Author: essexlawresearch

EU-CIEMBLY: First project workshop takes place in Madrid

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Anastasia Karatzia

Photo from the workshop, credit: Dr Anastasia Karatzia

The EU-CIEMBLY project organized an internal staff training workshop from November 4th to 6th at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. The primary goal of the workshop was to advance and harmonize the partners’ understanding of the theoretical and analytical framework, essential for designing and implementing an inclusive and intersectional European Citizens’ Assembly (CA). The event aimed to equip the project team with both normative tools and empirical insights essential for creating an inclusive deliberative process throughout the project. Dr Anastasia Karatzia, Dr Niall O’Connor, and Dr. Sam Woodward represented at the workshop the University of Essex team, which also includes Dr. Rebecca Warren and Prof. Ileana Steccolini from Essex Business School.

The workshop’s agenda included various presentations and structured discussions designed to engage participants deeply with key project objectives. The first segment of the event provided an introduction to intersectionality, a conceptual framework that examines the interconnected nature of social categories such as gender, nationality, ability, age and more, and how they combine to affect individuals’ experiences of inequality and exclusion. Participants engaged with this concept to explore how intersectional equality, inclusion, and deliberation could be effectively applied in the design and implementation of a CA.

Credit: Dr Anastasia Karatzia

Following this, the participants explored the three key components of a CA which are governance and organization, sampling and recruitment, and deliberation and facilitation. Break-out group discussions were featured, where participants were divided into smaller groups to brainstorm ways to enhance intersectional equality and inclusion across the various stages of the CA. Facilitators documented the insights shared during these discussions and later presented the findings to the broader group for collective reflection.

On the second day of the workshop, four theoretical models for an intersectional CA were discussed in detail, with the understanding that these could evolve based on ongoing feedback and the evolving needs of the project. The workshop concluded with discussions on the development of the glossary with complicated terms along with a presentation of the project’s language policy to guarantee that all materials and discussions are accessible and inclusive. 

A few words about the project:

The EU-CIEMBLY project started on January 1, 2024, with the main goal of creating an innovative and inclusive EU CA that addresses issues of intersectionality, inclusiveness, and equality in European Union political life. The project seeks to improve the landscape of participatory and deliberative democratic mechanisms firstly by providing an analytical framework and prototype for establishing the Assembly at the European Union level, with potential for adaptation at national and local levels of European Union Member States. The project draws on an academic and theoretical understanding of intersectionality, equality, and power relations. Furthermore, EU-CIEMBLY emphasizes open research practices, including open access, optimal research data management, early open sharing, and the involvement of knowledge actors.

The project will develop several activities, with one of its biggest milestones being the three upcoming pilot CAs: a local pilot, a national pilot, and a transnational pilot involving citizens from up to six countries across diverse regions of the European Union. EU-CIEMBLY has a duration of four years and is funded by the European Union under the Horizon Europe research and innovation program. The consortium consists of eleven partner organizations, bringing a wide range of expertise and knowledge related to the project’s scope and objectives.

The project deliverables so far:

Since the project’s launch, the team has produced:

  1. Extensive Literature Review: An in-depth literature review in the form of a bibliographic map was conducted to develop the analytical framework for the EU Citizens’ Assembly.
  2. The Analytical and Normative Framework of the project, which clearly integrates intersectionality into the inclusivity, equality, and deliberation dimensions of Citizens’ Assemblies. 
  3. An exploration of several Theoretical Models for Inclusive Citizens’ Assemblies: The Theoretical Models for an Intersectional and Inclusive Citizens’ Assembly were developed and reviewed during the session in Madrid.

For further information, you may visit the project’s website at www.eu-ciembly.eu and its social networks on Facebook , Instagram and Twitter. For more information on the University of Essex involvement in the project please visit https://www.essex.ac.uk/research-projects/eu-ciembly

Our project embraces multilingualism! Should an accurate translation for specific sections of this Press Release, please contact us at eu-ciembly@ij.uc.pt

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under grant agreement number 101132694. This press release reflects only the author’s view. The Commission is not responsible for its content or any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Essex Law School contributes to new Jaywick art exhibit exploring mothers’ trauma

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Samantha Davey

Credit: Dr Samantha Davey

Following on from the success of last year’s Expressions of Trauma Exhibition led by Essex Healthwatch and held at The Minories, Colchester, the Essex Law School is contributing towards another exhibition, this time at the Martello Tower, Jaywick. The 2025 Expressions of Trauma provides those who missed last year’s Exhibition an opportunity to see the exhibits again – along with some new exhibits. 

This thought-provoking Exhibition features diverse exhibits exploring trauma narratives. There is a dedicated installation which is based on the research of Dr Samantha Davey (University of Essex) and Dr Stella Bolaki  (University of Kent), who ran a series of artist’s books workshops for mothers, which was funded by both institutions. This research highlights the experiences of mothers who have lost children through adoption, providing a powerful outlet for emotional expression. By sharing their stories through artist’s books, pictures and poetry, this exhibit encourages public awareness and empathy for mothers who suffer grief and loss, in the aftermath of adoption. 

Credit: Dr Samantha Davey

Dr Davey and Dr Bolaki would like to thank Healthwatch Essex and their research champions Chloe Sparrow, Amanda Swan and Diana Defries for their participation and ongoing support with this project and the exhibitions. There are more exhibitions planned so please do keep an eye on our blog page, the Essex communications page (you can see our press release here).  

For further information about this Exhibition please contact the organiser, Sharon Westfield de Cortez, Healthwatch Essex at Sharon.westfield-de-cortez@healthwatchessex.org.uk . If you are a mother who has experienced loss through adoption and would like to know more, or to participate in future exhibitions running later this year, please contact Dr Samantha Davey at smdave@essex.ac.uk.

From the University of Essex to the United Nations: Evidence about social security, healthcare, and protection and assistance to the family in the UK

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Koldo Casla

Dr Koldo Casla, project lead of Human Rights Local, has submitted evidence to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for their inquiry into the state of socio-economic rights in the UK. Socio-economic rights include, among others, the right to housing, food, education, social security, health, access to work and good working conditions, all of which are recognised in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Launched in 2020, Human Rights Local is a project of Essex Human Rights Centre to make human rights locally relevant in the UK.

Every few years, the 170+ states that have ratified ICESCR ought to report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) on the policies they are implementing to respect, protect and fulfil socio-economic rights. For the UK, the last review was completed in 2016. The current one began in 2022 and will end with a UN report, known as ‘concluding observations’, that will probably be published around mid-2025. This report will be based on information provided by the UK government and devolved administrations, as well as evidence from three National Human Rights Institutions (the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission), and evidence from NGOs and academics. On 13-14 February, the UN Committee will meet with civil society groups and NHRIs in Geneva, and it will also hold a ‘constructive dialogue’ with UK government representatives.

As part of Human Rights Local, Dr Koldo Casla has provided support to community groups and people with lived experience of poverty so they could provide their own evidence to the UN and their recommendations to bring about the necessary changes to improve their lives. This is part of GRIPP (Growing Rights Instead of Poverty Partnership), of which Essex Human Rights Centre is a founding member.

In addition, Dr Casla has also conducted research for Amnesty International about the extent to which the UK’s social security system (Article 9 ICESCR) meets international standards in relation to the right to social security. The study will be published later this year, but beforehand Amnesty International will rely on the evidence and the recommendations in their advocacy with the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Dr Casla has also co-authored two submissions for the UN Committee. One of them identifies a series of concerns about the level of enjoyment of the right to health (Article 12 ICESCR) among Gypsy, Roma and Travelling communities in the East of England. It is based on qualitative evidence in the form of testimonies gathered in 37 peer-to-peer interviews conducted by four partner organisations – COMPAS, GATE Essex, Oblique Arts, and One Voice 4 Travellers – between June and August 2023. The evidence was part of the project “Building a community of practice to identify strengths, barriers and prioritise solutions to the right of access to healthcare for Travelling Communities”, led by colleagues in the School of Health and Social Care, and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, between February 2023 and August 2024. The qualitative evidence compiled in the document is the unreserved confirmation that the UN’s concerns persist in relation to stigma, prejudice, discrimination, lack of informational accessibility and lack of cultural acceptability of healthcare for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. This is reflected in the lack of cultural awareness in availability of suitable health professionals, lack of non-English language provision, problems of trust due to lack of cultural competence, lack of understanding of issues around literacy, and ongoing social exclusion, particularly digital exclusion.

The second submission goes hand in hand with the anti-poverty human rights NGO ATD Fourth World. It examines the impact of child protection services on families in poverty. Creating a social security system that guarantees the essentials in life, regulating for-profit children’s homes, and extending peer-parent support are among a list of recommendations to preserve the right to protection and assistance to the family (Article 10 ICESCR) for households living in poverty. 

As argued by Dr Casla and Lyle Barker in a paper published in the Journal of Human Rights Practice in 2024, lived experience brings both epistemic and instrumental value to human rights research. In relation to the former value, in a peer-led process, people with lived experience of poverty do not simply provide evidence, data and information. Instead, they rank their concerns, frame their grievances in their own terms and decide about their priorities and the research methodology. This approach intends to address the epistemic injustice that silences people in poverty and dismisses their knowledge. In relation to the second value, the instrumental one, lived experience can help detect the real impact of the distinguishing features of specific human rights. For example, in relation to child protection services, a peer-led and participatory action research with families showed that one of the instrumental values of putting lived experience first is that it can reveal the true nature, prevalence and damage of povertyism – the negative stereotyping of people in poverty – on people in poverty.

For more information lease contact Dr Koldo Casla @ Koldo.casla@essex.ac.uk

Elevate Your Academic Journey: SENSS, CHASE, and Essex Law School

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

 By Essex Law School, written by Professor Joel Colón-Ríos

If you are an aspiring legal scholar seeking advanced training in law within a dynamic research environment that encourages innovation and interdisciplinary exploration, a Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School could be your gateway to an exciting academic journey. 

Essex Campus in the winter, Credit: University of Essex.

What are SENSS and CHASE? 

The South and East Network for Social Sciences (SENSS), an ESRC-funded Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP), is dedicated to fostering innovative and inclusive social science research training and collaboration. Among the eight distinguished institutions comprising SENSS, the University of Essex plays a pivotal role as the coordinating institution. 

The Consortium for Humanities and the Arts South-East England (CHASE) is an AHRC-funded Doctoral Training Partnership, providing funding and training opportunities to the next generation of world-leading arts and humanities scholars. Essex is one of the 8 world-leading institutions that comprise the membership of the CHASE DTP. 

SENSS and CHASE provide fully funded doctoral studentships, mentorship from global experts, and advanced subject-specific and research methods training. These opportunities empower researchers to extend their social scientific skills beyond academia. 

Here at the Essex Law School and Human Rights Centre, aspiring PhD students can apply for SENSS and CHASE studentships, unlocking comprehensive support and collaborative excellence in their academic journey. 

Why choose the Essex Law School? 

Choosing where to pursue your doctoral training is a significant decision. At the Essex Law School, we have meticulously crafted an environment that champions excellence and fuels innovation. Here is why you should join us: 

We are a research powerhouse. Our Law School has been ranked 3rd in the UK for research power in law according to the Times Higher Education research power measure (REF2021). Law at Essex is also ranked 47th in the THE World University Rankings, which show the strongest universities across the globe for key subjects (and 9th for UK Universities). This speaks volumes about the calibre of research conducted within our School. Our academic staff collaborates globally, working with the United Nations, the European Union, governments, and non-governmental organisations. 

We believe in the power of interdisciplinary research. Our dynamic research clusters foster collaboration across diverse backgrounds, creating a vibrant intellectual space for innovative and stimulating legal exploration. 

With expertise spanning diverse legal disciplines, our academics are the driving force behind the Law School’s excellence. Our faculty boasts exceptional scholars, providing intellectual leadership in key areas, including Human Rights Law, led by Professor Carla Ferstman who is Director of the Human Rights Centre; International & Comparative Law led by Professor Yseult Marique, an associate member of the International Academy of Comparative Law; Private and Business Law, led by Professor Christopher Willett who also spearheads the Law, Business and Technology Interdisciplinary Hub; as well as Public Law & Sociolegal Studies, led by Professor Joel I Colón-Ríos, who is also a member of the Constitutional and Administrative Justice Initiative (CAJI). Our academic leads are ready to guide you and link you with the ideal academic mentors. 

Our research student community is central to our success. These talented colleagues explore a broad range of exciting topics under expert supervision, forming a vibrant tapestry of ideas. 

We asked Boudicca Hawke about her experience as a CHASE-funded doctoral student at Essex Law School. 

“CHASE is a great DTP to be a part of. It is a quite a competitive funding source, but the application process itself is accessible. Especially at Essex, there’s a tremendous amount of support throughout the entire process, which really helps. There are a few rounds of revision you’ll need to go through, so it does require consistent work, but really, it’s wonderful to have guidance and support at every step so you can end with the best proposal possible. 

I chose to apply primarily because of the holistic way CHASE supports affiliated doctoral researchers and encourage interdisciplinary research. Beyond the funding, CHASE also hosts annual conferences and year-round research network meetings where you can collaborate closely with other doctoral researchers who share interests but come from different universities and backgrounds. CHASE also has an incredible placement scheme, where you can get hands-on experience throughout the PhD process which is quite valuable.” 

Boudicca, who is working on the status of fighters in non-international armed conflict, also shared some insights about the preparation of a research proposal: “Try to be as clear in the proposal as possible. Many of the reviewers won’t be experts in your field, so communicating the issue at-hand and value of your work in an easily digestible way is key. It can also be quite helpful to make sure you highlight relevant work experience and show why you are well-suited to do your specific project. If you don’t get it the first time around, don’t be afraid to re-apply!’’ 

We also talked to Matteo Bassetti, one of our SENSS-funded doctoral students. For Matteo, whose work focuses on the rights of trans people, and the underestimation of harm inflicted by States through institutional pathologisation frameworks, told us that SENSS “has contributed in many ways to my PhD experience, and has allowed me to take part to training that I would have otherwise been unable to attend. I am hoping to go on an Overseas Institutional Visit in the next term to broaden my network and horizon. However, if I have to be honest, I am still looking for more ways to use the opportunities offered by SENSS in the best way.” 

He also gave us some tips about the application process: “Start ahead of time. SENSS is looking not only at the quality of the individual applicant’s proposal, but also at the match between student and supervisors. Treat your application as a collaboration between you and your supervisors, where you need to do the heavy lifting. Be prepared to modify your dream proposal to make it fit better with the selection criteria.” 

Where can you find out more? 

Explore the opportunities offered by the SENSS and CHASE scholarships at the Essex Law School on our informative webpages. Discover eligibility criteria, application processes, and the outstanding benefits that await you by accessing the downloadable documents provided below. 

For inquiries about legal research and the SENSS and CHASE schemes, please contact Professor Joel I Colón-Ríos, our Postgraduate Research Director.  

Specific questions about academic disciplines? You can also reach out directly to our dedicated Academic Leads (mentioned above) who can put you in touch with suitable supervisors. 

Embark on your journey to become a world-leading scholar in law. Do not miss the chance to benefit from these funding opportunities at the Essex Law School, where innovation, excellence, and transformation define the doctoral experience. 

Empowering Healthier Food Choices: A Critical Look at EU Food Information Law 

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Dr Nikhil Gokani, Lecturer in Consumer Protection and Public Health Law, University of Essex

One of the main ways the EU tries to improve nutrition is to inform consumers through labelling. The Farm to Fork Strategy states that one of the EU’s objectives is “empowering consumers to make informed, healthy…food choices”. However, the current EU food information law may not be as effective in empowering consumers to make informed, healthier food choices as the EU claims. 

UK-style Nutrition Information label for low fat Yoghurt. Source: Wikipedia.

Well-informed consumers? 

EU food information rules – particularly those in Regulation 1169/2011 on the Provision of Food Information to Consumers (FIC Regulation) – seek to ensure that consumers are well-informed by giving food information that is sufficient, accurate, non-misleading, clear and easy to understand. However, EU food law does not achieve this aim. 

Sufficient food information 

Consumer do not actually have access to sufficient food information: 

  • Nutrient content must be declared per 100g/ml as sold. This helps consumers compare similar products because similar products may have comparable water content or portion sizes. It is less helpful for different product types. Information per portion would help but there is no requirement to provide nutrition information per portion. Indeed, there is also no requirement to provide information on recommended portion sizes, which is concerning because consumers are now eating larger portions. It is also does not give an interpretive guidance, as front-of-pack nutrition labelling would do. 
  • Ingredients are listed but the actual quantity of an ingredient is not required unless the ingredient is emphasised on the labelling. For instance, consumers may be aware that a product contains fruit, but they will not necessarily learn the quantity of fruit. Similarly, health consequences of unhealthy ingredients are not displayed. 
  • Mandatory particulars are only required on packaging and on sales websites. Purchase intentions are, however, also influence by advertising, but information is not required on advertising. 
  • There are many exemptions. Most mandatory particulars are not required for products in smaller packaging. A nutrition declaration is not required for 19 products or product categories. Most inexplicably, alcohol (which is defined as food in EU law) is exempt from nutrition or ingredients labelling. 

Accurate and non-misleading food information 

The FIC Regulation prohibits inaccurate information. However, accurate information can still be misleading. 

Mandatory labelling rules can give be misleading information:  

  • The nutrition declaration may also be expressed as a percentage of consumers’ reference intake. However, percentage of reference intake can be misleading because it is a nominal value based on the needs of an average adult female. It is, therefore, inaccurate for most of the population, including many women. 
  • Where nutrition information is given per consumption unit, this can also be misleading because a single consumption unit (such as one square of a chocolate bar) may not reflect a portion size (such as an entire chocolate bar).  

Food labelling that is given voluntarily by manufacturers can also be misleading: 

  • Nutrition and health claims provide positive information about the nutritional or health effects of a food product. They must be accurate and non-misleading as per Regulation 1924/2006 on Food Claims. However, even accurate food claims may be misleading. For instance, the claim that “iron contributes to the reduction of tiredness and fatigue” may be used without any explicit requirement to mention that this is only true if there is inadequate dietary intake. 
  • Nutrition and health claims can also be misleading. For instance, children’s cereal with significant levels of added sugars can be labelled with promotional claims such as “high in fibre” or “contains calcium”. Consumers over-generalise the positive qualities of claims, which creates a health halo, leading consumers to think that products are healthier than they are. 

The FIC Regulation requires that food information “shall not be misleading” but even this does not prohibit all misleading information: 

  • Whether or not information is misleading is assessed using the benchmark of the “average consumer”. This is a notional, rational consumer who is “reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect”. One difficulty with this is the inconsistency between the assumed behaviour of the “average consumer” and the actual behaviour of consumers. For instance, behavioural economics shows that consumers prefer stability, form habits, have limited cognitive capacity and often evaluate only the most salient information. Even if consumers do make rational choices, rational choices are not necessarily healthy choices. For example, a single parent working full-time on a low income may rationally choose to purchase food that is locally available, has high energy per unit cost and is quick to prepare, even if this might be less healthy. 

Clear and easy to understand food information 

The FIC Regulation also requires that information shall also be “clear and easy to understand” but this is also rather ineffective: 

  • “Clear” does not mean noticeable. For instance, the mandatory nutrition declaration may appear on the back of packaging, where it is less noticeable. Essential information can also be illegible as the minimum character height of mandatory particulars can be less than 0.9mm 
  • Voluntary information shall “not be displayed to the detriment of the space available for mandatory food information”. However, marketing messages on labelling – such as prominent cartoon characters or bright colours – can be distracting and detrimental to the noticeability of mandatory food information. 
  • Even the requirement that food information is “easy to understand” is not that helpful. For instance, consumers should understand the amount of fat in a product but not whether is a healthy level or not. 

Empowered consumers?  

It is clear that EU food information rules do not inform consumers well. But, if the rules on consumer food information were improved, could such improved rules empower consumers? 

To empower consumers to make healthy decisions the food environment should be conducive to consumers genuinely using health-related information. The EU is well positioned to identify features of the market that not only impede but also facilitate this. In the Consumer Agenda, the Commission stated that “empowering consumers means providing a robust framework of principles and tools” and a “robust framework ensuring their safety, information, education, rights, means of redress and enforcement”. 

Research shows the factors influencing consumer food choice empowerment. These can relate to food-internal factors (eg taste), food-external factors (eg food information and physical environments), personal-state factors (eg physiological needs and habits), cognitive factors (eg skills and attitudes) and sociocultural factors (eg culture and political elements). These broader factors are not acknowledged by the Commission, which instead focusses on safety, information and education, and rights. 

If food choice is a function of both multiple intrinsic consumer qualities and external environmental factors, giving consumers information is not on its own empowering them. Therefore, the EU’s strong emphasis on information regulation to empower consumers to make healthy decisions should be met with scepticism. 

Information regulation as one important part of empowerment 

Even if information regulation cannot, on its own, empower consumers, it is still a significant precursor to empowerment. For information to contribute to empowering consumers to make healthy food decisions, two conditions are needed. 

First, the information rules should be well-designed: 

  • For mandatory labelling, the EU needs to reflect on developing evidence-based and context-sensitive rules on whether consumer information is provided, what is provided, where and when, and how it is provided. For instance, nutrition information should be provided in a way that allows consumers to understand it, such as through mandatory front-of-pack-nutrition labelling. Even though the Commission committed to proposing harmonised front-of-pack nutrition, it continues to miss its 2022 deadline.  
  • Regulating voluntary information more effectively is also essential. Food claims should be prohibited for less healthy products, as should other food marketing designed to or having the effect of increasing the recognition, appeal or consumption of unhealthy food.  

Second, the limitations of information should be recognised:  

  • How consumers make food decisions is multifactorial and complex. In recent decades, it has become clear that unhealthy diets demand tackling the commercial determinants of health that drive poor nutrition. These industry practices are designed to maximise product sales by encouraging individuals to over-consume unhealthy food at the expense of healthy food. This includes creating new, highly palatable products, promoting them aggressively, selling them at lower prices than healthy food, packaging them in large ready-to-eat portions and selling them in widely accessible locations. 

Even though the EU’s strong emphasis on regulating consumer food information to improve diets is misplaced, this is not to suggest that information regulation is unimportant. Rather, it is to say that food information (i) in its current form does not lead to well-informed consumers and (ii) on its own does not empower consumers to make healthy food decisions. 

Better laws that effectively address labelling as well as the other determinants are essential. We continue to call on the Commission to use its power to propose new EU laws for the benefit of consumers and their health. 

This blog post is based on a more comprehensive analysis of EU food information law published in the Journal of Consumer Policy: Gokani, N., (2024). Healthier Food Choices From Consumer Information to Consumer Empowerment in EU Law. Journal of Consumer Policy. 47 (2), 271-296. It is available open access here: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-024-09563-0.

Meet the book author: Conceptualising Arbitrary Detention: Power, Punishment and Control

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Professor Carla Ferstman

Professor Carla Ferstman

This post was first published on the blog of the Journal of Law and Society: https://journaloflawandsociety.co.uk/blog/meet-the-book-author-conceptualising-arbitrary-detention-power-punishment-and-control/

Download

Conceptualising Arbitrary Detention: Power, Punishment and Control was published by Bristol University Press in May 2024.

What is the book about?

The book is about arbitrary detention, but it is also a reflection on the shifting meaning of arbitrariness as a concept. I consider how forms of marginalisation and other arbitrary factors influence who will be detained, when, for how long and in what conditions. Policies of securitisation, regimes of exception, and criminalisation have exacerbated these arbitrary distinctions given their propensity to target “otherness,” even though there is nothing exceptional about “otherness.” How these policies are applied, and their impact on individuals and communities, depends on the underlying political values and goals at stake, which differ between countries and over time.

The book also explores how arbitrary detention has become normalised. It is used purposively by governments to foster divisions and to enforce hostility against socially marginalised groups who I classify in this book as: the “unseen” (those marginalised on account of their destitution and/or extreme social needs); the “reviled and resented” (the recipients of racist, xenophobic and discriminatory attacks); and the “undeserving” (refugees and other migrants).  When arbitrary detention is normalised, it becomes impossible for courts to only countenance detention that is exceptional – the logic no longer works. So, this conundrum is analysed from different angles and factual contexts.

Why did I write it?

The idea for the book crept up on me in a non-linear way. It was always the book I wanted to write but it took some internal prodding and mental gymnastics for me to figure out how to articulate the urgency that I was feeling about the subject matter in a way that made sense on the page. So, framing the ideas, and the ideas within the ideas took time. In many ways the book is a homage to all the survivors of arbitrary detention I have been privileged to know and support, and to all the courageous human rights defenders, lawyers and psychologists who continue to work in this space.

How did I go about doing this research?

The methodology question is never straight-forward and the sociolegal purists may want to turn away now!

My ideas about the subject matter stem from about two decades of legal practice and advocacy working with victims of torture and seeing up close the suffering people undergo while in detention. So, there was a significant evidence base from where I derived my thinking, but it was quite diffuse, deeply personal and of course, subjective.

The purpose it served in the research process was mainly to guide me with the crucial task of figuring out what themes I needed to foreground. A good example of this is the decision I took to delve into the relationship between arbitrariness and torture. I claim that the disorientation, despair, uncertainty, lack of agency that arbitrariness produces (also considering the extensive psychological literature) is so harmful psychologically that it can rise to the level of torture (all other elements of torture being present). My decision to tackle this theme stems from years of speaking with clients about how arbitrariness in and of itself, made them feel. It also helped me to work out where I wanted to situate my thinking critically on the side of key debates. An example of this is how I critically examined the caselaw on socially excluded and marginalised groups and began to confront the failure of some courts to confront the phenomenon of industrial-scale arbitrary detention.

Then, I would say there are different layers to the book, and some of these layers are more pronounced or prominent, depending on the chapter. There is a layer which is in the classic style of human rights rapportage; going through reams of testimonials and reports to locate patterns and derive meanings and using individual narratives to give context. Another layer is the analysis of how regional and international courts have addressed the phenomenon of arbitrary detention. So, there is a deep doctrinal analysis of the caselaw and how certain findings came to be. But, because much of the caselaw lacks an obvious internal coherence I also use a variety of critical legal theories, social theory, and political philosophy to help me with the task of making sense of what has little obvious internal logic.

I enjoyed the process of pulling the text together; here’s to hoping readers will find it just as enjoyable to read!

Prohibited Force: A Symposium on Rethinking the Prohibition of ‘Use of Force’ in International Law

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Essex Law Research Team

Credit: Dr Erin Pobjie

In Prohibited Force: The Meaning of ‘Use of Force’ in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2024), Dr. Erin Pobjie addresses the ambiguities surrounding the prohibition of ‘use of force’ under article 2(4) of the UN Charter, a foundational rule of international law designed to prevent war and maintain international peace and security. Article 2(4) prohibits States from using force against each other, except in cases of self-defence or UN Security Council authorisation, yet its interpretation is often unclear in complex, real-world situations. Recognizing these challenges, Dr Pobjie introduces her ‘type theory’ framework, which suggests that determining a prohibited use of force should involve a set of contextual requirements and a flexible set of ‘non-essential’ elements – including physical force, effects, gravity, and hostile or coercive intent – that are weighed together, rather than applied rigidly. With this framework, Pobjie brings analytical depth to ambiguous cases, refining our understanding of this cornerstone of international law. Adil Haque describes Prohibited Force as ‘an extraordinary book’ with a ‘striking and rare’ combination of theoretical sophistication and empirical rigour. 

Opinio Juris, a leading blog on international law, recently hosted a symposium to engage critically with Prohibited Force. The discussion opened with Dr Alonso Gurmendi’s introduction, followed by Professor Claus Kreß, who highlighted the book’s potential to strengthen the international legal order. Professor Adil Haque explored its implications for self-determination units, while Ambassador Tomohiro Mikanagi considered its relevance to cases of territorial acquisition. Professor Andrew Clapham underscored the framework’s real-world impact, noting that its insights could affect thousands of lives by shaping legal responses to blockades impacting food and humanitarian supplies in conflict zones like Yemen and Gaza. Professor James Green reflected on the strengths and potential limitations of type theory when applied to complex, borderline cases, and Professor Alejandro Chehtman highlighted the need to balance analytical sophistication with accessibility in practical settings. In her response, Dr Pobjie engaged with each contributor’s insights and critiques, underscoring her framework’s potential to foster richer discourse on the prohibition of force and its role in advancing international peace and security. 

The full symposium can be read here: Symposium on Erin Pobjie’s Prohibited Force: The Meaning of ‘Use of Force’ in International Law – Introduction – Opinio Juris  

Prohibited Force is available open access for all readers thanks to the University of Essex’s Open Access Fund: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009022897  

Exploring the ‘Expressions of Trauma’ Exhibition at The Minories, Colchester

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Samantha Davey

Credit: Healthwatch Essex

The Minories, an art gallery based on the High Street in Colchester, hosted an evocative exhibition on ‘expressions of trauma’ run by Healthwatch Essex and led by Sharon Westfield de Cortez and Kate Mahoney. This exhibition delved deep into the complex layers of trauma, with a range of exhibits exploring themes such as pain, illness, abuse, grief and loss, with art being used as a medium to empower and shared the voices of those who chose to participate in the exhibition in October and November 2024.  

One of the exhibits is the result of innovative research collaboration between Dr Stella Bolaki from the University of Kent and Dr Samantha Davey from the University of Essex.  This research project was kindly funded and supported by both researchers’ institutions via awards designed for knowledge exchange, impact activities and public engagement.  

The works included in the ‘Expressions of Trauma’ exhibition from this project are artists’ books created during specialised workshops led by Dr Bolaki. These workshops provided a safe, creative space for mothers who have suffered the painful experience of child loss via adoption proceedings. Many participants shared their personal narratives, crafting their stories into tangible art forms that speak to their emotional journeys through care and/or adoption proceedings and in the aftermath of those legal processes. 

Credit: Chloe Sparrow

The artists’ books featured are a powerful reflection of each of these mothers’ experiences. Each page contains raw emotions and displays feelings of love, grief, sadness, anger, frustration and, ultimately, resilience. Through art, these mothers have found a way to express pain and connect with others facing similar struggles. This powerful element of storytelling through art is what made the ‘Expressions of Trauma’ exhibition not just an art display but a shared space for dialogue between mothers, professionals and the wider public – as well as a space for reflection, healing and social justice. One of the books included showed an image from the Disney film, Dumbo, the elephant who was separated from his mother. This image is accompanied by the haunting lyrics of ‘Baby Mine’, highlighting the raw grief and loss experienced because of the separation of mother and child. Diana Defries, spokesperson at Movement for an Adoption Apology, has a book titled ‘An Ocean Between Us’, poignantly representing the gulf between a mother and child over many years.  

This exhibit also highlights the importance of the roles played by professionals who support these mothers. Barrister Sneha Shrestha, local art therapist Chloe Sparrow, and Kent-based counsellor Amanda Swan contributed their insights and expertise, showing how the artist’s book can assist professionals as well, as a tool in processing trauma. Chloe Sparrow’s emotive painting of a mother and child features prominently in the exhibition, capturing the essence of the bond that endures even in loss. 

This exhibit demonstrates acutely that healing is not a solitary journey; it is often facilitated by the connections we make with others personally and professionally. The inclusion of professionals in this dialogue makes the narrative of the exhibit more powerful, adding layers of understanding and compassion, showing how professionals themselves connect with the raw grief experienced by mothers.  

Visitors are encouraged to engage with the stories behind the books. Each artist’s book is a book of emotion, inviting reflection and empathy from anyone who encounters it. The exhibition encouraged a sense of community and shared experience, helping attendees to understand and empathise with those who have experienced loss in a range of contexts – loss of love, loss of one’s autonomy and loss of identity. 

‘Expressions of Trauma’ was not just an artistic endeavour; it was a compelling invitation to explore the landscape of human emotion. Through this exhibition, Sharon Westfield de Cortez and Kate Mahoney created an important ongoing conversation around trauma, loss, and the healing power of art. 

Credit: Chloe Sparrow

In a world where discussions about mental health and trauma are becoming increasingly prominent, ‘Expressions of Trauma’ boldly speaks to the power of storytelling through art. The exhibition challenged visitors to confront difficult emotions and inspires them to engage with the narratives of others from different walks of life with a vast range of life experiences.  

For any questions about ‘Expressions of Trauma’, please contact Sharon at sharon.westfield-de-cortez@healthwatchessex.org.uk and Kate at kate.mahoney@healthwatchessex.org.uk . 

For individuals who have been affected by issues explored within the artist’s book exhibit or have any questions about the research project out of which it emerged, please contact Dr Stella Bolaki at s.bolaki@kent.ac.uk and Dr Samantha Davey at smdave@essex.ac.uk .  

Global Roundtables on International Protection of Refugees: Exploring Laws on Climate-Induced Displacement and Refugee Travel Documents with Essex Law School and the UNHCR

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

 By Professor Geoff Gilbert 

Participants from at the UNHCR-Essex Roundtable on travel documents for refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons, October 2024 , Credit: Professor Geoff Gilbert

On 22 and 23 October, 17 people from a diverse set of organisations and backgrounds came together from all over the world on campus to discuss travel documents for forcibly displaced and stateless persons in need of international protection. On 23 October, over 60 people attended two online roundtables covering Africa, Europe, the Americas and Asia to consider a toolkit advisory on refugees and asylum seekers affected by climate-induced events or disasters. Professor Geoff Gilbert from Essex Law School hosted both events.  

First for the roundtable on climate-Induced displacement, Essex Law School & Human Rights Centre for a year has been working with the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW, and the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), University of California College of the Laws, San Francisco, to draft a toolkit for practitioners, decision- and policy-makers on international protection in the context of climate induced events and disasters; it became part of a joint pledge to the 2023 Global Refugee Forum.  

Being forced to move across an international border as a consequence of a climate-induced or other disaster does not in and of itself qualify one as a refugee under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. However, as UNHCR made clear in 2020 in its Legal considerations regarding claims for international protection made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters, a person displaced in the context of climate induced or other disaster may also qualify under the 1951 Convention if they meet the criteria set out in Article 1A.2. Drought can often lead to conflicts between farmers and herders over access to water or a government may adversely discriminate against a minority ethnic group on its territory post-disaster. Equally, those who are already refugees or asylum seekers may be affected by disasters, too.  

In 2023, CGRS had produced a practice advisory for US lawyers bringing refugee status determination claims in US courts that prompted ELS-HRC and Kaldor to consult on a global equivalent dealing with international and regional refugee and human rights law. On 23 October that Practical Toolkit on ‘International Protection Principles for People Displaced Across Borders in the Context of Climate Change and Disasters’ was considered by over 60 expert academics (including Professor Karen Hulme), lawyers, judges, UNHCR staff and persons with lived experience of forced displacement from across the world. Those discussions will allow the authors, Professor Jane McAdam, Professor Kate Jastram, Dr Felipe Navarro, Dr Tamara Wood, and Professor Geoff Gilbert, to finalize this draft and disseminate it through UNHCR’s REFWorld and other specialist platforms in the next few weeks. 

Turning to the other Roundtable held on campus at the University of Essex Law School, the organisations involved included UNHCR, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Organization for Migration, the EU Commission, and Frontex, as well as private sector actors, think tanks and persons with lived experience of forced displacement. The meeting also benefited greatly from the attendance of four Essex colleagues, Professor Ahmed Shaheed, former Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Iran and on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Professor Paul Hunt, former member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Special Rapporteur on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, Dr Matthew Gillett, Chair of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and a member of the Platform of Independent Experts on Refugee Rights (PIERR), and Dr Judith Bueno de Mesquita, adviser to the World Health Organisation. This roundtable discussed travel documents for persons in need of international protection, that is refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons and stateless persons. 

At the end of 2023, there were 117.3m people within UNHCR’s mandate, 75% in low- or middle-income countries, and there were only 158,500 resettlement places across the world. Some would have managed to bring travel documents with them as they fled, but many are without. As such, they are trapped in the country where they are receiving protection. Even if they are in a state party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, then while Article 28 of both Conventions provide that the country of asylum shall provide a Convention Travel Document, it is only to refugees or stateless persons who are lawfully staying in the territory, a term that is undefined.  

As such, refugees and stateless persons not meeting the threshold, such as asylum seekers and those who have applied for refugee status but where the state has yet to make a decision granting leave to remain, for example, and any person in need of international protection in a non-Contracting state, has no opportunity to obtain a travel document; even Article 28 Convention Travel Documents might only last one to two years and they are difficult to renew outside the country of asylum. Thus, a more generic travel document more widely available to forcibly displaced and stateless persons would facilitate them achieving autonomy in finding a durable and sustainable solution. In part, this fits with the additional solution provided for through Complementary Pathways in paragraphs 85-100 of the Global Compact on Refugees, 2018 (GCR). Traditionally, the durable and sustainable solutions were only resettlement in a third country, local integration in the country of asylum and voluntary repatriation; complementary pathways might involve opportunities to take up employment opportunities or access education in a third country. 

The roundtable considered all the technical requirements for travel documents as set out in Annex 9, Facilitation, to the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation 1944, administered by ICAO. As such, whatever the form of the travel document for persons in need of international protection, given that it will be machine readable, it should be accepted by all carriers. What cannot be guaranteed is that it will be accepted by the country of destination – that is always, even in the case of national passports, a matter of choice by the state having regard to the trustworthiness of the document.  

In this regard, though, it was suggested that one proposal to take forward is whether the right to leave and return from one’s country of nationality under Article 12 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the right to legal recognition before the law under Article 16 thereof might generally grant everyone the right to a travel document, or at least in combination with the right to access the highest attainable standard of health (Article 12 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), the right to access employment opportunities (Article 6 ICESCR) or education opportunities (Article 13 ICESCR), as well as the implicit guarantee of family reunification (Article 17 ICCPR). While that may require strategic litigation and engagement with governments to highlight their commitments under the international covenants and the GCR, it shows that ensuring autonomy for refugees and stateless persons and upholding their international human rights could facilitate the acquisition of travel documents. 

The two global roundtables facilitated by Essex Law School marked a significant step towards addressing the complex needs of forcibly displaced and stateless individuals, including those impacted by climate change. Bringing together global scholars, practitioners, and experts from diverse sectors, the discussions highlighted the urgency of accessible travel documents for refugees and comprehensive international protections. These insights will inform final revisions to the toolkit and strengthen advocacy for policies that support autonomy and uphold human rights for those seeking refuge across borders.  

Essex Law School Hosts ‘Supporting Families’ Conference on Advancing Family Justice

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Samantha Davey

On September 20th, the Supporting Families conference was held, uniting a diverse group of speakers from various academic and professional backgrounds. The event was led by Dr Samantha Davey, a Lecturer in Law within the Essex Law School. The event was attended by academics from the University of Essex, as well as representatives from a number of other institutions including the University of Bristol, the University of Kent, with international contributors from Israel and Saudi Arabia, making it a global gathering focused on family justice. The event was kindly sponsored by Our Family Wizard.

Photo from the conference, credit: Dr Samatha Davey

The range of themes addressed at the conference centred on the challenges within the family justice system and explored innovative strategies for enhancing the experiences of families. The speakers presented on a wide array of issues such as legal barriers faced (for those such as litigants in person), psychological impacts of involvement in the family justice system, the growth of mediation as an important tool for families and the role of social work in supporting families to stay together and through the process of court proceedings. A presentation was delivered by Alicia Farran, a representative of the event’s sponsor Our Family Wizard, on its co-parenting app and the usefulness of online communication platforms as another tool to mediate disputes between couples in contact disputes. 

Photo from the conference, credit: Dr Samatha Davey

The conference was chaired by Dr Laure Sauve (University of Essex), Dr Olayinka Lewis (University of Essex), Liz Fisher Frank (Director of the Essex Law Clinic), and Liverpool barrister Celeste Greenwood (Exchange Chambers), who guided discussions and facilitated insightful dialogues throughout the day. We appreciate the dedication of Katherine Rose in assisting with the setup on the day and the Essex Law Clinic students who attended this event. 

Photo from the conference, credit: Dr Samatha Davey

Overall, the Supporting Families conference successfully brought together a multidisciplinary group of academics and practitioners in law, psychology, and social work, which led to important dialogue aimed at improving the family justice system for all users. If you have any questions about the conference or would be interested in presenting at any future events, please contact Dr Samantha Davey at smdave@essex.ac.uk .