The ESCLH aims to promote comparative legal history and seeks affiliation with individuals and organisations with complementary aims.
The organising committee of the 8th ESCLH Biennial Conference, "Back to the Past and Building the Future" (Szeged, 2-3 JUL 2025) has launched a website containing information on accommodation, travelling, membership fee and registration fee.
A full programme is expected soon. Keynote speakers will be prof. Ulrike Müßig (University of Passau) and prof. Stefan Vogenauer (Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory).
More information here.
Dieneke Hempenius-Van Dijk lectured for nearly half a century at the University of Groningen, and transferred her love for old Dutch law to many that once read law in the most northern province of the Netherlands. In this interview, conducted in January 2024, Dieneke again showed how to set front stage the need for legal history in teaching law, and to always look as well at the law in action. Hence her teaching was always embedded in and very much strenghtened by knowledge acquired from meticulous archival research, often in collaboration with her husband Bertus Hempenius. The High Court of Friesland, old as well as early modern Frisian law, substance as well as procedure, and the Groningen orphanage chamber, and much more has been kept alive and kicking in spoken and written word, according to Dieneke Hempenius-Van Dijk’s high academic and exemplary standards.
Mare liberum, mare clausum en de territoriale wateren (Louis Sicking)
DOI 10.5117/PROM2024.2.003.SICK
Abstract:
The question whether or not the sea can be owned or controlled has occupied the minds of many over the centuries. The discovery of America by Columbus made the questions of ownership of the sea and how regimes to govern the sea could be created and managed gaining importance on a global scale. The historiography of the law of the sea is mostly focussing on the ‘battle of the books’ dominated by the publication of Mare Liberum (1609) by Hugo de Groot (Grotius) and John Selden’s Mare clausum (1635). This article puts this debate in its wider temporal, that is medieval context by arguing that the concept of the free sea was perfectly compatible with the adjacent or territorial sea both in legal practice and principle. The idea of the free sea, defended and made explicit by Grotius, was not new but originated in Roman law and its medieval interpretations. Rather than the free sea, mare clausum was the new contribution of early modern thinking on the law of the sea. The concept of mare clausum had been shaped by the division of the world’s oceans among Spain and Portugal based on the papal bull Inter Caetera (1493) and the treaties of Tordesillas (1494) and Zaragoza (1529).
Het Sint Ivogilde in Den Haag (Hans Endhoven & Ronald A. van der Spiegel)
DOI 10.5117/PROM2024.2.004.ENDH
Abstract:
In The Hague there was a Saint Yvogilde, mentioned 1510-1560. It was the craft guild of lawyers, solicitors and bailiffs, connected to the Court of Holland. This court was located at the Binnenhof. There was also the Court Chapel, which included a Saint Ivo chapel mentioned since 1488, and a Saint Ivo altar, mentioned from 1481. The relationship between guild, chapel and altar is unknown. More insight into the relationship requires further targeted research. After the Reformation (1572-1574) nothing more can be found about the Saint Ivogilde.
De vervolging van verkrachtingen en aanrandingen van de eerbaarheid voor het Hof van Assisen van het Leiedepartement/de provincie West-Vlaanderen, 1811-1867 (Jos Monballyu)
DOI 10.5117/PROM2024.2.005.MONB
Abstract:
In the period 1811 to 1867, the Courts of Assizes were in principle competent to try rapes and indecent assaults. An examination of the judgments made by the Court of Assizes of the Leiedepartment/the province of West Flanders in this period shows that in this period 229 people were accused before that Court of one or both crimes, but only 143 of them were punished for one or both crimes. In addition, 27 of those 229 accused persons were punished for a completely different crime, which was usually the misdemeanor of an outrage against public decency, and 59 were acquitted. The 143 people punished were mostly men (only one woman) who were between 18 and 35 years old and worked in frequently occurring professions in both rural and more urban areas. None of them practiced an elitist profession such as a gentleman farmer, doctor, notary, lawyer, or public officer. In accordance with the legal provisions, the Court of Assizes punished more severely 14 legal fathers, one grandfather, two stepfathers, a master guest in charge of training weavers, five teachers, three wage earners who were employed by someone who exercised authority over the victim and all the persons who provided each other with mutual assistance in carrying out one or both crimes. A majority of victims (202 out of 286 or 69.8%) were girls under the age of 14 or 15 respectively. The 46 women over the age of 15 formed the second group and the 27 boys under the ages of 14 and 15 the third group. Men over the age of 15 were hardly victims. No reason was almost ever given for the acquittals. Regarding the two doctors who were acquitted, one may wonder whether this happened due to a lack of evidence or because of class justice.
De vervolging van West-Vlaamse oorlogsburgemeesters voor het krijgshof te Gent (1945-1947) (Louise Martens)
DOI 10.5117/PROM2024.2.006.MART
Abstract:
Early on in the Second World War, a third of Belgian mayors left their post, escaping German occupation. Many were replaced by members of the Vlaamsch Nationaal Verbond with the support of the occupier. After the War, seven such ‘wartime mayors’ from West-Flanders were charged with endangerment of the State’s external security and finally tried on appeal before the Ghent court-martial. Their criminal files provide insight into the functioning of the military courts and the sometimes uncertain legal position of the defendant. The court’s reasoning was not always crystal clear, as judges only had a limited obligation to explain their decisions. Additionally, political collaboration was interpreted to incriminate a wide array of facts and courts encountered challenges differentiating denunciation from military collaboration. Applicable law was printed in advance on judgements, though this did not prevent all mistakes in the implementation of numerous decree-laws. Nevertheless, this could lead to the defendant’s benefit.
Book reviews
Read more here.
Abstract:
An Introduction to German Law and Legal Culture offers students, comparative law scholars, and practitioners an insightful and innovative survey of the German legal system. While recognizing the significant influence of the Civil Law tradition in the German legal culture, the book also considers other legal traditions – Common Law, Socialist Law, Islamic Law, Adversarial Law, European Law – that are woven into the varied and colorful fabric of the German legal culture. The book provides an informed yet accessible introduction to the foundations of German law as well as to the theory and doctrine of some of the most relevant fields of law: Private Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Criminal Law, Procedural Law, and European Law. It is an engaging and pluralistic portrayal of one of the world's most interesting, important, and frequently modelled legal systems.
Read more here.
Abstract:
Over the last 40 years, David Ibbetson has paved the way in a remarkably broad range of fields. In ancient law, his scholarship has spanned both the detailed doctrine of the Roman law of obligations and the cross-pollination of legal influences around the ancient Mediterranean. His work on English legal history has ranged from the earliest days of the common law through to the turn of the 20th century, combining forensic archival research with a sensitivity to how lawyers thought about their subject. In European legal history, he has shown the porousness of the civil law and the extent to which it has been shaped by other areas of intellectual life, from theology to rationalist philosophy. The contributions to this volume in his honour mirror both the breadth and the depth of Ibbetson's scholarship. The book combines chapters from leading legal historians, close colleagues and over a dozen of Ibbetson's students. Some chapters build upon or respond to Ibbetson's ideas, others his areas of interest. The contributions are introduced by Ibbetson's valedictory lecture on the importance of legal history to modern practice and scholarship, and the work yet to be done.
Table of contents:
1. Introduction, Joe Sampson and Stelios Tofaris (University of Cambridge, UK)
2. Acta et Agenda, David Ibbetson (University of Cambridge, UK)
Part One: Ancient Law
3. Chasing, Lying and Persuading: D 47.2.52.19-52.24 in Context, Helen Scott (University of Cambridge, UK)
4. D 9.2.27.14 (Ulp 18 Ad Ed): Weeds in the Digest, Wolfgang Ernst (University of Oxford, UK)
5. Felling Trees in Mesopotamia and Rome, Joe Sampson (University of Cambridge, UK)
Part Two: English Legal History
6. Taking Thirteenth-Century Statutes Seriously: The Strange History of Remedies Based on Chapter 7 of the Statute of Gloucester (1278), Paul Brand (University of Oxford, UK)
7. John Selden's Commonplace-Book (1608), John Baker (University of Cambridge, UK)
8. Early Seventeenth-Century Common Injunctions, Neil Jones (University of Cambridge, UK)
9. The Burden of Proof in English Criminal Proceedings After the Revolution, Mike Macnair (University of Oxford, UK)
10. Motive and Malice Prepensed, Joshua Getzler (University of Oxford, UK)
11. Dogs, Dons and Monkeys: Legal Liability for Domestic Animals, Warren Swain (University of Auckland, New Zealand)
Part Three: Comparative Legal History
12. Peer Reviewing Cujas, Alain Wijffels (University of Leiden, the Netherlands, and Ku Leuven, Belgium)
13. Star Chamber and the Civil Law, Ian Williams (University College London, UK)
14. The Law of Treason in Britain's Roman-Dutch Colonies, Michael Lobban (University of Oxford, UK)
15. Rome in the Antipodes: Emphyteusis and the Australian Perpetual Lease, Paul Babie (University of Adelaide, Australia)
16. Specific Performance and the Indian Contract Act: History, Theory and Politics, Stelios Tofaris (University of Cambridge, UK)
17. Path Dependence and French Administrative Law, John Bell (University of Cambridge, UK)
Part Four: History and Modernity
18. Law in Henry James's Early Fiction, Paul Mitchell (University College London, UK)
19. English Student Legal Periodicals, 1842-1922: Peculiarly Applicable to English Law Students, Catharine MacMillan (King's College London, UK)
20. Historical Insights into Contemporary Legal Problems: The 2020 Reforms of the Law of Civil Contempt, David Foxton (Justice of the High Court, UK)
21. Tort and Stability, Matt Dyson (University of Oxford, UK) and Emily Gordon (University College London, UK)
22. 'Unofficial Law', Doctrinal Change, and Judicial Review of Prerogative Powers, David Feldman (University of Cambridge, UK)
23. Quackery, Care and Themes in Nineteenth-Century Legal Change, Colm McGrath (King's College London, UK)
24. Judges, Jurists and Style, Jonathan Morgan (University of Cambridge, UK)
Read more here.
(source: Legal History Blog)
(image source: IECL)
The Institute of European and Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, is running the second year of its Research Masterclass for graduate research students working in the Institute’s fields of European Law, Comparative Law and Competition Law in September 2025.
The course costs £800, with accommodation to be paid separately (College accommodation at a
reduced rate is offered but not required) and most meals are paid separately. We have kept costs down
as far as possible and are not in a position to offer fee waivers or other discounts.
To be eligible you must be a graduate research student in law working on European Law, Comparative
Law and/or Competition Law. Places are limited.
Please send a single document, describing your research project in no more than 200 words, and a CV, in total not more than 4 sides of A4 (font size 12) addressed to the IECL Administrator, on administrator@iecl.ox.ac.uk as soon as possible and no later than 4pm BST 21 March 2025. Decisions will be taken soon after that. An offer to take part is conditional on paying the course fee.
The IECL will issue an invitation letter. However, we cannot assist with immigration requirements or travel arrangements; those are the responsibility of the attending student.
Further details of the structure of the course are below. We look forward to welcoming you to Oxford!
Matthew Dyson
Professor of Civil and Criminal Law
Director of the IECL
The Research Masterclass is designed to give you space to work on your own research collaboratively and develop your methods further through structured sessions with leading academics. Those sessions happen three times a week over the four weeks. Each session will involve the academic picking a piece of work, set in advance, which the students will have access to (or a part of it), and discussing the methods used, the decisions made, and the impact evident, from conception to completion. While all four weeks have that basic patter, each week has an emphasis. Outside of the seminars, participants are free to work at their desk in the seminar room, in one of Oxford’s world-leading libraries or elsewhere.
Week 1. Research Choices: seminars focus on methodology needed before research begins.
Week 2. Research Execution: seminars focus on case studies of academics’ work.
Week 3. Research Challenges: seminars focus on problems researchers have faced.
Week 4. Research Outputs: seminars focus on writing, and presenting, research.
Prof Matthew Dyson (Comparative Law)
Prof Ariel Ezrachi (Competition Law)
Prof Liz Fisher (Comparative Public Law)
Prof Son Bui (Asian Law)
Dr Johannes Ungerer (Conflicts of Laws)
Prof Iyiola Solanke (EU Law)
Prof Angus Johnston (EU Law)
Prof Sanja Bogojevic (EU Law)
Prof Birke Haecker, Bonn (Comparative legal history)
Prof Laura Carlson, Stockholm (Comparative law and equality law)
Abstract:
As an early experiment in the creation of multilateral institutions, the League of Nations was entrusted by its members to maintain peace but also to be a standard-maker and a manager of contemporary problems and challenges requiring a global response. Nevertheless, after a while it became clear that its performance in addressing major conflicts did not live up to the expectations of guarantying collective security. In the functional areas, although the organization created precedents, it also showed limitations. Due to its complexity, increasingly the League of Nations has been studied not only from an institutional perspective but also from a more multidimensional and comparative point of view that allows to consider the presence and role of the organization in various scales and spaces, besides its relationship with a diversity of actors and themes. The League of Nations Experience: Overlapping Readings offers a multitude of interpretations, evincing some of the promising avenues through which the League of Nations continues to inspire academic research.
On the editors:
Aurora Almada e Santos and Yvette Santos, NOVA University Lisbon, Portugal.
Read more here.
Abstract:
This Article offers a novel account of the origins of “the rule of law” in the English-speaking world. The phrase itself likely entered the language as a literal translation of the Latin regula juris. Prior to the early seventeenth century, however, the phrase appears to have been used exclusively to refer to the specific legal rule or maxim most relevant to the resolution of a particular kind of dispute. The more general and abstract use of the phrase – to refer to an ideal of political morality or an ideal type of governance – first appeared in the public record around 1610. It did so in the context of English common lawyers’ criticism of royal economic regulation limiting commodity production and circulation. The ideal type of governance that these common lawyers had in mind was the rule of common-law rules. They believed that the “chief subject or object” of these rules was the freedom of Englishmen to dispose of their possessions and professional skills as they wished, and to profit thereby. The earliest advocates of “the rule of law” thus found themselves in the vanguard of a cross-class project that sought to privilege the equal liberty of commodity exchangers over other long-recognized political, religious, and economic entitlements. Consequently, the original rule of law – the rule of common-law rules – came with a set of libertarian and egalitarian expectations, in addition to expectations of publicity, clarity, regularity, and so on. When A.V. Dicey popularized “the rule of law” in the late nineteenth century, he claimed to be restating age-old English common sense. While this claim exaggerated the continuity and coherence of English legal history, Dicey’s conception of the rule of law did indeed track the original, early-seventeenth-century conception in significant respects, including its libertarianism, its market-oriented egalitarianism, and its commitment to the supremacy of the common law. For both Dicey and his early modern precursors, the key to the equal liberty of English subjects was the centrality of common law courts to the settlement of disputes, whether between private parties, or between private parties and public officials. Contemporaneous critics of Dicey’s conception thus rightly understood him to be defending a legal worldview that dated to the early days of competitive capitalism. Yet the appeal of that worldview persists. In the middle of the twentieth century, Anglophone legal philosophers did craft an alternative: a more austere and generalizable conception of the rule of law, one freed from the libertarian, egalitarian, and common-law sensibilities of Dicey and his precursors. While an intellectual coup, this minimalist conception has proven unsatisfying not only to legal practitioners but also to a growing number of legal theorists, including some of the minimalist conception’s erstwhile defenders. For these critics, Jeremy Waldron foremost among them, the minimalist conception fails to capture common-sense understandings of both law and the rule of law. But why does the contemporary common sense to which Waldron appeals so closely echo the concerns of common lawyers in 1610? This Article argues that the answer lies in the limited yet significant socio-economic context shared by early modern common lawyers, late nineteenth century jurists, and contemporary legal theorists. That shared context is the dominance of commodity exchange, which has characterized capitalist societies since their emergence in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe. The common lawyers who first used the phrase “the rule of law” to denote an ideal of political morality were responding to a profound and lasting social and economic transformation. That transformation – the penetration of commodity exchange into ever more domains of social life – gave rise to demands for the rule of law four hundred years ago, and continues to shape discourse about the rule of law today.
Source: Legal History Blog.
Read more here.
l presente modulo consente di partecipare al Premio Filangieri per giovani giuristi (edizione 2024), di cui al seguente bando: https://bit.ly/BandoFilangieri2024
Abstract:
The chapter discusses the administrative culture(s) of the League of Nations Secretariat in the foundational years and asks what constituted the original administrative culture(s) of the League’s international civil service. The main argument is that decisions in the formative years of the League’s Secretariat led to an internationalised Western bureaucratic model, balancing autonomy and legitimacy concerns. While efficiency was essential, acquiring an international character for the secretariat seemed rather more desirable than mandatory. These factors had a decisive impact on the administrative culture in the League’s early years (and beyond).
Read the article (published in November 2024) in open access here: DOI 10.2478/adhi-2022-0017.
The Papal Bulls Dividing the Americas between Spain and Portugal: A Reappraisal (Kent McNeil)
DOI 10.1163/15718050-bja10114
Abstract:
The papacy recently repudiated the doctrine of discovery that was relied upon by European nations when they colonized lands inhabited by Indigenous peoples. However, the Vatican did not repeal the papal bulls that authorized and provided canon law support for colonization of West Africa and the Americas by Portugal and Spain. This article examines these bulls and questions the Pope’s legal authority to issue them. It contends that the bulls bound only the Christian monarchs who accepted the Pope’s authority in this regard. They had no legal force insofar as the Indigenous peoples were concerned. Moreover, the historical record reveals that other colonizing European powers, such as France and England, rejected the validity of the bulls. In fact, Spain and Portugal acquired their overseas empires in the fifteen and sixteenth centuries, not by means of discovery or papal bulls, but by subduing Indigenous peoples and forcibly occupying their territories.
Law Wars: Academia and the Manufacture of International Humanitarian Law (Page Wilson)
DOI 10.1163/15718050-bja10115
Abstract:
Despite the emergence of much critical discourse on the conventional history of international humanitarian law (IHL) over the last decades, the way in which this conventional history is told and re-told remains virtually unaltered in one key area of dissemination: teaching materials. By conducting an in-depth examination of these materials, this article uncovers the techniques used over time to generate and perpetuate the conventional IHL history. In so doing, it helps to explain how and why the conventional IHL history continues largely unchanged in textbooks to this day.
Taming the Leviathan? The Reason of State in International Law (Valentina Vadi)
DOI 10.1163/15718050-bja10111
Abstract:
In humanist political theory, the reason of state mostly described a course of action that did not follow the usual criteria of law but rather what was useful. Nonetheless, a broader understanding of the reason of state focused on the community’s core values. Such common interests (ius status or ragion di stato) could be contrasted with, and balanced against, those of the international community (ius gentium or ragione delle genti). According to the latter view, the reason of state did not abolish the rule of law. Rather, it indicated state governance to preserve public safety (conservare lo stato). The article investigates how Alberico Gentili (1552–1608), a religious refugee and Regius Professor at the University of Oxford, transplanted the reason of state from political theory into the law of nations while subjecting it to natural law (ius naturalis), which can be compared to the contemporary notion of jus cogens.
Book reviews
Num. 26 - December 2024 - Authors - English
(image source: DeGruyter Oldenbourg)
Abstract:
Shifting Sovereignties explores practical manifestations of sovereignty from antiquity to the Anthropocene. Taking a global-history perspective and centring Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, it destabilises overly neat theoretical notions of the concept. Shifting Sovereignties shows that, in practice, sovereignty is far from absolute, perpetual, indivisible, or supreme; rather it is fuzzy, compromised, fragmented, and layered. From these observations, the authors derive a historical conceptualisation which makes change and contingency core aspects of the understanding of sovereignty. Rather than understanding sovereignty as a characteristic of individual states, Mihatsch and Mulligan propose the notion of “sovereignty regimes”: frameworks of legitimation enforced through mutual recognition. These regimes are created and managed by more or less institutionalised structures which embody what the authors call “system sovereignty.” Sovereignty regimes and system sovereignty are, like sovereignty itself, continuously changing and contingent. This process of change forms the core of the book. Shifting Sovereignties thus contributes a practical, historical perspective on a concept which is foundational in political science, international relations, and international law.
On the editors:
Moritz A. Mihatsch, University of Cambridge, UK; Michael R. Mulligan, Euro University of Bahrain.
Read more here.
Lange Zeit haben sich die deutschen Universitäten vor allem als Opfer der nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft gesehen. Erst allmählich und widerstrebend setzte sich die Einsicht durch, dass das nicht die ganze Geschichte ist. Inzwischen sind zahlreiche Untersuchungen zu einzelnen Universitäten, Disziplinen, Wissenschaftlern erschienen. Michael Grüttner legt mit diesem Buch auf der Grundlage jahrelanger Quellenforschung erstmals eine Gesamtdarstellung zu den Universitäten im Dritten Reich vor. Die 23 Universitäten, die am Ende der Weimarer Republik in Deutschland existierten, waren seit 1933 massiven «Säuberungen» ausgesetzt, die sich vor allem gegen Studierende und Wissenschaftler jüdischer Herkunft richteten. Dieser «Machtergreifung» von oben entsprach eine «Machtergreifung» von unten: Viele Professoren traten in die Partei ein, manche versuchten wie Carl Schmitt und Martin Heidegger, sich als Vordenker des NS-Regimes in Stellung zu bringen. Michael Grüttner schildert eindringlich die erstaunlich geräuschlose Machtübernahme der Nationalsozialisten, analysiert die Hochschulpolitik des Regimes, die sich ganz unterschiedlich auf die verschiedenen Fächer auswirkte, und erklärt, warum die Wissenschaften im Dienst des Nationalsozialismus nicht nur unfreier wurden, sondern mitunter sogar größere Handlungsspielräume besaßen als je zuvor. Ein Epilog zur Nachgeschichte rundet diese souveräne, längst überfällige Gesamtgeschichte ab.
On the author:
Michael Grüttner lehrte Neuere Geschichte in Hamburg, Berlin und Berkeley. Seit seinem Buch «Studenten im Dritten Reich» (1995) hat er sich intensiv mit den Universitäten im Dritten Reich und der nationalsozialistischen Wissenschaftspolitik beschäftigt. Für den «Gebhardt», das bedeutendste Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte, schrieb er den Band über das Dritte Reich in den Jahren 1933 – 1939 (2015).
Read more here.
Memorie di umanità e diritto
Saggi
Varie
Orientamenti bibliografici
More information can be found here.
First paragraph:
Le 21 janvier 1901, la féministe Jeanne Chauvin devient la première femme à plaider dans un tribunal jusqu' alors interdit aux « femmes-avocats ». Aujourd’hui, grâce au combat de cette pionnière, les femmes en robe représentent 60 % de la profession d'avocat.
Panel:
- Luc Duchamp, conservateur en chef du patrimoine de la ville de Provins.
- Hélène Duffuler-Vialle, maîtresse de conférence en histoire du droit, chercheuse, spécialiste des études de genre.
- Michèle Dassas, écrivaine, autrice de « Jeanne Chauvin, pionnière des avocates ».
- Aurélie Chaney, avocate et autrice avec Djoïna Amrani du roman graphique « Jeanne Chauvin, la plaidoirie dans le sang ».
- Jean-Noël Jeanneney, historien, auteur de l’article, La victoire de Jeanne Chauvin, avocate paru dans le journal « Le Monde » (21 juillet 1987).
- Christiane Féral-Schuhl, ex-bâtonnière du barreau de Paris et ancienne présidente du Conseil national des barreaux.
- Julia Minkowski, avocate pénaliste et féministe, cofondatrice du Club des avocates pénalistes.
Read more here.
Based in the Department of Law at Queen Mary University of London, the Lady Cruickshank studentship is valued at £25 000 per annum for three fulltime equivalent years, covering:
About this project
In 2016 Elizabeth Cruickshank published a paper entitled “’Follow the Money’: the first women who qualified as solicitors 1922-1930”. A central argument of “Follow the Money” was that women’s ability to practice law in the first two decades after the enactment of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 was primarily facilitated by family connections, in particular, by solicitor fathers seeking to replace their deceased soldier sons in the family law firm.
This studentship picks up the theme of “Follow the Money” Using previous research undertaken by Lady Cruickshank and the records of the Association of Women Solicitors, the studentship will facilitate the writing of a PhD thesis which explores Lady Cruickshank’s ideas. The PhD awardee will work with supervisors to define the scope, research questions, and research methods for the doctoral project.
It is envisaged that the research will include an examination of the following questions:
Academic Enquiries
For academic queries, contact c.morris@qmul.ac.uk
For enquiries relating to eligibility or application process, email Mr Gareth Skehan, g.skehan@qmul.ac.uk.
Application requirements
All applicants should have a postgraduate degree in Law at either Distinction or Merit level.
For information click the 'Apply' button above.
It is expected that all applications will be accompanied by:
You must name Professor Morris as the intended supervisor on the application form.
Start date of course: September 2025
(source: jobs.ac.uk)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Le séminaire se tient à la Sorbonne, en salle Édouard Perroy de 17h30 à 19h30
Informations complémentaires : fforonda@univ-paris1.fr
Séminaire fondé par Ezio ORNATO, Jean-Philippe GENET et Carla BOZZOLO et coordonné par François FORONDA, Émilie COTTEREAU-GABILLET et Octave JULIEN
SCHEDULE
Avec Sylvain DESTEPHEN (Université de Caen Normandie, Centre Michel de Boüard – CRAHAM), Bruno DUMÉZIL (Université Paris Sorbonne, centre Roland Mousnier) et Olivier HUCK (Université de Strasbourg, ArcHiMèdE)
Avec Magali COUMERT (Université de Tours, CeTHiS), Laurent JÉGOU (Université Paris Nanterre, ArScAn) et Sylvie JOYE (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Lamop)
Avec Fabrice DELIVRÉ (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Lamop), Charles DE MIRAMON (EHESS, Centre de Recherches Historiques – AhloMA) et Gianluca DEL MONACO (Università di Bologna)
Avec Mónica CASTILLO LLUCH (Université de Lausanne), Benoît GRÉVIN (EHESS, Centre de Recherches Historiques – AhloMA) et Annick PETERS-CUSTOT (Université de Nantes, CRHIA)
Avec Maria Alessandra BILOTTA (Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IEM), Inés FERNÁNDEZ-ORDÓÑEZ (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Real Academia Española) et Elena RODRÍGUEZ DÍAZ (Universidad de Huelva, Real Academia de la Historia)
Avec Gilduin DAVY (Université Paris Nanterre, Centre d’Histoire et d’Anthropologie du Droit), Marie DEJOUX (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Lamop) et Octave JULIEN (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Lamop-PIREH)
More information can be found here.
Language of Presentations: English, French, or Russian
Proposals:
Submit a CV and an abstract (max 500 words) detailing your research methodology to Maija.Susarina@zmo.de by 31 January 2025.
Acknowledgment and Notification:
Applicants will receive confirmation of receipt and a decision on their participation within 4 weeks.
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia (Proposed Venue: Ilia State University, 3/5 K. Cholokashvili Ave., F Building, Office F.404)
Dates: 1-3 May 2025
Please note: Due to the current political situation in Georgia, the venue may be relocated to Armenia or Turkey. Confirmation will be provided by the end of February.
Funding: Limited travel grants (transport and accommodation) are available, with priority for PhD students and regional scholars.
Publication: Selected conference papers, upon revision, will be included in a special issue or edited volume.
For more details, contact: Maija.Susarina@zmo.de
Source: Connections. A Journal for Historians and Area Specialists
Don’t miss this opportunity to engage in a rich interdisciplinary dialogue on justice, legality, and minority rights in historical and post-imperial contexts!
The Stanford Center for Law and History (SCLH) invites paper-proposal submissions from graduate students for its seventh annual conference, “Native Legal Histories: Methods, Sovereignties, and Identities.” The Native nations forcibly included within the United States have had complex and nuanced legal histories. This conference will explore histories of both Indigenous law and Native encounters with U.S. law to better understand Indigenous communities’ legal experiences and understandings.It will bring together scholars of law and history to examine Indigenous legal histories across a range of venues and themes. Focusing, in particular, on questions of methods, sovereignties, and identities, the conference seeks to consider how the growing and robust field of Native legal history might help us to reconsider familiar narratives of law and its past.
This one-day conference will be held on Friday, April 11th, 2025, at Stanford Law School. It will include four panels and a graduate student lighting round with breakfast and lunch provided.
Areas of possible, but not exhaustive, legal-historical interest include:
SCLH's goal is to bring together faculty, postdocs, and students for workshops, conferences, and lectures examining the relationships between law and history, broadly defined. With these goals in mind we encourage submissions from scholars working across disciplines.
The conference organizers will select one graduate student as the winner of the SCLH Graduate Student Paper Prize. This student will present on one of the four conference panels. Funding for travel and housing will be provided.
Application Requirements:
Applications closed on January 31st, 2025. Please direct any questions to sclh@law.stanford.edu.
More information can be found here.
.png)
