Insurance and Consumer Protection – AALS Meeting – New Orleans, LA 

The AALS Section on Insurance Law will hold a program on Insurance and Consumer Protection during the AALS 2013 Annual Meeting in New Orleans. The program is scheduled for Sunday, January 6, 2013, from 10:30 AM to 12:15 PM. The program will feature a panel of leading research on consumer protection and insurance markets. Panelists scheduled to participate include: Shawn Cole (Harvard Business School), Kyle Logue (University of Michigan Law School), and Lauren Willis (Loyola Law School Los Angeles). We are looking to add one additional panelist through this Call for Papers. The submission deadline is Sept. 4, 2012.

More information at the Legal Scholarship Blog
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 627 )
6th Annual Conference on the Political Economy of International Organizations 

6th Annual Conference on the
Political Economy of International Organizations
February 7-9, 2013, Universities of Mannheim and Heidelberg, Germany

Universities of Mannheim and Heidelberg, Germany, on February 7-9, 2013. The conference brings together economists and political scientists to address political-economy issues related to international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the European Union, and also other international organizations that have as yet received less attention in the academic literature.

Submission of Papers
Both empirical and theoretical papers will be considered. Please submit full papers to The deadline for submission is 30 September, 2012. Decisions will be made by 31 October, 2012. This year’s special issue of the Review of International Organizations will be focusing on The Political Economy of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, edited by Peter Egger (ETH Zurich) and Marcelo Olarreaga (University of Geneva). Please indicate in your submission to the conference whether you are interested in also submitting to the special issue.

Conference Format, Attendance, and Registration
The number of participants will be limited to about 70, which allows for in-depth discussion of each paper. Authors of accepted papers are expected to attend the entire conference. There is no registration or conference fee. Travel and accommodation are at the expense of participants.

Conference Venue: Universities of Mannheim and Heidelberg, Germany. The closest international airport is Frankfurt (30 minutes).

Conference Website:

Link to Posting

From International Law Reporter
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 652 )
Academy of Business & Retail Management -- Call for Papers 

Authors are invited to submit their original research papers, case study, review, work in progress, reports, abstract, students’ papers or research proposals within the broad scope of each conferences. All papers should be personally proofread prior to submission. Author’s submission will be published in both the conference proceeding under The Business & Management Review (Printed copy) and online.

For further details about our conferences and our academic journals, please visit our website on or send us an email on


Boston, MA. (USA)
Corporate Governance and Business Conference
CGBC: 19th – 20th July 2012. Click here for more information.

Las Vegas, NV. (USA)
International Conference on Business and Economic Development
ICBED: 23rd – 24th July 2012. Click here for more information.

London, U.K.
International Trade and Academic Research Conference
ITARC: 5th – 6th November 2012. Click here for more information.

New Delhi, India
International conference on the Restructuring of the Global Economy
ROGE: 04th-06th February 2013. Click here for more information.

Link to Full Posting

From Legal Scholarship Blog.
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 649 )
Culture, Community and Architecture Workshop: ‘The Architecture of Community’ 

Southampton Law School,
University of Southampton,
06 September, 2012

In our ordinary, everyday lives we travel in, through and around many places that may or may not appear particularly significant or important to us. Yet all of these places conceal and can reveal understandings of place whose meaning is created, constructed and contested. Institutional architecture, for example, whether legal, political or religious, combines and embodies two constitutive elements of architectural reality: it has instrumental use as a place for the public gathering or housing of a particular type of historic and living community; it also has symbolic value as a visual representation of a particular factual reality. It is a place where power is situated and represented. This full-day multidisciplinary workshop explores those complex relationships between culture, community and architecture that help define and organise our public space and how we use and experience that space.

Call For Papers

The workshop welcomes papers from a range of disciplines, including (but not limited to) law, politics, religion, architecture, philosophy, anthropology, ecology. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are particularly welcome, as are both practical and theoretical contributions.

Suggested topics might include but are not limited to the following ideas:

1. Spatiality and social identity

2. Space and place – public and private – inclusion and exclusion

3. Institutional architecture – the design and use of architectural space

4. The construction of meaning through signs, symbols and other modes of communication

5. Architecture of governmentality, power and control

6. Environmental architecture - architectural design and ecological systems

If you are interested in speaking on a panel please send your proposed title, together with an abstract (150–300 words), to by 13th July 2012. Graduate students, academic staff and career professionals are all invited to submit. All abstract proposals should include the following:

Paper Title
Title, First Name, Surname and Affiliation of all authors
100 - 150 words biography of all authors
E-mail address for corresponding author
150–300 word abstract of paper

It is intended that there will be three panels during the day with up to four speakers on each, which includes one keynote speaker per panel. All speakers can expect to talk for about 20 minutes each, followed by discussion from the floor.

For further information, please contact:
Dr James MacLean, Southampton Law School, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ. Email:

Link to Posting

From Society of Legal Scholars
[ 1 comment ] ( 4 views ) permalink ( 3 / 652 )
Call for Papers 5th ESIL Biennial Conference: Interest Group Workshops 

5th ESIL Biennial Conference: Interest Group Workshops
13th September 2012, Valencia Spain

“Regionalism and Feminism: How regionalism impacts on women’s lives”

This is a call for papers for the interest group workshops that will take place on the morning of 13th September 2012 as part of the 5th ESIL Biennial Conference. The interest group on Feminism and International Law is organising a panel to consider the contribution feminist theory and methodology can make to questions raised by conference theme: regionalism and international law.
This meeting of the interest group on Feminism and International Law will provide participants with an opportunity to explore the impact of regionalism on women’s lives. In particular, participants will explore whether the fracture and fragmentation of international law is mirrored in the fragmentation of feminist thought. The question of whether a uniquely ‘European’ feminism exists – and the implications of this for women in Europe and beyond – is foremost in our minds. There will also be an opportunity in this session to look in depth at the meaning of regional legal institutions and tribunals, such as the European Court of Human Rights, to women’s lives.

Abstracts of no more than 300 words in English or French should be submitted directly to with the author’s title, contact information and organisational affiliation. The deadline for submitting abstracts is Friday 18th May 2012. We anticipate that scholars who contribute to the workshop maybe interested in publishing their papers jointly in a good quality peer reviewed journal, and publication plans will be discussed at the meeting.

Please note that is you wish to attend the meeting of the Feminism and International Law Interest Group you do not have to register for the full ESIL conference. There will also be an opportunity at the end of the panel for a discussion on future events of the interest group.

Link to Posting

From International Law Reporter
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 753 )
Call for Papers ‘Re-interpreting Blackstone’s Commentaries: the Evolution and Influence of a Seminal Text in National and International Context’ 

‘Re-interpreting Blackstone’s Commentaries: the Evolution and Influence of a Seminal Text in National and International Context’
A Symposium at the University of Adelaide, Thursday 6 December, 2012


Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in Oxford in 1765-69, ran to eight editions in the author’s lifetime (he died in 1780), and has never since been out of print on either side of the Atlantic. Indeed it is arguable that the Commentaries is the most influential law book in the Anglo-American legal tradition. Now an international group of scholars (David Lemmings and Wilfrid Prest, University of Adelaide, Simon Stern, University of Toronto, T.P. Gallanis, University of Iowa, and Ruth Paley, History of Parliament Trust, London) has undertaken to produce a new edition of this seminal work.

As part of this project, which is also the starting point for a new history of law in eighteenth-century England, a one-day Symposium at the University of Adelaide will seek the views of international experts on the evolution and influence of Blackstone’s Commentaries in national and international context. The premise of this Symposium is that for understanding English law and governance in the eighteenth-century Atlantic world, the Commentaries is a central text, and Blackstone a pivotal figure.
The Organisers

David Lemmings, History and Politics, University of Adelaide.
Wilfrid Prest, Law/ History and Politics, University of Adelaide.
Keynote speakers:

John Cairns, University of Edinburgh
Paul Halliday, University of Virginia
Kathryn Temple, Georgetown University
Offers of Papers and Registration:

Abstracts of proposed papers (maximum 250 words), should reach Janet Hart by 31 July 2012.
The registration fee is AUS$75.00 for the salaried and AUS$50.00 for students and the unwaged (register via Registration Form) by Monday 5 November 2012).

Link to Posting

From Legal Scholarship Blog
[ 2 comments ] ( 5 views ) permalink ( 3 / 727 )
Call for Papers “The Cultures and Institutions of Business” 

The Business History Conference invites proposals for its 2013 annual meeting, taking place March 21–23, 2013, at the Hyatt Regency Columbus hotel in Columbus, Ohio.

The theme of the annual meeting is “The Cultures and Institutions of Business.” We are interested in all topics embracing the culture of business and the business of culture. Papers may engage the ways in which cultural beliefs, values, practices, institutions, meanings, language, identities, habits, and cognition shape business orientation, governance, behavior, and performance in different geographical, historical, or social settings. Papers may also address the ways in which business has acted upon cultural practices and institutions, both high and popular culture, or how the language of business has entered into wider public discourses. Works might cover such matters as the business of entertainment and the arts or cultural differences (or conformity) in ideas and practices of management, accounting, human resources, scientific and technological research, and innovation.

In keeping with longstanding BHC policy, the Committee will also consider submissions not directly related to the conference theme.

The committee will consider both individual papers and entire panels. Individual paper proposals should include a one-page (300-word) abstract and one-page curriculum vitae (CV). Panel proposals should include a cover letter stating the rationale for the panel and the name of its contact person; one-page (300-word) abstract and author's CV for each paper; and a list of preferred panel chairs and commentators with contact information. Graduate students and recent Ph.D.s (within 3 years of receipt of degree) whose papers are accepted for the meeting may apply for funds to partially defray their travel costs; information will be sent out once the program has been set. Everyone appearing on the program is required to register for the meeting.

The deadline for receipt of all proposals is 1 October 2012. Acceptance letters will be sent by 20 December 2012. Presenters are expected to submit abstracts of their papers for posting on the BHC website. In addition, presenters are encouraged to post electronic versions of their papers prior to the meeting and to submit their papers for inclusion in the BHC's on-line proceedings, Business and Economic History On-Line.

Please send proposals for papers, panels, or the Krooss Prize to If you do not have access to the internet, you may send hard copies to Roger Horowitz, Secretary-Treasurer, Business History Conference, P. O. Box 3630, Wilmington, DE 19807, USA. Phone: (302) 658-2400; fax: (302) 655-3188.

Link to Posting

From Legal Scholarship Blog
[ add comment ] ( 1 view ) permalink ( 3 / 755 )
Call for Papers: International Law, Genocide and Imperialism: The Colonial Origins of Human Rights? 

Conveners: Jose-Manuel Barreto (Goldsmiths College, London), Fernanda Bragato (UNISINOS, Porto Alegre & Prabhakar Singh (National University of Singapore)

Anghie's thesis according to which the 'colonial origins of international law' can be found in the context of the Conquest of America and the works of Francisco de Vitoria led to a re-thinking of international law. This thematic has also attracted the attention of critical legal scholars like Fitzpatrick, Kennedy and Koskenniemi, and of Decolonial thinkers like Dussel and Mignolo. What venues does Anghie's thesis open for re-thinking human rights from a non-eurocentric perspective? What consequences can be drawn for human rights from a Decolonial reading of modern ius gentium and iusnaturalism?

The issue of genocide can provide an insightful perspective on ius gentium and iusnaturalism in early modernity. While Stannard has referred to the Conquest of America as 'centuries of genocide', Todorov claims that 'the Sixteenth century perpetrated the greatest genocide in human history'. On his part, Lindqvist finds in colonial genocide an antecedent for the Holocaust.

The political economy of colonialism can also offer key ideas on the origins of human rights. Marx described the formation of the capitalist economy as a process in which the peasants were separated from the means of production and became wage labourers. Marx also stated that 'the discovery of gold and silver in America... the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production'. The first thesis became crucial for the understanding of primitive accumulation, the second has remained marginal. Can the latter help us to understand natural law in the context of colonialism?

In the background of elaborations on Eurocentrism and international law (Mignolo, Koskenniemi), this stream also works as a dialogue between a Third-World standpoint and the European-US perspective. This interdisciplinary stream invites papers on the possibility of constructing an early modern history and theory of human rights by an interpretation of the works of Vitoria, Las Casas, Sepulveda, Suarez and Vieira, and on the basis of the analysis of the questions of genocide and the primitive accumulation of capital in the context of the Conquest of America.

Contacts: Jose-Manuel Barreto,; Fernanda Bragato, and Prabhakar Singh,

Link to Posting

From International Law Reporter
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 729 )
Call for Proposals: 2013 ASIL Annual Meeting  

ASIL 107th Annual Meeting

International Law in a Multipolar World

During the Cold War, international relations and international law were dominated by the struggle for global control between the United States and the Soviet Union. The resulting clashes reverberated in legal issues relating to the functioning of the United Nations, the use of force, nuclear nonproliferation, human rights, etc. The third world countries, caught in the middle, repeatedly made claims for reform and initiated rule-making initiatives, but with limited results. After the end of the Cold War, the United States, its Western allies, and their shared economic and geopolitical interests remained largely unchallenged in the international arena.

While the United States is arguably still the only superpower and the European Union remains the largest economy, the world is undergoing major change. China, India, Russia, Brazil, and other States in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa are increasingly active voices in international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, and have started questioning the dominance of the West in these organizations. These countries are forming alliances in the major international organizations and establishing new institutions to assert their authority and pursue their interests. In short, a new set of actors is moving onto center stage. In the process, these actors are seeking to reshape international rules governing trade and finance, military force, the environment, and beyond.

How will the international legal order evolve to reflect this new multipolar world? Will the international legal order undergo significant change as the global balance of power and influence shifts? Are there barriers preventing these actors from having a full voice in the international legal order? Can the major international organizations adapt adequately? Will new organizations emerge? How will human rights law, environmental law, trade law, the law of armed conflict, the law of the use of force, and other bodies of law reflect the interests and influence of a new set of actors? Are trends emerging already? How should the legal profession and nonlegal experts—in the fields of technology, finance, trade, climate science, arms conflict, and arms control—respond?

During the 2013 ASIL Annual Meeting we will address these questions and discuss the evolution of international law in a multipolar world.

The Society welcomes submissions from practitioners and academics on a range of topics encompassed within the 2013 theme statement. The Society invites suggestions of both panels and individual papers, including papers for inclusion in New Voices panels.

Link to Posting

From International Law Reporter
[ add comment ] permalink ( 3 / 747 )
Harvard Law Review Symposium on Privacy and Technology: Call for Papers 

The Harvard Law Review is hosting a Symposium this November on the topic of Privacy & Technology. The Law Review is currently accepting abstracts for papers to be considered for publication in the Symposium Issue. To be considered for publication, please send an abstract of no more than 750 words to by June 15. Space in the issue is limited and papers will be selected on a rolling basis, so early submission is recommended. We strongly prefer abstracts for shorter essays that can be executed in fewer than 12,500 words (about 25 law review pages).

The following proposal gives a taste of what kinds of inquiries we are interested in. We are most interested in papers that challenge old concepts and categories and propose new ones that could potentially drive the development of privacy law in the following decades.

Today, we are witnessing astounding new technologies that efficiently gather, use, and analyze massive amounts of data. These changes have created a set of profound challenges for regulating privacy, as existing regulatory approaches are straining to keep up with rapid technological advances. The regulatory ideas and frameworks over the past few decades have failed to adequately respond to the constantly shifting technological landscape. Policymakers—among many different stakeholders—recognize that a new direction is needed for privacy law, but there remains much to be resolved about what direction it should head. Moreover, deep divides have emerged in how different societies regulate privacy despite the increased need for governments and businesses to share information across borders. These changes present challenges for the core conceptual underpinnings of privacy itself. We thus stand at a crossroads about how to regulate privacy and even how to think about privacy. The road forward will require a deep re-imagining of privacy in both theory and practice.

Theory: On the level of theory, the most crucial demand is to find out what interests are really at stake. What do we as a society really want? (Relatedly, should we even concern ourselves with the privacy regimes of other nations?) The relationship between the robustness of personalized services and their practically necessary encroachment on traditional zones of privacy needs to be addressed. Furthermore, what is the relationship between social and political culture and the architectural design of privacy protection? How do different conceptions of privacy bear on the capacity of participatory democracy? On liberalism generally? On the rule of law? In order to address the practical problems of protecting a particular set of privacy rights, we should be clear on what values we are trying to promote with privacy.

Executive Surveillance: Individuals and policy makers continually grapple with expanding executive encroachment on privacy brought about by new technologies. In the three separate opinions in Jones, the Supreme Court bantered about the constitutional concept of privacy in the realm of government surveillance. Although the opinion of the Court decided the case on narrow grounds, the concurrences suggest at least five justices might entertain a new, more expansive, and more nuanced conception of what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. Should the Court turn in this new direction and overhaul Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? In the modern information society, a wealth of data can now be obtained about the minutia of a person’s life. To what extent should the government have access to this data when maintained by private-sector entities? What limits should the government have in how it may use data after being collected? How should the fusion centers be regulated? How long should data be kept? The laws that regulate electronic surveillance and data use by the government are practically ancient, most being passed in the 1970s and 1980s. Hardly anyone can disagree that the law needs to be updated. But what, exactly, should the law provide? And in what direction will the Court take the Fourth Amendment? Is a more nuanced and contextual approach to the Fourth Amendment desirable or workable?

Private Data Collection: Meanwhile, Google, foremost among the corporate entities suggestively called “Big Data,” continues to amass scraps of information associated with Internet users, in hopes of aggregating the information into a powerfully predictive consumer profile with which it and other companies can selectively target individuals for services and advertising. Although the legal status of this activity in America is unclear, Google has been challenged in Europe for lack of transparency in its privacy policy. What should users expect companies to do with their personal data? Should there be limits on the extent that data is aggregated? Relatedly, do old conceptions of public and private help us properly analyze the social phenomenon of sharing? How does the rise of social media and the extensive self-exposure it brings alter privacy expectations? Should the data people share publicly be scraped together and aggregated and used in ways people were not expecting?

Comparative Perspectives: While American privacy law has varied substantially in different industries, and has often relied extensively on a self-regulatory approach, the Europeans have advanced broad and strong constitutional and statutory privacy rights through the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission. This year, the EC unveiled a new regulation that would expand on the 1995 Data Protection Directive, and will include within it new privacy rights, including the controversial “right to be forgotten.” What can American privacy law learn from these developments in Europe? Is it possible to translate some of the European privacy rights into American law? What can the EU learn from American privacy law? More practically, the significant differences between EU and American privacy approaches impede information flow and create immense challenges in an increasingly global economy. Can these differences be bridged?

From Concurring Opinions
[ add comment ] ( 4 views ) permalink ( 3 / 770 )

<<First <Back | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | Next> Last>>