper in 2015. As it turns out, he's a fan of the long-running series (which aired on NBC 1999-2006). The show is now available on Netflix.

Prime Minister Trudeau revealed this very interesting info recently to the podcast "The West Wing Weekly"--listen here to episode 3.15, Dead Irish Writers (with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau).  He does point out that real life being a head of government isn't as easy as it looks on TV. Maybe "I'm not a real Prime Minister but I played one on television" has something to recommend it.  More here from Maclean's. 

Pop culture has dominated the political news cycle over the past year or so. Stay tuned.

Meyer on Legal Discourse and the Contemporary Native American Novel on the Indian Removal @UniOsnabrueck

Sabine N. Meyer, University of Osnabrueck, has published From Federal Indian Law to Indigenous Rights: Legal Discourse and the Contemporary Native American Novel on the Indian Removal, at 29 Law & Literature 269 (2017). Here is the abstract.

My contrapuntal readings of the indigenous rights debates that took place in the United Nations in the 1990s and two Native American historical novels on the Indian Removal published in the United States around the same time reveal that Native American literary production has been deeply inflected by the law. Robert Conley's Mountain Windsong: A Novel of the Trail of Tears(1992) needs to be read as a critique of the idea that Native American rights can be secured from within the United States’ legal order. Through the jarring juxtaposition of historical legal documents and a romantic plot, the novel deconstructs the idea of domestic law as an agent of change and introduces the language of human rights as an alternative normative framework for Native resistance. Diane Glancy's Pushing the Bear: A Novel of the Trail of Tears (1996) engages with a question that figured prominently in the debates about indigenous rights, namely whether these rights can be realized within the context of a human rights regime that puts the individual center stage. On closer scrutiny, the novel opens up an alternative way of thinking about the relationship between individual and group rights. It thereby contributes to closing the theoretical gap between individual and group rights, which stymied indigenous rights debates considerably.
The full text is available by subscription. 

Bijl on Human Rights and Anticolonial Nationalism In Sjahrir's "Indonesian Contemplations"

Paul Bijl has published Human Rights and Anticolonial Nationalism in Sjahrir's Indonesian Contemplations at 29 Law & Literature 247 (2017). Here is the abstract.
In 1945 and under the pseudonym Sjahrazad, Indonesia's first prime minister Sutan Sjahrir and his wife Maria Duchâteau published a book in Dutch entitled Indonesian Contemplations about Sjahrir's exile to and incarceration in the 1930s in the Dutch colonial concentration camp Boven-Digoel. Through an analysis of the book's critique of the legal spatialities of the Dutch empire and its imagination of the space of the Indonesian nation-state, this article makes a double argument: on the one hand, for the importance of scholarly analyses of Indonesian writing on the Dutch colonial-legal project and, on the other, against the idea that national liberation and international human rights were mutually exclusive in anticolonial nationalism.
Download the article from the website at the link.

Pope on Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Badges and Incidents of Slavery

James Gray Pope, Rutgers Law School, Newark, is publishing Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Badges and Incidents of Slavery in volume 65 of the UCLA Law Review (2018). Here is the abstract.
This article presents the first comprehensive treatment of the basic and officially “open” question whether section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment directly bans the badges and incidents of slavery. It then explores possible implications for the constitutional law of discrimination against whites, racially disparate impact, race-based affirmative action, gender equality, and reproductive freedom.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Neti on "The Love Laws": THe Indian Penal Code and Roy's "The God of Small Things" @Occidental

Leila Neti, Occidental College, has published "The Love Laws": Section 377 and the Politics of Queerness in Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things at 29 Law & Literature 223 (2017). Here is the abstract.
This article examines Arundhati Roy's novel The God of Small Things (1997) in relation to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. In it, I show how the literary text aligns with law derived from the colonial era by effectively conflating homosexuality with child sexual abuse, thus restaging the structuring logic and legal history of Section 377. As a result, I argue that Roy's novel, while overtly antagonistic to the disciplinary norms of sexual policing, nevertheless reproduces many of the same proscriptions that it ostensibly aims to critique. Drawing on a range of approaches from psychoanalysis and legal studies to queer theory, the article seeks to frame the novel's representation of the “Love Laws” in the context of the material enforcement of Section 377.
The full text is available online by subscription.

Goodrich on Islands, Pirates, Sovereignty, and Jurisdiction @CardozoLaw

Peter Goodrich, Cardozo School of Law, has published Mos Piraticus: On the Haunting and Infesting of the Seas, at 29 Law & Literature 193 (2017). Here is the abstract.
The island and the pirate raise the question of jurisdiction. The pirate haunts the seas, meaning that the pirate reminds the commonwealth of its past and of its others, the common ownership and shared possession of all things that Erasmus and then John Selden translate into the common inheritance of a shared knowledge. The adages and exempla of the humanists mix and mingle with the maxims and regulae of an inherited law whose hieroglyph is not, as Sir Edward Coke argues, the Crown, but rather the double D of the Decretals and the Digest.
The full text is available online by subscription.

July 26, 2017

Why So Many Mystery and Horror Plots Grow Up--and Out--of Small Towns

Emily Farrelly offers five reasons that small towns are such wonderful settings for mystery and horror: 1) the illusion of closeness (everyone knows everyone else--yikes) 2) slow investigative response (the cops, who know everyone, also know nothing about solving crimes) 3) isolation (everyone knows everyone else's secrets--more yikes) 4) the stakes are much higher (everyone knows you really well--okay, the yikes are really piling up now) and 5) the town is a character of its own (it dominates the people who live in it--okay, the yikes are out of sight).

More here.

Merlino on Montesquieu e la scienza giurdica italiana (Montesquieu and Italian Legal Science)

Antonio Merlino, Paris-Lodron-Universitaet Salzburg, has published Montesquieu e la scienza giuridica italiana (Montesquieu and Italian Legal Science) as Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2017-13. Here is the abstract.
Italian Abstract: Secondo Giovanni Tarello, Montesquieu è stato un precursore dell’illuminismo giuridico e il fondatore del principio della teoria della tripartizione dei poteri in esecutivo, legislative e giudiziario. Inoltre, egli avrebbe subordinato quest’ultimo al potere legislativo, definendo il giudice la «bocca della legge», che ripete, meccanicamente, la volontà del legislatore. In questo scritto propongo delle interpretazioni alternative. Secondo altri interpreti italiani, la teoria della separazione dei poteri non deve essere interpretata come una teoria astratta e razionale, avente lo scopo di separare i poteri e di assoggettare i giudici alla parola della legge. Al contrario, Montesquieu avrebbe cercato di limitare il potere pubblico attraverso un modello di sovranità divisa. Seguendo questa chiave di lettura il potere giudiziario in Montesquieu è un contropotere che limita il potere legislativo interpretando lo «spirito» dell’ordinamento giuridico prima che la «lettera» della legge.

English Abstract: According to Giovanni Tarello, Montesquieu was a forerunner of the legal enlightenment. He is believed to have formulated the theory of the tripartition of state powers into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Moreover, he is supposed to have subordinated the judicial to the legislative power (the judges should therefore be merely the “mouth of the law” and limit themselves to the mechanical application of the legislator’s will). In this paper I will suggest other interpretations. In the view of other Italian scholars, the theory of the separation of powers should not be seen as subjecting the judiciary to the legislative branch. On the contrary, Montesquieu can be understood as having intended to limit public power through the division of sovereignty, whereby judges set boundaries on the wielding of political power by interpreting the spirit rather than merely the letter of the law.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Endicott and Oliver on The Role of Theory in Canadian Constitutional Law @OxfordLawFac @PeterCOliver @OxUniPress

Timothy A. O. Endicott, University of Oxford Faculty of Law, and Peter C. Oliver, University of Ottawa, Common Law Section, are publishing The Role of Theory in Canadian Constitutional Law in The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Constitutional Law (N. Des Rosiers, P. Macklem, and P. Oliver, eds., Oxford University Press, 2017). Here is the abstract.
Constitutional theory has been institutionalized in distinctive ways in Canada. The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act, 1867) created unique opportunities and imperatives for political leaders, advocates, judges, scholars, law students and others to articulate their understanding of Confederation. And even while the country chose a parliamentary form of government very different from American republicanism, Confederation generated a set of entrenched rules defining the powers of the federal and provincial governments, which would give judges a hand in the law of the Constitution that judges had not had in the United Kingdom. Moreover, Canadian federalism generated an extraordinary statutory provision for references (i.e., requests for advisory opinions) to the Supreme Court of Canada on matters of law and fact, including (as it would turn out) matters of convention. The judges’ reasons for decision involve them in the theoretical task of articulating the basis of the Constitution. The Constitution Act, 1982 further enhanced the judges’ role as theorists of the Constitution, through their role in the interpretation and elaboration of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We aim to illustrate ways in which both express theorizing and inarticulate theoretical assumptions have shaped Canadian constitutional law, and we argue that good theorizing is essential for the sound development of the law and practice of the Constitution.
Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

July 25, 2017

Literature and Human Rights: The Law, the Language and the Limitations of Human Rights @degruyter_lit

New in paperback from de Gruyter:

Literature and Human Rights: The Law, the Language and the Limitations of Human Rights Discourse (Ian Ward, ed., 2017) (to be released July 26, 2017)

This very interesting volume includes essays by Maria Aristodemou, Daniela Carpi, Jeanne Gaakeer, Ian Ward, and many other scholars. Available in hardcover, paperback, and ebook.

July 24, 2017

"Star Trek" and Revolutionary Socialism @nytimes

A. M. Gittlitz examines Star Trek's links to revolutionary socialism, here, for the New York Times.

Asimow on Jewish Lawyers on Television @StanfordLaw @OxfordCSLS ‏

Michael Asimow, Stanford Law School, has published Jewish Lawyers on Television at 2017 (2) Journal of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies 14.
Jewish lawyers have appeared in numerous television series, including lawyer shows as well as soap operas and police stories. Many of these portrayals reflect negative stereotypes that suggest Jewish lawyers are worse than other lawyers. Jewish lawyers frequently are represented as shrewd, manipulative, cunning and unethical. Most are physically unattractive and many are obnoxious. These negative representations may reflect deep seated and persistent anti-Semitic views. However, some Jewish TV lawyers are presented in a mildly positive light and a few are very positively represented. This article introduces the Jewish TV lawyers and seeks to explain both the negative and positive stereotypes embodied in their characters.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

July 13, 2017

Mikhail on The Definition of "Emolument" In English Language and Legal Dictionaries, 1523-1806 @_John_Mikhail

John Mikhail, Georgetown University Law Center, has published The Definition of 'Emolument' in English Language and Legal Dictionaries, 1523-1806. Here is the abstract.
In its motion to dismiss in CREW et al. v. Trump, the Department of Justice (DOJ) defines the word “emolument” as “profit arising from office or employ.” DOJ claims that this “original understanding” of “emolument” is both grounded in “contemporaneous dictionary definitions” and justifies an “office-and-employment-specific construction” of that term. On this basis, it argues that the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution “do not prohibit any company in which the President has any financial interest from doing business with any foreign, federal, or state instrumentality.” Unfortunately, DOJ’s historical definition of “emolument” is inaccurate, unrepresentative, and misleading. Particularly because the government may seek to utilize its flawed definition in subsequent court filings, this Article seeks to correct the historical record. It does so based on a comprehensive study of how “emolument” is defined in English language dictionaries published from 1604 to 1806, as well as in common law dictionaries published between 1523 and 1792. Among other things, the Article demonstrates that every English dictionary definition of “emolument” from 1604 to 1806 relies on one or more of the elements of the broad definition DOJ rejects in its brief: “profit,” “advantage,” “gain,” or “benefit.” Furthermore, over 92% of these dictionaries define “emolument” exclusively in these terms, with no reference to “office” or “employment.” By contrast, DOJ’s preferred definition — “profit arising from office or employ” — appears in less than 8% of these dictionaries. Moreover, even these outlier dictionaries always include “gain, or advantage” in their definitions, a fact obscured by DOJ’s selective quotation of only one part of its favored definition from Barclay (1774). The impression DOJ creates in its brief by contrasting four historical definitions of “emolument” — two broad and two narrow — is, therefore, highly misleading. The suggestion that “emolument” was a legal term of art at the founding, with a sharply circumscribed “office-and-employment-specific” meaning, is also inconsistent with the historical record. A vast quantity of evidence already available in the public domain suggests that the founding generation used the word “emolument” in broad variety of contexts, including private commercial transactions. This Article adds to that emerging historical consensus by documenting that none of the most significant common law dictionaries published from 1523 to 1792 even includes “emolument” in its list of defined terms. In fact, this term is mainly used in these legal dictionaries to define other, less familiar words and concepts. These findings reinforce the conclusion that “emolument” was not a term of art at the founding with a highly restricted meaning. Finally, the Article calls attention to the fact that the government’s dictionary-based argument is flawed in another, more fundamental respect. Little or no evidence indicates that the two historical dictionaries — Barclay (1774) and Trusler (1766) — on which DOJ relies in its brief to defend its “office-and-employment-specific” definition of “emolument” were owned, possessed, or used by the founders, let alone had any impact on them or on the American people who debated and ratified the Constitution. For example, neither of these dictionaries is mentioned in the more than 178,000 searchable documents in the Founders Online database, which makes publicly available the papers of the six most prominent founders. Nor do these volumes appear in other pertinent databases, such as the Journals of the Continental Congress, Letters of Delegates to Congress, Farrand’s Records, Elliot’s Debates, or the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. By contrast, all of the dictionaries that the founding generation did possess and use regularly — e.g., Johnson, Bailey, Dyche & Pardon, Ash, and Entick — define “emolument” in the broad manner favoring the plaintiffs: “profit,” “gain,” “advantage,” or “benefit.” To document its primary claims, the Article includes over 100 original images of English language and legal dictionaries from 1523 to 1806, as well as complete transcripts and easy-to-read tables of the definitions contained therein. A second study is currently underway of dictionaries from 1806 to the present, which seeks to determine how and why definitions of “emolument” may have changed over time. Collectively, these inquiries are designed to accomplish more than simply aiding judges and holding lawyers’ feet to the fire in the emoluments cases now pending in three federal courts. They also provide a basis for educating members of Congress, government officials, journalists, and the broader public about the historical meaning of this important yet obscure constitutional term.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

July 12, 2017

Comino, Galasso, and Grasizno on The Diffusion of New Institutions: Evidence From Renassiance Venice's Patent System @AlbertoGalasso

Stefano Comino, Università degli Studi di Udine, Alberto Galasso, University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Strategic Management, and Clara Graziano, Università degli Studi di Udine - Department of Economics; CESifo (Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute for Economic Research, have published The Diffusion of New Institutions: Evidence from Renaissance Venice's Patent System. Here is the abstract.
What factors affect the diffusion of new economic institutions? This paper examines this question by exploiting the introduction of the first regularized patent system, which appeared in the Venetian Republic in 1474. We begin by developing a model that links patenting activity of craft guilds with provisions in their statutes. The model predicts that guild statutes that are more effective at preventing outsiders’ entry and at mitigating price competition lead to less patenting. We test this prediction on a new dataset that combines detailed information on craft guilds and patents in the Venetian Republic during the Renaissance. We find a negative association between patenting activity and guild statutory norms that strongly restrict entry and price competition. We show that guilds that originated from medieval religious confraternities were more likely to regulate entry and competition, and that the effect on patenting is robust to instrumenting guild statutes with their quasi-exogenous religious origin. We also find that patenting was more widespread among guilds geographically distant from Venice, and among guilds in cities with lower political connections, which we measure by exploiting a new database of noble families and their marriages with members of the great council. Our analysis suggests that local economic and political conditions may have a substantial impact on the diffusion of new economic institutions.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Domingo on Justinian and the Corpus Iuris: An Overview @RafaelDomingoO1

Rafael Domingo, Emory University School of Law; University of Navarra, has published Justinian and the Corpus Iuris: An Overview. Here is the abstract.
The authors explores the most important legal undertaking of Antiquity: the Corpus Iuris Civilis promulgated by Emperor Justinian. Justinian’s codification is the bridge that links Antiquity, the Byzantine Empire, and Europe. It is also the link between civil law and common law, and between canon law and civil law. To know about the Corpus Iuris is to know about something that was instrumental for the development of justice and law in the past, continues to operate in the present, and will probably have its impact in the future. The Corpus Iuris, especially the Digest, has not only a historic value but an intrinsic one because it embodied the creative spirit and permanent character of all of Roman jurisprudence.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Dubber on Colonial Criminal Law and Other Modernities @UTLaw

Markus D. Dubber, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, is publishing Colonial Criminal Law and Other Modernities: European Criminal Law in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century in the Oxford Handbook of European Legal History (forthcoming). Here is the abstract.
This paper has two parts. The first part reflects on various traditional approaches to the historical study of European criminal law in the nineteenth and twentieth century. The second part lays out an alternative, two-track, conception of "modern" European criminal legal history. It does this by taking an upside-down -- or outside-in -- view of the subject, by focusing on an understudied, but fascinating, project of European criminal law: the invention, implementation, and evolution of colonial criminal law.
Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Reynolds on Truth and the Trial Lawyer @Oregon_Law

Jennifer Reynolds, University of Oregon School of Law, has published Truth and the Trial Lawyer at Trial Lawyer, Summer 2017, at 13. Here is the abstract.
Lawyers routinely deal in fictions, so much so that they are somtimes criticized as professional liars. But can this proficiency with storytelling actually bring us closer to the truth?
Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

July 11, 2017

Alexander on Libel and Copyright in the Satire of Peter Pindar

James R. Alexander, University of Pittsburgh, Jonestown, has published Libel and Copyright in the Satire of Peter Pindar. Here is the abstract.
In 1802, the English Chancery Court denied the satirical poet John Wolcot (‘Peter Pindar’) injunctive relief for copyright infringement claimed against his publisher John Walker. While the original agreement between the parties was ambiguous, the ruling was more procedural rather than interpretive. As Wolcot’s verse was always scandalous and arguably libelous, Eldon ruled that Wolcot should first establish his property in the contested works at law before seeking equitable relief, to thereby clear away any question of their criminality. This was arguably the first application to copyright of an eighteenth-century maxim that there could be no property in criminally-libelous literary works. Almost immediately and for over the next century in equity cases and both English and American legal treatises, Eldon’s ruling was interpreted as establishing the Court as censor morum, authorized under common law to rule exceptions to copyright protection based on a determination of illicit or illegal content, regardless of whether copyright statutes specified content-based exceptions. However, a careful review of the Chancery records reveals the ruling warrants a more tempered reading, and that the long-assumed legal precedent may have followed a hoped-for rather than established principle.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Tugendhat on Slavery and Comparative Law in Eighteenth Century England @LawLeicester

Michael Tugendhat, Leicester Law School, has published Slavery and Comparative Law in Eighteenth Century England as University of Leicester School of Law Research Paper No. 17-08. Here is the abstract.
This paper addresses the contemporary criticism to the European Court of Human Rights in the UK by underscoring how the English law on human rights has been positively influenced by the laws of other European countries, in the same fashion as English law has traditionally influenced such foreign laws. The means for this analysis is a case-study on the introduction of the French law on slavery and the subsequent implementation of such principles in England. Slavery had been abolished in France since the early 1300s. Moorish slaves brought to France were being freed from at least 1571, as was recorded by Jean Bodin in 1576. In England, slavery had practically disappeared at the sunset of the Middle Ages. It resurfaced in the French and American colonies in the New World in the 1600s. In the period 1730-1790 French courts, citing Bodin, freed over 200 slaves brought to France from the colonies. In Somerset v Stewart, 1772, English courts finally held that slavery was not recognised by English law, which led to the termination of slavery in England once and for all; and it was the influence of French courts’ decisions on the bestowal of freedom to foreign slaves that led to the reasoning of the English Court.
Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Simenon and Justice: A New Book By Alexandra Fabbri and Christian Guéry @BellesLettresEd

A new book on Georges Simenon and law, available from Les Belles Lettres. The authors are judges Alexandra Fabbri and Christian Guéry, and the book is Simenon et la Justice, in the series Bibliothèque Simenon.

The book includes chapters on various parties in the French judicial system and analysis of whether Maigret, Simenon's famous police officer, is simply an officer of the law, investigating crimes, or engages in judging his suspects' actions as well.

Here is a link to an interview with author Alexandra Fabbri, discussing the book.  Both the book and the interview are in French.

Call For Applications, Fellowships: Institute for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies, University of Lucerne

From the mailbox:





The Institute for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies at the University of Lucerne is pleased to announce the call for applications for its Young Scholar Visiting Fellowship scheme for 2018.  

The fellowship programme is part of our mission to promote international and interdisciplinary collaboration and exchange. Fellows are invited to spend an extended period at the institute, during which they can share and develop research and teaching ideas with our members.

Full details can be found here. The deadline for submission of applications is Thursday 30 November 2017.

Informal enquiries can be directed to Dr. Steven Howe (steven.howe@unilu.ch).


Registration Now Open For the Central States Law Schools Association 2017 Conference

From the mailbox:




Registration is Open for the CSLSA 2017 Conference

Registration is now open for the Central States Law Schools Association 2017 Scholarship Conference, which will be held on Friday, October 6 and Saturday, October 7 at Southern Illinois University School of Law in Carbondale, Illinois. We invite law faculty from across the country to submit proposals to present papers or works in progress.

CSLSA is an organization of law schools dedicated to providing a forum for conversation and collaboration among law school academics. The CSLSA Annual Conference is an opportunity for legal scholars, especially more junior scholars, to present working papers or finished articles on any law-related topic in a relaxed and supportive setting where junior and senior scholars from various disciplines are available to comment. More mature scholars have an opportunity to test new ideas in a less formal setting than is generally available for their work. Scholars from member and nonmember schools are invited to attend. 

Please click 
here to register. The deadline for registration is September 2, 2017.  

Hotel rooms are now available for pre-booking.  The conference hotel is the 
Holiday Inn Conference Center in Carbondale.  To reserve a room, call 618-549-2600 and ask for the SIU School of Law rate ($109/night) or book online and use block code SOL.  SIU School of Law will provide shuttle service to and from the Holiday Inn & Conference Center for conference events.  Other hotel options (without shuttle service) are listed on our website.  Please note that conference participants are responsible for all of their own travel expenses including hotel accommodations.

For more information about CSLSA and the 2017 Annual Conference please 
subscribe to our blog.