Although migration is a transnational phenomenon involving a plurality of states, the state of departure is often unwilling/unable to offer protection. Receiving/transit states can refrain from engaging with the problem until migrants have already entered their territory. With high seas, this can result in the deaths of people taking the risk of travelling to a new place. The article argues that states have a duty to offer (some) protection even when migrants are not in their territory, based on human rights’ positive effect and the principle of due diligence. Because of the transnational nature of migration, all involved states have the responsibility to offer protection. This may lead to concurrent state liability for failure to protect. The duty to protect may extend to the high seas, even when the traditional links for the establishment of jurisdiction are absent. The duty is not unlimited, it needs to prevail over other considerations.
Saturday, January 20, 2018
This chapter addresses a sampling of the myriad complex legal questions implicated by cyber operations conducted outside the context of armed hostilities. In such a rapidly evolving environment, the development of legal and policy parameters for governing state behavior in cyberspace—domestically and internationally—have failed to keep pace with the threat. Legal advisors charged with reviewing and advising on the legality of cyber operations are continuously called on to address difficult issues of first impression. This chapter identifies and considers some of the more challenging domestic and international legal issues raised by the conduct of cyber operations in the gray zone between peace and war. The chapter offers a brief description of the gray-zone concept, followed by a description of the cyberspace domain and the general nature of cyber operations before turning to a selective review of the domestic U.S. and international law challenges to conducting gray-zone cyber operations.
Jurisdictional rules, including immunity-based defenses to jurisdiction, allocate adjudicatory authority horizontally among sovereign states. In contrast to the more well-defined rules governing status-based immunities, this chapter focuses on conduct-based immunities from civil proceedings in light of the relative lack of consensus regarding their contours. First, it reviews some of the historical case law involving conduct-based immunity from civil proceedings in foreign courts, with a focus on U.S. cases. Second, it describes the approach taken more recently by several common-law courts. It concludes with observations on the evolving nature of law in this area.
Pitcher: Judicial Responses to Pre-Trial Procedural Violations in International Criminal Proceedings
This book provides an in-depth examination of the judicial response at the international criminal tribunals (ICTs) to the violation of procedural standards in the pre-trial phase of proceedings. It does so against the backdrop of the assumption that certain particularities of international criminal proceedings may warrant a different approach to the matter than at the national level. By reference to relevant human rights standards and to national criminal procedure,as well as to theoretical accounts of the judicial response to pre-trial procedural violations,this book assesses the ICTs’ law and practice in this regard, thereby identifying points of concern and making suggestions for improvement. In doing so, it considers the most suitable rationale for responding to procedural violations committed in the pre-trial phase of international criminal proceedings and the merits of judicial discretion in this context, as well as the impact of certain particularities of such proceedings on the determination of how to address procedural violations.
La Cour pénale internationale (CPI), avancée notable en ce XXIè siècle, apparaît sous les feux des projecteurs. Au-delà des critiques dont elle fait l'objet, se posent la question de la justice et de la paix, deux notions que la Cour doit s'efforcer de conjuguer. L'avènement de la CPI a suscité beaucoup d'espoirs, mais pour que celle-ci joue pleinement son rôle, elle doit effectuer sa mue et se débarrasser des limites tant textuelles qu'opérationnelles qui minent son action. Certes, imparfaite, la CPI n'en demeure pas moins à ce jour le modèle le plus achevé d'une juridiction internationale pénale.
- Andrew Byrnes & Gabrielle Simm, Introduction
- Andrew Byrnes & Gabrielle Simm, International peoples' tribunals: their nature, practice and significance
- Gianni Tognoni, The history of the permanent peoples' tribunal
- Gabrielle Simm, Peoples' tribunals, women's courts and international sexual violence crimes
- Tina Dolgopol, The Tokyo Women's Tribunal: transboundary activists and the use of law's power
- Saskia E. Wieringa, The International People's Tribunal on 1965 crimes against humanity in Indonesia: an anthropological perspective
- Simona Fraudatario & Gianni Tognoni, The participation of peoples in the development of international law: the laboratory of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal
- Sara Dehm, Accusing 'Europe': articulations of migrant justice and a popular international law
- Rosalba Icaza Garza, The Permanent Peoples' Tribunal and indigenous peoples' struggle in Mexico: between coloniality and epistemic justice
- Nicola Edwards, Evaluating the Biak Massacre Citizens' Tribunal and the disputed Indonesian region of West Papua
- Belén Olmos Giupponi, Assessing the contribution of the Latin American Water Tribunal to transnational environmental law
- Andrew Byrnes & Gabrielle Simm, Reflections on the past and future of international peoples' tribunals
Grabel: When Things Don't Fall Apart: Global Financial Governance and Developmental Finance in an Age of Productive Incoherence
In When Things Don’t Fall Apart, Ilene Grabel challenges the dominant view that the global financial crisis had little effect on global financial governance and developmental finance. Most observers discount all but grand, systemic ruptures in institutions and policy. Grabel argues instead that the global crisis induced inconsistent and ad hoc discontinuities in global financial governance and developmental finance that are now having profound effects on emerging market and developing economies. Grabel’s chief normative claim is that the resulting incoherence in global financial governance is productive rather than debilitating. In the age of productive incoherence, a more complex, dense, fragmented, and pluripolar form of global financial governance is expanding possibilities for policy and institutional experimentation, policy space for economic and human development, financial stability and resilience, and financial inclusion. Grabel draws on key theoretical commitments of Albert Hirschman to cement the case for the productivity of incoherence. Inspired by Hirschman, Grabel demonstrates that meaningful change often emerges from disconnected, erratic, experimental, and inconsistent adjustments in institutions and policies as actors pragmatically manage in an evolving world.
Grabel substantiates her claims with empirically rich case studies that explore the effects of recent crises on networks of financial governance (such as the G-20); transformations within the IMF; institutional innovations in liquidity support and project finance from the national to the transregional levels; and the “rebranding” of capital controls. Grabel concludes with a careful examination of the opportunities and risks associated with the evolutionary transformations underway.
Friday, January 19, 2018
The classic starting point for identifying the sources of international law is Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Article 38 famously refers to three sources: treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law; as well as two subsidiary means for determining rules of law, namely judicial decisions and the teachings of publicists. However, Article 38 does not adequately reflect how the doctrine of sources operates in practice because it omits important sources of international law while misrepresenting the nature and weight of others. To appreciate how the doctrine of sources operates in practice, international lawyers need to understand how international law is created through a dialogue among states, state-empowered entities and non-state actors. States are important actors in this process, but they are not the only actors. It is only by understanding this process of dialogue that one can develop a full understanding of the theory – and reality – of the sources of international law.
- Panos Koutrakos, Judicial Review in the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy
- Louise Merrett, The Future Enforcement of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreements
- Frans Viljoen, Understanding and Overcoming Challenges in Accessing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
- Giesela Rühl, Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters After Brexit: Which Way Forward?
- Gracia Marín Durán, Sheltering Government Support to ‘Green’ Electricity: The European Union and the World Trade Organization
- Catherine O'Rourke & Aisling Swaine, CEDAW and the Security Council: Enhancing Women's Rights in Conflict
- Machiko Kanetake, UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies Before Domestic Courts
- Shorter Articles and Notes
- Billy Melo Araujo, Labour Provisions in EU and US Mega-Regional Trade Agreements: Rhetoric And Reality
- Giovanni Gruni, Towards a Sustainable World Trade Law? The Commercial Policy of the European Union After Opinion 2/15 CJEU
- Dylan Geraets, Changes in EU Trade Policy After Opinion 2/15
- Hannes Lenk, Prior Judicial Involvement in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Lessons from the Court’s Rhetoric in Opinion 2/15
- Rob Howse, Unspoken Truths: The Hidden Logic of Decision 2/15
- Thomas Cantens, WCO Quarterly Column: Insecurity, Development, Trade and Taxation
- Henar Criado, Francisco Herreros, Luis Miller, & Paloma Ubeda, The Unintended Consequences of Political Mobilization on Trust: The Case of the Secessionist Process in Catalonia
- Elizabeth Nugent, Tarek Masoud, & Amaney A. Jamal, Arab Responses to Western Hegemony: Experimental Evidence from Egypt
- Nam Kyu Kim, Revolutionary Leaders and Mass Killing
- Todd S. Sechser, Reputations and Signaling in Coercive Bargaining
- Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, Simon Hug, Livia Isabella Schubiger, & Julian Wucherpfennig, International Conventions and Nonstate Actors: Selection, Signaling, and Reputation Effects
- Brian Blankenship, When Do States Take the Bait? State Capacity and the Provocation Logic of Terrorism
- Michael K. Miller, Michael Joseph, & Dorothy Ohl, Are Coups Really Contagious? An Extreme Bounds Analysis of Political Diffusion
- Cyanne E. Loyle & Helga Malmin Binningsbø, Justice during Armed Conflict: A New Dataset on Government and Rebel Strategies
This article is based on the author's ongoing ethnographic study of how the International Criminal Court (ICC) is responding to a broad range of multilingual challenges, particularly those related to African languages. The ICC is currently using more than thirty languages from the African continent in its investigations, trials, interactions with victims, and outreach activities. Despite the centrality of these languages to various ICC situations and cases, African language experts, and the structures created to support their work, operate largely in the shadows. Furthermore, the innovative strategies developed by ICC language service staff around recruitment and training of interpreters for 'languages of lesser diffusion', development of legal lexicons in those languages, and other vital activities are rarely acknowledged publicly. Despite the obvious multilingual nature of all ICC situations and cases, the constant use of interpretation and translation (even between its working languages), and the visible presence of interpreters in the courtroom, the Court's language services remain strangely unseen and unsung. Bringing the work of language services staff into the light could enhance the legitimacy of the ICC both through improving its performance and countering negative commentary among its constituents, especially in situation countries.
Thursday, January 18, 2018
- January 19, 2018: Gleider I Hernández (Durham Univ.), Systemic Agents in International Law
- January 26, 2018: Matthew Nicholson (Durham Univ.), Psychoanalyzing International Law
- February 2, 2018: Photini Pazartzis (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens ), Whose Authority? The Human Rights Committee and the Interpretation of the ICCPR
- February 9, 2018: Catriona Drew (SOAS Univ. of London), tbd
- February 16, 2018: Sean Aughey (11KBW), Refracting international law ideas through the prism of the common law: act of state is (almost) dead, long live act of state!
- February 23, 2018: Tsilly Dagan (Bar-Ilan Univ.), International Tax policy: Between Competition and Cooperation
- March 2, 2018: Petros C. Mavroidis (Columbia Univ.), Last Mile for Tuna (to a Safe Harbor) How the WTO Appellate Body Has Misconstrued the TBT Agreement and Why a Sea Change is Not Enough
- March 16, 2018: Karen Engle (Univ. of Texas), The Common Sense of Anti-Impunity: Human Rights, Amnesties, and Sexual Violence in Conflict
This chapter considers two important and unresolved issues raised by unilateral withdrawal from or denunciation of treaties. The first issue concerns whether treaty obligations end in both international and domestic law after a state leaves a treaty. Exit often produces the same effects in both legal systems, but some withdrawals bifurcate a treaty’s status, ending its obligations in domestic law but continuing to bind the state internationally, or vice versa. The second issue concerns denunciations initiated by different branches of government. The decision to withdraw from a treaty is usually carried out by the executive acting unilaterally. Less well known, but potentially more fraught from a foreign relations perspective, are instances in which the impetus for exit originates with legislators or judges.
Conflicts involving both dimensions of treaty exit stem from a common source – the different domestic and international rules governing how states enter into and leave treaties and the divergent policies that underlie those rules. The chapter develops a typology to categorize these conflicts, drawing upon examples of actual and potential treaty denunciations in several countries as well as actions by the executive, legislature, and judiciary that make such withdrawals more likely.
- The Changing Nature of Territoriality in International Law
- Martin Kuijer & Wouter Werner, The Paradoxical Place of Territory in International Law
- Veronika Bílková, A State Without Territory?
- Cedric Ryngaert, Territory in the Law of Jurisdiction: Imagining Alternatives
- Sara Kendall, Cartographies of the Present: ‘Contingent Sovereignty’ and Territorial Integrity
- Fleur Johns, Data Territories: Changing Architectures of Association in International Law
- Lianne J.M. Boer, ‘Spoofed Presence Does not Suffice’: On Territoriality in the Tallinn Manual
- Jan Kleijssen & Pierluigi Perri, Cybercrime, Evidence and Territoriality: Issues and Options
- Alessandra Arcuri & Federica Violi, Reconfiguring Territoriality in International Economic Law
- Sigrun Skogly, Extraterritorial Obligations and the Obligation to Protect
- Ernst M.H. Hirsch Ballin, Citizenship at Home and Across Borders
- Hemme Battjes, Territoriality and Asylum Law: The Use of Territorial Jurisdiction to Circumvent Legal Obligations and Human Rights Law Responses
- Ciarán Burke, Ólafur Ísberg Hannesson, & Kristin Bangsund, Schrödinger’s Cake? Territorial Truths for Post-Brexit Britain
- Annecoos Wiersema, CITES and the Whole Chain Approach to Combating Illegal Wildlife Trade
- Marissa C. G. Altmann & Jonathan E. Kolby, Trends in US Imports of Amphibians in Light of the Potential Spread of Chytrid Fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), and Implications for Conservation
- Kimberley Graham, International Intent and Domestic Application of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): The Case of the Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)
- Sabrina Persaud, Losing Our “CITES” on the “Traffic”: How Taxing Ivory Trafficking Can Save the African Elephant From Its Bloody Extinction
The concept of utopianism, however one looks at it, is not a technical legal concept. It is not a formal product of the everyday legal process and it certainly cannot be considered a legal term of art – the way, for instance, the concept of anticipatory self-defence can. Nor does it form an operative part of some other legal construct or doctrine – the way, for example, the idea of the common heritage of mankind does. And yet if one looks at the broader conceptual landscape surrounding the contemporary international legal discourse, it certainly seems to carry a very particular meaning in the eyes of what one might call the international legal profession lato sensu, a meaning which in many ways appears to be unique and without any discernible parallel in other comparable cultural arenas and discursive traditions. In this paper I propose to explore the internal phenomenology and the external theoretical structures surrounding this meaning.
What is that basic complex of ideas, tropes, assumptions, and discursive devices by means of which the phenomenon of utopianism is constructed, encoded, and represented in the contemporary international legal culture? What is the cultural logic behind the traditional anti-utopianist reflex within the broader disciplinary field of international law? Why do international lawyers tend to resent utopianism? How do they rationalise the logic of this resentment and what can this tell us about the broader power dynamics underlying the anti-utopianist discourse?
- Ana Stevenson, The "Great Doctrine Of Human Rights'': Articulation and Authentication in the Nineteenth-Century U.S. Antislavery And Women's Rights Movements
- Lyndsey Stonebridge. Humanitarianism Was Never Enough: Dorothy Thompson, Sands of Sorrow, and the Arabs of Palestine
- Joseph R. Slaughter, Life, Story, Violence: What Narrative Doesn't Say
- Sumi Madhok, On Vernacular Rights Cultures and the Political Imaginaries of Haq
- Contemporary Refugee Timespaces
- Angela Naimou, Preface
- Anooradha Iyer Siddiqi, On Humanitarian Architecture: A Story of a Border
- Maurizio Albahari, Beyond Europe, Borders Adrift
- Adam Goodman, The Human Costs of Outsourcing Deportation
- Tanya Golash-Boza, An Immigration and Customs Enforcement Home Raid Before Church
- Gilberto Rosas, Refusing Refuge at the United States–Mexico Border
- Sharif Youssef, Necessary Decisions
- Yogita Goyal, The Logic of Analogy: Slavery and the Contemporary Refugee
- Crystal Parikh, The Innocents: Reading Refugees in National Culture and Diasporic Literatures
- Alexandra Schultheis Moore, Anglophone Novels from the Tibetan Diaspora: Negotiations of Empire, Nation, and Culture
- April Shemak, Haitian Refugees and the Guantánamo Public Memory Project: Remembering Haitian Refugees
- John McCallum, War and the Historical Sociology of Human Rights: Violent Entanglements
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
International human rights efforts have been overly reliant on reactive tools and focused on treaty compliance, while often under emphasizing the prevention of human rights violations. I argue that data analytics can play an important role in refocusing the international human rights regime on its original goal of preventing human rights abuses, but it comes at a cost. There are risks in advancing a data-driven approach to human rights, including the privileging of certain rights subject to quantitative measurement and the precipitation of further human rights abuses in the process of preventing other violations. Moreover, the increasing use of big data can ultimately privatize the international human rights regime by transforming the corporation into a primary gatekeeper of rights protection. Such unintended consequences need to be addressed in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of using big data in this field.
- January 18, 2018: Yvonne McDermott Rees (Swansea Univ.), Proving International Crimes
- January 25, 2018: Amy Sander (Essex Court Chambers), Advocacy in International Forums
- February 1, 2018: Danai Azaria (Univ. College London), The International Law Commission as an Interpreter of International Law
- February 8, 2018: Christine Chinkin (London School of Economics), Women, Peace, and Security: What does it Mean in the Contemporary World?
- February 15, 2018: Alan Boyle (Univ. of Edinburgh; Essex Court Chambers), Interaction between Hard and Soft Law in United Nations LawMaking
- February 22, 2018: Andrea Bjorklund (McGill Univ.), Arbitral Authority to Address Corruption
- March 1, 2018: Ilias Plakokefalos, André Nollkaemper & Jean d’Aspremont (SHARES project), Draft Principles on Shared Responsibility
- March 8, 2018: Payam Akhavan (McGill Univ.), In Search of a Better World: A Human Rights Odyssey
- Jonathan G. Odom, Navigating Between Treaties and Tweets: How to Ensure Discourse about Maritime Freedom Is Meaningful
- Alexander N. Vylegzhanin, Oran R. Young & Paul Arthur Berkman, Governing the Barents Sea Region: Current Status, Emerging Issues, and Future Options
- Clive R. Symmons, Recent Developments in Ireland: The Voisinage Doctrine and Irish Waters: Recent Judicial and Legislative Developments
- Yaodong Yu, Yue Zhao & Yen-Chiang Chang, Challenges to the Primary Jurisdiction of Flag States Over Ships
- CILJ 2017 Conference: Transforming Institutions
- Jan Klabbers, Transforming institutions: autonomous international organisations in institutional theory
- Rob van Gestel & Jurgen de Poorter, Supreme administrative courts’ preliminary questions to the CJEU: start of a dialogue or talking to deaf ears?
- Catherine Warin & Zheni Zhekova, The Joint Way Forward on migration issues between Afghanistan and the EU: EU external policy and the recourse to non-binding law
- Dominik Düsterhaus, Does the European Court of Justice constitutionalise EU Private International Law?
- Leonie M Huijbers, The European Court of Human Rights’ procedural approach in the age of subsidiarity
- Desmond Johnson, The institutional balance as an agent of transformation in the EU constitutional order: reconciling the simultaneous rise of the European Parliament and European agencies
- Anastasia Karatzia & Menelaos Markakis, What role for the Commission and the ECB in the European Stability Mechanism?
- Tim Kluwen, Universal Jurisdiction in Absentia Before Domestic Courts Prosecuting International Crimes: A Suitable Weapon to Fight Impunity?
- Ezequiel Heffes & Brian E. Frenkel, The International Responsibility of Non-State Armed Groups: In Search of the Applicable Rules
- Esmé Shirlow, Three Manifestations of Transparency in International Investment Law: A Story of Sources, Stakeholders and Structures
- Tomás Restrepo, Modification of Renewable Energy Support Schemes Under the Energy Charter Treaty: Eiser and Charanne in the Context of Climate Change
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
- Tilmann Altwicker, Explaining the Emergence of Transnational Counter-Terrorism Legislation in International Law-Making
- Mehrnoosh Farzamfar, Diplomatic Assurances in Cases of Expulsion to Torture:A Critical Analysis
- Vincent Dalpé, Delimiting the ICC's Ominous Shadow: An Analysis of the Inability Criterion's Nebulous Contours
- Special Section: Sovereignty, Territory and Jurisdiction
- Ilja Richard Pavone, The Ukraine Crisis as a Paradigm of the Limits of International Law and the West's Faults
- Richard C Watkins, Jurisdiction in International Human Rights Law: Application of the European Convention to Soldiers Deployed Overseas
- Heini Tuura, Intervention by Invitation and the Principle of Self-Determination in the Crimean Crisis
- Marc Shucksmith-Wesley, Uti Possidetis: The Procrustean Bed of International Law?
- Giuliano Vosa, From Authorisation to Multi-Parliamentarism: Parliaments in Global Law-Making
Monday, January 15, 2018
TEACHING AND RESEARCHING INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ASIA
The Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore will be hosting a conference from 21 to 22 June 2018 on “Teaching and Researching International Law in Asia” (TRILA). The broad purposes of the Conference are to assess the current state of teaching and research in International Law in the Asia Pacific region, to identify commonly experienced challenges for teachers of international law, and to formulate a programme of further action and activities to assist individuals in their teaching and research. This Conference follows in the footsteps of the successful Conference held on the same topic in Singapore in 2001. It also complements the ongoing work of the Asian Society of International Law.
The Conference will be preceded by a Junior Faculty Workshop on the 20th of June, which is directed at exploring the challenges junior faculty confront at the beginning of their careers in establishing themselves as teachers and in developing a scholarly agenda.
The Conference on Teaching and Researching
International Law (TRILA)
The Conference will feature a variety of formats – panels, roundtables, break-out sessions – to enable both focused discussion and widespread participation. Topics, themes and issues to be explored include, but are not confined to the following:
- the relevance and importance of international law to the practice of law
- how to make the study of public international law relevant and engaging to students
- the relationship between international and national law
- the place of international law in the law school curriculum
- curriculum content–what topics should be included in a core public international law course, including the possibility of incorporating non-traditional areas (e.g., technology, cyberspace, environment, investment, corporate social responsibility, and others)
- what should be the purpose of teaching international law in an era of globalization
- teaching and research methods in institutions with limited resources
- what teaching methods and materials are appropriate for a course taught in the Asia Pacific region, including the role of moot courts and other experiential learning methods
- the history and theory of international law in the Asia Pacific region and its place in the teaching of international law
- the challenges of teaching international law in the local language
- balancing the demands of teaching and scholarship
- recent developments in international law scholarship
- the internet and the teaching of international law
- the relationship between teaching, scholarly work, and national policy
- the challenges of researching and publishing with limited resources
- comparing the challenges faced by scholars and teachers in Asia with those facing their colleagues in Africa and Latin America
The Conference will be held from 21 to 22 June 2018.
How to Participate
Persons anywhere in the world who are interested in participating in the Conference are invited to submit the following:
1. a curriculum vitae listing work experience, qualifications, publications, and other relevant information
2. a short think piece of no more than 600 words dealing with any issue/topic relating to the broad themes of the Conference OR an official nomination from the Dean of the Law School indicating why the nominee should be selected and how the nominee can contribute to the conference
The deadline for submissions is on 15 January 2018 (extended to 22 January 2018). We expect to be able to announce the result of the paper selection in mid-February 2018.
You may sign up here to express your interest in joining the Conference. We will then provide you with updates, reminders, and other relevant information pertaining to the Conference. You may submit your application requirements here.
Participation in this event is by invitation of selected applicants only.
Junior Faculty Workshop
The Conference will be preceded by a Junior Faculty Workshop on 20 June 2018 which is directed at exploring the challenges junior faculty confront at the beginning of their careers in establishing themselves as teachers and developing a scholarly agenda. Participants of the workshop will have the opportunity to present their works in progress for comment. The workshop will include a forum which will deal with topics including: developing a research agenda; the relationship between teaching and scholarship; the elements of good scholarship; preparing an article for publication.
Participants in the Junior Faculty Workshop will be invited to remain for the Conference on 21st and 22d June.
How to Participate
Teachers of international law who are younger than 35 years of age OR who have no more than six years of teaching experience, are invited to apply. Please submit:
1. a 600 words or less abstract of your paper in progress
2. a curriculum vitae containing details of qualifications, work experience, publications
Papers relating to all topics of international law – General international law, the use of force, human rights, international environmental law, investment law, the history and theory of international law – are welcome.
The deadline for the submission of these materials is 22 January 2018. We expect to be able to announce the result of the paper selection by the last week of February. Participants who are selected will be requested to submit their completed papers (no more than 8,000 words) by 15 April 2018.
You may sign up here to express your interest in joining the Junior Faculty Workshop. We will then provide you with updates, reminders, and other relevant information pertaining to the workshop. You may submit your application requirements here.
Participation in the Conference and in the Workshop are free while lunch and snacks will be provided at the venue. Participants are, however, expected to take care of their other costs.
For inquiries, please contact Mr. Robert Real (firstname.lastname@example.org)