Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

Invitation to Friends of I-CONnect: Colloquium on Comparative Constitutional Law and Politics

Richard Albert, Williams Stamps Farish Professor in Law and Professor of Government, The University of Texas at Austin

All are welcome to attend sessions of the Colloquium on Comparative Constitutional Law and Politics, held here at the University of Texas at Austin over the next few months.

All sessions will run from 3:45pm to 5:45pm in the Susman Conference Center at the Law School in room JON 5.206.

I am particularly pleased to host my I-CONnect colleague, David Landau (Florida State), who will present a draft on “Abusive Judicial Review: Courts Against Democracy” on Tuesday, November 12.

I will also host six other scholars: Justin Collings (BYU), Michael Pal (Ottawa), Julie Suk (CUNY), Yvonne Tew (Georgetown), Rivka Weill (IDC-Herzliya) and Andrew Young (Texas Tech). Their paper titles are indicated below.

Print Friendly
Published on September 5, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Challenging “Divine” Law: Protecting Gender Rights in Sri Lanka and Beyond

Dian A H Shah, National University Singapore Faculty of Law

[Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. Columns, while scholarly in accordance with the tone of the blog and about the same length as a normal blog post, are a bit more “op-ed” in nature than standard posts. For more information about our four columnists for 2019, see here. This post is inspired by the proceedings and discussions at the ‘Gender Equality and Freedom of Religion’ Workshop in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The author would like to thank the Centre for Asian Legal Studies at NUS Faculty of Law, the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES), the Ralph Bunche Institute, and the Special Rapporteur for the Freedom of Religion and Belief, Dr Ahmad Shaheed, and his team for supporting and organizing the Workshop.]

The Easter Sunday bombings have generated fresh attention on religious relations and the delicate task of managing religion in Sri Lanka. Within a month after the bombings, anti-Muslim violence escalated in parts of the country, which eventually led to an extension of the state of emergency and government-imposed bans on social media in a bid to restrict the spread of hate speech, fake news, and incitement to violence. At the same time, there was a strong sense that the state had been slow to react against the violence and protect Muslim minorities from increasing (and organized) persecution and discrimination following the terror attacks in April. In particular, human rights and civil society organizations have highlighted the ways in which right-wing Sinhala-Buddhist groups have continued to lead and perpetrate anti-Muslim mobilization and attacks with a great degree of impunity. The series of events in May 2019 marked the second anti-Muslim riots in Sri Lanka after the political change in January 2015,[1] and with the growing populist and anti-minority discourse in the country, the promise of democratization and rule of law remains difficult to fulfil in the shadow of ethnic politics.

Amidst the ongoing inter-religious tensions, Sri Lankan Muslims are facing another uphill battle that implicates the relationship between law, religion, and politics. It concerns an important issue that has received far less attention globally: the reform of Muslim personal law – the Marriage and Divorce (Muslim) Act 1951 (commonly referred to as the MMDA). Efforts to reform have spanned over three decades, and while a number of committees have been set up at various points in time to study and propose changes to the MMDA, these have not been successful.[2] The most recent attempt at reforming the MMDA, which continues today, emerged from the establishment of a committee by the government in 2009. The constitutional reform process in Sri Lanka – which was among the new government’s key electoral pledges and began in 2016 – breathed new life into debates on MMDA reforms. In 2018, the Marsoof Committee[3] finally submitted its report to the government, but even then it failed to reach a consensus on several key issues, most of which involve women’s rights and interests. This stalemate raises several constitutional issues with regard to the protection of Muslim women in Sri Lanka, but more broadly, they elicit questions about the ways in which the state manages religion, religious freedom, and the right to non-discrimination, particularly for vulnerable groups.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on September 4, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

Visions of Representation in Croatian Direct Democracy

–Matija Miloš, Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Croatia

What does it mean to “represent” the electorate? This issue is in the core of ongoing controversies raised by citizens’ initiatives, a form of direct democracy made a part of the Croatian Constitution almost twenty years ago. While direct democracy is normally reduced to an unmediated decision of “the people” and as such opposed to representation, citizens’ initiatives in Croatia have been vitally shaped by conflicting understandings of what representation is and what would remain of it once the initiative is carried through.

Two different understandings of representation dominate in the Croatian case. The first is representation as a political practice of speaking and acting for “the people”. Secondly, representation is understood to be a distinct, ongoing procedure that is constituted by law and can thus be legally separated from processes that may intersect with it. The main actor in shaping both is the Constitutional Court, the result being a form of direct democracy that poorly engages the electorate and simultaneously funnels political disputes, sometimes intensely political, into constitutional adjudication. While the Court emerges empowered, the contours of direct democracy and representation in Croatian law remain hazy.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on September 3, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

What’s New in Public Law

Simon Drugda, PhD Candidate at the University of Copenhagen

In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in public law. “Developments” may include a selection of links to news, high court decisions, new or recent scholarly books and articles, and blog posts from around the public law blogosphere.

To submit relevant developments for our weekly feature on “What’s New in Public Law,” please email

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Russia committed numerous human rights violations against Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who died in a Moscow prison in 2009 after complaining of maltreatment.
  2. The Thailand Ombudsman challenged swearing-in ceremony of the PM and government officials before the Constitutional Court. The Cabinet of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha failed to recite the complete oath of office, omitting the sentence: “I will also uphold and comply with the constitution of the kingdom in every aspect.”
  3. The Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered disciplinary action against a judge who convicted former PM Nawaz Sharif.
  4. The Supreme Court of India will hear challenges to a government order revoking the autonomy of contested Kashmir. The Court also allowed an opposition politician to visit the region that has been under lockdown for weeks.
  5. The Supreme Court of South Korea will consider whether to uphold the bribery conviction of Jay Y. Lee, a Samsung heir, in a scandal that unseated former President Park Geun-hye.

In the News

  1. The UN Human Rights Committee found that Nepal violated Articles 7 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in a case of a domestic worker, who claimed that he was tortured and forced to work in Kathmandu from the age of 9.
  2. Lawmakers in China adopted a new legislation to allow local governments to tax up to 164 resources, including fossil fuels, minerals and eventually water, at their own discretion.
  3. The Queen of the United Kingdom approved a request by PM Boris Johnson to suspend the Parliament for almost a month in the run-up to Brexit. The attempt to suspend the Parliament has been challenged in courts.
  4. The President of Ukraine has submitted to the Parliament several draft single-subject constitutional amendments, including a proposal to reduce the number of MPs and introduce citizens’ legislative initiative. The amendments were flagged as urgent for consideration of the Parliament, which agreed to expediate the legislative process.
  5. The Parliament of North Korea approved constitutional amendment to solidify leader Kim Jong Un’s role as head of state.
  6. A Brazilian congressional committee approved a proposed constitutional amendment to allow commercial agriculture on indigenous reserves, a practice that is currently prohibited.
  7. Philippine lawmakers introduced legislation based loosely on a Netflix political thriller called the “Designated Survivor” to ensure the country has a president in the case of a constitutional leadership crisis.

New Scholarship

  1. Charles M. Fombad and Nico Steytler (eds), Decentralization and Constitutionalism in Africa (2019) (exploring the objectives and impact of decentralization initiatives in Africa and the conditions necessary for their effective implementation)
  2. Anna Olijnyk, Justice and Efficiency in Mega-Litigation (2019) (exploring the phenomenon of extremely long-running, resource-intensive civil litigation known as “mega-litigation”)
  3. Melissa Crouch, The Constitution of Myanmar: A Contextual Analysis (2019) (providing a thorough analysis of the 2008 Constitution of Myanmar in its historical, political and social context)
  4. Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, and Xavier Groussot, The Future of Europe Political and Legal Integration Beyond Brexit (2019) (examining the question how to achieve sustainable political and legal integration in Europe)
  5. Graham Butler, Constitutional Law of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy Competence and Institutions in External Relations (2019) (arguing that the legal framework for EU foreign affairs must adapt in a changing world so as to ensure the EU treaties can cater for a more assertive Europe in the wider world)

Call for Papers and Announcements

  1. The flagship journal of Gujarat National Law University, the GNLU Law Review invites submission for its 7th edition. The deadline for submissions is December 15, 2019.
  2. The European Society of International Law (ESIL) at the European University Institute (EUI) invites submissions for a conference on “Solidarity-The Quest for Founding Utopias of International Law,” to be held on April 23-24, 2020. The deadline for submission of abstracts is September 20, 2020.
  3. The Rehnquist Center invites submissions for the third annual National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars. The conference will be held at the Westward Look Resort in Tucson, Arizona, on March 20-21, 2020. The deadline for submission of abstracts is November 1, 2019.
  4. The WZB Berlin Social Science Center invites applications for a Research Fellow position (post-doc) at the Center for Global Constitutionalism headed by Mattias Kumm. The deadline for applications is September 16, 2019.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Richard Albert, A new Constitution for Ontario and new hope for Doug Ford, The Toronto Star
  2. Pierre Thielboerger, Una-Fjord-able: Why Trump cannot buy Greenland, Völkerrechtsblog
  3. Stefan Theil, Prorogued until October?, Verfassungsblog
  4. Michael Gordon, Is Boris Johnson’s parliamentary prorogation constitutional? How to understand the UK system, The Conversation
  5. Chitranshul Sinha, How “seditious speech” was dropped from draft Indian constitution but is still a crime, Quartz India
  6. Pierre de Vos, Why the National Assembly is constitutionally required to adopt rules for the removal of the Public Protector and other members of Chapter 9 bodies, Constitutionally Speaking
  7. Nicholas Tsagourias, Electoral Cyber Interference, Self-Determination and the Principle of Non-Intervention in Cyberspace, EJIL: Talk!
  8. Kieran Pender, “A powerful chill”? Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23 and the political expression of public servants, AUSPUBLAW
  9. Mark Elliott, The Brexit Secretary says he has “set in stone” the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 — but the legal significance of this misleading claim is very limited, Public Law for Everyone
  10. Ibrahima Amadou Niang, A new Guinean Constitution at All Costs? Africa’s Latest Third-Term Quagmire, ConstitutionNet
Print Friendly
Published on September 2, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

To Prorogue or Not: An Implied Constitutional Convention to End a ‘Constitutional Outrage’

Theodore Konstadinides, Professor of Law, University of Essex, and Charilaos Nikolaidis, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex

What would happen if the Queen decided not to give her assent to a bill properly passed by the Houses of Parliament? The answer is an unstable and dangerous situation – a constitutional confrontation or outrage. We are less inclined to use the term ‘constitutional crisis’[1] since there is no ultimate standard that can be used as an indicator that the UK has entered into such a crisis. And yet one may reasonably rush to identify the elements of a ‘constitutional crisis’ to tell the current story as a legal challenge to stop the Prime Minister (PM) from proroguing Parliament is being launched in Edinburgh, Belfast, and London high courts.[2]

To carry on from the example that opens this short analysis, the norm that would prevent a ‘constitutional crisis’ rests in the political tradition, or, to put it in formal terms, the ‘constitutional convention’, that the Monarch will not refuse to give her assent to any such bill. Now let us think of a bill which has not been approved by the House of Commons and goes straight from the House of Lords to receive royal assent. In that ‘unthinkable’ scenario, the Monarch would have to refuse giving her assent. The point to be made here is that the Queen does have a choice in performing her prerogative powers. The reason one may come to think that the Queen will always agree to what is formally presented to her in the Parliamentary process is that such a process is properly followed.

But ‘unthinkable’ times call for ‘unthinkable’ reactions.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on September 1, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

The 2019 Indonesian General Election: Constitutional Odds and Ends

–Stefanus Hendrianto, Boston College

On June 27, 2019, the Indonesian Constitutional Court rejected the petition of presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto to nullify the presidential election result. All nine justices rejected Subianto’s petition in its entirety, and, the Court reaffirmed the victory of the incumbent President, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and his running mate, a conservative cleric, Maruf Amin with an 11% lead over the ticket of Prabowo Subianto and Sandiaga Uno. Nowadays, the attention has shifted to Jokowi’s cabinet line-up. Regardless how bold will Jokowi be in appointing the Cabinet ministers, there are still many unresolved unconstitutional issues stemming from the Presidential Election, and many more constitutional issues are awaiting in Jokowi’s second term. 

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on August 30, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Bolsonaro’s Attacks on Brazilian Environmental Agencies: When “Money Talks” May Have the Last Word

Juliano Zaiden Benvindo, University of Brasília

Brazil’s environmental protection going downhill has been recently highlighted by major newspapers. The Economist, on its first cover of August, featured the following headline: “Deathwatch for the Amazon: The Threat of Runaway Deforestation”. The New York Times, just a few days before, published the report “Under Brazil’s Far-Right Leader, Amazon Protections Slashed and Forests Fall”. The French Le Monde followed suit right afterwards: “Deforestation record in Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro’s dangerous game.” And, more directly, The Guardian published an editorial at that same week claiming that “Europe must act to prevent disaster.”. The international media made visible the outcome of a series of governmental attacks on longstanding and rather successful environmental policies in the Amazon’s huge territory. Under President Jair Bolsonaro’s government, an explicit dismantling of Brazil’s mechanisms and institutions of environmental protection is taking place, particularly the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), a well-known and respected governmental agency for monitoring the Amazon region, and the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the anti-deforestation agency for combating in place any threats to the Amazon forest. Yet, such a movement is visibly reckless in face of the strategic position that Brazil holds as one of the world’s greatest agribusiness powers, and especially in view of the recently signed EU-MERCOSUR trade agreement, which sets out a number of obligations on environmental protection and is still in need of approval by the parliaments of MERCOSUR countries (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay) and Europe. Is there, in such a move, any political strategy? And what are the possible consequences of such a strategy?

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on August 28, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

‘Four Interpretations (Barely) Make One Footnote’: Pension Trio, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Casting of the TCC’s Reform Jurisprudence in Justice Stone

Ming-Sung Kuo, Associate Professor of Law, University of Warwick and Hui-Wen Chen, Research Assistant, University of Warwick

On 23 August, the Taiwan Constitutional Court (TCC) pronounced the much expected decision on the constitutionality of controversial legislation on pension reform in three Interpretations, namely, Interpretation Nos 781, 782, and 783, which we call the Pension Trio

As part of President TSAI Ing-Wen’s ‘New Deal’ when she was elected on a platform of reform in 2016, the impugned legislation at the centre of the Pension Trio consists of three separate statutes, each of which governs the state-underwritten pension schemes for armed forces, civil service, and teaching and non-teaching staffs of public schools, respectively.  With an eye to turning the three heavily-subsidized and diminishing state-run retirement funds into self-sufficient pension schemes, the impugned legislation in the Pension Trio was amended to cut, inter alia, pension payments to the three groups as noted above, prompting thousands of current and soon-to-be pensioners into legal dogfighting with the TCC as their last hope. 

While the TCC struck down a common clause on the ground of equal protection in the Pension Trio, it rejected petitioners’ claims that were based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the prohibition against retroactive legislation.  All the foundational clauses of the impugned legislation were upheld under the principle of proportionality.    

As President Tsai is heading into her re-election campaign, the TCC—by delivering the Pension Trio—not only concludes an unprecedented legal battle full of twists and turns but also gives a thumping endorsement to her signature reform.  Is the Pension Trio simply a rubber stamp to the governmental reform agenda?  Is it President Tsai’s eventual payoff for her earlier judicial appointments?  Does it tell us something about the TCC’s jurisprudence?

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on August 27, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

What’s New in Public Law

–Angélique Devaux, Cheuvreux Notaires, Paris, France, Diplômée notaire, LL.M. Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in public law. “Developments” may include a selection of links to news, high court decisions, new or recent scholarly books and articles, and blog posts from around the public law blogosphere.

To submit relevant developments for our weekly feature on “What’s New in Public Law,” please email

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. The Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled against historical inequalities in land ownership.
  2. The Constitutional Court of South Africa upheld the prohibition of interim orders in divorce cases.
  3. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany upheld rent control regulations.
  4. The Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in favor of the Hawaiian language at school.
  5. South Africa’s Equality Court ruled that display of the apartheid-era flag constitutes hate speech.

In the News

  1. Portugal debates transgender rules at school.
  2. The Supreme Court of Utah rejected a citizen’s petition for medical marijuana.
  3. A federal judge in Kansas found unconstitutional a law making it a crime to encourage immigrants to enter or live illegally in the country.
  4. The Supreme Court of India will examine if the practice of divorce through triple talaq is constitutional.
  5. The Italian Government seeks to form a new coalition.

New Scholarship

  1. Ran Hirschl and Ayelet Shachar, Spatial Statism, International Journal of Constitutional Law 17 (2019) (considering how space, place and density impact the conceptualization and utilization of state power in a world of growing complexity and interdependence)
  2. Roger Masterman and Robert Schütze, The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Constitutional Law (Cambridge University Press 2019) (presenting readers with a succinct yet wide-ranging companion to a modern comparative constitutional law course, offering a wide-ranging yet concise introduction to the subject)
  3. Christoph Bezemek, Insult of Public Officials: A Free Speech Perspective, in Frederic Schauer and Adrienne Stone (eds), Oxford Handbook on Freedom of Speech (forthcoming 2019) (analysing free speech from the perspective of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and international human rights law)
  4. Terry Skolnik, Homelessness and Unconstitutional Discrimination, Journal of Law and Equality (2019) (discussing homelessness as a plausible ground of discrimination)
  5. Sushmita Patel and Arum PS, Democratising Lawmaking: The Tale of Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy (2019) (tracing the implementation of Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy since 2014, through RTIs and analysing of bills formulated since the policy came into force)

Calls for Papers and announcements

  1. The Review of Constitutional Studies invites submissions in English and French for its issues 24 and 25. The deadline for submitting a manuscript for issue 24(2) is November 1, 2019. Submissions for issue 25(1) will be reviewed on a rolling basis.
  2. The Admin Law Blog calls for submissions to the blog.
  3. UCL Laws and Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome organize a conference on “The Rise of Constitutional Identity Review in Europe: A Critical Assessment,” to be held on September 12-13, 2019.
  4. King’s College London invites submissions for a workshop on “Bringing the Human problem back into transnational law: The example of corporate (ir)responsibility,” to be held on March 19-20, 2020. Paper proposals are due by October 1, 2019.
  5. The Center for Comparative Legal Studies and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and the Reves Center for International Studies host a symposium on “Rethinking Constitutions when Democracy Is under Siege: A Global Perspective,” on Friday, September 13, 2019.
  6. The 26th IPSA World Congress of Political Science invites submission on “Constitutional Transitions to Democracy: Path and Legacies” for its conference to be held in Lisbon, Portugal on July 25-29, 2020.
  7. The Law and Society Association calls for submissions for its annual meeting to be held in Denver, Colorado on May 28-31, 2020

Elsewhere Online

  1. Richard Albert, A New Constitution for Ontario and New Hope for Doug Ford, The Toronto Star
  2. Douglas Togaraseyi Mwonzora, Why Zimbabwe Should Amend the Constitution to Abolish the Death Penalty, ConstitutionNet
  3. Joseph H.K. Weller, Daniel Sarmineto, Jonathan Faull, An Offer the EU and the UK cannot refuse, Verfassungsblog
  4. Valentin Vandendaele, Commission v. Germany (C-377/17): DO Exceptions in Tariff Regulation Matter? European Law Blog
  5. Balu Gopalakrishman Nair, Article 370: Is it a Basic Feature of the Indian Constitution?, Verfassungsblog
  6. Ruthann Robson, Missouri Federal Judge Finds State Representative Violated First Amendment by Twitter Blocking, Constitutional Law Prof Blog
  7. Giuseppe Resentment, Populism and Political Strategies in Italy, Verfassungsblog
  8. Juliet Nyamao, The Perpetual Endeavour: Gender-Mainstreaming and Sustainable Development in Kenya, AfricLaw
  9. Ming-Sung Kuo, Living in the Shadow of Flawed Peace: How General International Law is Implicated in the Trade War between Japan and South Korea, EJIL: Talk!
Print Friendly
Published on August 26, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Deadline: September 1–Call for Papers–Conference on Constitution-Making and Constitutional Change–The University of Texas at Austin–January 17-18, 2020

The International Forum on the Future of Constitutionalism

invites submissions for

Conference on Constitution-Making and Constitutional Change

The University of Texas Law School
Austin, Texas
January 17-18, 2020

Submissions are invited from faculty and graduate students for a two-day conference on “Constitution-Making and Constitutional Change,” to be held in Austin at the University of Texas Law School.

The program will feature: (1) concurrent panels in which submitted works-in-progress will be the focus of discussion; and (2) a series of plenary lectures delivered by the Comparative Constitutionalism faculty at the University of Texas at Austin.

This conference is convened by Professor Richard Albert (Texas) and is generously sponsored by The University of Texas Law School.

Subject-Matter of the Conference

Submissions are welcome on any subject of constitutional change, broadly defined, including but not limited to constitutional amendment, constitutional reform, constitutional conventions, constitutional transitions, constitution-making, judicial interpretation and review, unwritten constitutional norms, revolution, and forms of direct democracy including referendums.

Eligibility for the Conference

Submissions are invited from faculty as well as students enrolled in graduate programs in various disciplines (including but not limited to history, law, political science, and sociology). Submissions are welcomed on any subject related to the conference theme. Submissions may take comparative, doctrinal, empirical, historical, philosophical, sociological, theoretical, or other perspectives.


The Comparative Constitutionalism faculty at the University of Texas at Austin is diverse across many dimensions including nationality, methodology, jurisdictional focus, and normative commitments but it is lacking in other forms of diversity, most notably gender and racial diversity. The conference will presumptively accept submissions whose authors will diversify the group on those two fronts. It is a goal of the convener, in his capacity as a member of the Appointments Committee, to work towards increasing the diversity of the Comparative Constitutionalism faculty.

Structure of the Conference

The conference will be structured around plenary lectures and concurrent panels comprised of faculty and graduate students in law, history, political science, and other fields of interest.

Each of the plenary lectures will focus on different dimensions of the subject of constitution-making and constitutional change.  Plenary lectures will be delivered by members of the Law and Government faculties at the University of Texas at Austin, including Sanford Levinson and Gary Jacobsohn.

In addition to the keynote lectures, the two-day conference will feature concurrent panels composed of papers selected from this Call. The purpose of the panels is to convene groups of faculty and graduate students for a high-level discussion on enduring and emerging questions raised by the conference theme. Panels will be chaired by members of the Law and Government faculties at the University of Texas at Austin. These panels will offer participants a combination of rigorous scholarly exchange and group discussion on the ideas in the papers. Conference meals will offer an opportunity for more relaxed social interaction.

Submission Instructions

Interested scholars should email a title and abstract no longer than 500 words by September 1, 2019 to on the understanding that the abstract will form the basis of the pre-conference draft or outline to be submitted by November 15, 2019. Scholars should identify their submission with the following subject line: “Conference on Constitution-Making and Constitutional Change—Abstract Submission.” All materials should be submitted as a single PDF document, and should include at the top of the first page the author’s name, academic title, institutional affiliation, mailing address, and email address. There is no minimum or maximum length for drafts or outlines (to be submitted by November 15), nor are there plans to publish the papers to be presented at the conference.


Successful applicants will be notified no later than September 15, 2019.


There is no cost to participate in this conference. Group meals will be generously sponsored by The University of Texas Law School. Participants will also be eligible to apply for reimbursement of their travel costs up to $250.


Please direct inquiries in connection with this Conference to:

Richard Albert
William Stamps Farish Professor in Law and Professor of Government
The University of Texas at Austin
Phone/WhatsApp: +1 617-756-2622

Print Friendly
Published on August 25, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments