|
|
Forthcoming Events
Please browse events by month using the calendar below, or use the free text search.
May 2013
Thursday 23 May 2013
|
| Time | Title | Venue |
|
12:00 |
Showcasing Legal Education Research
Lucy Yeatman (University of Greenwich);
Steve Greenfield (University of Westminster);
Mark Vanhoorebeek (University of Bradford);
Chalen Westaby (Sheffield Hallam University);
Graeme Broadbent (University of Kingston);
Fiona Cownie (Keele University) & Pat Leighton (University of Glamorgan).
Lucy Yeatman (University of Greenwich) - 'Do students read cases? A study examining students' attitudes to independent study';
Steve Greenfield (University of Westminster) - 'Theory, Context and Teaching Contract Law';
Mark Vanhoorebeek (University of Bradford) - 'Hack Me!! Non-standard game-based learning and teaching in cyber law';
Chalen Westaby (Sheffield Hallam University) - 'Law Clinics: An examination of their implications on undergraduate law students' perceptions of emotional labour';
Graeme Broadbent (University of Kingston) - 'Future Directions for Legal Education Research';
Fiona Cownie (Keele University) & Pat Leighton (University of Glamorgan) - Announcement of Future LERN Grants, jointly sponsored by the Association of Law Teachers and the Society of Legal Scholars.
Cost: £30.00 per person (including lunch)
The programme and booking form for the event can be downloaded here from Association of Law Teachers' website at www.lawteacher.ac.uk/lern.
Please contact Diane Atherton, School of Law, Keele University, Keele, Staffs ST5 5BG at d.l.atherton@keele.ac.uk with queries.
|
IALS |
Tuesday 4 June 2013
|
| Time | Title | Venue |
|
18:00 |
Law, Rights and Ideology in Russia
Professor Bill Bowring, Birkbeck College, University of London
Professor Bill Bowring teaches and researches in the fields of human rights, minority rights, international law, and Soviet and post-Soviet, especially Russian, law. He was appointed Professor of Law at Birkbeck College, University of London in September 2006 and is a practising barrister.
He has more than 90 publications to his name. His monograph The Degradation of the International Legal Order? The Rehabilitation of Law and the Possibility of Politics was published by Routledge in 2008. In 2003 he founded and is Chair of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), which, in partnership with the Russian NGO Memorial and the Bar Human Rights Committee, is assisting with over 300 cases against Russia and other FSU states at the European Court of Human Rights. He is International Secretary of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers; President of the European Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights (ELDH); a Member of the Executive Committee of the Bar Human Rights Committee (BHRC); and a Trustee of the Redress Trust and of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights (LPHR).
His new book Law, Rights and Ideology in Russia: Landmarks in the Destiny of a Great Power was published by Routledge (www.routledge.com) on 9 April 2013.
This event is FREE but those wishing to attend MUST register in advance. To register, please use the automatic form below or on the SIHRG Website
Arranged with the Solicitors International Human Rights Group (SIHRG) and the Society for Advanced Legal Studies (SALS).
|
IALS |
Monday 10 June 2013
|
| Time | Title | Venue |
|
|
Course in Legislative Drafting 2013
For further information, see http://ials.sas.ac.uk/postgrad/courses/cls_legislative_drafting_course.htm
For a copy of the course brochure (PDF), please click here |
IALS |
|
18:00 |
Legislation, users and the web - legislation.gov.uk and the future of the statute book
John Sheridan, Head of Legislation Services at The National Archives
Over the last twenty years the web has fundamentally changed who is accessing legislation. The official legislation website, legislation.gov.uk is now used by millions of people every month. Who are the new users of legislation and what do they need and expect? How might the growth in audience impact both how legislation is drafted and presented? What further changes does the web have in store for the statute book? What does it mean to think about legislation as data and legislation as code, and what contribution might these ideas make to legislation that is clear and accessible - the essence of good law?
John Sheridan is Head of Legislation Services at The National Archives, where he leads the team responsible for legislation.gov.uk. With an academic background in Mathematics and Information Technology, John has specialised in legal informatics and the semantic web over the last eight years, and is widely recognised as leading practitioner in the field. John is currently working with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on the government's good law initiative.
This event is FREE but those wishing to attend should register in advance. To register, please use the automatic form below.
Organised by the Statute Law Society (www.statutelawsociety.org) and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.
|
IALS |
Tuesday 11 June 2013
|
| Time | Title | Venue |
|
18:00 |
The OECD Principles of Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets: A Successful Example of Networked Governance?
Professor Mathias Siems, University of Durham Law School, IALS Visiting Fellow.
The OECD Principles of Corporate Governance are a networked form of governance predominantly aimed at the law-makers and firms of emerging markets. This paper, co-authored with Oscar Alvarez-Macotela, discusses whether the approach of the OECD Principles can be regarded as a success. Our analysis provides a mixed response. While features of networked governance are clearly visible in the drafting and operation of the Principles, the practical effectiveness may be hindered by the lack of well-functioning local institutions. Moreover, while appreciating that the OECD has engaged in activities such as regional roundtables in order to take account of the local context, the Principles themselves are based on the corporate governance model of the OECD member countries not perfectly suitable for emerging markets. Recent events also point towards scepticism of whether adoption of the Principles can be seen as an effective way to prevent future financial crises. |
IALS |
Thursday 13 June 2013
|
| Time | Title | Venue |
|
18:00 |
The advantages of obscurity: the drafting of EU legislation and judgments
The Rt Hon Sir Konrad Schiemann, Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg from 2004 to 2012.
Chair: William Robinson, Associate Research Fellow at the IALS and formerly a coordinator in the Legal Revisers Group at the European Commission.
Lecture organised jointly by the IALS and Clarity International: http://www.clarity-international.net
|
IALS |
Friday 14 June 2013
|
| Time | Title | Venue |
|
13:00 |
Unlocking the Mysteries of Commercial Dispute Resolution in China
Madam WANG Hongsong, Vice-Chair of BAC; Mr CHEN Fuyong, Vice-Secretary-General, BAC; Mr SUN Wei, Partner, Zhong Lun Law Firm, Chief Editor, China Construction Law Review; Ms TAN Jinghui, Chairman, Jinwei (Beijing) Law Firm; Ms XIAO Fang, Associate Professor of Law, Central University of Finance and Economics; Mr XIE Guanbin, Partner, Beijing Lifang Law Firm; Mr WAN Xin, Partner, DaHui Lawyer Firm'; Mr ZHENG Patrick, Partner, Clifford Chance; The Hon Mr Justice Blair; Mr Tom Carver, Guangzhou Office, Wragge & Co LLP; Mr Stuart Dutson, Partner, Eversheds LLP; Mr David Robertson, BLP LLP ; The Hon Mr Justice Ramsey, TCC; The Rt Hon Jack Straw.
At this conference members of the Beijing Arbitration Commission will present the BAC annual reports on: arbitration, mediation, construction, intellectual property, and finance:
Madam WANG Hongsong, Vice-Chair of the Beijing Arbitration Commission
Mr CHEN Fuyong, Vice-Secretary-General if the Beijing Arbitration Commission
Mr SUN Wei, Partner, Zhong Lun Law Firm, Chief Editor, China Construction Law Review
Ms TAN Jinghui, Chairman, Jinwei (Beijing) Law Firm
Ms XIAO Fang, Associate Professor of Law, Central University of Finance and Economics
Mr XIE Guanbin, Partner, Beijing Lifang Law Firm
Mr WAN Xin, Partner, DaHui Lawyer Firm
Mr ZHENG Patrick, Partner, Clifford Chance
With additional commentary by:
The Hon Mr Justice Blair
Mr Tom Carver, Guangzhou Office, Wragge & Co LLP
Mr Stuart Dutson, Partner, Eversheds LLP
Mr David Robertson, BLP LLP
The Hon Mr Justice Ramsey, TCC
The Rt Hon Jack Straw
The Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) was founded in 1995 following the passage of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China. BAC focuses on contractual and property-related disputes, both commercial and international, among citizens, legal persons and other organizations. Since its founding, the BAC has grown into the foremost arbitration commission in China. BAC provides its services to both domestic and foreign parties and its Panel of Arbitrators includes over fifty well-established foreign arbitrators. It participates in international seminars and trains its arbitrators in international ADR practices. BAC is devoted not only to the efficient resolution of commercial disputes that will be acceptable to parties both in China and around the world, but also to the broader development of arbitration in China.
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: This conference is free but those wishing to attend must register in advance.
Please click her to register to attend 'Unlocking the Mysteries of Commercial Dispute Resolution in China'. |
IALS |
Monday 24 June 2013
|
| Time | Title | Venue |
|
|
The Constitution of the Public Sphere: the post-Leveson Landscape (W G Hart Legal Workshop 2013)
Academic Directors: Dr Eoin Carolan, University College Dublin and Dr Andrew Scott, London School of Economics. Plenary speakers will include: Philip Coppel QC, Landmark Chambers; Professor John Horgan, Irish Press Ombudsman; Professor Chris Marsden, University of Sussex; Professor Alastair Mullis, University of East Anglia; Professor Helen Nissenbaum, New York University; Gill Phillips, Director of Editorial Legal Services, Guardian News and Media Ltd; Professor Gavin Phillipson, University of Durham; Professor Colin Scott, University College Dublin; Professor Lorna Woods, City University London; with others to be confirmed.
CALL FOR PAPERS:
For a copy of the Call for Papers, please click here.
The WG Hart Legal Workshop 2013 will address the array of legal, regulatory and philosophical questions opened by the Leveson Inquiry and Report, and by the subsequent and related reform debates that have fulminated in recent times. Most obviously, this focuses attention on the emergent scheme for press regulation and how this fits in the wider regulatory context. The phone-hacking scandal, the Leveson Inquiry and associated policy debates have ranged far more widely than this and impinge on many aspects of the legal framing of the public sphere. The public sphere, of course, comprises much more than the British mainstream media. Recognising this, the workshop will also seek to address the relevance of current policy debates and legal and regulatory reform for the new, converging and social dimensions of the media landscape. It will also seek to draw on international and comparative perspectives.
Academic Directors:
Dr Eoin Carolan, University College Dublin and
Dr Andrew Scott, London School of Economics.
Plenary speakers will include:
Philip Coppel QC, Landmark Chambers;
Professor John Horgan, Irish Press Ombudsman;
Professor Chris Marsden, University of Sussex
Professor Alastair Mullis, University of East Anglia;
Professor Helen Nissenbaum, New York University;
Gill Phillips, Director of Editorial Legal Services, Guardian News and Media Ltd;
Professor Gavin Phillipson, University of Durham;
Professor Colin Scott, University College Dublin;
Professor Lorna Woods, City University London;
with others to be confirmed.
The call for papers asks for contributions on the following themes:
The future shape, operation and coherence of media regulation: the Leveson Inquiry and Report have focused much attention on the best means of regulating the Press. It is open to question whether the regulatory design options mooted there, developed in the subsequent policy debate, or ultimately determined by political leaders and Parliament will adequately perform the task. While Leveson did not ignore new media, it is further debateable whether the regime that is emerging from the maelstrom of negotiation and legislative engagement will properly countenance the challenges presented by the reality of convergent media. In the context of the incipient communications review, papers under this theme are invited to address either / both (1) the adequacy of the emerging scheme of Press regulation, and (2) its interplay with the regulation of online publication, with broadcasting regulation, and aspects of the general law (such as libel and privacy). Comparative insights would be welcome.
Media plurality and the continuing 'problem' of media influence: an issue addressed, but for some underplayed, in the Leveson Inquiry and Report was the perceived problem of insufficient media plurality and the consequent power and influence afforded to particular, partial media voices. Perhaps the fate of Lord Justice Leveson's specific regulatory design proposals will prove to be a manifestation of this concern. Another was certainly the relative freedom from constraint enjoyed by media organisations. . Much of the evidence to the inquiry also raised questions about the influence, implicit or otherwise, which particular voices had over public officials. Increasingly, attention is being paid - by Ofcom, by the European Commission and by others - to the means by which media plurality can be measured in order better to substantiate policy choices and ultimately regulatory decisions in the context the technologically converged and enhanced public sphere. Papers are invited under this theme on both the specifics of appropriate regulatory design for media ownership and other dimensions of media plurality, but also on the more general, perhaps constitutional, theme of framing and limiting the influence and power of the institutionalised media lobby. Comparative insights would be welcome.
Libel and privacy law in the emerging regulatory matrix: once the central focus for reformist zeal, the debates over privacy and libel law were forced from centre stage by the Leveson shebang. For some, the themes are essentially unrelated; for others they are intimately associated. Both areas involve the nuanced balancing of competing rights and interests in circumstances where one party is often in a position of disproportionate strength. The future role for libel and privacy laws are uncertain; their underpinning purposes perhaps unclear, and their impact on practice in the public sphere contested. Papers under this theme may deal with either specific questions of process, law or remedies arising from recent judgments or pending reforms, the interplay with other modes of regulation (especially the complaints and arbitration mechanisms envisaged under Leveson), the impact of new modes and technologies of communication, or underpinning theories of speech, reputation, privacy and personality. Comparative insights would be welcome.
Newsgathering: constraint or constrained?: while malpractice in newsgathering was the raison d'être for the Leveson Inquiry such that new regulatory mechanisms might be considered imperative, there is profound concern that over-vigorous assertion and institutionalising of the need for oversight may restrict newsgathering in a manner deleterious to society at large. It may be that existing legal protections for investigative journalism will prove insufficient to protect the 'watchdogs and bloodhounds' of democracy. Lord Justice Leveson heard, but rejected, calls for a generic public interest defence for newsgathering, and mooted reform of the PACE rules on access to journalists' materials and sources. Experiences surrounding the phone-hacking scandal have prompted the police and other public authorities to review and revise the manner in which they engage with journalists. Outside of the Leveson context, proposed reforms to the FoI regime and to the prevalence of closed material procedures affecting access to courts, and the use of confidentiality clauses in contracts aver to the closing down of access to important public information. Papers are invited under this theme on the full range of matters arising in the newsgathering context. Comparative insights would be welcome.
Data protection, the media and the public sphere: allied to concerns over newsgathering, the recommendations offered by Lord Justice Leveson on data protection law raise particular issues with regard to the newsgathering and publication functions of the media. Have the 'carve-outs' for journalism been cast too wide or interpreted too generously? Is the existing domestic law coherent with EU and ECHR expectations? Should such relative freedom now be narrowed in the fashion suggestion in the Leveson Report? Do such proposals misunderstand the process and misstate the importance of newsgathering processes freed from scrutiny? What would be the practical implications of the proposed reforms: might the Information Commission become a media regulator, and what would be the impact on media practice? Would action at the domestic level be precipitous in the context of pending revisions to the EU data protection regime? Comparative insights would be welcome.
The constitution of the public sphere: reflections on turbulent times: cutting across, or sitting behind, the other workshop strands, this theme is intended to provide scope for reflection on such general themes as the importance and vulnerability of media freedom and /or freedom of expression, the need to defend personal rights (for instance to dignity and privacy) and social interests (for example, in media accuracy) against media infringement, and the constitutional framing of the public sphere more broadly. Do we over-emphasise freedom of speech in the face of equally important rights and interests? Do we elide freedom of the press with freedom of expression more generally? What might be lost through over-attentive oversight of the speech of citizens, journalists, media organisations, and others? Is there a need better to defend and perhaps actively to promote public interest journalism, perhaps through the establishment of a public funding agency? Is the notion of professional journalism itself an increasing anachronism in the era of so-called ‘citizen journalists’? Is legal and regulatory oversight providing for the public sphere to become more open and transparent, or does it facilitate a subtle but dangerous veiling of knowledge important to the public? Where does the 'Fourth Estate' sit in conceptions of the democratic constitution?
Abstracts of papers should be sent to IALS.WGHart@sas.ac.uk by email attachment by 1 May 2013
Abstracts should be no more than 500 words in length.
The Academic Directors especially welcome contributions from early career researchers. It is expected that a selection of papers from the workshop will be published in the form of an edited book.
Registration fees will apply to the Workshop. Travel bursaries may be available for junior researchers.
If you are simply interested in attending the Workshop, please register your interest with:
Belinda Crothers, Academic Programmes Manager, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5DR. Email: Belinda.Crothers@sas.ac.uk
Website: www.sas.ac.uk/events/view/13838 |
IALS |
Wednesday 26 June 2013
|
| Time | Title | Venue |
|
00:10 |
Deferred Prosecutions in Europe: a comparative look
Programme and registration details to follow
Arranged with the European Criminal Law Association (UK).
|
IALS |
Thursday 27 June 2013
|
| Time | Title | Venue |
|
|
Legislative Drafting and Language
This afternoon seminar will include the following speakers and discussants:
Professor Maurizio Gotti, University of Bergamo;
Richard Heaton, Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office and First Parliamentary Counsel;
Giulia Pennisi Univerity of Palermo;
William Robinson, Associate Research Fellow, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies;
Hayley Rodgers, Office of Parliamentary Council;
Ingemar Strandvik, European Commission;
Jonathan Teasdale, Sir William Dale Fellow, IALS;
Thomas Glyn Watkins, Cardiff Univeristy;
Helen Xanthaki, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies;
and via skype, Vijai K Bhatia, City Univeristy of Hong Kong.
REGISTRATION FEES: £40.00, with a reduced rate of £15.00 for students.
The full programme will be available shortly. If you would like to go on the mailing list to receive further information, please email: Belinda.Crothers@sas.ac.uk |
IALS |
|
|
