Eighth Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies
Call For Papers
CELS 2013 - Eighth Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies
Friday Oct. 25 & Saturday Oct. 26, 2013, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Paper Submission Deadline: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, midnight (EST)
The Eighth Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (CELS 2013), sponsored by the Society for Empirical Legal Studies (SELS) will be held at The University of Pennsylvania Law School, in Philadelphia, PA, on Friday, October 25 and Saturday, October 26, 2013. The conference features original empirical legal scholarship by leading scholars from a diverse range of fields.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: To submit a paper for consideration, please go to the CELS 2013 Conference Maker page at: https://editorialexpress.com/conference/CELS2013.
There is no charge for submissions. All submissions will be peer-reviewed.
FURTHER INFORMATION: For more information about CELS 2013, please visit: https://www.law.upenn.edu/academics/conferences/cels2013
Empirics of Trademark Law at USPTO
CALL FOR PAPERS
EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF TRADEMARK DATA WORKSHOP AT USPTO
SEPTEMBER 26-27, 2013
Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy, New York University School of Law and the United States Patent and Trademark Office in cooperation with Center for Law & Economics, ETH Zurich Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre University of East Anglia.
We are seeking paper proposals from economics, management, and legal scholars on the empirical study of trademark data for a one-and-a-half day workshop at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia to occur on September 26-27, 2013. This will constitute the companion workshop to our previous workshop at the University of Oxford in December 2012. Like its Oxford counterpart, this workshop is part of a broader project to support better scholarship in this embryonic area of research and lead to the publication of high quality and high impact studies. With the increased availability of trademark data, we are soliciting papers that open up new avenues of trademark research. Papers with empirical or experimental data and papers with a U.S., international, or foreign focus are welcome.
The project is co-sponsored by the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy at New York University School of Law and the United States Patent and Trademark Office in cooperation with the Center for Law & Economics, ETH Zurich, the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, and the Centre for Competition Policy (UEA).
Authors whom we were unable to accommodate at Oxford are encouraged to apply to this workshop.
Interested authors are encouraged to submit either a completed paper or a two‐page research proposal that includes an abstract of the intended paper, an outline of the methodologies to be used, and a brief statement about the current state of the research project. Interested authors are also encouraged to indicate whether they would be willing to serve only as discussants in the event that the schedule cannot accommodate their papers. In addition to the conference dinner, standard fare travel and hotel accommodation for the presenting author will be provided.
Proposals should be submitted by June 24, 2013, to email@example.com
The 8th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law - Military Objectives and Objects of War: An Uneasy Relationship
Conference Call For Papers
The 8th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law - Military Objectives and Objects of War: An Uneasy Relationship
Jerusalem, 24-25 November 2013
The Minerva Center for Human Rights, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Delegation in Israel and the Occupied Territories
INTRODUCTION: The Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied Territories are organizing an international conference that seeks to explore the concept of "military objective", which is foundational to the law governing the conduct of hostilities. The conference, the eighth in the series of Minerva/ICRC annual international conferences on International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with the cooperation of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, is scheduled for 24-25 November 2013 in Jerusalem.
Recipients of this call for papers are invited to submit proposals to present a paper at the conference. Authors of selected proposals will be offered full or partial flight and accommodation expenses. Submission deadline: 15 June 2013
BACKGROUND: The 8th Annual Minerva/ICRC Conference on International Humanitarian Law aims to explore zones of real or apparent indeterminacy linked to the concept of "military objective".
In recent years, much attention has been given to the distinction between persons who are legitimate targets of attack in armed conflict and those who are not. Far less attention seems to have been given to the equally fundamental distinction between those objects which may be targeted (i.e. military objectives) and those which may not. However, the proliferation of armed conflicts involving hostilities in areas where civilian and military elements are intermingled, as well as the increased deployment of highly accurate weaponry capable of striking precise points, have highlighted the need for a clearer articulation of the exact points in space and time at which an object can be attacked. Finally, the increased prevalence of asymmetric conflicts that are unlikely to result in a clear military victory raises questions concerning the continued viability and/or desirability of following existing definitions of military objectives.
Indeed, while conventional and customary IHL establish a detailed definition of military objectives, there still remains a troubling degree of ambiguity as to when and to what extent objects constitute a legitimate target of attack.
One very fundamental point which seems to require further clarification is the question of how to define the physical limits, or contours, of the military objective. Thus, for example, when a part of a complex of structures or even a single structure is used in a manner that effectively contributes to military action, and its destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, would afford a definite military advantage, questions remain about whether the entire complex/structure can be considered a military object, or whether the opposing belligerent is, always or sometimes, required to differentiate between the components of the object, some of which may be considered military and others civilian. A related question concerns the degree of precision required to determine the spatial confines or the exact location of the military objective. An attack would be unlawful if the location of the objective was not ascertained with sufficient precision - but what degree of precision would suffice? If an attack were launched against an entire neighbourhood known to host a military objective while it was not known in which precise part of the neighbourhood the objective is situated, it would clearly be unlawful. However, the case becomes less clear the more narrowly the objective can be confined to a specific point. For example, where do the contours of an objective situated in a room on a floor in a particular building end?
Questions about the spatial contours of military objectives and the degree of precision required in determining their location are pertinent not only for the proper application of the principle of distinction, but also in determining the interplay between this principle and the principle of proportionality. Indeed, under the IHL rules governing the conduct of hostilities, the principle of distinction has lexical priority over the principle of proportionality. In light of this and in view of the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks emanating from the principle of distinction, proportionality calculations can only be employed in relation to an attack that is directed at a specific military objective. To illustrate, consider a case (such as which occurs frequently in contemporary armed conflicts) where it is known that munitions are located somewhere within a compound, but - despite all feasible efforts - it was not possible to determine which exact part of the compound contains the munitions. In such case, if the entire compound were deemed to constitute a single military objective the legality of the attack would depend on an evaluation of proportionality - it would be lawful to attack it if the expected incidental harm to civilians is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the destruction of the objective. On the other hand, if it is only the munitions or the specific part of the compound holding them which constitutes a military objective then it would be indiscriminate and therefore unlawful to direct an attack at the entire compound irrespective of the military advantage anticipated.
Questions about the precise spatial contours of military objectives have become particularly pertinent in light of the increased availability of precision guided munitions (PGM). Indeed, now that it is possible to strike at a very precise part of a structure, there appear to be grounds to question whether it would be lawful to treat an entire building (and certainly a whole compound or complex) as a military objective, or whether instead the military objective includes only the particular part of the building/complex/compound holding an object whose destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, would offer a definite military advantage, or indeed the specific object itself. Related questions that may arise concern the extent to which the availability of PGMs affect the application of IHL rules on targeting. For example, it may be asked to what extent, if at all, does a party in possession of PGM incur extra obligations when launching attacks? Is it compelled to use the PGM in its possession? Is it required to direct its attacks at more finely defined objectives (e.g. at a rocket launcher on the second floor, rather than at the floor or the entire building)? Are parties not in possession of PGMs prohibited from launching certain attacks that those in possession of PGM may undertake (e.g. if there attack would destroy the whole building rather than just the rocket launcher on the 2nd floor)?
Another set of questions that comes up involves dual use targets. Such questions may have a temporal dimension - the duration of the period during which an object qualifies as a military objective. Thus, for example, if a structure is used by an armed group as a place from which to direct and coordinate military operations, does the structure constitute a military objective only while in fact being used for military purposes, or can it be said that its designated use (its "purpose") justifies targeting it even, say, when no enemy personnel are using it or present in it at the time of attack? Another relevant dimension involves the increased reliance by the military on civilian infrastructure, such as telecommunication or Internet networks, private mapping services (such as google earth) and private equipment manufacturers. Under these circumstances of complete intermingling of civilian and military infrastructures the very identification of a military objective may raise difficult issues (separately from questions relating to the proportionality of targeting such civilian infrastructure).
Finally, the shifting goals of armed conflicts in an era of asymmetric conflict - moving away from military subjugation of the adversary to more abstract political goals such as winning hearts and minds, deterrence, communicating certain messages to the adversary etc. - may invite a re-evaluation of the continued relevance of the definition of military objectives found in the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Put differently, a question may be raised as to whether the changing nature of conflicts merits redefinition of military objectives, with a view to offering stronger humanitarian protections to victims of war, and preventing excessive harm to human lives and property. For example, can one take the position that targeting empty government buildings -designed to induce the adversary to discontinue the conflict - may be preferable to targeting military camps leading to loss of lives of enemy combatants and civilian collaterally harmed? Can one assert that a military engaged in a campaign aimed at winning hearts and minds should not target low-level military objectives that do not pose a short-term threat to the said military?
In light of the dramatic humanitarian implications and significant practical and legal ramifications at stake, there is a pressing need for legal scholars and practitioners to clarify these and other related questions in an effort to establish greater clarity in delineating which objects constitute military objectives and, conversely, which are those that remain protected from direct attack.
PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Researchers interested in addressing these and other questions related to the conference topic are invited to respond to this call for papers with a 1-2 page proposal for an article and presentation, along with a brief CV. Proposals should be submitted by email to the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (firstname.lastname@example.org) by 15 June 2013.
Applicants should expect notification of the committee's decision by mid-July 2013. Written contributions (of approx. 10-25 pages) based on the selected proposals will be expected by 1 November 2013. The Israel Law Review (a Cambridge University Press publication) has expressed interest in publishing selected full length papers based on conference presentations, subject to its standard review and editing procedures.
CONFERENCE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE:
Prof. Yuval Shany, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Chair)
Mr. Anton Camen, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied Territories
Adv. Eitan Diamond, ICRC, Israel and the Occupied Territories
Adv. Danny Evron, Minerva Center for Human Rights, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Yael Ronen, Israel Law Review
Mr. Charles Shamas, Mattin Group, Ramallah
Call For Papers The University of North Carolina’s Seventeenth Annual Tax Symposium
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, January 17 & 18, 2014
The University of North Carolina is organizing its seventeenth annual symposium designed to bring together leading tax scholars from economics, accounting, finance, law, political science, and related fields. The symposium will be held in Chapel Hill on Friday afternoon and Saturday morning, January 17 & 18, 2014, and will be sponsored by the KPMG Foundation and the UNC Tax Center. The goal is to bring together scholars from different areas who share a common interest in current tax research. Previous conferences have been very successful, and we anticipate the same this year.
Please submit an electronic PDF version of the paper no later than October 31, 2013 to: email@example.com
Law + Informatics Symposium at Northern Kentucky: Cyber Defense
Northern Kentucky Law Review – Law + Informatics Symposium on Cyber Defense Strategies and Responsibilities for Industry
Call for Papers
The Northern Kentucky Law Review and Salmon P. Chase College of Law seek submissions for the third annual Law + Informatics Symposium
on February 27-28, 2014. The focus of the conference is to provide an interdisciplinary review of issues involving business and industry responses to cyber threats from foreign governments, terrorists, and corporate espionage. The symposium will emphasize the role of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and industries providing critical infrastructure.
Abstracts should be submitted by September 1, 2013.
Call for Papers: Risk Analysis for Better Policies – Baltimore, MD
The Society for Risk Analysis holds its annual meeting, themed Risk Analysis for Better Policies, December 8-11, 2013. The meeting will highlight “sessions that identify ways that risk analysis can assist private and public policy makers to improve decisions in a world of complex and uncertain governance challenges. Special emphasis will be placed on the role of risk analysis as a tool for policy making and risk-benefit balancing.”
Deadline: Speaker proposals, posters, and papers are due May 23, 2013, via this submission link. Be sure to indicate your Specialty Group, e.g., Risk Policy and Law, when submitting an abstract.
Questions should be directed to SRA Secretariat, (703) 790-1745, jrosenberg[@]BurkInc.com im
Call for Papers: Law and Institutional Economics of Revolutions – Cairo, Egypt
In advance of its September 29-30, 2013, conference, the Economic Research Forum invites papers that address the following:
Poverty and widening social disparity cannot only cause revolutions; they may also be the outcome of a revolution. The Arab spring has caused regime change in a number of countries that are making very different experiences with their transition. All of the concerned societies are confronted with fundamental challenges. Preserving—but also improving—the rule of law is one of them. It is the purpose of this workshop to make contributions on how transition periods after revolutions can be made a success. In addition, it explores why such revolutions are triggered in the first place.
Papers that deal with concrete aspects of revolutions in the Middle East are highly welcomed. Particular attention will be paid both to the academic quality but also the real world relevance of the proposals. A limited number of scholarships to cover travel as well as accommodation costs are available.
The conference will be held in English.
Deadline: Please submit either an extended abstract of around five pages or your complete paper until May 15th, 2013. Submissions should be sent to stefan.voigt[@]uni-hamburg.de. im
CALL FOR PAPERS: Cyberlaw – University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
The Cyberlaw Section at the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) is issuing a call for original research papers to be presented at the 2013 SLS Annual Conference. The conference will be held at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. The conference will run from 3rd to 6th September 2013 and the Cyber Section is in Group B, being held on 5th and 6th September. There will be an annual dinner on the 4th September 2013. The goal of this subject section is to provide a forum where legal scholars and
practitioners can gather together to update each other on current developments in cyberlaw and discuss high-quality research relevant to legal issues in the information society. Papers in every discipline of law are welcome, including those reflecting the main conference theme, “Britain and Ireland in Europe, Europe in Britain and Ireland.”
Topics include but not limited to:
Data Privacy Protection
Internet Statistics and Regulation
Cloud Computing, Service-oriented Computing and Beaming
Online Dispute Resolution
Internet Jurisdiction and Applicable law
Digital Intellectual Property Rights
Papers and abstracts for the conference should be submitted to the following email address:firstname.lastname@example.org
, for the attention of Dr Faye Fangfei Wang (SLS Cyberlaw
Section Convenor), Senior Lecturer, Brunel Law School, Brunel University, London.
Call for Papers: International Corrections and Prisonor Association – Colorado Springs
Closing date for submissions – 30th June 2013
The ICPA Program Committee invites individuals, agencies and organizations interested in presenting papers at the Association’s 2013 Annual Conference to submit ideas for consideration. The theme of our 15th Annual Conference is “Thinking Outside the Cell: Reducing the Use of Imprisonment”.
Link to Call
<<First <Back | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | Next> Last>>
Beyond Responsibility to Protect: Towards Responsible Use of International Law? – Hull, UK
The McCoubrey Centre for International Law hosts Beyond Responsibility to Protect: Towards Responsible Use of International Law? July 4-5, 2013. The conference is intended for research students and early career scholars.
The key idea is that international law increasingly requires states not only to abstain from breaking the law, but also to pro-actively protect common interests or values of the international community. Seen from this perspective, sovereignty is not merely about rights, but also (perhaps, primarily) about duties; in particular, that States have a responsibility to take steps to prevent breaches of international law, especially the commission of heinous crimes.
Deadline: Interested participants should provide an abstract of no more than 500 words by the 18th of March, 2013 to MCIL[@]hull.ac.uk. If you wish to discuss topics or ideas informally please contact the organising committee at this email address. Presentations should be no longer than 20 minutes in duration.