dissertation law school

HLS Dissertations, Theses, and JD Papers

S.j.d. dissertations, ll.m. papers, ll.m. theses, j.d. papers, submitting your paper to an online collection, other sources for student papers beyond harvard, getting help, introduction.

This is a guide to finding Harvard Law School (“HLS”) student-authored works held by the Library and in online collections. This guide covers HLS S.J.D Dissertations, LL.M. papers, J.D. third-year papers, seminar papers, and prize papers.

There have been changes in the HLS degree requirements for written work. The library’s collection practices and catalog descriptions for these works has varied. Please note that there are gaps in the library’s collection and for J.D. papers, few of these works are being collected any longer.

If we have an S.J.D. dissertation or LL.M. thesis, we have two copies. One is kept in the general collection and one in the Red Set, an archival collection of works authored by HLS affiliates. If we have a J.D. paper, we have only one copy, kept in the Red Set. Red Set copies are last resort copies available only by advance appointment in Historical and Special Collections .

Some papers have not been processed by library staff. If HOLLIS indicates a paper is “ordered-received” please use this form to have library processing completed.

The HLS Doctor of Juridical Science (“S.J.D.”) program began in 1910.  The library collection of these works is not comprehensive. Exceptions are usually due to scholars’ requests to withhold Library deposit. 

• HLS S.J.D. Dissertations in HOLLIS To refine these search results by topic or faculty advisor, or limit by date, click Add a New Line.
• Hein’s Legal Theses and Dissertations Microfiche Mic K556.H45x Drawers 947-949 This microfiche set includes legal theses and dissertations from HLS and other premier law schools. It currently includes about 300 HLS dissertations and theses.
• Hein's Legal Theses and Dissertations Contents List This content list is in order by school only, not by date, subject or author. It references microfiche numbers within the set housed in the Microforms room on the entry level of the library, drawers 947-949. The fiche are a different color for each institution.
• ProQuest Dissertations and Theses @ Harvard University (Harvard login) Copy this search syntax: dg(S.J.D.) You will find about 130 SJD Dissertations dated from 1972 to 2004. They are not available in full text.
• DASH Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard Sponsored by Harvard University’s Office for Scholarly Communication, DASH is an open repository for research papers by members of the Harvard community. There are currently about 600 HLS student papers included. Unfortunately it is not possible to search by type of paper or degree awarded.

The Master of Laws (“LL.M.”) degree has been awarded since 1923. Originally, the degree required completion of a major research paper, akin to a thesis. Since 1993, most students have the option of writing the LL.M. "short paper."  This is a 25-page (or longer) paper advised by a faculty supervisor or completed in conjunction with a seminar.  Fewer LL.M. candidates continue to write the more extensive "long-paper." LL.M. candidates holding J.D.s from the U.S. must write the long paper.

• HLS Written Work Requirements for LL.M. Degree The current explanation of the LL.M. written work requirement for the master of laws.

The library generally holds HLS LL.M. long papers and short papers. In recent years, we require author release in order to do so. In HOLLIS, no distinction is made between types of written work created in satisfaction of the LL.M. degree; all are described as LL.M. thesis. Though we describe them as thesis, the law school refers to them solely as papers or in earlier years, essays. HOLLIS records indicate the number of pages, so at the record level, it is possible to distinguish long papers.

• HLS LL.M. Papers in HOLLIS To refine these search results by topic, faculty advisor, seminar or date, click Add a New Line.

HLS LL.M. Papers are sometimes available in DASH and Hein's Legal Dissertations and Theses. See descriptions above .

The HLS J.D. written work requirement has changed over time. The degree formerly required a substantial research paper comparable in scope to a law review article written under faculty supervision, the "third year paper." Since 2008, J.D. students have the option of using two shorter works instead.

Of all those written, the library holds relatively few third-year papers. They were not actively collected but accepted by submission from faculty advisors who deemed a paper worthy of institutional retention. The papers are described in HOLLIS as third year papers, seminar papers, and student papers. Sometimes this distinction was valid, but not always. The faculty deposit tradition more or less ended in 2006, though the possibility of deposit still exists. 

• J.D. Written Work Requirement
• Faculty Deposit of Student Papers with the Library

HLS Third Year Papers in HOLLIS

To refine these search results by topic, faculty advisor, seminar or date, click Add a New Line.

• HLS Student Papers Some third-year papers and LL.M. papers were described in HOLLIS simply as student papers. To refine these search results, click "Add a New Line" and add topic, faculty advisor, or course title.
• HLS Seminar Papers Note that these include legal research pathfinders produced for the Advanced Legal Research course when taught by Virginia Wise.

Prize Papers

HLS has many endowed prizes for student papers and essays. There are currently 16 different writing prizes. See this complete descriptive list with links to lists of winners from 2009 to present. Note that there is not always a winner each year for each award. Prize winners are announced each year in the commencement pamphlet.

The Library has not specifically collected prize papers over the years but has added copies when possible. The HOLLIS record for the paper will usually indicate its status as a prize paper. The most recent prize paper was added to the collection in 2006.

Addison Brown Prize Animal Law & Policy Program Writing Prize Victor Brudney Prize Davis Polk Legal Profession Paper Prize Roger Fisher and Frank E.A. Sander Prize Yong K. Kim ’95 Memorial Prize Islamic Legal Studies Program Prize on Islamic Law Laylin Prize LGBTQ Writing Prize Mancini Prize Irving Oberman Memorial Awards John M. Olin Prize in Law and Economics Project on the Foundations of Private Law Prize Sidney I. Roberts Prize Fund Klemens von Klemperer Prize Stephen L. Werner Prize

• Harvard Law School Prize Essays (1850-1868) A historical collection of handwritten prize essays covering the range of topics covered at that time. See this finding aid for a collection description.

The following information about online repositories is not a recommendation or endorsement to participate.

• ProQuest Dissertations and Theses HLS is not an institutional participant to this collection. If you are interested in submitting your work, refer to these instructions and note that there is a fee required, which varies depending on the format of submission.
• EBSCO Open Dissertations Relatively new, this is an open repository of metadata for dissertations. It is an outgrowth of the index American Doctoral Dissertations. The aim is to cover 1933 to present and, for modern works, to link to full text available in institutional repositories. Harvard is not one of the institutional participants.
• DASH Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard

Sponsored by Harvard University’s Office for Scholarly Communication, this is an open repository for research papers by members of the Harvard community. See more information about the project. 

Some HLS students have submitted their degree paper to DASH.  If you would like to submit your paper, you may use this authorization form  or contact June Casey , Librarian for Open Access Initiatives and Scholarly Communication at Harvard Law School.

• ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Harvard Login) Covers dissertations and masters' theses from North American graduate schools and many worldwide. Provides full text for many since the 1990s and has descriptive data for older works.
• NDLTD Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations Union Catalog Worldwide in scope, NDLTD contains millions of records of electronic theses and dissertations from the early 1900s to the present.
• Law Commons of the Digital Commons Network The Law Commons has dissertations and theses, as well as many other types of scholarly research such as book chapters and conference proceedings. They aim to collect free, full-text scholarly work from hundreds of academic institutions worldwide.
• EBSCO Open Dissertations Doctoral dissertations from many institutions. Free, open repository.
• Dissertations from Center for Research Libraries Dissertations found in this resource are available to the Harvard University Community through Interlibrary Loan.
• British Library EThOS Dissertation source from the British Library listing doctoral theses awarded in the UK. Some available for immediate download and some others may be requested for scanning.
• BASE from Bielefeld University Library Index of the open repositoris of most academic institutions. Includes many types of documents including doctoral and masters theses.

Contact Us!

  Ask Us!  Submit a question or search our knowledge base.

Chat with us!  Chat   with a librarian (HLS only)

Email: [email protected]

 Contact Historical & Special Collections at [email protected]

  Meet with Us   Schedule an online consult with a Librarian

Hours  Library Hours

Classes  View  Training Calendar  or  Request an Insta-Class

 Text  Ask a Librarian, 617-702-2728

 Call  Reference & Research Services, 617-495-4516

• Last Updated: Sep 12, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/studentpapers

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Stanford Law School's Theses and Dissertations Collection

• Early Thesis and Dissertation of Stanford Law School, 1929 to 1956
• Theses and Dissertations of Stanford Law School,1970-1995
• Stanford Program in International Legal Studies’ Theses, 1996 to 2010
• Stanford Law School’s Dissertations, 1996 to 2010
• Stanford Program in International Legal Studies Theses, 2011 to 2025

Title: Stanford Law School’s Dissertations, 1996 to 2010

Title: Stanford Law School’s Dissertations Inclusive Dates: 1996 to 2010

Access Restrictions: None Copyright Restriction:  Property rights reside with Robert Crown Law Library Special Collection.  Copyrights are retained by the creator of the records or their heirs.

Series Description:

This series consists of dissertations produced by Stanford Law School’s candidates in the Doctor of the Science of Law or the Doctor of Jurisprudence programs during the years of 1996 to 2010.  Each dissertation is original research that each individual submit to a committee of Stanford law professors to prove that they add substantial original scholarly works.  Subject matter that Dissertation covers is diverse in nature. This series is arranged by call number and author's last name. 

Extent: 3 linear feet (textual) Location(s) : GS-SU-06-02-01 to GS-SU-06-01-06

3781 1996 C - Environmental Protection Under and After Socialism: A Study of Poland  3781 1996 C - Riverrun: Three Essays about the Uses of History in Legal Problems Concerning Native Americans  3781 1996 D - Do you Speak Genomics?: Patenting Biotechnology "Translation" Inventions and Other Macromolecules  3781 1996 S - Corporate Governance in Quasi Public Corporations: A New Perspective in Cameroon   3781 1997 B - Innovation Market Concept: A Model for European Merger Control?  3781 1997 E - The Dispute Settlement System in the Egyptian Capital Market and Economic Development  3781 1997 H - Private Property, Culture, and Ideology: Israel's Supreme Court and the Jurisprudence of Land Expropriation 3781 1997 Y - Medical Malpractice in Taiwan: Myth and Reality  3781 1997 Z - A Critical Analysis of the Ethical Duty of Confidentiality in the American law 3781 1998 B - The accommodation of Interests in Freedom of the Press and Protection of Reputation in the Constitutional Doctrine of the United States and Spain   3781 1998 C - Differential Treatment in International Law: A New Framework for the Realisation of Sustainable Development   3781 1998 C - International Tax Policy Under NAFTA: The Impact of National Tax Differences on Capital Flows under Regional Trade and Investment Integration   3781 1998 C - Telecommunications Reform in Mexico: Challenges for Entering the Global Digital Economy  3781 1998 H - Rethinking the Legal Structure of Bank Securities Powers: "Universal Banking" vs. the "Glass-Steagall Act" in Taiwan   3781 1998 K - Property Rights and Biodiversity Management in Kenya: The Case of Land Tenure Regimes and Wildlife Management 3781 1998 L - Economic and Sociological Theories of Contingent Employment: Critique and Implications for Law Reform   3781 1998 N - Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society   3781 1998 R - Constitutional Gravity and Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Unitary Theory of Public Civil Dispute Resolution 3781 1998 Y - Embedded Strategies, Corporate Partners, and Markets in the Digital Age  3781 1999 C - Assessing the Impacts of Trade Liberalization on Forests  3781 1999 D - The Impact of Plant Intellectual Property Rights on Thailand's Agriculture: Implications of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)  3781 1999 Y - International Strategic Alliances in High Technology Industries: A Law and Economic Analysis From an Antitrust Perspective  3781 2000 D - Volume 1 Sexual Harassment Law: History, Cases, and Theory  3781 2000 D - Volume 2 Sexual Harassment Law: History, Cases, and Theory  3781 2000 K - Restructuring the Liability Regime in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990  3781 2000 L - Minimal State and Distributive Justice: An Essay on Nozick's Theory with Some Comparative Aspects to Rawls' 3781 2000 O - Law, Gender Relations and Social Change in Nigeria 3781 2000 W - Environmental Pollution in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria: A Case for Direct Equity Participation

3 781 2001 C - Self-Censorship and the Struggle for Press Freedom in Hong Kong 3781 2001 H - Administrative Litigation and Court Reform in the People's Republic of China  3781 2001 H - Critical Eating: Genetically Engineered Foods in International Relations: Designing International Bodies on Risk Management in Evolving Science & Technology with Global Impact  3781 2001 R - Counsel for the Indigent Accused in the United States and the Republic of Korea: Constitutional Reflections and Suggestions for Changes in the South Korean Criminal Justice System  3781 2001 R - Strategic Alliances in the United States Microelectronics Industry 3781 2001 W - Four Traces of Michelman and Sunstein's Legal Republicanism: Republican Historiography, Communitarianism, Habermasian Philosophy and Rawlsian Liberalism   3781 2001 W - The Comparison of Prosecutorial Functions in the U.S.A. and in Taiwan 3781 2001 Z - Human Rights Law and Public Interest Lawyering: A Study on the Interdependence of Jurisprudence and the Legal Profession in Israel 3781 2002 C - Environmental Cooperation Institution Building in Northeast Asia 3781 2002 E - Personal Bankruptcy in Israel  3781 2002 L - Custody Decisions in Social and Cultural contexts: The Best Interests of the Child Standard and Judges' Custody Decisions in Taiwan  3781 2002 L - Legal Culture and Social Change: The Case of Taiwanese Family Law Development  3781 2002 M - A Tale of Two Networks: Interconnection in Early Telephony and the Comme[r]cial Internet  3781 2002 M - A Tale of Two Networks: Interconnection in Early Telephony and the Comme[r]cial Internet  3781 2002 R - 2001: A Space Odyssey: Law, Space, and Society in Contemporary Israel  3781 2002 T - The Political Economy of Regulatory Competition: A Diachronic Institutional Theory of Legal Change in an Era of Globalization  3781 2002 W - Crypto Policy and Online Public Forums  3781 2003 B - The Puzzle of Mass Torts: A Comparative Study of Asbestos Litigation  3781 2003 J - Pharmaceutical Differential Pricing: Reality or Wishful Thinking?  3781 2003 S - Constructing Copyright and Literary Creativity in Kenya Cultural Politics and the Political Economy of Transnational Intellectual Property  3781 2003 X - Mediation in China and the United States: Toward Common Outcome  3781 2004 H - Why Do They Not Obey the Law?: A Case Study of a Rural-Urban Migrant Enclave in China  3781 2004 L - Unfinished Business: Challenging Microsoft in Taiwan 3781 2004 M - Kiamas: Rethinking Access to Justice in Domestic Violence Cases in Kenya  3781 2004 N - Commercializing Motion Pictures and Sound Recordings Through the Internet: Copyright Law and Technological Change  3781 2004 P - Balancing in Constitutional Law: A Suggested Analytical Framework Applied to American Constitutional Law  3781 2004 S - An Analysis of the Political Economy of Japanese Fisheries: The Dynamics of Bureaucratic Policymaking in Domestic and International Fisheries 3781 2005 A - An Attempt to Mediate Immigrant Integration: Intercultural Mediators in Catalonia  3781 2005 C - Paying for Nature Conservation with Tax Dollars?: An Evaluation of the Role of Fiscal Policy Reform in Promoting Biodiversity Conservation in Canada through Legal, Economic, Ecological, Fiscal and Political Lenses   3781 2006 A - Banking System in Islamic Countries: Saudi Arabia and Egypt  3781 2006 A - Democratic Deliberation of Trade Legislation in Ghana: Institutions, Interests and Accountability 3781 2006 A - The Legal Culture of the European Court of Human Rights  3781 2006 H - Women's Experience in Court: The Implementation of Feminist Law Reforms in Civil Proceedings Concerning Domestic Violence  3781 2006 L - Divorce and Annulment in San Mateo County, California 1950-1957  3781 2006 N - Toward Better-Balanced Copyright Regulations in the Digital and Network Era: Law, Technology, and the Market in the U.S. and Japan 3781 2006 P - Criminal Investigation and Prosecution in Mexico City: A Case Study of Miguel Hidalgo County and its Ministerio Público  3781 2006 Y - Legal Risk and Investment in India: A Case Study of the Dabhol Power Project  3781 2007 C - Unbundling Path Dependence: A Case Study of Telecommunications Reform in Mexico (1990-2006)  3781 2007 G - All in the Family: The Influence of Social Networks on Dispute Processing: A Case Study of a Developing Economy 3781 2007 H - Social Symmetry: A Theory of Altruism and Cooperation 3781 2007 L - From Imitation to Innovation: The Role of Patent in China's Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries  3781 2007 M - Clientelism, Competition and Corruption: Informal Institutions and Telecommunications Reform in Kenya 3781 2007 W - Legal Framework for the Development of Venture Capital in China: Policy Recommendations for the Establishment of a Growth Enterprise Market ("GEM")        3781 2008 M - Rules and Engagement: A Comparative Qualitative Evaluation of European Union Rule-of-law Promotion in Romania, Turkey, Serbia, and Ukraine  3781 2008 N - The Role of Competition Law and Policy in the Economic Development of Korea 3781 2008 P - "In the Public Interest": Threats to Self-regulation of the Legal Profession in Ontario, 1998-2006   3781 2008 P - The Next Generation of Mexican Lawyers: A Study of Mexico's System of Legal Education and its Law Students  3781 2008 S - Beyond Legalism: The Mexican Supreme Court in the Democratic Era  3781 2009 L - The Neglected Role of Non-Profit Organizations in the Intellectual-Commons Environment  3781 2009 P - The Political-Economy and the Causes of Compliance of Trade and Investment Agreements: NAFTA and the Sweeteners Sector  3781 2009 S - "Outside the Pale of the Law": The Processing of Disputes in Buduburam Refugee Camp in Ghana  3781 2009 S - Recalcitrant Victims and Refractory Systems: An Exploratory Study of Attrition During the Investigation of rape Complaints in Post-Apartheid South Africa 3781 2009 T - The Design of Micro Credit Contracts and Costs of Credit: A Case Study of Micro Enterprise Finance in Uganda  3781 2010 C - Improving the Business Climate Under the Hot Sun: Do Small Business Associations Make a Difference?: A Study of Four Districts in Nyanza Province, Kenya 3781 2010 F - From Gender Based-Violence to Women's Violence in Haiti  3781 2010 F - From State Street to Bilski: Patent Protection in the Financial Industry 3781 2010 L - Weak Independent Directors, Strong Controlling Shareholders: Do Independent Directors Constrain Tunneling in Taiwan? 3781 2010 M - Access to Justice and Resolution of Criminal Cases at Informal Chiefs' Courts: The Ewe of Ghana 3781 2010 O - Measuring Japan's Nursery Quality Within the UNCRC Framework: International Standards for Young Children's Social Services and Their Implications for Japan   3781 2010 S - How do Principals Deal with Underperforming Teachers?: A Study of How Principals from Secondary Schools in Mexico City Manage Underperforming Teachers   3781 2010 T - Cross-border Enforcement of Patents

• Last Updated: Dec 18, 2023 9:02 AM
• URL: https://guides.law.stanford.edu/c.php?g=1087208

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Center for Digital Scholarship

Law School Dissertations

Dissertations submitted to the faculty of the law school.

Dissertation titles appear in the convocation programs . Law School dissertations are available online and in print. For print copies, search the Library Catalog.

Knowledge@UChicago Access

More than half (63% since Summer 2021) of our recent Law School dissertations may be viewed in Knowledge@UChicago , the University's open access repository. Chicago Unbound also provides access. Please note that authors may choose to delay access to their work for a limited time.

ProQuest's dissertation databases, PQDT Global and their subset, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses @ University of Chicago , provide comprehensive access.

• 2023-2024 Winter 33% ProQuest-Only (3 Total, 1 IR: No)
• 2022-2023 Law School 100% ProQuest-Only (1 Total, 1 IR: No)
• 2021-2022 Law School 25% ProQuest-Only (4 Total, 1 IR: No)

ProQuest-Only Digital Access

Dissertations by authors who did not choose the University's open access repository may be viewed in ProQuest's dissertation databases or requested via interlibrary loan. Please note that authors may choose to delay access to their work for a limited time.

2023-2024 Winter

Krithika Ashok Essays on the Popular Character of the Supreme Court of India

Ramon Feldbrin Constitutional Procedure: An Integrated Approach to the Procedural Rules of Judicial Review

Ziv Schwartz On Procedure and Discretion in U.S. Appellate Courts

•   Home

Yale Law School Dissertations

Filter by category.

Publication Date Authors Titles Subjects

Search within this collection:

Recent Submissions

LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL REORGANIZATIONIN PUERTO RICO.

The Three Faces of Bankruptcy Law

The Constitutional Protection of Property Rights in Argentina: A Reappraisal of the Doctrine of Economic Emergency

A Theory of Domestic Violence in International Law

The Constitution of Japan: An Unfinished Revolution

AT THE TURN OF THE TIDE: A FRAMEWORK FOR A POLICY-ORIENTED INQUIRY INTO STRATEGIES FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTIVE PROCESS OF AUTHORITATIVE DECISION IN MEXICO

NEGLIGENCE AS OPTIMIZATION PUZZLES: A NEW THEORY OF NEGLIGENCE

The Structure of Norms and Legal Uncertainty: A Framework for the Functional Analysis of Law as Transformed in Multi-Member Decision Mechanisms

Export search results.

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.

Social Sciences School of Law

Warwick law school news.

The latest updates from our department

Show all news items

Smashing Law Dissertations: A Step-by-Step Guide

We are pleased to announce that Dr Laura Lammasniemi released a new book on March 26 2018.

Hundreds of students across the UK tackle law dissertations every year as part of their LLB or LLM courses. Laura, Assistant Professor at Warwick Law School, offers a helping hand with her new book, ‘ Law Dissertations: A Step-by-Step Guide ’, which provides all the direction and information needed to complete and succeed in an LLB, LLM or law-related dissertation.

Using easy to follow tools, exercises and examples, Laura’s essential guide shows students how to approach a law dissertation in a straightforward way, without compromising on intellectual rigour.

Laura shared, ‘the book aims to support students through all the issues that cause anxiety so they can focus on the research they find exciting.’

As well as explaining the process of research and outlining the various legal methodologies, the book also provides practical, step-by-step guidance on how to formulate a proposal, research plan, and literature review.

Unlike other law research skills books, it also includes a section on empirical research methodology and ethics for the benefit of students who are studying for a law-related degree.

Laura joined Warwick Law School as an Assistant Professor in 2018. Specialising in criminal law, Laura’s research focuses on the areas of law, gender and class mainly from a historical perspective. She has previously convened Dissertation modules in a number of institutions and developed Dissertation module materials for the University of London (International Academy) and is now shaking up the Undergraduate Dissertation modules at Warwick Law School.

With the undergraduate module fair coming up on April 25, find out more about the dissertation modules on offer here at Warwick.

More information about the book can be found here.

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

• Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Law dissertations : a step-by-step guide

Available online, at the library.

Law Library (Crown)

More options.

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

• Introduction
• Finding and perfecting your topic
• From a topic to a question
• Creating a good research project
• Planning the project
• Creating a research plan
• Online research
• Methodology
• Empirical research
• Processing literature
• Literature review
• Writing the dissertation
• Referencing
• Structuring the dissertation
• Navigating supervision
• Obtaining a first and avoiding fails
• Preparing for submission.

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

Home > Student Papers > SJD_DISSERTATIONS

SJD Dissertations

Submissions from 2023 2023.

Uncovering the Trade Secrets Laww and Practice in China: Potential Cases for Softening Current Rules , Yang Chen

Taking Soldiers' Intuitions of Justice Seriously: Mobilizing Criminal Law's Empirical Insights to Rethink International Humanitarian Law Compliance, Interpretation, and Reform , Ilya Rudyak

Submissions from 2022 2022

Reframing Educational Equality: Constitutional Evolution and Global Neoliberalism , Mengyun Ma

Submissions from 2021 2021

New Perspectives in Corporate Law , Asaf Raz

Submissions from 2020 2020

Papers on Constitutional Courts in Developing Democracies , Amal Sethi

Submissions from 2019 2019

The Triple-C Impact: Responding to Childhood Exposure to Crime and Violence , Michal Gilad Gat

Implementation of International Standards on Secured Transactions into Thai Legal System: Possibilities and Proposals for Law Reform in Civil Law Countries , Parawee Kasatinon

Submissions from 2015 2015

Creative Copyright: Tailoring Intellectual Property Policies and Business Strategies for Creative Content Industries in the Digital Age , Bhamati Viswanathan

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Penn Carey Law

• Law School Homepage
• Biddle Law Library
• Faculty Profiles
• Collections
• Penn Carey Law Authors
• Penn Carey Law Journals

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Edinburgh Research Archive

•   ERA Home
• Law, School of

Law thesis and dissertation collection

By Issue Date Authors Titles Subjects Publication Type Sponsor Supervisors

Search within this Collection:

Presented here is a selection of theses and dissertations from the School of Law. Please note that this is not a complete record of all degrees awarded by the School.

This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.

Recent Submissions

Challenges and limitations of granting legal personality to distributed/decentralized autonomous organizations , development of international shipping standards under the auspices of the imo and their implementation in practice: a case study of thailand , adequacy of the ex post armed attack framework of the jus ad bellum in relation to the evolving means and methods of warfare , governing disputed maritime areas , what we say when we criminalise: a metanormative inquiry , testamentary law in england, c. 1450-1540 , sovereign immunity from execution of foreign arbitral awards in the 21st century , conceptualizations of addiction in harm reduction strategies for effective and ethical uk drug policy , liminality and the lived experience of law in medicine: the legal consciousness of physicians in encounters with people living as undocumented migrants , contested citizenship and statelessness in question: an anlysis of cases of overseas taiwanese people and tibetan exiles in taiwan , eternity and the constitution: the promise and limits of eternity clauses , hate speech in the british press: a theoretical and practical assessment of the case for broader regulation , liberty versus security under illiberal constitutionalism: the legality of criminalising humanitarian assistance in hungary and greece , operationalising ‘publicness’ in data-intensive health research regulation: an examination of the public interest as a regulatory device , worldmaking powers of law and performance: queer politics beyond/against neoliberal legalism , development of law of the sea by unclos dispute settlement procedures: towards a coherent jurisprudence , evaluating the european union's response to online misinformation and disinformation: how to address harm while maximising freedom of expression , reconciling reverse burdens of proof with the presumption of innocence: a new approach , uses of roman law in the construction of the concept of possession in the german-speaking countries in the nineteenth century , paths of effectiveness, fairness and legitimacy for eliciting public confidence in policing and cooperation with the police in monterrey metropolitan neighbourhoods .

Home > LAW > LAW_ETDS

School of Law Dissertations

Theses/dissertations from 2010 2010.

Standard Form Contract Regulation in the Transaction of Computer Program. , Inchul Kim

Theses/Dissertations from 2009 2009

An Institutional Approach to Monetary Policy: Comparative Legal Perspectives in Central Banking , Hong Kyoon Cho

Theses/Dissertations from 2008 2008

The Twilight Zone of International Refugee Law: The Problems of North Korean Escapees , Min S. Joe

Hedge Fund Regulation in Global Financial Markets: Implications for the Korean Financial Market , Seung Young Yoon

Theses/Dissertations from 2007 2007

Competitive Self-Regulation: A Model for Regulating Alternative Medicine Practitioners , Chih-Hsiung Chen

A Structured Risk/Benefit Assessment for Human Research , Ian Chen

Use of the Bilateral Free Trade Agreements by the United States and the European Union as a Means to Gain "TRIPS-Plus" Intellectual Property Protection , Taemin Eom

Reforming Corporate Governance in Korea With A Systems Approach , Bo-Hyuk Kim

Optimal Intellectual Property Protection for Plant Innovation: Plant Variety, Patent and Trade Secret Protection , Eulsoo Seo

Theses/Dissertations from 2006 2006

The New Partnership for Africa's Development and the Africa Peer Review Mechanism: A Means of Good Goverance and Development?: the Ghana Case , Sena Afua Dei-Tutu

Dichotomy of Product Packaging/ Product Design in U.S. Trade Dress Law and Its Implications for Developing Countries , Yong Sun kim

Theses/Dissertations from 2005 2005

The Impact of International Investment Regulations on the Kuwaiti New Law of Foreign Direct Investment , Bader Majid Al-Mutairi

The Meaning and Requirements of the Misuse Doctrine in Patent and Copyright Law , Seung Han Oh

Theses/Dissertations from 2004 2004

The Limitation of Economic Analysis of Law--From the Perspective of the Nature and End of Law , Hui Feng Hsu

International Merger Conflicts Between the U.S. and the EU and Their Implications on Development of Merger Controls of the Korean Antitrust Law a Comparative Study of the U.S. and EU Competition Laws with the Focus on the Ciba-Geigy/Sandoz, Boeing/McDonnell Douglas, and GE/Honeywell Cases , Yung Joo Oh

A Comparative Study on Histories, Realities, and Legal Issues of Arbitration Systems in the United States and Korea: Evaluation and Proposals , Chul-Gyoo Park

Technology Transfer from Academia to Private Industry: A Critical Examination of the Bayh-Dole Act , Weilin Wang

Theses/Dissertations from 2003 2003

Insurance in the Islamic Legal System : A Comparative Study of Insurance and Risk from a Tort and Contract Law Perspective. , Sami Abdullah Almunifi

The New Balance Between Copyright Holders and Users in Cyberspace. , Ruey Hsing Chang

International Standards for Protection of Geographical Indications: Focusing on Two Outstanding Issues , Tae Man Kim

A Study of the Feasibility of the Application of United States Command-and-Control Regulations and Market-Based Incentives to Solve Industrial Air Pollution Problems in Thailand , Chayanan Suvanamas

Theses/Dissertations from 2002 2002

The development of international investment law : lessons from the OECD MAI negotiations and their application to a possible multilateral agreement on investment , Yusuf Caliskan

International Norms for Well-Known Mark Protection Across National Borders and in Cyberspace: Current Status and Future Directions , Joon Seok Lee

Legal Mechanism for Product Quality Control and Product Liability in People's Republic of China , Jian Sheng Li

Theses/Dissertations from 2001 2001

Rethinking Edwards v. Aguillard?: The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Challenge of Intelligent Design , Francis J. Beckwith

Can Law Save the Forest?: Lessons from Finland and Brazil , Sofia Rumiko Hirakuri

Mutual Funds Towards an International Marketplace and its Limitations for the Investor Protection: An Analysis of Mutual Funds in Korea and the United States from the Perspective of the Investor Protection , Kwang-Rok Kim

John Locke's Rights of Property and Intellectual Property: Implications to Digital and High Technology in the Information Society , Jongkhab Na

Theses/Dissertations from 2000 2000

The International Criminal Court : an Arab Perspective in View of Islamic Law and the 1998 Rome Statute , Osama Ghanem Alobaidy

The Interface Between Intellectual Property Law and Competition: A New Commercial Law for a Balanced Use of Information in Korea , Junu Park

Trademark Dilution : an Analysis of U.S., E.U., and East Asian Trademark Law. , Soyoung Yook

Theses/Dissertations from 1999 1999

The Concept of Public Access to Meetings of Local Legislative Bodies in the United States and Its Applicability to Local Legislatures in Russia , Natalya Durnova

Theses/Dissertations from 1998 1998

In Search of the Optimal Tort Litigation System: Reflections on Korea's Civil Procedure Through Inquiry Into American Jurisprudence , Gyooho Lee

Theses/Dissertations from 1997 1997

The Mexican Power to Expel Aliens in Light of Its International Limitations and the Dimensional Theory of Law : with Some Comparative References to U.S. Immigration Law) , Carlos Narvaez-Hasfura

Theses/Dissertations from 1996 1996

The influx of oil wealth and the resultant socio-economic development in Saudi Arabia : the impact of the petrodollar on the legal system of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , Saud A. Al-Mashari

Theses/Dissertations from 1993 1993

Unilateral patent misuse : a comparative study of U.S., EC and Brazilian patent and antitrust laws , Nuno T.P. Carvalho

Theses/Dissertations from 1986 1986

The Prohibition of Successive Prosecutions and Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense : in Search of Standards. Volume 1. , George Conner Thomas III

The Prohibition of Successive Prosecutions and Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense : in Search of Standards. Volume 2. , George Conner Thomas III

Theses/Dissertations from 1969 1969

Citizen Participation Requirements and Urban Redevelopment. , Jeffrey Dewar Buchanan

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• School of Law
• School of Law Archives
• School of Law Exhibits
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Cambridge Libraries

Resources for My Subject

Law: theses & dissertations.

• UK Legislation
• UK Case Law
• Parliamentary Proceedings
• Parliamentary Papers
• Crown Dependents
• Caribbean countries
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• United States
• International Law
• Legal History
• Legal Language
• Referencing Guide
• Theses & Dissertations
• Criminology This link opens in a new window

Access to theses and dissertations from other institutions and from the University of Cambridge

This guide provides information on searching for theses of Cambridge PhDs and for theses of UK universities and universities abroad. 

For information and guidance on depositing your thesis as a cambridge phd, visit the cambridge office of scholarly communication pages on theses here ., this guide gives essential information on how to obtain theses using the british library's ethos service. .

On the last weekend of October, the British Library became the victim of a major cyber-attack. Essential digital services including the BL catalogue, website and online learning resources went dark, with research services like the EThOS collection of more than 600,000 doctoral theses suddenly unavailable. The BL state that they anticipate restoring more services in the next few weeks, but disruption to certain services is now expected to persist for several months. For the latest news on the attack and information on the restoration of services, please follow the BL blog here:  Knowledge Matters blog  and access the LibGuide page here:  British Library Outage Update - Electronic Legal Deposit - LibGuides at University of Cambridge Subject Libraries

A full list of resources for searching theses online is provided by the Cambridge A-Z, available here .

University of Cambridge theses

Finding a cambridge phd thesis online via the institutional repository.

The University's institutional repository, Apollo , holds full-text digital versions of over 11,000 Cambridge PhD theses and is a rapidly growing collection deposited by Cambridge Ph.D. graduates. Theses in Apollo can be browsed via this link . More information on how to access theses by University of Cambridge students can be found on the access to Cambridge theses webpage.   The requirement for impending PhD graduates to deposit a digital version in order to graduate means the repository will be increasing at a rate of approximately 1,000 per year from this source.   About 200 theses are added annually through requests to make theses Open Access or via requests to digitize a thesis in printed format.

Locating and obtaining a copy of a Cambridge PhD thesis (not yet available via the repository)

Theses can be searched in iDiscover .  Guidance on searching for theses in iDiscover can be found here .   Requests for consultation of printed theses, not available online, should be made at the Manuscripts Reading Room (Email:  [email protected] Telephone: +44 (0)1223 333143).   Further information on the University Library's theses, dissertations and prize essays collections can be consulted at this link .

Researchers can order a copy of an unpublished thesis which was deposited in print form either through the Library’s  Digital Content Unit via the image request form , or, if the thesis has been digitised, it may be available in the Apollo repository. Copies of theses may be provided to researchers in accordance with the  law  and in a manner that is common across UK libraries.  The law allows us to provide whole copies of unpublished theses to individuals as long as they sign a declaration saying that it is for non-commercial research or private study.

How to make your thesis available online through Cambridge's institutional repository

Are you a Cambridge alumni and wish to make your Ph.D. thesis available online? You can do this by depositing it in Apollo the University's institutional repository. Click here for further information on how to proceed.    Current Ph.D students at the University of Cambridge can find further information about the requirements to deposit theses on the Office of Scholarly Communication theses webpages.

UK Theses and Dissertations

Electronic copies of Ph.D. theses submitted at over 100 UK universities are obtainable from EThOS , a service set up to provide access to all theses from participating institutions. It achieves this by harvesting e-theses from Institutional Repositories and by digitising print theses as they are ordered by researchers using the system. Over 250,000 theses are already available in this way. Please note that it does not supply theses submitted at the universities of Cambridge or Oxford although they are listed on EThOS.

Registration with EThOS is not required to search for a thesis but is necessary to download or order one unless it is stored in the university repository rather than the British Library (in which case a link to the repository will be displayed). Many theses are available without charge on an Open Access basis but in all other cases, if you are requesting a thesis that has not yet been digitised you will be asked to meet the cost. Once a thesis has been digitised it is available for free download thereafter.

When you order a thesis it will either be immediately available for download or writing to hard copy or it will need to be digitised. If you order a thesis for digitisation, the system will manage the process and you will be informed when the thesis is available for download/preparation to hard copy.

See the Search results section of the  help page for full information on interpreting search results in EThOS.

EThOS is managed by the British Library and can be found at http://ethos.bl.uk . For more information see About EThOS .

World-wide (incl. UK) theses and dissertations

Electronic versions of non-UK theses may be available from the institution at which they were submitted, sometimes on an open access basis from the institutional repository. A good starting point for discovering freely available electronic theses and dissertations beyond the UK is the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD) , which facilitates searching across institutions. Information can also usually be found on the library web pages of the relevant institution.

The DART Europe etheses portal lists several thousand full-text theses from a group of European universities.

The University Library subscribes to the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses  (PQDT) database which from August 31 2023 is accessed on the Web of Science platform.  To search this index select it from the Web of Science "Search in" drop-down list of databases (available on the Documents tab on WoS home page)

PQDT includes 2.4 million dissertation and theses citations, representing 700 leading academic institutions worldwide from 1861 to the present day. The database offers full text for most of the dissertations added since 1997 and strong retrospective full text coverage for older graduate works. Each dissertation published since July 1980 includes a 350-word abstract written by the author. Master's theses published since 1988 include 150-word abstracts.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The University Library only subscribes to the abstracting & indexing version of the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database and NOT the full text version.  A fee is payable for ordering a dissertation from this source.   To obtain the full text of a dissertation as a downloadable PDF you can submit your request via the University Library Inter-Library Loans department (see contact details below). NB this service is only available to full and current members of the University of Cambridge.

Alternatively you can pay yourself for the dissertation PDF on the PQDT platform. Link from Web of Science record display of any thesis to PQDT by clicking on "View Details on ProQuest".  On the "Preview" page you will see an option "Order a copy" top right.  This will allow you to order your own copy from ProQuest directly.

Dissertations and theses submitted at non-UK universities may also be requested on Inter-Library Loan through the Inter-Library Loans department (01223 333039 or 333080, [email protected] )

• << Previous: iDiscover
• Next: Criminology >>
• Last Updated: Mar 12, 2024 2:56 PM
• URL: https://libguides.cam.ac.uk/law

© Cambridge University Libraries | Accessibility | Privacy policy | Log into LibApps

Subject Guide: Law: Theses and Dissertations

• Subject Databases

Theses and Dissertations

• Archives and Special Collections
• Develop Your Skills
• Researcher Support This link opens in a new window

Theses banner

You can get in touch through our live chat service or by email, and search our FAQs for answers to your questions.

Accessing Theses and Dissertations

• Durham Theses and Dissertations
• Other UK Theses and Dissertations
• Non-UK Theses and Dissertations

Durham e-Theses contains the full-text of Durham University Higher Degree theses .

All theses passed after 1 October 2009 (with a small number of exceptins) are available, or will be available following an embargo determined by the author. Durham University Library has also digitised its extensive collection of PhD, MPhil and Research Masters dissertations from 1899 onwards.

EThOS - The UK’s national thesis service which aims to maximise the visibility and availability of the UK’s doctoral research theses. EThOS aims to provide a national aggregated record of all doctoral theses awarded by UK Higher Education institutions, and free access to the full text of as many theses as possible for use by all researchers to further their own research.

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses - ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) Global is the world's most comprehensive collection of dissertations and theses from around the world, offering millions of works from thousands of universities. Each year hundreds of thousands of works are added. Full-text coverage spans from 1743 to the present, with citation coverage dating back to 1637. If needed you can limit your results to institutions from countries in the UK.

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses  - ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) Global is the world's most comprehensive collection of dissertations and theses from around the world, offering millions of works from thousands of universities. Each year hundreds of thousands of works are added. Full-text coverage spans from 1743 to the present, with citation coverage dating back to 1637.

Open Access Theses and Dissertations -  OATD.org aims to be the best possible resource for finding open access graduate theses and dissertations published around the world. Metadata (information about the theses) comes from over 1100 colleges, universities, and research institutions.

DART-Europe E-Theses Portal - A partnership of research libraries and library consortia who are working together to improve global access to European research theses.

South African Theses and Dissertations - via the National ETD Portal. 

Australian Theses via TROVE  - a collaboration between the National Library of Australia and hundreds of Partner organisations around Australia.

OAIster - A union catalog of millions of records that represent open access resources. It includes more than 50 million records that represent digital resources from more than 2,000 contributors. Results can be limited to just theses and dissertations.

Theses Canada - Launched in 1965 at the request of the deans of Canadian graduate schools, is a collaborative program between Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and Canadian universities. It strives to acquire and preserve theses and dissertations from participating universities, provide free access to Canadian digital theses and dissertations in the collection, and to facilitate access to non-digital theses and dissertations in the collection

Social media

• << Previous: Newspapers
• Next: Media >>
• Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 1:26 PM
• URL: https://libguides.durham.ac.uk/law

How to Write a First Class Law Dissertation – Complete Guide

• November 18, 2010

“Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial and Civil Jurisdiction: Permitting Delay, Restricting Access and Recognising Incompatible Judgments”.

Below is my honours law dissertation together with tips and a very special video from an ex-Cambridge professor at the end. Enjoy!

And if you have any legal blog posts you’d like to share (whether after you have submitted your dissertation or before), please get in touch – our goal is to help share great legal information online to improve legal understanding and access to justice around the world.

And see also our lists of The Best Law Schools in the World and  Top 10 Law Schools in the UK that aspiring law students may find of interest.

How to write a first class legal dissertation: Content and Structure

Three tips can be suggested to get you started on the right foot:

First, research the subject in which you are most interested in writing about for your dissertation, then choose a sufficiently narrow angle to approach the subject or choose something that hasn’t been discussed much before.

Second, collect, or print out or photocopy all relevant materials which discuss that narrow subject.

Third, plan rough headings for sub-topics within the main subject. While the contents below were finalised towards the end of the writing process, the rough structure was formulated at an early point in the writing process. This is how many academics write their books: they provide themselves with lots of headings and subheadings, then chip away at the work, bit by bit until complete.

Examples contents for “Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial and Civil Jurisdiction: Permitting Delay, Restricting Access and Recognising Incompatible Judgments” are as follows:-

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ARTICLE 6: THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2.1. Substantive Elements 2.2. Procedural Operation: Direct and Indirect Effect 2.3. The Human Rights Act 1998

3. REASONABLE TIME

3.1. Introduction 3.2. Framework under Article 6 3.3. Conflict with Lis Pendens: Erich Gasser 3.3.1. Delay in the Italian Court 3.3.2. A Clash of Treaties 3.3.3. Future Application 3.4. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens 3.4.1. General Operation 3.4.2. First Limb of Spiliada 3.4.3. Second Limb of Spiliada 3.5. Conclusions

4. ACCESS TO A COURT

4.1. Operation in Article 6 4.2. Anti-Suit Injunctions 4.3. Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and Waiving Convention Rights 4.4. Limitations on Jurisdiction 4.5. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens 4.6. Owusu v Jackson 4.7. Conclusions

5. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

5.1. Recognition of Contracting State Judgments 5.2. Recognition of Non-Contracting State Judgments 5.2.1. European Court of Human Rights 5.2.2. House of Lords 5.4. Conclusions

6. CONCLUSIONS

7. BIBILIOGRAPHY

7.1. Table of Cases 7.2. Table of Legislation 7.3. Table of Conventions 7.4. Textbooks 7.5. Articles

Writing your introduction

Together with the conclusion, the introduction is one of the most significant pieces of a dissertation that you have to get right. A well-written introduction can make all the difference between a first class and an upper second.

If you take just one thing away from this series of posts, it is this. You can develop a better stream of communication with your reader, forming a better relationship, if you tell them what you are going to say (introduction), say it (main body), then tell them what you have said (conclusion).

So, to the introduction, set the scene as fast as possible then tell the reader what you are going to say, but don’t be so amateurish as to write “I am going to discuss X, Y and Z”. Be more indirect. Suggest, for instance, that there are problems with the law that need to be resolved.

1. INTRODUCTION Long since inevitable initial encounters, human rights concerns, particularly regarding the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), have been accelerating in today’s civil jurisdiction and judgments arena in the United Kingdom, a notable consequence of the passing of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. More than six years from the Act’s coming into force, it is now imperative to reach conclusions which reflect the “importance attaching in today’s world and in current international thinking and jurisprudence to the recognition and effective enforcement of individual human rights,” as Mance LJ (as he then was) has noted. This necessity is reflected in the recent extensive consideration of the right to a fair trial in key works of some of the most authoritative conflict lawyers in the United Kingdom, including Sir Lawrence Collins, Professor Adrian Briggs and, most significantly, Professor James Fawcett. Methods of protecting the right to a fair trial and thus of avoiding a breach of Article 6 are irrelevant to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR); the Court is not concerned with reviewing under the Convention in abstracto the law complained of, but rather the application of that law. There is therefore a large amount of discretion afforded to the courts regarding techniques to avoid infringement of the Convention. In the context of civil jurisdiction and judgments, various methods of avoiding infringement, or indeed enabling protection, of the right to a fair trial exist. However, the extent to which these have been used in practice, both by the UK courts and the ECJ, has been limited, a result of various factors, the most striking of which being the wrongful application of the ECHR and even the conscious decision to ignore it. Before analysing specific fair trial concerns in detail, it is necessary to examine the general structure and operation of Article 6 as it applies to civil jurisdiction and judgments.

Chapter 1: Setting the scene

Depending on the nature of your dissertation, you may need to set the scene further. In a legal dissertation, by “scene” is meant the bits of law that are relevant to set up key arguments in the main body of the dissertation. With this example dissertation, the target readership was, for various reasons, international private law experts. Because human rights law was a key part of the debate, the relevant law had to be set out in such detail that the chapters following it could discuss, for instance, the right to a fair trial and the doctrines of direct and indirect effect without any need for constant repetitive explanation.

2. ARTICLE 6: THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 2.1. Substantive Elements Article 6(1) ECHR provides inter alia that “[i]n the determination of his civil rights and obligations…everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….” The ECtHR has reverberated that “the right to a fair administration of justice holds such a prominent place” that Article 6 should not be interpreted restrictively. Instead, the seemingly distinct provisions of Article 6 are not discrete, but are “rights which are distinct but stem from the same basic idea and which, taken together, make up a single right not specifically defined in the narrower sense of the term.” This single right is the title of Article 6: the “right to a fair trial.” This right comprises two particularly significant elements important in the context of civil jurisdiction and judgments. First, the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Expressly stated in Article 6(1), this right may be pertinent where proceedings are stayed in favour of a foreign court. Second, access to a court, an inherent element of Article 6(1). This may have relevance where access is denied to the UK courts through, for example, staying proceedings, or restraining foreign proceedings. 2.2 Procedural Operation: Direct and Indirect Effect Article 6 can operate through a number of mechanisms in the civil jurisdiction and judgments context, which must be distinguished for analytical purposes. First, through direct effect, where there is direct protection of a party’s right to a fair trial in the domestic courts themselves. Such protection is strong and somewhat easier to obtain because there is no test for the seriousness of the breach. Such infringement may occur through a refusal of access to the UK courts, which refusal may emanate from, inter alia, an exclusion of jurisdiction or stay of proceedings. Second, through indirect effect, where a person is transferred to another country where his right to a fair trial may be infringed in that country. In Soering v United Kingdom the ECtHR emphasised that it was for Member States to secure Convention rights of persons within their jurisdiction, but that this obligation did not extend to non-Contracting States, nor should it seek to impose ECHR standards on such States. Thus, for example, in respect of deportation of a person to the United States of America from England, there may be an indirect breach of Article 6, but only where the transfer creates or risks creating a flagrant breach of the claimant’s right to a fair trial in that other country. In presenting an argument for the creation of such risk, it is axiomatic that a strong compilation of evidence is essential, with reference to the circumstances of both the case and proceedings of the court in question. The difficulty with such an argument in the civil jurisdiction sphere is that stays of proceedings concern transfers of actions abroad, not persons. Notwithstanding, arguments for the application of the indirect effect doctrine in this context are still applicable because the situations are “essentially the same.” Indeed, it could be argued that staying proceedings amounts to a transfer of persons through effective compulsion. Nevertheless, no authority exists for this argument and indeed the indirect effect doctrine itself has not been successfully relied upon in an Article 6 context before the (former) Commission or ECtHR. Third, through indirect effect where enforcement in a Contracting State of a judgment from a foreign State, whether Contracting or non-Contracting, would breach Article 6 because that judgment itself breached Article 6 standards. It has been stated that such a breach by the foreign court must also be a flagrant one. However, the reasoning underlying this proposition is unclear and, as with many matters in the civil jurisdiction and judgments sphere, there are concerns as to the extent to which the right to a fair trial can be upheld in this respect. 2.3 The Human Rights Act 1998 The Convention rights, including Article 6, now have the force of law in the United Kingdom under the HRA 1998. The Act places two initial express duties on the UK courts: first, the duty to read and give effect to primary and subordinate legislation in a way compatible with the Convention rights, if possible; second, the duty to take into account inter alia any previous judgment of the ECtHR in determining proceedings which have a Convention right element, insofar as it has relevance to those proceedings. Moreover, under Section 6(1) of the HRA 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority, including a court, to act in a way incompatible with a Convention right. This is a significant duty on the courts, which indeed sparked considerable academic debate as to the Act’s impact on private commercial disputes. Thus, the courts have a duty to interpret and apply the common law or any exercise of discretion compatibly with the right to a fair trial under Article 6. Ultimately, this may amount to a positive duty to develop the common law, extending beyond mere interpretation of the common law to conform to the Convention principles. Notwithstanding this rather stringent theoretical framework for the courts upholding the right to a fair trial, there has been a lack of consistency in its practical impact in the field of civil jurisdiction and judgments. Endnotes *Converting c300 footnotes on a Microsoft Word document to a WordPress post is not feasible for this blawgger. They are, therefore, pasted below as endnotes. The full dissertation is available in the Juridical Review, vol 1 of 2008 pp15-31 Delcourt v Belgium (1979-80) 1 EHRR 355, at [25]; indeed, the principles of due process and the rule of law are fundamental to the protection of human rights (Clayton and Tomlinson: 2000, p550,) just as a fair trial is a fundamental element of the rule of law (Ovey and White: 2002, p139.) Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1, at [28]. Ibid., at [36]. Such cases can be labelled “domestic” ones: Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37, at [15], per Lord Bingham. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] AC 368, at [42]. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439. Ibid., at [113]; this test has been followed subsequently: e.g. Einhorn v France (no.71555/01, 16 October 2001) at [32], Tomic v United Kingdom (no.17837/03, 14 October 2003) at [3]. Fawcett; 2007, p4. Ibid. Montgomery (n12); Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745, p795; cf. Pellegrini v Italy [2001] ECHR 480. HRA 1998, s3(1). Ibid., s2(1)(a); such previous decisions are not binding; notwithstanding, as Lord Slynn observed in R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389 at [26]: “[i]n the absence of some special circumstances it seems to me that the court should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the [ECtHR].” Ibid., s6(3)(a). Wade: 2000; Lester and Pannick: 2000. Such discretion should be “exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings”: R v Jones [2003] AC 1, at [6], per Lord Bingham. HL Deb vol.583, p783 (24 November 1997); Grosz, Beatson and Duffy: 2000, para.4.56; cf.. Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] QB 770. Grosz, Beatson and Duffy: 2000, para.4.59.

Main Body Part 1

Next follows the first main chunk discussing and debating the title of the dissertation. To maintain structure, even this sub-section of the dissertation has its own introduction, some degree of scene-setting with Art 6 in the particular context of the chapter, argument through various levels and conclusions.

3. REASONABLE TIME 3.1. Introduction It has been stated that “excessive delays in the administration of justice constitute an important danger, in particular for the respect of the rule of law” and for the legal certainty of citizens. This importance is reflected in the express protection of the reasonable time requirement in Article 6. There have been recent challenges in the civil jurisdiction context on this ground, the most significant of which being raised in Erich Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl, concerning conflict with lis pendens. A further instance, the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens has been suggested to be so incompatible, which would therefore have implications for the doctrine in its now very limited common law habitat. 3.2. Framework under Article 6 In civil cases, time starts to run when the proceedings are instituted and stops when legal uncertainty has been removed, which normally requires that the final appeal decision has been made or the time for making an appeal has expired. It is generally accepted that the correct approach is to decide whether the overall delay is prima facie “unreasonable” for the type of proceedings concerned and thereafter consider whether the State is able to justify each period of delay. In assessing such justification, the limited guidelines indicate that all the circumstances will be considered, with particular regard to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and judicial authorities in addition to the behaviour of other parties to the case and what is at stake in the litigation for the applicant. Generally, where proceedings are stayed, there are three stages which must be distinguished for determining delay. First, the proceedings before the domestic court. Any unjustifiable delay at this point would amount to a direct breach of Article 6. Second, the transfer of proceedings to the foreign court. Delay at this stage would be less justifiable where, for instance, there was known to be a heavy backlog of cases. Notwithstanding, the “normal lapses of time stemming from the transfer of the cases” are not to be regarded as unjustified. Third, the proceedings before the foreign court. At the second and third stages, although any unreasonable delay by the foreign court will amount to a direct breach by that court, there could also be an indirect breach by the domestic court, but only to the extent that the party suffered, or risked suffering, a flagrant breach. Endnotes Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Resolution DH (97) 336, 11 July 1997. Fabri and Langbroek: 2003, p3. C-116/02 [2005] QB 1. Opinion of AG Léger in Owusu v Jackson C-281/02 [2005] QB 801 at [270]. A sist by the Scottish courts through forum non conveniens can be made where jurisdiction is founded on Art.4 of the Judgments Regulation or Convention: Collins et al: 2006, para.12-023. Moreover, a sist can be made on the ground that the courts of England or Northern Ireland are the forum conveniens, because intra-UK jurisdiction can be so settled: Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd, The Times, 8 June 1995; Collins: 1995. Scopelliti v Italy (1993) 17 EHRR 493, at [18]. Vocaturo v Italy [1991] ECHR 34. E.g. fewer than six years for a reparation action (Huseyin Erturk v Turkey [2005] ECHR 630.) Clayton and Tomlinson: 2000, p654; Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: 1995, p229. Eckle v Germany (1983) 5 EHRR 1, at [80]; an obvious consideration being delay in commencing proceedings. Buchholz v Germany [1981] ECHR 2, at [49]. Foti v Italy (1982) 5 EHRR 313, at [61]. Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 9; Guincho v Portugal [1984] ECHR 9; cf. Buchholz (n36), at [61], where the backlog was not reasonably foreseeable; exceptional circumstances were taken into account in Foti (n37) as a result of troubles in Reggio Calabria, which impacted proceedings in the courts in Potenza, to which cases had been transferred. Foti (n37), at [61]. Soering (n14) at [113].

Having set the scene, it is time to delve straight into comment and opinion, drawing on relevant facts and law where required. Where possible, suggest ways in which events or decisions could have been improved and do not be afraid to say that commentators, judges or even powerful institutions, like the ECJ, got it wrong.

3.3. Conflict with Lis Pendens: Erich Gasser Erich Gasser v MISAT concerned the validity of a choice-of-court agreement in favour of the Austrian courts where one party had first seised the Italian courts by way of negative declaration. Second seised, the Austrian Court sought a reference from the ECJ on, inter alia, whether it must stay its proceedings under lis pendens where the proceedings in the court first seised generally take an unreasonably long time, such that there may be a breach of Article 6. Both the claimant and the intervening UK Government invoked the ECHR, arguing that Article 21 of the Brussels Convention should be interpreted in conformity with Article 6 ECHR to avoid excessively protracted proceedings, given that proceedings in Italy were likely to take an unreasonably long time. Through this interpretation, it was argued that Article 21 should not be applied if the court first seised had not determined its jurisdiction within a reasonable time. In a very short response, the ECJ effectively said that the ECHR did not apply because first, it is not expressly mentioned in the Brussels Convention and second, there is no room for it in a collection of mandatory rules underpinned by mutual trust between Contracting States. 3.3.1. Delay in the Italian Court However, it may be seen that the stay de facto risked at least a standard breach in the Italian court. The Italian courts have been held in breach of Article 6 a staggering number of times because of unreasonable slowness. The existence of these breaches amounted to a practice incompatible with the ECHR and produced the notoriety of the Italian legal system as “the land that time forgot.” Indeed, the practice of seising the Italian courts first by way of negative declaration has become known as instituting an “Italian torpedo,” which may succeed in delaying proceedings substantially even where the Italian courts have no jurisdiction. It has already been noted that evidence is crucial in determining a real risk of a breach of Article 6. Instead, in Gasser, human rights arguments were based upon a general breach of the reasonable time requirement in Italian courts. Moreover, no ECtHR case law was relied upon when so arguing, nor was mention made of previous breaches. Therefore, a very weak argument, if any, was laid before the ECJ in respect of a risk of a breach. In effect, the ECJ was being asked something tantamount to whether there should be an exception to Article 21 in respect of certain Member States, a question justifiably answered in the negative. However, if the arguments had been more focussed, concentrating on the present case, with evidence to show the likelihood of breach in the Tribunale civile e penale di Roma, then the ECJ may have been more persuaded by Article 6 considerations, as Fawcett suggests. Notwithstanding previous delays, efforts have been made to reduce the backlog of cases. This is somewhat owing to Article 13 ECHR, which requires Contracting States to provide persons with an effective national remedy for breach of a Convention right. Such domestic remedies assist in reducing further breaches and ultimately reduce the need for the indirect effect doctrine. Thus, the Italian “Pinto Act” was passed, providing a domestic legal remedy for excessive length-of-proceedings cases. The existence of this remedy may have gone towards justifying application of Article 21, which indeed was one of the questions referred to the ECJ by the Austrian Court, although unanswered. 3.3.2. A Clash of Treaties Nevertheless, given that the ECJ so held that Article 6 considerations were irrelevant, there may be further legal implications, particularly for the Austrian Court which was required to stay its proceedings under the Brussels Convention. If this stay created or risked creating a flagrant breach of the reasonable time requirement in the Italian Court, Austria may itself have breached Article 6 indirectly. Such an indirect breach is clearly not justifiable on the ground that Austria is party to the Brussels Convention or Regulation made under the European Treaties. Hence, the judgment may lead to a clash between the ECHR and Brussels Convention or Regulation. This in turn raises the questions of how and to what extent the Brussels Convention or Regulation could have been interpreted to give effect to Article 6. Formerly Article 57 of the Brussels Convention, Article 71 of the Brussels Regulation provides inter alia that “(1) [t]his Regulation shall not affect any conventions to which the Member States are parties and which in relation to particular matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition of judgments.” Although the ECHR is not prima facie a Convention governing jurisdiction, all Member States are party to it and Article 6 contains the inherent right of access to a court. Thus, as Briggs and Rees argue, this may have application where a court with jurisdiction is prevented from exercising that jurisdiction in a manner compatible with the ECHR. Therefore, in Gasser Article 71 may have been applied to allow Austria to act in accordance with its obligations under the ECHR. This approach is complemented by Article 307 (ex 234) EC such that Article 21 or 27 of the Brussels Convention or Regulation respectively can be overridden by a Convention previously entered into, including the ECHR. Further, this conclusion is even more realistic in light of the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which is peppered with notions of protection for fundamental rights, and the express protection of these rights in Article 6(2) EC. Instead of even contemplating such an outcome, the ECJ showed that it was prepared to ignore a significant international convention. Perhaps, in addition to mutual trust between Contracting States, mutual recognition of international conventions should have been considered, especially due to the express provisions permitting such consideration. Endnotes Those having a duration of over three years: Gasser (n28), at [59]. At [71]-[73]. See Ferrari v Italy [1999] ECHR 64, at [21]. Ferrari (n46), at [21]; Article 6 imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet the requirements of the provision (Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14, at [24].) Briggs and Rees: 2005, Preface to the Fourth Edition, p.v. Messier-Dowty v Sabena [2000] 1 WLR 2040. Franzosi: 1997, p384. Transporti Castelletti v Hugo Trumpy, C-159/97, [1999] ECR I-1597. Supra p4. Opinion of A.G. Léger in Gasser, at [88]. When Gasser came before the ECJ, there was already a delay in Italian proceedings of 3½ years in determining jurisdiction. Fawcett: 2007, p15. Kudla v Poland [2000] ECHR 512. Fawcett: 2007, p4. Law no.89 of 24 March 2001. However, even this has breached Article 6(1): Riccardo Pizzati v Italy [2006] ECHR 275, at [66]; Mance suggests that the Act only partially solved if not repatriated the ECtHR’s overwhelming number of claims in this respect (Mance: 2004b, p357.) Notwithstanding, since 1999, there has been a trend of continuous breach, the ECtHR having adopted more than 1,000 judgments against Italy (Riccardo Pizzati, at [66].) As Briggs and Rees note, the ECHR “might as well have been part of the law of Mars for all the impact it had.” (Briggs and Rees:2005, para.2.198.) Soering (n14), at [113]. Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 12. Hartley: 2005b, p821 n35; the most important example of a conflict of treaties: Hartley: 2001, p26. Briggs and Rees: 2005, para.2.38. An approach recognised by both Mance (Mance: 2004a, paras.6-7) and Hartley (Hartley: 2005a, p383.) ERT v DEP C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925, at [41]; “Bosphorus Airways” v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1,at [73]; particularly for Article 6: Philip Morris International Inc v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-1, at [121].

Tip: Suggest Improvements for the Future

It may be that, in the course of the research for your dissertation, you discover previous decisions and actions that may happen again in the future. You may want to suggest that there is such a risk in the future and that there are ways in which that risk can be guarded against. You may also want to state challenges with implementing such safeguards. For instance, in the below section, there is comment that the ECJ is, sometimes, so myopic that its stance won’t budge.

3.3.3. Future Application The ECtHR has held that a failure by a national court to make a preliminary reference to the ECJ could be a breach of Article 6 ECHR in certain circumstances. Thus, it is arguable that where similar facts to Gasser arise again, the domestic court may have to make a reference to the ECJ, and in doing so, show cogent evidence of the risk of a flagrant breach, unlike that presented to the ECJ in Gasser. In this context, the ECJ will have another chance to take human rights seriously, with the opportunity to apply Article 307 EC complementing Article 71 of the Brussels Regulation and jurisprudence both of the ECJ and ECtHR. Notwithstanding, given the ECJ’s swift dismissal of human rights concerns in Gasser in favour of the inflexible system of lis pendens, it appears unlikely that it would permit exception in the future. For the ECJ legal certainty under the Brussels regime is clearly more significant than legal certainty either through party autonomy under jurisdiction agreements or through the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. As Merrett notes, “[t]he ECJ simply does not see questions of jurisdiction as being concerned with private rights at all,” a stance which will need to change, particularly in light of the pressing atmosphere of today’s human rights culture. Endnotes Soc Divagsa v Spain (1993) 74 DR 274. Legal certainty is perhaps more significant under the Brussels Regulation, particularly illustrated by the addition of Article 30. Cf. A.G. Léger in Gasser, at [70]. Merrett: 2006, p332. Hartley notes that this is perhaps not surprising given that the ECJ is more concerned with public law, and as such, should be expected to give more weight to State interests, rather than the interests of private parties (Hartley: 2005b, pp814-815.)

Take a proposition that has never been discussed and debate it

Another thing that truly separates a first class dissertation from a second class one is discussion of ideas and issues that have never before been discussed. The following is an example of such a proposition and discussion, all of which stemmed from one footnote in an academic article that said a certain proposition “had never been discussed before in the courts of the UK”. Finding this loophole was essential to the dissertation’s success.

3.4. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens An export of Scots law, forum non conveniens was accepted into English law in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, becoming indistinguishable from Scots law. Under the Spiliada test, there are two stages: first, the defendant must show that there is some other available forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, upon which a stay will ordinarily be granted; second, upon the first stage being satisfied, it is for the claimant to show, through cogent evidence, that justice requires that a stay should not be granted. Advocate General Léger has suggested explicitly that the forum non conveniens doctrine, as operating under this Spiliada test, may be incompatible with Article 6, given that the steps involved for the claimant in its application “have a cost and are likely considerably to prolong the time spent in the conduct of proceedings before the claimant finally has his case heard.” Although the UK courts have never discussed this proposition, there is a potential that forum non conveniens is indeed incompatible with the reasonable time requirement in Article 6. 3.4.1. General Operation Since the place of trial is decided through the exercise of judicial discretion, it is axiomatic that additional cost and time will be incurred in the domestic court, which may appear somewhat inappropriate in light of the parties having to “litigate in order to determine where they shall litigate.” Notwithstanding, given that the same forum will rarely be in the best interests of all parties, particularly highlighted by different choice of law rules, choice of forum is of crucial importance and rightfully so contested. In this respect alone, the time and cost involved may be justified. Moreover, it should be noted that it is the defendant who asks for a stay, thus incurring additional expenses, which expenses he might be expected to pay. Application for a stay is usually, and perhaps ought to be, made early. Procedural time-limits are set for such an application, despite the court retaining its discretionary power to stay proceedings. Notwithstanding, the longer an application is left, the greater the threat of the proceedings not being aborted as a matter of judicial reluctance. Moreover, if Lord Templeman’s view that submissions should be measured in hours not days with the rarity of appeals holds true, such time and expense should be contained to a minimum. This can be contrasted with the American experience of the doctrine, where forum non conveniens can produce forum battles that can last for years, such that the doctrine may even be labelled a “delaying tactic.” 3.4.2. First Limb of Spiliada As noted, there are various circumstances which can justify delay under Article 6. In assessing the complexity of a case, consideration is given to the number of witnesses , the need for obtaining expert evidence and the later intervention of other parties. It can be seen that these factors mirror the appropriateness factors considered under the first limb of the Spiliada test. Thus, in Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc the emergence of over 3,000 new claimants gave greater significance to the personal injury issues, the investigation of which would involve a cumbersome factual inquiry and potentially a large body of expert evidence, such that South Africa was rightfully identified as the most appropriate forum under the first limb of Spiliada. Moreover, in Spiliada, similar litigation had already taken place over another vessel, the Cambridgeshire, such that the proceedings would be more appropriate in England. Termed the “Cambridgeshire factor,” it is persuasive where advantages of “efficiency, expedition and economy” would flow naturally from the specialist knowledge gained by the lawyers, experts and judges in the related proceedings. However, successful use of this factor has been extremely rare. Although conveniens means “appropriate”, not “convenient”, considerations of convenience and expense are still relevant. Thus, in both The Lakhta and The Polessk , a stay was granted because the dispute could be resolved more appropriately in the Russian Court at far less expense and far greater convenience for those involved, in light of, inter alia, the availability of witnesses and other evidence. Further, speed of a trial itself may be decisive in balancing appropriateness factors. For example, in Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union, although the courts of both England and Belgium were appropriate, the dispute could be resolved more quickly in the English court given the more complex position of the plaintiff’s title to sue under the governing law in Belgium; therefore a stay of the English proceedings was refused. Moreover, the availability of an early trial date is material in determining the most appropriate forum ; indeed, “speedy justice is usually better justice.” It can therefore be seen that the factors considered in the first limb of the Spiliada test reflect the justifications for delay under the reasonable time requirement of Article 6(1) and indeed consideration of these factors may result in an overall speedier trial. Hence, determining whether or not to apply the forum non conveniens doctrine is more than justifiable. Further, it is worth considering whether delay by the foreign court itself can be avoided. Endnotes Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665. [1987] AC 460. Crawford and Carruthers: 2006, pp157-158. Spiliada (n13), pp474-477. Opinion of A.G. Léger in Owusu (n29), at [270]. Hare perceives that paragraph 42 of Owusu is “strangely reminiscent” of A.G. Léger’s suggestions: Hare: 2006, p172 n.96. Fawcett; 2007, p9. Slater: 1988, p554; Robertson: 1987, p414; Zhenjie: 2001, p157. Cf. Spiliada (n72), p464 per Lord Templeman. Crawford and Carruthers: 2006, p157. Bell: 2002, paras.2.40-2.42, 2.58. Svantesson: 2005, pp411-412. Briggs and Rees: 2002, p220. Despite potential for re-application: Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 433, p474. E.g. in England, CPR Part 11. Ibid., r.3.1(2)(f). Briggs and Rees: 2005, pp324-325. Spiliada (n72), p465. E.g. Lacey v Cessna Aircraft (1991) 932 F.2d 170. Green: 1956, p494. Supra p8. Andreucci v Italy [1992] ECHR 8. Wemhoff v Germany (1968) 1 EHRR 55. Manieri v Italy [1992] ECHR 26. [2000] 1 WLR 1545. [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383, p391; however, a stay was not granted because substantial justice could and would not be done in the South African forum under the second limb of Spiliada, see infra p25. Spiliada (n72), p469. Ibid., p486. Collins et al: 2006, para.12-030 n.34. The Atlantic Star [1974] AC 436, p475; Spiliada (n72), pp474-475. Hill: 2005, para.9.2.23; wastage of cost is an important consideration in granting a stay, whether under forum non conveniens or not (Carel Johannes Steven Bentinck v Lisa Bentinck [2007] EWCA Civ 175.) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 269. [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40. [1991] 2 QB 206. Ibid., p246. Xn Corporation Ltd v Point of Sale Ltd [2001] I.L.Pr. 35. Ibid., at [14]

Develop that new debate and get creative

As noted in the previous post, one of the most important breakthroughs in writing your dissertation can come from spotting a gap where something has not yet been discussed. Once writing to fill that gap, it may be helpful to ask yourself what other angles there are to the debate. Or think about if the matter went to an official debate or, for law dissertations, to court. Think about creative arguments that an advocate might run and try to develop them yourself. Such development can lead to your getting a first rather than a 2:1.

3.4.3. Second Limb of Spiliada Delay in the foreign forum is a fundamental consideration when determining the interests of justice at the second limb of the Spiliada test and may even be decisive if the anticipated delay is excessive. An example pertinent to justification under Article 6(1) is The Jalakrishna, where a delay of five years was anticipated if the case was tried in India, such that the claimant would be prejudiced given his need for financial assistance in light of his critical injuries in an accident. Thus, a stay was not granted, showing respect for both a potential delay itself and what was at stake for the claimant. Notwithstanding, such cases are rare. For example, in Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd, Collins J (as he then was) recognised that the Indian legal system had made attempts to reduce its backlog of cases, such that in the absence of sufficient evidence of an anticipated delay, it would indeed be a “substantial breach of comity to stigmatise the Indian legal system in that way,” somewhat reflecting the principle that the claimant must “take [the appropriate] forum as he finds it.” Indeed, one of the major advantages of the forum non conveniens doctrine is that it offsets the judge’s tendency to grab as many cases as he can and it respects the valuable international private law principle of comity. As Lord Diplock stated in The Abidin Daver, “judicial chauvinism has been replaced by judicial comity.” However, the interests of States cannot always be reconciled with private party rights. When considering whether to stay proceedings, in light of Article 6, the interests of States should yield to the interests of private parties. Thus, if evidence is sufficient to show a real risk of a flagrant breach in the foreign forum, as was not presented in Gasser, a stay should not be permitted. Again mirroring reasonable time justifications under Article 6, additional considerations of what is at stake in the litigation may arise and authorities may have to exercise exceptional diligence in the conduct of certain cases. An ECtHR case, X v France shows that where a person sought compensation following infection with the AIDS virus, what was at stake was of crucial importance in determining the reasonableness of the length of proceedings. What is at stake will be relevant and probably decisive following a stay of proceedings under forum non conveniens, as The Jalakrishna shows. Notably, in Owusu v Jackson, where forum non conveniens was not permitted, what was at stake for Owusu was significant as he was rendered tetraplegic through his accident. It can therefore be seen that forum non conveniens takes a pragmatic approach to preventing foreseeable unreasonable delays under the second limb of Spiliada. Not only does this further justify operation of the doctrine under Article 6(1) through direct effect, it also greatly restricts, if not eliminates, the possibility of an indirect breach by the domestic court, given that the risk of a flagrant breach of the right to a fair trial is a fundamental factor of the interests of justice. Notwithstanding, herein there are still concerns in light of Professor Fawcett’s suggestion that a hybrid human rights/international private law approach should be taken such that Article 6 concerns should be identified first, taking into account ECtHR jurisprudence, and thereafter it should be for the flexible second limb of Spiliada to apply to resolve these issues. Fawcett concedes that the same result will be achieved in most cases, yet suggests that there may be borderline cases where this solution would work better and human rights concerns will have been taken more seriously. However, this need for procedural restructuring of judicial reasoning is arguably not wholly convincing, particularly given that the indirect effect doctrine under Soering requires a flagrant breach of Article 6, not merely a standard breach; it is therefore difficult to imagine the existence of any “borderline” cases as such. Moreover, in the cases of potential flagrant breaches, the interests of justice principle has been shown to be flexible enough to prevent stays which may breach Article 6 indirectly, regardless of the classification of the delay as a breach of human rights or otherwise. In this respect, it is arguable that the international private law case law could be adequately relied upon. Nevertheless, initial consideration of ECtHR jurisprudence may have more importance than in providing a mere procedurally attractive measure; it may guide and influence those who fail to see the pressing importance of human rights today and will at least effect compliance with the Section 2 of the HRA 1998 which demands that such jurisprudence be considered wherever Convention rights are in issue. Endnotes The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 558, p560; Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] 1 Ch 409, pp435-436; cf. The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399,pp413-414, where Hirst J gave “minimal weight to the delay factor” upon direction by the appellate courts. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 628. Hill: 2005, para.9.2.38. [2002] 1 WLR 1269. Ibid., at [177]. Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc [1998] AC 854, p872. [1984] AC 398. Ibid., p411. A and others v Denmark [1996] ECHR 2, at [78]. [1992] ECHR 45. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.628. (n29). Notwithstanding, the ECJ’s taking 2¾ years to produce its judgment did not go towards acknowledging the express request by the English Court of Appeal to provide reasonably quick compensation. Of course, time taken for a required preliminary reference from the ECJ is entirely justified under Article 6 (Pafitis v Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 566, at [95].) Fawcett: 2007, pp36-37. Such that length-of-proceedings cases (see supra pp.7-8) should be consulted in the context of unreasonable delay. (n14).

Put your foot in the icy water: Don’t be afraid to come to powerful conclusions

A dissertation that is written with balanced conclusions is a boring one. Reasoned opinion is important. Nothing would get done in this world if we said “X is right, but Y is equally right, so let’s just leave things the way they are”. Sitting on the fence may well get you a good upper second class award but there is little chance of it getting you a first. A certain English teacher, Sandra MacCallum, at Kyle Academy once taught that, sometimes, “you’ve got to put your foot into the icy water”. Don’t be afraid to come to powerful conclusions. Hopefully the below example, with a reasonable, opinionated attack on the ECJ’s lack of respect for the common law principles of the Scottish export doctrine forum non conveniens, illustrates the significance of this suggestion.

3.5. Conclusions It is perplexing that in Owusu Advocate General Léger, and perhaps indirectly the ECJ, suggested that applying forum non conveniens may be incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1), whereas analysis of its proper operation shows that it is compatible and may even be a useful tool in providing faster and more economic litigation. Although it is at least somewhat refreshing to see ECHR arguments being acknowledged in an international private law context without encouragement, it is nevertheless peculiar that Article 6 concerns have been identified in relation to forum non conveniens, “one of the most civilised of legal principles” as Lord Goff of Chieveley put it, when the ECJ did not properly apply or even consider Article 6 in Gasser, where the need for its recognition was much more significant. The ECHR is not an optional instrument that can be applied to justify a course of reasoning, however misguided, on the one hand and dismissed when apparently greater considerations require it on the other; careful legal analysis is required for its operation, which analysis does not appear to have been applied or even respected by the ECJ.

A fresh perspective

Separating a dissertation into manageable chunks from the initial stages of structural planning gives you freedom to start afresh to write about a different but related topic once concluding another section. Access to a court, for instance, is a separate right from the right for a trial to be heard and decided within a reasonable time. It, thus, merits a separate chapter with its own introduction, subsections and conclusions.

4. ACCESS TO A COURT 4.1. Operation in Article 6 The fair, public and expeditious characteristics of judicial proceedings expressed in Article 6 would be of no value at all if there were no judicial proceedings. Thus, referring to the rule of law and avoidance of arbitrary power, principles which underlie much of the ECHR, the ECtHR has held that the right of access to a court is an element inherent in Article 6(1). Although this right is not absolute, any limitation must not restrict access to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired, provided that a legitimate aim is pursued with proportionality between the limitation and that aim. The potential for this right to arise in the civil jurisdiction context is high, given the intrinsic nature of the operation of jurisdiction rules. 4.2. Anti-Suit Injunctions A denial of access to a foreign court and, therefore, a potential Article 6 violation will occur through the grant of an anti-suit injunction, which seeks to restrain foreign proceedings. This issue arose in The Kribi, where the claimants sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain Belgian proceedings brought in contravention of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Aikens J held that “Article 6…does not provide that a person is to have an unfettered choice of tribunal in which to pursue or defend his civil rights” . Moreover, “Article 6…does not deal at all with where the right to a [fair trial] is to be exercised by a litigant. The crucial point is that civil rights must be determined somewhere by a hearing and before a tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.” Therefore, a court granting an anti-suit injunction, in the very limited circumstances in which it can now do so, would not be in breach of Section 6 of the HRA 1988 where another available forum exists. Contrastingly, Article 6 challenges remain for the “single forum” cases, where there is only one forum of competent jurisdiction to determine the merits of the claim, despite the cases already being treated differently. In such a case, the exemplary approach of Aikens J would easily resolve such human rights issues. Ultimately, in a commercially welcome judgment, human rights arguments were made and received properly. Moreover, Aikens J “logically” dealt with the human rights points first. Hence the case is a working model for Fawcett’s hybrid approach where human rights should be considered first before international private law principles. Contrasting with stays producing concerns of unreasonable delays, in this context of access to a court there is more impetus to follow Fawcett’s model, particularly given that such denial of access can constitute a direct breach of Article 6, thus producing a more realistic threat of contravention of Section 6 of the HRA 1998. 4.3. Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and Waiving Convention Rights Another instance pertinent to Article 6 is where a person has no access to the courts of the UK because of the enforcement of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Convention rights can, in general, be waived, including the right of access to a court under Article 6, which can occur where a jurisdiction agreement or agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable, but not where a person entered into the agreement without voluntary consensus. Generally, rights will be waived under a jurisdiction agreement meeting the requirements of Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation. However, as Briggs and Rees note, there may be instances, somewhat unattractive, where a party is bound by such a jurisdiction agreement without voluntary consensus as such, such that his right of access to a court may not have been waived, reflecting the more prudent stance taken towards compulsory alternative dispute resolution. Notwithstanding, Article 6 will be upheld provided there is another available court. 4.4. Limitations on Jurisdiction It is axiomatic that limitations on jurisdiction may restrict access to a court. The ECtHR has held that limitation periods are generally compatible with Article 6, particularly for reasons of legal certainty, provided that they are not applied inflexibly. This compatibility should encompass a stay under forum non conveniens for a forum barred by limitation, which is granted only where the claimant was at fault by acting unreasonably in failing to commence proceedings in the foreign court within the applicable limitation period. Contrastingly, blanket limitations are a more difficult species. An example of a blanket exclusion on jurisdiction is the English common law Moçambique rule, which provides that title to foreign land should be determined only at the situs of the land. This may conflict with Article 6 because of a denial of access to an English court. Although this proposition may be unfounded, particularly where access to a court is available somewhere, the exclusion on jurisdiction may still be challenged on Article 6 grounds if disproportionate its aim. Such proportionality concerns were considered in Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Following Al-Adsani v United Kingdom , a blanket limitation on jurisdiction was accepted because the grant of sovereign immunity, which restricted access to a court, pursued the legitimate aim of comity through compliance with international law and was proportionate. Notwithstanding, underpinning this reasoning is an inevitable tension between the interests of States and private parties, such that Mance LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal produced his judgment in light of ECHR considerations, taking a more flexible approach supportive of human rights. Mark v Mark also illustrates such inflexibility and proportionality considerations. The limitation in that case prevented access to the English courts, which may have been the only available courts, through a particular rule of public policy. This rule was therefore seen by Thorpe LJ to be incompatible with Article 6 and hence the HRA 1998. Contrastingly, in the House of Lords, Baroness Hale affirmed the decision on different grounds, dismissing ECHR considerations, such that she perhaps did not take human rights concerns entirely seriously. Although access to some court will be available following most limitations, the few cases where access would be denied to the only available court under a limitation warrant special attention in light of protection of the right to a fair trial. Such attention has been properly given on occasion, as demonstrated by both Mance and Thorpe LJJ. However, this approach is not consistently followed, shown by the dangerous approach of Baroness Hale. 4.5. Interaction with Forum non Conveniens In Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc, the defendant asked for a stay of proceedings. After identifying South Africa as the natural forum, the Court was faced with the argument that the stay would breach Article 6 because the complexity of the case and lack of funding were such that the claimant could not sue in that foreign court. After applying the Spiliada principles, which provided that a stay should be refused because the claimant could not obtain justice in the foreign court, Lord Bingham then turned to the Article 6 arguments and noted simply that “I do not think article 6 supports any conclusion which is not already reached on application of Spiliada principles.” Although the right to a fair trial was acknowledged and indeed protected under the refusal to grant a stay, the procedure in reasoning lowered the importance of human rights as the Spiliada principles took precedence to application of Article 6. Thus, if the Lubbe approach was followed in the future and a stay was granted to a foreign court in which there was a risk of a flagrant breach, the court may indirectly breach Article 6 in addition to Sections 2 and 6 of the HRA 1998. Similar techniques to that employed by Lord Bingham have been used in other forum non conveniens cases. For example, in The Polessk, the extent to which evidence showed the right to a fair trial in the St. Petersberg Court was considered under the second limb of the Spiliada test. Moreover, as discussed, reasonable delay has been considered consistently, although somewhat effectively, within this second stage of Spiliada. As noted, these latter instances show a sufficient degree of reconciliation with at least the indirect effect of Article 6, regardless of the characterisation of the breach as one of Article 6 or otherwise, particularly because it is difficult to imagine “borderline” cases amounting to flagrant breaches of Article 6, as Fawcett suggests. This analysis can be applied equally to the facts of Lubbe where access to the foreign court clearly did not exist, such that a stay would unequivocally produce a flagrant breach. It may be suggested that other cases are not so easy to evaluate, such as in determining whether access to a court exists through lack of legal aid, as Santambrogio v Italy illustrates. Nevertheless, surely if the decision is a difficult one to make, then the breach cannot be flagrant and, as such, there cannot be an indirect breach of Article 6. However, as noted, a procedural shift in judicial reasoning will have undoubted procedural benefits, if at the very least it effects compliance with Section 2 of the HRA 1998. Endnotes Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1, at [35]. Ibid., at [34]-[35]. Ibid., at [36]; this includes the right to a determination of proceedings on the merits (Gorbachev v Russia, No. 3354/02, 15 February 2007.) Ibid., at [38]. Winterwerp v The Netherlands [1979] ECHR 4, at [60], [75]. Ashingdane v United Kingdom [1985] ECHR 8, at [57]. OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep 76; now overruled on the specific point for decision (Turner v Grovit and Others [2005] AC 101). The Kribi (n131), at [42]. Ibid., at [42]. Following Turner v Grovit (n131), a court cannot grant an anti-suit injunction against a party who has commenced an action in a Brussels Convention State. British Airways v Laker Airways [1983] AC 58,at [80]. The Kribi, (n131),at [41]. Fawcett: 2007, pp36-37. Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692; cf. Loucaides: 2003, pp48-50. Deweer v Belgium (1979-80) 2 EHRR 439; indeed, this is a “natural consequence of [the parties’] right to regulate their mutual relations as they see fit.” (Axelsson v. Sweden, no.11960/86, 13 July 1990.) Malmstrom v Sweden (1983) 38 DR 18. Cf. under the common law (The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324); Briggs and Rees: 2005, p19. E.g. a person not party to a bill of lading bound by a jurisdiction agreement between shipper and carrier. Briggs and Rees: 2005, pp18-19. See generally Schiavetta: 2004, paras.4.2-4.21. Stubbings v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 44, at [51]. Briggs and Rees: 2005, p20 n.101. Spiliada (n72), pp483-484. British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602; for Scotland, Hewit’s Trs v Lawson (1891) 18 R 793. Briggs and Rees: 2005, para.4.06. [2006] UKHL 26. 34 EHRR 273. Cf. Markovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 1141, which held that although there was no blanket limitation on jurisdiction through sovereign immunity and that access to a court had been afforded, access was nevertheless limited in scope, such that the applicants could not receive a decision on the merits. [2005] QB 699. [2004] EWCA Civ 168, at [40]. [2006] AC 98. Fawcett: 2007, p34. [2000] 1 WLR 1545. (n72). Lubbe (n157), p1561. Further, no relevant decisions of the ECtHR were relied upon in the judgment e.g. Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3 where representation costs were “very high” and the procedure was too complex and would evoke emotions too great for the applicant to present her case. Cf. Santambrogio v Italy [2004] ECHR 430 (post-Lubbe), where legal aid was deemed unnecessary in the circumstances. Fawcett: 2007, p.11. (n102), p51. Supra pp.17-19. Supra p.19. (n160).

Get creative!

Creative argument is essential if you’re going to get a first. Perhaps only unless your tutor or professor doesn’t know the topic well can you get away rehashing old argument and ideas that have been discussed thousands of times before. Having worked with academia in trying to commercialise intellectual property rights (IP), through, for instance, spin-off companies, it is clear that innovation is crucial for the business models of universities. It goes something like this: University teaches its students; Students produce research in which they and/or the university have IP, such as copyrights or patents; Student and/or university commercialises that IP by selling or licensing it to journals or other entities, such as companies. Money, then, gets reinvested into the system or society, which gets to work with the new innovation or improvement. The below argument is example of how such creativity can light up your dissertation, add value to your University and get you a better mark overall.

4.6. Owusu v Jackson Further relevance of Article 6 can be seen in the context of the ECJ’s analysis of forum non conveniens in Owusu v Jackson. Fundamentally wrong, the ECJ believed that a defendant “would not be able…reasonably to foresee before which other court he may be sued.” However, it is the defendant who asks for a stay and thus his foreseeability of a stay in this respect is secured. Article 6 is underpinned by the principle of legal certainty. Although legal certainty has specific provision in some articles of the ECHR, it is not confined to those articles; the specific provisions require domestic law “to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the articles of the Convention.” Legal certainty comprises the particularly significant aspect of foreseeability. In this regard, the ECtHR has noted that: “a norm cannot be regarded as a ‘law’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct: he must be able…to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail.” It is at least arguable that this would encompass procedural certainty emanating from rules of jurisdiction. If the forum non conveniens doctrine permitted stays without the defendant’s asking, the defendant would have such little legal certainty that there may even be an arguable infringement of his right to a fair trial under Article 6, not only incompatible with the higher test of legal certainty of jurisdictional rules under the Brussels regime. This would result from the defendant’s lack of foreseeability as to where proceedings against him would take place. Contrastingly, cogent arguments can be made against forum non conveniens, inter alia, because of the uncertainty for the claimant. Notwithstanding, it could be said that his rights under Article 6(1) are upheld through his right of access to a court somewhere else. Moreover, he would have much more legal certainty than that of the defendant under the ECJ’s interpretation of forum non conveniens because stays under proper operation of forum non conveniens are granted, to some extent, within the confines of regulated and foreseeable discretion. It can therefore be seen that the ECJ had analysed something which would be incompatible not only with Scottish and English law, but also with the ECHR and HRA 1998. Although a proper analysis of forum non conveniens would probably not have altered the outcome of Owusu, it would have been much more respectable to the common law, already set to be dismantled through an inevitable course of Europeanization, not to knock down, to some extent, a “straw man.” 4.7. Conclusions It is clear that there are disparate approaches to the right of access to a court, perhaps emanating in part from varying attitudes to the importance of human rights. Most civil jurisdiction cases will involve access being denied to one court, while access to another is still available. These will generally not breach Article 6 since there is no right of preference of court under Article 6 as Aikens J held in The Kribi, a judgment fully respectable of human rights. Contrastingly, in the limited number of cases which do yield Article 6 concerns, respect for human rights has been inconsistent, a worrying position particularly in light of the recognition of new, potential Article 6 challenges, such as in the areas of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and limitations on jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, such concerns may be unfounded, given the flexibility of international private law rules, such as the demands of justice under the second limb of Spiliada, which can effectively prevent indirect breaches of Article 6. Endnotes Except in exceptional circumstances: Collins et al: 2006, para.12-006 n.20. E.g. Articles 5 and 7. Reed and Murdoch: 2001, para.3.33. Amuur v France [1996] ECHR 20, at [50]. Reed and Murdoch: 2001, para.3.36. Sunday Times (No1) v United Kingdom [1979] ECHR 1, at [49]. Harris: 2005, p939; despite a lack of express mention by the ECJ in Owusu (n29); cf. Opinion of AG Leger in Owusu, at [160]. Hartley: 2005b, pp824-828; cf. Mance: 2007. (n72).

Add Another New Topic

The following is a different slant on the fundamental theme of the dissertation.

5. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 5.1. Recognition of Contracting State Judgments An indirect breach of Article 6 may occur where a court recognises and thus enforces a judgment obtained in foreign proceedings contrary to the requirements of Article 6. Little challenge is presented where that judgment is obtained in a court of a State party to the ECHR; in such a case, recognition can be refused through Article 6 which is a facet of public policy under Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention. Notably, Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation provides that the recognition must be “manifestly” contrary to public policy, implying a higher threshold than in Article 27(1). The difference in wording is uncertain, but it is hoped that it will not be used to “sweep mere procedural defects under the rug.” Indeed, the importance of the right to a fair trial to the rule of law cannot be underestimated and thus it is arguable that any breach of Article 6 will be manifestly contrary to public policy. Notwithstanding, if the phrases “manifestly contrary to public policy” and a “flagrant breach of the ECHR” were to be compared, it may be just as arguable that a manifest breach of Article 6, not a standard one, is required for the operation of Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation. However, this may not be unwarranted in the context of judgments of Contracting States, as noted. Through Krombach v Bamberski , the housing of Article 6 under public policy effectively creates a hierarchical system, whereby EC rules have precedence over human rights rules, particularly because of the ignorance of the indirect effect doctrine. However, this may not be wholly unwelcome in light of the potential existence of a common EC public policy, somewhat emanating from the harmonisation through the ECHR in 1950. Moreover, as Meidanis suggests, the ECJ appears to see the protection of human rights as the common core of the European public policy and is prepared to sacrifice the basic principle of the free movement of judgments of the Brussels Convention to ensure protection of human rights. Notwithstanding, as noted, in other contexts, the ECJ does not so respect human rights, particularly highlighted by its emphatic rejection of Article 6 in Gasser. Although the flexibility through the public policy exception does not extend to the rules relating to jurisdiction, there are other mechanisms for protecting human rights within the Brussels Convention and, especially, the Brussels Regulation. 5.2. Recognition of Non-Contracting State Judgments More difficulty arises with recognition of a judgment obtained in a non-Contracting State. 5.2.1. European Court of Human Rights Such recognition was permitted without reference to Article 6 in Drozd and Janousek. However, in Pellegrini v Italy, the ECtHR held that the Italian court could not recognise a judgment obtained in a Vatican City court in contravention of Article 6 standards. This was so despite a Concordat between Italy and the Vatican requiring such recognition. Pellegrini can be considerably demarcated from the Soering/Drozd line of cases, which requires a flagrant breach to have occurred in the non-Contracting State, the underpinning theory being the “reduced effect of public policy.” Instead, Pellegrini requires full compliance with Article 6 standards as if the foreign court were party to the ECHR, such that failure to review a judgment against which standards is a risky practice. Notwithstanding, the actual breach of Article 6 standards in Pellegrini was flagrant, despite the court’s omission of this, and therefore the judgment may not represent such a large departure from Drozd. Moreover, the “reduced effect of public policy” approach of Drozd was followed eight days prior to Pellegrini in Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany. However, it is difficult to distinguish Hans-Adam II on its facts particularly given the sweeping reasoning in Pellegrini. Thus, as it stands, Pellegrini is the leading authority, prescribing the need for a review of foreign judgments against full Article 6 standards, ensuring full protection for the right to a fair trial. It is nevertheless hoped by some that the case will be revisited, perhaps with the preference of a variable standard. Further, a dictum in Pellegrini may have the effect of requiring such review only where the judgment emanates from the courts of a State not party to the Convention. Hence, as Kinsch submits, an a contrario reading may be imputed, such that review of Article 6 standards is optional where the judgment emanates from a Contracting State. However, this may not be wholly unwelcome given that the Member States of the EU are party to the ECHR in addition to the Brussels Convention and Regulation, which seek to limit the power of public policy from preventing recognition of judgments. 5.2.2. House of Lords In stark contrast to Pellegrini, the House of Lords in Montgomery required a “flagrant” breach in the United States, a non-Contracting State, for the judgment not to be recognised. Such a flagrant breach was not created in the United States and hence recognition of a judgment breaching regular Article 6 standards was permitted. In its judgment, the House of Lords attempted to distinguish Pellegrini through the existence of the Concordat between Italy and the Vatican City, which required Italy to ensure that the Vatican court’s procedure complied with the fundamental principles of Italian legal system, one being Article 6. However, this is hard, if not impossible, to understand, particularly since it assumes that the Concordat of 1929, as amended, could incorporate ECHR standards, when the Vatican City deliberately refused to subscribe to the ECHR. Further, the ECtHR in Pellegrini did not suggest in its judgment that the relationship between Italy and the Vatican was material to its decision. Therefore, Montgomery is seen to be wrong in so distinguishing Pellegrini. Briggs and Rees further suggest that the House of Lords applied the wrong test in Montgomery because of the analysis of deportation cases, such as Soering. In such a case, a prediction is required, whereas in Montgomery, or indeed in any case concerning recognition, there was no need for such a prediction as the foreign judgment could already be seen to have breached Article 6. However, Soering requires that the person “has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial (emphasis added.)” If he has already suffered a breach, there is no need for a prediction to be made; instead, the reason for the standard of flagrancy is based on the “reduced effect of public policy” theory, an approach followed in Drozd, as noted. The reasoning of Briggs and Rees in this respect is akin to that of the Court of Appeal in Montgomery where Lord Woolf CJ stated that “the reference in [Soering at [113]] to a future flagrant breach of Article 6 was no more than a dicta which should not be applied to the enforcement of a court order of a non-Contracting State.” However, Drozd, which was not cited to, or considered by, the Court of Appeal, expressly requires such a flagrant breach of Article 6 if enforcement of a court order of a non-Contracting State is to be denied, which clearly has nothing to do with making predictions. Instead, as Briggs and Rees indeed note, the reason why the House of Lords applied the wrong test in Montgomery is that Pellegrini, the leading ECtHR authority which overrides Drozd, was wrongly distinguished and therefore permitted recognition of a judgment in contravention of ECHR jurisprudence. It may be argued that this was not a case of human rights not being taken seriously, but was merely a case of wrongful interpretation of human rights law, yet this could only be accepted upon an assumption of the incompetence of the House of Lords. 5.3. Conclusions The leading authority of the ECtHR on operation of the indirect effect doctrine with respect to recognising foreign judgments, Pellegrini demands a review of full compliance with Article 6 standards of foreign judgments, perhaps limited to those emanating from non-Contracting State courts. Through this, the right to a fair trial can be fully upheld in national courts and, in the UK, breach of Section 6 of the HRA 1998 can be avoided. Notwithstanding, the House of Lords effectively got human rights wrong, thus paving the way forward for reduced protection of Article 6 in the UK. However, this area is not devoid of hope; to effect compliance with this framework, Montgomery must be overturned, which does not appear too remote a possibility given the extensive criticism of the case.

How to conclude a first class law dissertation

The conclusion to your dissertation is, arguably, the most important part and is, therefore, potentially a major differentiator between a first class dissertation and a second class one.

There are three things which you should bear in mind:-

1. A well-written dissertation, thesis, essay or, indeed, any story should have three main parts to it: an introduction; a main body; and a conclusion. It reflects any good piece of oratory: say what you’re going to say, say it, then say what you’ve said. In your conclusion, you are, thus, trying to tell the audience what you’ve said throughout your dissertation. If the word limit is 10,000 words, 800-1000 words should, ideally, be used on your conclusion;

2. Don’t be afraid to put your foot into the icy water. As stated in an earlier section you should not be afraid to come to powerful conclusions even if they challenge the views of other academics, practitioners or even the general public, provided that your views can be fairly and reasonably supported. Which brings us to the third and most important aspect of any conclusion;

3. A well drafted conclusion should refer back to your analysis throughout your dissertation to support your suggested conclusions; it should not allow you to raise new arguments or thoughts which you haven’t already considered. Think about it like a civil proof in court: you conduct an examination-in-chief in which you ask open questions to get evidence from your witness; your opponent then cross-examines your witness to test their evidence; you then get a chance to re-examine the witness but you do NOT get a chance to raise anything new that was not covered in cross.

The conclusion to my dissertation, different from my Juridical Review version, is as below. Given the recent Supreme Court criminal law decision of Cadder v HMA, for which see the ScotsLawBlog Cadder article , the final words on getting human rights right attract even greater significance.

6. CONCLUSIONS The right to a fair trial has produced much concern in the conflict of laws arena today, a particular result of the evolution of a more stringent human rights culture in the United Kingdom. In the field of civil jurisdiction, the right to a trial within reasonable time and the right of access to a court, two of the most fundamental substantive rights of Article 6 ECHR, have emerged; in the sphere of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the indirect effect doctrine, a key procedural element of the ECHR, which protects the right to a fair trial indirectly but nevertheless just as significantly, has arisen. International private law mechanisms exist for the reconciliation of Article 6 with the sphere of civil jurisdiction and judgments. The extent to which these can be utilised to protect the right to a fair trial is undoubtedly immense. At the most extreme end of protection, Fawcett’s hybrid model could provide great procedural legal certainty, such that human rights concerns will be identified first, using ECtHR jurisprudence, following which international private law mechanisms can resolve these concerns with their inherent flexibility. This strict approach is not unwarranted, particularly where judges fail to see the function or even importance of human rights. Pertinent examples include the misapplication of human rights by the House of Lords in Montgomery , which indeed must be rectified, and other approaches not confined to the courts of the United Kingdom; for instance, the embarrassingly misguided approach of the ECJ in Gasser , where it refused to recognise human rights concerns in its myopic pursuit of the objectives of the Brussels regime, unyielding with respect for concerns of private parties, when there were measures available for reconciliation. This appears even more inadequate in light of Advocate General Léger’s later suggestions that forum non conveniens may actually be incompatible with Article 6, when the doctrine is more than justifiable as it seeks to produce faster and more economic litigation, through both the first and second limbs of Spiliada. Notwithstanding, the need for Fawcett’s model is more questionable in other situations; for instance, in those cases involving potential indirect breaches of Article 6 when transferring actions abroad, flexible international private law mechanisms appear to have been applied in a manner sufficiently compliant with the ECHR, regardless of the characterisation of the breach as one of Article 6 or simply of the demands of justice. For example, the second limb of Spiliada has effectively prevented stays where there is a real risk of a flagrant breach abroad, as is the Soering threshold for such an indirect breach, whether regarding unreasonable delay or lack of access to a court. Fawcett concedes that the overall result of many cases will remain unchanged but suggests that “borderline” cases may exist which pose as pitfalls for the courts. However, the requirement of flagrancy, as he correctly applied at the beginning of his analysis, makes the existence of such cases difficult, if not impossible, to imagine in practice. In this respect, Fawcett appears to be advocating an approach extending beyond avoiding breaching Article 6; instead, he is actively aiming at protection of a fair trial beyond the Article 6 threshold. However, this is not unwelcome; the importance of Article 6 is so great that it is worth adopting the strict approach. The consistent use of ECHR jurisprudence at the outset will, at the very least, prevent a breach of Section 2 of the HRA 1998; further, it may assist those judges who are misguided or fail to see the importance of human rights today. Ultimately, a strict approach may provide for considerable legal certainty in a fast and growing area of law which demands firm, human rights orientated answers.

New: we have published guides to some of the best personal injury lawyers , settlement agreement solicitors and best employment lawyers in the UK , in addition to helpful guidance on a range of other legal issues which may be useful if you or a friend need to point someone in the right direction.

How to write a bibliography to conclude your first-class dissertation

There are three stages for completing an abundant and competent bibliography. First, go into the footnotes on your document, select all, copy and paste to the foot of your article, then separate into different categories. Then, second, go back through the materials which you have read and add them. Finally, third, sort alphabetically using Word or Excel.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 7.1. TABLE OF CASES A and others v Denmark [1996] ECHR 2 AG of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai [2005] EWHC 2102 (Ch), appeals dismissed [2006] EWCA Civ 390 Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119 Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3 Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam [2004] EWCA Civ 857 Amuur v France (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 533 Andreucci v Italy [1992] ECHR 8 Ashingdane v United Kingdom [1985] ECHR 8 Att. Gen. v Arthur Anderson & Co [1989] ECC 224 Axelsson v. Sweden, no.11960/86, 13 July 1990 Bensaid v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 10 Berghofer v. ASA SA Case 221/84 [1985] ECR 2699 Berisford Plc v New Hampshire Insurance [1990] 2 QB 631 Bock v. Germany [1989] ECHR 3 Boddaert v Belgium (1993) 16 EHRR 242 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi(“Bosphorus Airways“) v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1 Bottazzi v. Italy [1999] ECHR 62 Brazilian Loans (PCIJ Publications, Series A, Nos. 20-21, p.122) Bristow Heliocopters v Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation [2004] 2 Ll Rep 150 British Airways v Laker Airways [1983] AC 58 British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602 Buchholz v Germany [1981] ECHR 2 Carel Johannes Steven Bentinck v Lisa Bentinck [2007] EWCA Civ 175 Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Nomura International Plc [2003] IL Pr 20 Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] 1 Ch 409 Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc [1998] AC 854 Credit Agricole Indosuez v Unicof Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd.s Rep 196 Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd, The Times June 8, 1995 Darnell v United Kingdom (1993) 18 EHRR 205 Delcourt v Belgium (1979-80) 1 EHRR 355 Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] QB 770 Deweer v Belgium (1979-80) 2 EHRR 439 Di Mauro v. Italy ECHR 1999-V Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745 Eckle v Germany (1983) 5 EHRR 1 Elderslie Steamship Company v Burrell (1895) 22 R 389 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Jacqmain (Case 150/80) [1981] ECR 1671 Erich Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl, C-116/02 [2005] QB 1 ERT v DEP C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925 F v Switzerland [1987] ECHR 32 Ferrari v Italy [1999] ECHR 64 Foti v Italy (1982) EHRR 313 Fritz and Nana v France, 75 DR 39 Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1 Gorbachev v Russia, No. 3354/02, Judgment of 15 February 2007. Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37 Guincho v Portugal (1984) 7 EHRR 223 H v France (1990) 12 EHRR 74 Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Aegan Turkish Holidays Ltd [1979] AC 508 Hewit’s Trs v Lawson (1891) 18 R 793. Huseyin Erturk v Turkey [2005] ECHR 630. Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union [1991] 2 QB 206. Iveco Fiat v Van Hool Case 313/85 [1986] ECR 3337 Jones v Saudi Arabia [2004] EWCA Civ 1394 JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom [2005] EWHC 508 Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy (1994) 19 EHRR 368 Klockner Holdings GmbH v Klockner Beteiligungs GmbH [2005] EWHC 1453 Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269 Konig v Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 170 Krombach v Bamberski Case C-7/98 [2001] QB 709 Kudla v Poland [2000] ECHR 512 Lacey v Cessna Aircraft (1991) 932 F.2d 170 Ledra Fisheries Ltd v Turner [2003] EWHC 1049 Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 Malone v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 1 Malstrom v Sweden (1983) 38 Decisions and Reports 18 Manieri v Italy [1992] ECHR 26 Margareta and Roger Andersson v Sweden (1992) 14 EHRR 615. Markovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 1141 Maronier v Larmer [2003] QB 620 Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 12. Messier-Dowty v Sabena [2000] 1 WLR 2040 Netherlands 6202/73 1975 1 DR 66 OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep 76 Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 433 Owners of the Atlantic Star v Owners of the Bona Spes (The Atlantic Star and The Bona Spes) [1974] AC 436 Owusu v Jackson and Others C-281/02 [2005] QB 801 Pafitis v Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 566 Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692 Philip Morris International Inc v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-1 Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany ECHR 2001-VIII. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 1 AC 368 R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 R. (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389 R. (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26 Riccardo Pizzati v Italy [2006] ECHR 275 Robins v United Kingdom (1998) 26 EHRR 527 Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14 Salotti v RUWA Case 23/76 [1976] ECR 1831 Santambrogio v Italy [2004] ECHR 430 Scopelliti v Italy (1993) 17 EHRR 493 Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665 Soc Divagsa v Spain (1993) 74 DR 274. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Lid [1987] 1 AC 460 Standard Steamship Owners Protection and Indemnity Association v Gann [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 528 Stogmuller v Austria (1979) 2 EHRR 155 Stubbings v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 44 Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 245 The Al Battani [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 219 The Benarty [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244 The Fehmarn [1958] 1 WLR 159 The Jalakrishna [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 628 The Lakhta [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 269 The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399 The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324 The Polessk [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40 The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 558 Toepfer International G.M.B.H. v. Molino Boschi Srl [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 510 Trendex v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679 Turner v Grovit and Others [2005] 1 AC 101 Union Alimentaria SA v Spain (1990) 12 EHRR 24 Vocaturo v Italy [1991] ECHR 34. Wemhoff v Germany (1968) 1 EHRR 55 Winterwerp v The Netherlands [1979] ECHR 4 X v France [1992] ECHR 45 Xn Corporation Ltd v Point of Sale Ltd [2001] I.L.Pr. 35 Z and Others v. United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 3 Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 9 7.2. TABLE OF LEGISLATION European Union EC Treaty Art 6(2) Art 307 Council Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels Regulation) Art 2 Art 4 Art 27 Art 28 Art 30 Art 34(1) Art 34(2) Art 35(3) Art 71 Italy Law no.89 of 24 March 2001 (the “Pinto Act”). United Kingdom Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 11 r 3.1(2)(f) Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) s1(1)(a) s2(1)(a) s3(1) s6(3)(a) 7.3. TABLE OF CONVENTIONS Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels Convention) Art 21 Art 22 Art 57 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Art 5 Art 6 Art 7 Art 13 7.4. TEXTBOOKS Anton, A.E., and Beaumont, P., 1995. Anton & Beaumont’s Civil Jurisdiction in Scotland: Brussels and Lugano Conventions. 2nd ed ., Edinburgh: Greens Bell, A., 2003. Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation. Oxford: OUP Briggs, A., 2002. The Conflict of Laws, Oxford: OUP. Briggs, A., and Rees, P., 2002. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. 3rd ed., London: LLP Briggs, A., and Rees, P., 2005. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. 4rd ed., London: LLP Clarkson, C.M.V., and Hill, J., 2002. Jaffey on the Conflict of Laws. 2nd ed., Oxford: OUP Clarkson, C.M.V., and Hill, J., 2006. The Conflict of Laws. New York: OUP Clayton, R. and Tomlinson, H., 2000. The Law of Human Rights. Oxford: OUP Collier, J.C., 2001. Conflict of Laws. 3rd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collins, L., et al (eds), 2006. Dicey Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws. 14th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell Crawford, E.B., and Carruthers, J.M., 2006. International Private Law in Scotland. 2nd ed, Edinburgh: Greens Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh. The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press. Fawcett, J.J., 1995. Declining jurisdiction in private international law: reports to the XIVth congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, Athens, August 1994. Oxford: Clarendon Press Fawcett, J.J., Harris, J. and Bridge, M., 2005. International Sale of Goods in the Conflict of Laws. Oxford: OUP Grosz, S., Beatson, J. and Duffy, P., 2000. Human Rights: The 1998 Act and the European Convention,.London: Sweet and Maxwell Harris, D.J., O’Boyle, M., Warbrick, C., 1995. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Butterworth Hill, J., 2005. International Commercial Disputes in English Courts. 3rd ed Portland: Hart Publishing McClean, D. and Beevers, K., 2005. Morris on the Conflict of Laws. 6th ed., London: Sweet and Maxwell North, P.M. and Fawcett, J.J., 2004. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law. 13th ed. Oxford: OUP Ovey, C. and White, R., 2002. The European Convention on Human Rights. New York: OUP Raitio, J., 2003. The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Reed, R. and Murdoch, J., 2001. A Guide to Human Rights Law in Scotland. Edinburgh: Butterworths Scotland Starmer, K., 1999. European Human Rights Law. London: Legal Action Group 7.5. ARTICLES Baldwin, J., and Cunnington, R., 2004. “The Crisis in Enforcement of Civil Judgments in England and Wales.” 2004 PL (SUM) 305-328 Briggs, A., 2005a. “Foreign Judgments and Human Rights.” 121(APR) L.Q.R. 185-189 Briggs, A., 2005b. “The Death of Harrods: Forum non Conveniens and the European Court.” 121(OCT) L.Q.R. 535-540 Clarke, A., 2007. “The Differing Approach to Commercial Litigation in the European Court of Justice and the Courts of England and Wales” 18 E.B.L.Rev. 101-129 Collins, L., 1995. “The Brussels Convention Within the United Kingdom”, 111 LQR 541 Costa, J-P., 2002, Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, 435, cited in Kinsch, P., 2004. “The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments – A Survey of the Cases Decided by the European Human Rights Institutions,” in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp197-228, p228 n100 Crawford, E.B., 2005. “The Uses of Putativity and Negativity in the Conflict of Laws.” 54 ICLQ 829-854 Crifo, C., 2005. “First Steps Towards the Harmonisation of Civil procedure: The Regulation Creating a European Enforcement Order for Uncontested Claims.” C.J.Q. 2005, 24(APR), 200-223 Eardley, A., 2006. “Libel Tourism in England: Now the Welcome is Even Warmer.” 17(1) Ent. L.R. 35-38 Fabri, M., and Langbroek, P.M., 2003. “Preliminary draft report: Delay in Judicial Proceedings: A preliminary Inquiry into the Relation Between the Demands of the Reasonable Time Requirements of Article 6(1) ECHR and Their Consequences for Judges and Judicial Administration in the Civil, Criminal and Administrative Justice Chains”, CEPEJ (2003) 20 Rev Farran, S., 2007. “Conflicts of Laws in Human Rights: Consequences for Colonies”, (2007) 1 EdinLR 121 Fawcett, J.J., 2007. “The Impact of Article 6(1) of the ECHR on Private International Law.” 56 ICLQ 1-48 Fentiman, R., 2005. “English Domicile and the Staying of Actions” [2005] 64 CLJ 303 Flannery, L., 2004. “The End of Anti-Suit Injunctions?” New Law Journal, 28 May 2004, 798 Franzosi, M., 2002. “Torpedoes are here to stay” [2002] 2 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 154 Franzosi, M., 1997. “Worldwide Patent Litigation and the Italian Torpedo” 19 (7) EIPR 382 Green, L., 1956. “Jury Trial and Mr. Justice Black,” 65 Yale LJ 482 Halkerston, G., 2005. “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.” 155 NLJ 436 Hare, C., “Forum non Conveniens in Europe: Game Over or Time for ‘Reflexion’” JBL 2006, Mar, 157-179 Harris, J., 2001. “The Brussels Regulation.” 20 Civil Justice Quarterly 218 Harris, J., 2005. “Stays of Proceedings and the Brussels Convention.,” 54 ICLQ 933 Hartley, T.C., 1994. “Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention: Agreement and Lis Alibi Pendens.” 19(5) E.L.Rev 549-552 Hartley, T.C., 2001. “International Law and the Law of the European Union – A Reassessment”, 72 BYBIL 1 Hartley, T.C., 2005a. “Choice-of-court agreements, lis pendens, human rights and the realities of international business: reflection on the Gasser case” in Le droit international privé: mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde, (Dalloz, Paris, 2005), pp383-391 Hartley, T.C., 2005b. “The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law Conflict of Laws”, 54 ICLQ 813 Higgins, R., 2006. “A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations From the Bench.” 55 ICLQ 791-804. Hogan, G., 1995. “The Brussels Convention, Forum non Conveniens and the Connecting Factors Problem.” 20(5) E.L. Rev. 471-493 Hood, K.J., 2006. “Drawing Inspiration? Reconsidering the Procedural Treatment of Foreign Law.” 2(1) JPrIL 181-193. Hunt, M., 1998. “The “Horizontal Effect” of the Human Rights Act”. 1998 Public Law 423-443 Hunter-Henin, M., 2006. “Droit des personnes et droits de l’homme: combinaison ou confrontation? (Family Law and Human Rights: Can They Go Along or Do They Exclude Each Other?),” 95(4) Revue critique de droit international privé pp743-775. Kennett, W., 1998. “Service of Documents in Europe.” 17(JUL) C.J.Q. 284-307 Kennett, W., 2001. “The Brussels I Regulation.” 50 ICLQ 725 -737 Kennett, W., 2001. “The Enforcement Review: A Progress Report.” 20(Jan) CJQ 36-57 Kennett, W., and McEleavy, P., 2002. “(Current Development): Civil and Commercial Litigation” 51 ICLQ 463 Kinsch, P., 2004. “The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments – A Survey of the Cases Decided by the European Human Rights Institutions,” in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp197-228. Lester, A., and Pannick, D., 2000. “The Impact of the Human Rights Act on Private Law: The Knight’s Move.” 116 LQR 380-385 Loucaides, L.G., 2003. “Questions of a Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights.” (2003) HRLR 3(1), pp27-51. Lowenfield, A.F., 2004. “Jurisdiction, Enforcement, Public Policy and Res Judicata: The Krombach Case,” in in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp229-248 Mance, J., 2004a. “Civil Jurisdiction in Europe – Choice of Court Clauses, Competing Litigation and Anti-Suit Injunctions – Erich Gasser v. Misat and Turner v. Grovit: Address to Second Conference of European Commercial Judges, (“Problems of enforcement of european law”)” Paris – 14th October 2004; http://www.courdecassation.fr/formation_br_4/2004_2034/jonathan_mance_8239.html, (Accessed 10 March 2007) Mance, J., 2004b. “Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and European Ideals.” 120 LQR 357 Mance, J., 2005. “The Future of Private International Law.” 1(2) JPrIL 185-195 Mance, J., 2007. “Is Europe Aiming to Civilise the Common Law?” 18 EBLRev 77-99 McLachlan, C., 2004. “International Litigation and the Reworking of the Conflict of Laws” 120(OCT) LQR 580-616 Meidanis, H.P., 2005. “Public Policy and Ordre Public in the Private International Law of the EU: Traditional Positions and Moderns Trends.” 30(1), ELRev, 95-110 Merrett, L., 2006. “The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements within the Brussels Regime,” 55 ICLQ 315 Muir Watt, H., 2001. “Evidence of an Emergent European Legal Culture: Public Policy Requirements of Procedural Fairness Under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions.” 36 Tex. ILJ, p. 539. North, P., 2001. “Private International Law: Change or Decay?” 50 ICLQ 477-508 Orakhelashvili, A., 2006. “The Idea of European International Law.” 17 Eur. J. Int’l L. 315 Peel, E., 2001. “Forum non Conveniens Revisited.” 117(APR) L.Q.R. 187-194 Robertson, D.W., 1987. “Forum Non Conveniens in America and England: ‘A rather fantastic fiction’.” 103 LQR 398 Robert-Tissot, S., and Smith, D., 2005. “The Battle for Forum”, New Law Journal, 7 October 2005, p1496 Robert-Tissot, S., 2005. “The Battle for Forum.” 155 NLJ 1496 Rodger, B.J., 2006. “Forum non Conveniens: Post Owusu.” 2(1) JPrIL 71 Schiavetta, S., 2004. “The Relationship Between e-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights pursuant to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.” 2004 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2004_1/schiavetta/ (Accessed 28 February 2007) Sinopoli, L., 2000. Le droit au procès équitable dans les rapports privés internationaux (doctoral dissertation, University of Paris-I, 2000) Slater, A.G., 1988. “Forum Non Conveniens: A View From the Shop Floor.” 104 LQR 554 Svantesson, D.J.B., 2005. “In Defence of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens.” (2005) HKLJ 395 Van Hoek: 2001. “Case note on Krombach v Bamberski” (2001) 38 CMLR 1011. Wade, H.W.R., 2000. “Horizons of Horizontality.” 116 LQR 217-224 Williams, J.M., 2001. “Forum non Conveniens, Lubbe v Cape and Group Josi v Universal General Insurance.” J.P.I. Law 2001, 1, 72-77 Zhenjie, H., 2001. “Forum Non Conveniens: An Unjustified Doctrine.” 48 NILR 143

All the best with your dissertation and career!

Related Posts

LinkedIn: The New Blogging Platform for Lawyers?

Or should you publish mainly on your own website or blog? In today’s digital age, LinkedIn isn’t just a professional

Exciting News: Our Guide to AI for Law Firms Just Got Better!

Hello legal professionals and legal tech enthusiasts! Alongside an exciting upcoming podcast episode on AI for law firm efficiency and

Dissertation

Where a student can show evidence that he or she is capable of a long dissertation of 12,000 words and wishes to submit such a long dissertation, this may replace two of the electives, subject to agreement on a topic by an MSc in Taxation programme director. A programme director must be satisfied that the dissertation topic is of sufficient scope and depth to be appropriate to replace two courses. The director shall make the decision in consultation with the other directors.

The long dissertation may cover material not covered expressly by any other course on the programme or may build on material covered in another course within the programme provided it has the necessary element of originality, analysis and independent research.  A teacher on the MSc in Taxation must have the suitable knowledge to supervise the dissertation before it can be accepted as an appropriate topic. The topic must, however, be sufficiently different from that chosen for the Tax Research Round Table extended essay to avoid overlap and unfair reduction of burden. It may not be a dissertation, or part of a dissertation, that has been or is being submitted for any other degree in Oxford or elsewhere.

On this page