In this issue
Gaza – Abraham, Where Art Thou?
The future of the ICON•S project
In this issue
The Articles section in this issue includes five contributions. The first, by Victoria Melkisedeck Lihiru analyzes why the safeguards in Eswatini’s 2005 Constitution have failed to increase women’s representation in the House of Assembly. The author makes the case for constitutional change to establish effective mechanisms to promote gender parity in the national parliament.
In the second article, Conor O’Mahony examines the growing recognition of children’s rights in national constitutions, and the ongoing debate over their explicit protection. The authoradvocates for specific, judicially-enforceable constitutional provisions dedicated to children’s rights.
In the next article, Violeta Beširević delves into the largely overlooked issue of state de-recognition and the parent state’s de-recognition campaign following unilateral secession. This article situates these campaigns within constitutional theory, exploring their connection to sovereignty and territorial integrity. The author argues that despite challenges, such campaigns have important remedial effects in constitutional and international law. Ultimately, it positions de-recognition campaigns as legitimate counter-secessionist strategy that preserves the parent state’s influence over the recognition of contested states.
This is followed by an article by Max Steuer and James Organ, who examine the concept of “value talk” in European Union politics and law, focusing on how key stakeholders debate EU values. Using the European Citizens’ Panel (ECP) held during the Conference on the Future of Europe as a case study, this article examines two approaches to discussing values: reductionism, which isolates individual values, and holism, which conceives of values as interconnected. The authors consider that participating citizens favoured a holistic approach, and that embracing holism is crucial for advancing and strengthening EU values within EU constitutionalism.
Last, but not least, George Katrougalos responds to Philipp Dann’s call for a counterpart to third world approaches to international law (TWAIL) by proposing a “connected constitutionalism” approach. Focusing on the Arab world, it challenges assumptions about Islam’s incompatibility with democracy, and argues that non-secular constitutionalism can support democratic governance.
The issue also features a symposium on Women, Gender and Constitutionalism in Central and Eastern Europe, curated by Barbara Havelková, Mathias Möschel, and Anna Śledzińska-Simon. Following their Introduction to the symposium, Ana Horvat Vuković and Ana Samobor explore how Croatia and Slovenia have addressed gender dynamics, focusing on constitutional developments in reproductive rights, marriage and parenthood. The article traces the evolution from post-socialist re-traditionalization to EU-driven reforms, contrasting the differing judicial responses to gender equality in both countries.
Barbara Havelková, Terezie Boková, and Lucia Berdisová analyze how gender is addressed—or more accurately, not addressed—in the constitutional frameworks of Czechia and Slovakia. The article explores two avoidance strategies: “non-constitutionalization”, particularly through restrictive standing rules in Slovakia, and “avoidant constitutionalization”, seen in both the Czech and Slovakian courts’ use of procedural dismissals, selective reasoning and legislative deference.
Lídia Balogh and Tímea Drinózci examine how successive Hungarian constitutions, both liberal and illiberal, have shaped the country’s gender order and the jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court. It argues that the Court has consistently upheld traditional interpretations of gender-related issues, including on issues of gender equality, marriage, abortion, and gender identity.
Elena Brodeală explores how Romania’s post-socialist Constitution has shaped gender roles and family structures, highlighting the tension between progressive reforms and lingering legal restraints, and the tensions in approaches to family and gender in Romania’s evolving legal landscape. The author outlines how Romania’s Constitutional Court has played a significant role in advancing gender equality, particularly in recognizing the social construction of gender roles. However, its more recent rulings, especially on same-sex marriage, reflect a conservative shift, suggesting that resistance to LGBT+ and intersectional equality may now be driving constitutional restraint.
Anna Śledzińska-Simon then examines abortion access as a lens to evaluate women’s constitutional rights through distinct phases of Polish constitutionalism. The author argues that illiberal constitutionalism is not an exception, but part of a deeper, persistent pattern of using constitutional review to erode protections for women’s rights.
In a final contribution to this symposium—to be published separately, in 2026—Ivo Gruev will explore the rise of gender contestation in Bulgaria, analyzing recent judgments of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court.
H.H.
In this issue, we feature four review essays, together with a reply by one of the authors, and one book review. They cover a diverse range of topics across multiple jurisdictions, including populism, free speech and social media, comparative representation-reinforcement theories, and constitutional development in New Zealand—a country that remains underexplored in constitutional scholarship.
In his review essay on Filtering Populist Claims to Fight Populism by Giuseppe Martinico, Antoni Abat i Ninet contends that “from a theoretical perspective, it is surprising that Martinico views these populist strategies as deviations from ‘constitutionalism’ rather than as distortions of the democratic principle—a democratic disfigurement.” Giuseppe Martinico responds by clarifying that his work seeks to examine populism through the lens of constitutionalism, aiming to enrich a debate largely dominated by political scientists and sociologists.
In a review essay on Responsive Judicial Review, Roberto Gargarella critically engages with the book’s conception of (deliberative) democracy and its treatment of democratic dysfunction.
Hui-Chieh Su reviews Constitutionalising Social Media, edited by Edoardo Celeste, Amélie Heldt and Clara Iglesias Keller, and Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of Our Democracy, edited by Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, highlighting the stark differences in their analytical depth and perspectives despite covering similar themes.
Rosalind Dixon, in her review essay on How to Interpret the Constitution, underscores the implicit assumptions about constitutional fixed points that underpin Cass Sunstein’s proposed framework for navigating competing approaches to interpretation and construction.
Finally, Claire Charters, reviewing The Constitution of New Zealand: A Contextual Analysis by Matthew SR Palmer and Dean R Knight, argues that while the book offers a valuable overview, it paints an overly optimistic picture when contrasted with the lived constitutional experiences of Māori communities.
CCL
Gaza – Abraham, Where Art Thou?
By WAFA (Q2915969) in contract with a local company (APAimages) – Correspondence with Wiki Palestine (Q117834684), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=138775621
From Genesis 18
And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous. I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.
And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?
And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty’s sake. And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty’s sake. And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.
Abraham, Oh Abraham, Where art thou?
JHHW
The future of the ICON•S project
When the International Society of Public Law (ICON•S) was founded and hosted its inaugural conference in Florence in 2014, the world was a different place. As scholars gathered together in Italy, many of them were imbued with a strong sense of hope and a firm belief in the vital role of public law and international law. The first keynote lecture featured Jeremy Waldron speaking on different conceptions of the rule of law, emphasizing its necessary orientation towards the public and pushing back against more market-oriented conceptions of the rule of law, as adopted, for example, by the World Bank. “Public law,” Waldron argued, “is about people organized in political institutions attending to the demands of the common good often under changing conditions. Those are the circumstances of public law. The rule of law demands that they do so in legal form, not just by edict and action.”[1]
Eleven years later, this idea of the rule of law (and of public law) has come under attack—in a way barely imaginable to those in Florence at the ICON•S inaugural conference, even though early warning signs were already on the horizon. 2014 was the year that saw Victor Orbán win the Hungarian elections. In the same year, Nicolás Maduro, who had just succeeded Chávez in the presidency of Venezuela, expanded the regime’s repressive tactics. Donald Trump announced his own presidential campaign only a year later, in 2015. Since then, our political parameters and perspectives have shifted at an increasingly rapid pace.
Today, public international lawyers are discussing whether there is a future for public international law at all, given its blatant disregard in Ukraine and Gaza by both major and minor powers; and if so, what that future may hold. Human rights have been seen as going too far, or not far enough, by scholars on the left and right, with authoritarian movements and actors increasingly appropriating the language of rights.[2] In constitutional law, too, the terms of the debate have shifted: it has become amply clear that the threat of authoritarianism and the existence of populism—now present in democracies once considered stable and resilient—are not blips to be ignored or temporary moments that will pass. Democratic reconstruction cannot be guaranteed,[3] regardless of the return, for now, to more democratic governments in Brazil and Poland. The threats are here to stay.
For public lawyers, these developments have been interesting and challenging at the same time. We need a better understanding of how we came to inherit the world we live in today, and of course, we also need to think about the way forward and the role of public law in the future. Some have suggested that public law scholars have previously overemphasized the role of law and courts, and that this may have contributed to an increasing sense of powerlessness among citizens. Though causal explanations are not straightforward, the question of how to respond to the rise of authoritarianism remains unclear. If some think that the way to respond is by designing more militant and/or resilient legal rules and institutions, for those who believe that law has been part of the problem, this cannot be the only solution. If these critics are right, we should think about ways of connecting politics and public law more closely. Other critics have drawn attention to the birth defects of constitutionalism and human rights from a postcolonial perspective, arguing for a comprehensive rethinking of these concepts. Yet, one thing seems clear: most public lawyers are still invested in the defense of liberal democracy as it emerged in the post-war era and emphasize the need to hold onto core legal guardrails. For while it would be naive to think that all of us will agree on what to do and how much to change, there are some things we—as scholars of public law—hope will remain common ground.
How should a Society such as ICON•S respond to these challenges?
The previous co-presidents viewed their mission as “transforming thought into action to defend the values of public law,”[4] responding to the rise of authoritarianism in many places in the world. That mission prompted critical commentary from some who questioned the overemphasis on the role of scholars and characterized it in terms of “scholactivism”—scholarship geared toward bringing about political change rather than pursuing knowledge or truth.[5] The Society’s institutional position has, of course, not been scholactivist in that sense. Indeed, ICON•S has generally shied away from disseminating political statements, even if it has provided—and will continue to provide and even expand—countless opportunities to discuss and bring visibility to the problems mentioned above. Many ICON•S members have done admirable work to strengthen the resilience of public institutions against authoritarian takeover in their jurisdictions and abroad, such as in Brazil, Poland, Israel, and elsewhere.[6] Many of our members understand such activism as central to the defense of democratic values and as an important part of the exercise of academic freedom. At the same time, those who prefer not to participate in such activities or who adopt a principled or pragmatic approach to avoid engaging in advocacy should not be pressured to do so. There are many kinds of worthwhile contributions, and not all involve speaking out in public. As a scholarly society, our core function is to create inclusive spaces for academic discussion, transcending political and regional boundaries. In this setting, reasons and methods matter more than how loudly or aggressively the messages are communicated. This, more than any particular mission, seems essential to us as we move forward.
This does not mean that ICON•S should always remain neutral. As a global society of public law, our commitment to the rule of law and democracy must stand firm and reject authoritarian positions, such as defenses of one-party states or arguments in favor of gross human rights violations. But while both of us, and probably most of our members, are committed to constitutional democracy, we invite those critical voices, particularly in a postcolonial setting, who have set out to challenge key precepts of constitutionalism or human rights, to engage with us, in the hope of improving what we have or used to have, or imagining something new.
As comparative public law scholars, it is also relevant to be committed to good academic practices and methods in the project of comparative studies. This entails the need to identify sensitive problems connected to misuses of our field’s knowledge, such as forms of “abusive borrowing”, just to name an example.[7] We also believe in a robust defense of academic freedom, which is threatened today in many jurisdictions through various direct and indirect forms, from defunding universities to outright censorship, from threatening to regulate admissions programs to putting pressure on the goals and themes of academic research, from changes that weaken the academic career, or that allow partisan appointees to take over academic institutions, and seek to transform universities into little more than think tanks.
The International Society of Public Law, as one of the central meeting points for global scholarship on public law, has a role to play in this—and is in many ways in a much better position to confront these questions today than it was at its founding. The academic world of comparative public law has become a more vibrant and diverse field over the last decade. While North Americans and Europeans remain in the majority among ICON•S members, scholars from other parts of the world are playing an increasingly important role in different capacities. We also value that comparative law scholars move around and work in places different to their countries of origin. This can only enrich the academic conversations. This year, in Brasilia, the Society hosted scholars from more than 60 jurisdictions, and 66% came from non-OECD countries. There is a wealth of excellent English-language scholarship on various Asian and Latin American jurisdictions, and the Spanish issues of the I•CON journal have shown that it is also possible and useful to experiment with comparative constitutional law scholarship in other languages. In the future, this will hopefully also include other languages. ICON•S conferences have taken place in Hong Kong, Chile, Poland, New Zealand, and Spain, and this year in Brazil, with additional events confirmed in Ireland (2026) and Taiwan (2027), and likely to follow in Africa.
Comparative public law scholarship has also become much more diverse in the topics covered—moving away from the classic subjects of constitutional courts and rights understood in doctrinal or normative ways to broader fields of public law addressed with new theoretical frameworks, including themes such as populism, constitution-making, transformative constitutionalism, climate and tech, albeit with significant gaps still in fields such as administrative law. There is also an increasing number of methodological approaches, ranging from quantitative political science studies to theoretical pieces on core themes such as democracy, judicial review, and fourth-branch institutions, as well as a wide range of individual country studies. And there is simply a lot more comparative public law today.
With this breadth have come other challenges, too. A sharp-eyed observer of comparative law, Jaakko Husa has recently claimed that comparative law has failed as an autonomous discipline capable of building its own shared method and premises.[8] Yet Husa also argues, and we agree, that the existence of many different types of comparative studies should be considered “a victory, not a defeat.”[9] One of the challenges is to figure out how different types of disciplines engaging with the “comparative” can learn from each other and still work together to advance broader academic knowledge. Perhaps most importantly, we want to continue being a space for creative thinking about public law; for wondering and arguing about how to respond to and shape the world around us, whether it concerns the rising tide of authoritarianism, the changing geopolitical situation, or the challenges posed by climate change and technology.
ICON•S is in a unique position to help with this, given the size of the annual conferences and the number of activities and organizations collaborating with us. To name a few examples: we have encouraged the ICON•S Interest Groups to put together conference panels that reflect that diversity, and the International Journal of Constitutional Law (I•CON) is leading the comparative public law discussion and has become a genuine agenda setter for many academics. As co-presidents of ICON•S, we encourage our chapters to engage in more cross-chapter collaboration. Not least, ICON•S is relaunching the ICONnect blog and will continue to support the thriving IberICONnect. But there are no limits—and we remain open to all ICON•S members to come to us with ideas and energy to launch new initiatives, including collaborations with other organizations pursuing similar aims.
Indeed, ICON•S is not the only organization our members participate in—nor should it be. The rise of our sister organization, the European Law Unbound Society (ELU-S), the existence of academic initiatives such as the International Association of Constitutional Law (IACL) and Public Law conferences in South Africa (2021 and 2026, respectively), and the relaunch of journals such as Constitutional Studies, incorporate many ICON•S members who further the possibilities of expanding our mission. For that same reason, ICON•S has also promoted the existence of editors’ panels that involve journals other than I•CON as well as publishers’ panels that include publishing companies in addition to Oxford University Press. We, as co-presidents of ICON•S, are proud of our members taking leadership roles in those institutions, and we invite them to continue to build bridges with the many organizations that work in the ICON•S family, including blogs, interest groups, chapters, and committees. The next challenge is to facilitate more coordination among the different organizations. With proper communication, the existence of so many new initiatives can enrich, rather than deteriorate, the possibilities for everyone.
But while the expansion of comparative public law means that there is now much more scholarship than there used to be, not all of it is necessarily good. The proliferation of handbooks and edited volumes, along with the rapid pace of comparative public law scholarship, and the challenges and opportunities of AI, is welcome news for the field and for legal education. However, it also means that there is likely to be an increasing amount of scholarship of uneven quality. There are most likely many reasons why academic work which is less than of the highest quality is published: a business mind-set on the part of publishing houses, political conditions unfriendly to academic freedom, and local incentives for established or aspiring academics which prompt them to write too quickly (e.g. two or three weeks for a book chapter—we have all been there), sometimes presenting an incomplete grasp of local contexts and debates.[10] One of our founders, Joseph Weiler, who has long argued for quality over quantity, got it right in his advice not to fall into the “publication trap”.[11] I•CON has been persistently committed to promoting and publishing research with long-term value over short-term academic reactions to current events.[12] An attitude of questioning and doubting ourselves, rather than celebrating academic leaders uncritically or making assumptions, is what makes good scholarship. Short-termism in academic production must be avoided. Academic outlets are, and should be, places of excellence first and foremost.
The problems and challenges identified above are broader than those which confront ICON•S, but we hope, at the very least, to help those who can and do create spaces for excellent scholarship. To be sure, any conference with 2000 participants, as in Madrid in 2024,[13] or with 1104 attendees, as in Brasilia in 2025,[14] will, of course, have panels of varying quality. But conferences should not only provide opportunities to disseminate polished research and finalized articles. They should also be opportunities to experiment and explore, so that the final publication can be of the best possible quality. Presenting a finished paper at a conference could be helpful for those who are unfamiliar with it, but it is certainly not useful for the process of improving the paper—since the paper is already finished, even if it has problems. Given the right conditions, conferences can help give feedback that will improve the final output of the author. Conference participants must present, discuss, and think more, and publish less and better. Thus, the conditions in any academic panel must be in place to facilitate a good-faith and critical dialogue, motivated by the shared goal of building knowledge and contributing to the field.
From the Society’s perspective, we have promoted—and will continue to encourage—open conferences where all submissions that fulfill standard academic practices are accepted. There does not need to be a tension between academic quality and the number of participants or the inclusiveness of themes and regions. When considering submissions, we are happy to consider a range of scholarly products, such as book proposals, work-in-progress papers, book chapters, doctoral thesis projects, the presentation of data from a specific study, responses to other people’s work, and reflections on the academic and legal professions, among many others. As co-presidents of ICON•S, we invite everyone to use the conference as an opportunity to experiment and explore, and not only to showcase a finalized product.
The feedback from the 2024 Madrid conference shows that most participants thoroughly enjoyed the event and were impressed by the quality and breadth of scholarship presented. The early feedback from the 2025 Brasilia conference, which included 329 panels, reflects a similar insight. Yet, ICON•S can always do things better and we invite all our members and friends to share with us where they think we might be going wrong and what should be done about it. We will not always agree, but we will endeavor to listen and think.
From our perspective, one important feature of the Society is that it must remain open to and encourage opportunities for early-career scholars, which includes nudging senior and well-known scholars to collaborate more with younger researchers. The ICON•S online writing school, led by Stefano Osella, and the Winter/Summer School for early career scholars in Sydney, led by Rosalind Dixon, are part of this effort not just to network, but to think about what makes good scholarship in public law, and to provide guidance to scholars. ICON•S is also planning to expand the welcoming events for new members of the Society, work on a mentoring program, and encourage our local chapters to take the ICON•S mission seriously. Next year, for the 2026 Dublin conference, we expect to have subsidized housing for a number of early-career scholars and are currently in conversations to have a pre-conference event for some of them.
Early-career academics are not the only group in need of support. Recent research by Rosalind Dixon and Mila Versteeg also points to the persistence of gendered citation patterns in the field.[15] We should all be aware that ICON•S cannot, by itself, remedy all the hierarchies of gender, race, or class that persist in the field. Yet, it is important to continue to push for ideas such as ensuring gender-balanced activities, including early-career scholars, in everything we do, and making sure that different regions of the world are empowered to participate. ICON•S is now, for the first time, able to offer some sponsorship to African scholars to attend the annual conference, as we did in Brasilia earlier this year, thanks to the support of the Kleeman Fund. Unfortunately, however, we do not have the resources to be able to roll this out on a wider scale in the short term, particularly as we endeavor to keep conference fees limited. All of this underscores the need to hold the annual conference in various locations around the world, including in Africa and other destinations in the Global South.
The next few years will see us expanding on these activities as well as thinking about what else needs to be done. The Society has its roots still in the International Journal of Constitutional Law, but it has also grown since then. As co-presidents of ICON•S, we are proud and grateful to our two excellent blogs, ICONnect (which is being relaunched) and IberICONnect, and of a range of other initiatives coming from the ICON•S chapters, interest groups, and committees. They share the Society’s commitment to scholarly rigor as well as openness, which are not opposites but in fact conditional upon each other. We expect the annual conferences to become a space for institutions and individuals within the ICON•S family to gather and develop academic projects. The Dublin conference of 2026 and the Taipei conference of 2027 will provide unique opportunities to realize this aim by, for example, encouraging the chapters and the interest groups to propose panels that may later lead to academic collaborations; by having the blogs reporting on the main events of the conferences; and by supporting the committees to find ways to showcase specific types of scholarship connected to the conference. We very much look forward to seeing you all there.
Michaela Hailbronner and Sergio Verdugo
Co-Presidents of ICON•S
[1] Jeremy Waldron, Public Rule of Law. Inaugural Conference of International Society of Public Law, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 14-41 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2480648.
[2] See e.g., Gráinne De Búrca & Katharine G Young, The (Mis)Appropriation of Human Rights by the New Global Right: An Introduction to the Symposium, 21 Int’l J. Const. L. 205 (2023).
[3] Matías Bianchi, Nic Cheeseman & Jennifer Cyr, The Myth of Democratic Resilience, 36 J. Democracy 33 (2025).
[4] The International Society of Public Law (ICON•S), ICON•S Announces New Co-Presidents, (2021), https://www.icon-society.org/icons-announces-new-co-presidents/.
[5] Tarunabh Khaitan, On Scholactivism in Constitutional Studies: Skeptical Thoughts, 20 Int’l J. Const. L. 547 (2022).
[6] See an example in Ittai Bar-Siman-Tov et al., Scholactivism in the Service of Counter-Populism: The Case of Constitutional Overhaul in Israel, 22 Int’l J. Const. L. 1059 (2024).
[7] Rosalind Dixon & David Landau, Abusive Constitutional Borrowing: Legal Globalization and the Subversion of Liberal Democracy (2021).
[8] Jaakko Husa, Comparative Law’s Pyrrhic Victory?, 30 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 680 (2023).
[9] Id. at 688.
[10] See Joseph H. H. Weiler, Publish and Perish: A Plea to Deans, Faculty Chairpersons, University Authorities; In This Issue, 29 Eur. J. Int’l L. 673 (2018).
[11] Joseph H. H. Weiler, On My Way Out – Advice to Young Scholars II: Career Strategy and the Publication Trap, 26 Eur. J. Int’l L. 795 (2015).
[12] Sergio Verdugo & Marcela Prieto, Editorial, 21 Int’l J. Const. L. 1257 (2023).
[13] See general pre-conference statistics of the Madrid conference in Yuliya Kaspiarovich and Evan Rosevear, Statistics on Individual Submissions for the 2024 Annual ICON-S Conference, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, May 29, 2024, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/statistics-on-individual-submissions-for-the-2024-annual-icon-s-conference/
[14] See general pre-conference statistics of the Brasilia conference in Evan Rosevear, ICON•S Brasília: By the Numbers, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, May 6, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/icons-brasilia-by-the-numbers/
[15] Rosalind Dixon & Mila Versteeg, Unsexing Citation: Closing the Gender Gap in Global Public Law, 21 Int’l J. Const. L. 407 (2023). This is a persistent problem that ICON•S has also addressed before. See, e.g., Gráinne De Búrca, Michaela Hailbronner & Marcela Prieto Rudolphy, Gender in Academic Publishing, 17 Int’l J. Const. L. 1025 (2019); Gráinne De Búrca, Rosalind Dixon & Marcela Prieto Rudolphy, Gender and the Legal Academy, 22 Int’l J. Const. L. 16 (2024).