Author: essexlawresearch

Spotlight Feature: Engage with the UN Special Mandate Holder on Arbitrary Detention Dr. Matthew Gillett

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr. Katya Alkhateeb

This is a post originally published by the Essex Human Rights Centre Blog on February 12th, 2024.

Mexico Country Visit of the Working Group in September 2023

Spotlight regularly features a significant individual or team from the Human Rights Community to answer questions put by students and colleagues from the University of Essex. This time we feature Dr. Matthew Gillett.

Dr. Gillett was appointed as a United Nations Special Mandate Holder in 2022. Specifically, he is the Expert Member from the Western Europe and Others Group in the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. In 2023, he was elected Vice-Chair for Communications of the Working Group. In this role, he cooperates with other Special Mandate Holders (typically the Special Rapporteurs on Torture, on Extra-judicial Killings, and on Counterterrorism, plus the Working Groups on Forced Disappearance and on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and Girls); to issue communications to Governments and other entities (such as corporations) regarding potential human rights violations. As a member of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, he deliberates around 80-90 judgments (called opinions) a year and also conducts country visits to scrutinize detention practices around the World.

Previously, Dr. Gillett has around 15 years of experience working in international organisations in The Hague (particularly as a prosecution attorney at the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”)). He has conducted investigations in various conflict zones, including for six months as a Human Rights Officer with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (“UNAMA”). 

Academically, his work encompasses: International Criminal Law; Human Rights; Terrorism and Counterterrorism; Procedure and Evidence; Open-Source investigations; the Environment; International Humanitarian Law; Mediation (as a qualified mediator); Speech Crimes; and Aggression. His publications have been cited before international and hybrid courts, including in filings and Decisions of the Colombia Special Jurisdiction for Peace (“Pre-Report on Charging Environmental Damage before the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz”); the International Criminal Court (e.g. “Collective dislocation; crimes of displacement, property depravation and discrimination under international criminal law”, Routledge; “The Call of Justice: Obligations under the Genocide Convention to Cooperate with the International Criminal Court”, CLF) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (e.g. “Fast-Track Justice”, JICJ; “The Special Tribunal for Lebanon Swiftly Adopts Its Rules of Procedure and Evidence”, JICJ).

Students’ and colleagues’ questions answered

We are honoured that Dr. Gillett agreed to answer questions put by the human rights students and community at Essex.

Q: What initially drew you towards human rights?

A: Working at the High Court of New Zealand exposed me to various human rights cases, from freedom of expression claims to complaints of ill-treatment in detention. Learning about the substance of human rights, and the effect of international conventions on the application of domestic law was fascinating. 

Q: How do you believe the efforts of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention can help address criticisms of the UN’s human rights work?

A: The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention strives for fair conclusions and innovative ways to enhance human rights compliance. One of the important ways we can reduce criticism is through robust fact-finding. We have five expert members, with a range of experiences and backgrounds. Our individual cases are subjected to rigorous review, while also ensuring that we address a high volume each year. We also travel to countries to assess their detention systems and meet with detainees, officials, and NGO representatives, all of which helps us to reach well-grounded findings. 

Q: What advice would you offer aspiring human rights workers?

A: Gain field experience early, explore alternative avenues for redress, and follow up on cases to understand their outcomes comprehensively. In more detail: (i) Get field experience at an early stage – it will open your eyes to the situation on the ground and whether you are well suited to that type of work. (ii) Think about your options in any situation, such as new avenues or fora to redress a human rights violation, and don’t simply accept binary choices that are presented to you. (iii) Follow-up on situations you have been involved in – if you assisted a victim with a human rights claim, then get back in contact periodically afterwards to find out how it panned out. 

Q: How can we assess the effectiveness of human rights measures such as issuing communications?

A: Tracking responses and subsequent actions by governments is essential. Effective engagement with international bodies like the UN can amplify pressure for change. An obvious case is if the Government or entity in question explicitly changes their conduct as a result of the communication. However, in many cases that won’t happen, at least not instantly. So the first step is keeping a track of communications and responses, the second is assessing to what extent the response engaged with the issues, and the third is considering follow-up measures such as public statements or bringing pressure through international fora like the United Nations Human Rights Council or General Assembly. 

Q: Considering the allegations against the US and UK regarding torture in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their reluctance to allow ICC investigation or hold themselves accountable, what message do the actions of powerful states convey regarding accountability for human rights violations?

A: Reluctance to engage with international institutions sends a discouraging message globally, undermining the universality of human rights principles. Just like international human rights law, international criminal law is designed to apply universally. The lack of commitment to institutions like the International Criminal Court by powerful States including Russia, China and the USA sends a dispiriting message to the people of the world – especially given that the crimes listed in the Rome Statute, such as aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are lowest common denominators, which all States should agree to prohibit.

Q: What are your concerns regarding the existing framework of the working group, and how can it be improved?

A: Balancing increasing caseloads with broader advocacy efforts poses challenges. For the future, it would be ideal to have increased resources for the OHCHR team which supports the expert members of the Working Group. 

Q: In your role as Vice-Chair for Communications of the Working Group, what strategies do you employ to foster collaboration among Special Mandate Holders and issue effective communications to address potential human rights violations? 

A: Collaborating with other Special Mandate Holders is a highlight of the work, but of course can present its own challenges in terms of coordination. Typically, a strategy is to have a lead mandate in charge of a particular communication, and then others to review and sign onto it. We have also started having more regular meetings and exchanges on particular hot-spots which raise issues for multiple mandates, so that we are communicating with each other and exchanging information and views in order to enhance our understanding of the situation.

Q: Having worked as a prosecution attorney at the ICC and the ICTY, how do you draw on your experiences in conflict zones to contribute to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention? 

A: As a former prosecutor, I am used to looking through statements, documents and other sources to reach factual conclusions. Having worked in multiple situations of armed conflict, I am aware of security requirements but also know the importance of seeing situations and speaking to people first-hand to establish events. Additionally, there is considerable overlap between arbitrary detention and the crimes I prosecuted, which helps for legal assessments. 

Q: Can you share insights from your academic work and its relevance to human rights advocacy?

A: My research has recently focused on fact-finding. This has spurred me to look at the procedures employed at various human rights bodies, and what types of materials they base their findings on. Legally, the context of armed conflict or terrorism type scenarios helps to understand when there may be different considerations to bear in mind when assessing the application of international human rights law.

Q: Given that your work exposes you to stressful and harrowing experiences and stories, how do you cope with these challenges? 

A: When I am interviewing a victim or visiting a crime scene, my focus is usually on forensic details and ensuring an accurate record, as well as the safety of everyone involved. However, I realised after many years of working long hours that you have to look out for your own well-being as well. Now I exercise reasonably often and enjoy catching up with friends and colleagues from around the world when the opportunity arises. I also have two young children to keep me on my toes.

Russian Bans on ‘FakeNews’ about the war in Ukraine: Conditional truth and unconditional loyalty

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Dr Elena Sherstoboeva, Lecturer at the Essex Law School

This week marks the second anniversary of the full-scale Russian invasion, which began on the 24th February 2022, and coincides with the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. This war is a terrible tragedy for all Ukrainians and poses a serious challenge to European and global security and stability. However, it is also a disaster for Russians and Russia’s democracy and freedom of expression. In my research article, Russian Bans on ‘Fake News’ about the war in Ukraine: Conditional truth and unconditional loyalty, I explore the role of the Russian judiciary in framing the public debate and public ‘truth’ on the war against Ukraine within Russia. Published in one of the globally leading academic journals in communication studies, International Communication Gazette, the paper presents the analysis of over 500 Russian court decisions against the so-called ‘fake news,’ or ‘lies’ about the invasion.

Although according to public survey polls, most of Russia’s population support Putin’s decisions on Ukraine and the actions of the Russian army in Ukraine, it is not entirely clear whether they support the actual war in Ukraine or the myth about it constructed and amplified by the Russian courts, as can be seen from my article. The paper shows how the courts ‘condition’ the accuracy of any information on matters of public interest, including the war, on the official position of the Russian government. The Russian courts use the so-called fake news law adopted in Russia mainly to counteract COVID-19 to establish a state-run monopoly over the pubic debate within Russia, to amplify state misinformation on the war and to punish dissenting Russians.

Through discourse analysis, I was able to uncover the prevailing narrative surrounding the war. The dominant theme emerged in judicial interpretations of conditional truth. My paper details how courts construct a misleading narrative about an imaginary war, presenting it as a peacekeeping special military operation that causes minimal harm to both Russians and Ukrainians. According to this storyline, Putin leads the operation only to protect ethnic Russians and de-Nazify Ukraine. The courts manipulate international legal standards to make it create an illusion that the operation is fully aligned with them. Additionally, my analysis exposes how Russian courts twist the notion of “national hatred” to label Russian dissenters as haters of Russia and all Russians. The courts weaponise foreign news media outlets and discourage the spread of fake news, warning the public of the dangers it poses.

A historical perspective allowed me to demonstrate that the modern Russian approach is not new and reflects the Marxist-Leninist principles of ‘partyness’, ‘objectivity’, and ‘scientificalness’ that were used in Soviet Communist Russia to guide mass media practitioners. In the article, I explain the meaning of these principles and highlight the significant differences between them and the universal standards for professional journalism. The Soviet concept of ‘objectivity’ implied biased and unconditional loyalty to the Communist Party, whose decisions conditioned the ‘truth’ in the entire USSR. My article also explores how this approach was used in the Soviet era for myth construction and was integrated into laws that were used to restrict ‘anti-Soviet lies’ until the USSR’s collapse.

The paper presents a collection of empirical data on contemporary factual statements, opinions, and posters that oppose the war in Ukraine. Regrettably, these materials have been discredited and deemed ‘harmful lies’ in Russian public discourse. I express my sincere gratitude to my brave young colleagues from the Higher School of Economics in Moscow, who took significant risks to obtain access to the court decisions that became the foundation of my study. These decisions are solely available in Russian and can only be found in legal databases located in Russia. I am also grateful to my former supervisor at Moscow State University’s School of Journalism, Professor Andrei Richter, who is currently a Professor at the Comenius University of Bratislava, and Professor Lorna Woods from Essex Law School for their meticulous review, sagacious guidance, and unwavering support throughout the entire process. Furthermore, I would like to thank my colleagues Professor Geoff Gilbert, Professor Sabine Michalowski, Dr. Tara Van Ho, Dr. Konstantinos Kalliris, Dr. Alexandros Antoniou from Essex Law School and Dr. Ilya Kiriya from the University of Grenoble, without whom this study would not have been possible.

Proving online incitement of international crimes: expert evidence in the digital era

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr. Matthew Gillett, Senior Lecturer, Essex Law School, Head of the Digital Verification Unit.

Image via shutterstock

Throughout history, grave crimes have been fueled by incitement and inflammatory rhetoric. From the Holocaust to Rwanda, influential leaders have established the psychological and rhetorical antecedents for mass violence. However, in the digital age, a far wider range of potential inciters have access to platforms with instantaneous global reach. Already this new era has seen online incitement to atrocities in Myanmar, Ukraine, and Sudan. These events demand accountability and, as investigations and prosecutions get underway, inflammatory statements are increasingly becoming a critical form of evidence.

Speech acts, whether oral or written are forensically significant in multiple ways. They can demonstrate criminal intent, they can demonstrate instigation, and they can amount to crimes in and of themselves, such as persecution or direct and public incitement to genocide. The relevance of speech acts was evident in the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures order in the Israel-South Africa genocide case. Statements made online by high-level Israeli officials through Twitter/X and other platforms were key evidentiary items cited by the Court in granting provisional measures. And that relevance will continue to grow in future litigation. Whereas the Court’s provisional order did not require a detailed evidentiary assessment, the statements will be subjected to far more exacting scrutiny during the merits phase. Equally, if genocide is charged at the ICC or other courts, incendiary statements will constitute a central focal point for the litigation. This begs the question of how such statements can be entered into evidence and contextualized in the context of international legal proceedings.   

In an article I recently co-authored with Wallace Fan, former student manager at the University of Essex Digital Verification Unit, we explore how online materials can be submitted as evidence before international courts. Published in the Journal of International Criminal Justice in December 2023, the article notes that digital open-source information has become a significant means of proving atrocity crimes charges. It argues that digital materials will typically need to be authenticated and contextualized via expert evidence. Highlighting the challenges that DOSI presents, including the risks of misinterpretation and biases leading to erroneous conclusions, the article proposes a six-factor test to identify digital specialists to serve as expert witnesses. It also encourages the digital open-source community to utilize transparent, accessible and replicable methodologies when conducting online investigations. On a complementary track, I am working with PhD candidate Vanessa Topp on a new version of The Hartford Guidelines on Speech Crimes in International Criminal Law, which I co-authored with Professor Richard Wilson of the University of Connecticut in 2017. The new guidelines will address international speech crimes on social media platforms, disinformation, and other linked topics arising in the digital age.   Building on the analyses in those publications, a key facet of the research is to examine how to analyse and tender online speech acts as evidence. For these purposes, it is clear that expert evidence will be required from a range of specialists. Forensic questions include the authenticity of the statement (excluding deepfakes and identifying alterations to the item), attributing it to the suspect, preserving the native files, measuring the reach of the statement, identifying the influence of the statement maker, and, perhaps most significantly, interpreting the statement’s contents in light of its sociological, temporal and cultural context. Underlying conceptual questions include how to categorize online materials as evidence, how digital materials can shift the truth-discerning moment outside of the courtroom, and how the democratization of access to technology tests the distinction between experts and laypersons for legal purposes. As court proceedings heat up, providing conceptual clarity on these issues will help facilitate the submission, contextualization and interpretation of online materials which may constitute or instigate atrocity crimes including genocide and persecution.

Rwanda Treaty and Bill and UK’s legal obligations towards victims of modern slavery

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Dr Marija Jovanovic, Senior Lecturer at Essex Law School

Image via Shutterstock

This legal analysis of the Rwanda Treaty and Bill and the UK’s legal obligations towards victims of modern slavery and human trafficking (MSHT) has been conducted by Dr Marija Jovanovic from the University of Essex. She is the author of State Responsibility for ‘Modern Slavery’ in Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2023).

The analysis has been commissioned by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (Modern Slavery PEC), which in turn is funded and supported by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).

The Modern Slavery PEC has actively supported the production of this legal analysis. However, the views expressed in this document are those of the author. The author is grateful to James Robottom, Barrister at Matrix, for detailed comments on a draft of this analysis.

Executive Summary

This report analyses the provisions of the UK – Rwanda Treaty 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in light of the UK’s international obligations towards victims of modern slavery and human trafficking (MSHT) contained in Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) and the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 (ECAT).

It is important to specify that this analysis focuses solely on the requirements under the ECAT and Article 4 ECHR and does not consider the conditions under which International Refugee Law would permit removing people seeking asylum to a third country when the issue of modern slavery and human trafficking was not at stake. Unlike international treaties designed to protect victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, International Refugee Law does not impose an express obligation on States not to remove individuals before their refugee status is determined, nor the obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish individual perpetrators. Drafted half a century later, the anti-trafficking instruments are much more explicit, concrete, and demanding when it comes to protection requirements.

Accordingly, this analysis emphasises the need to distinguish between obligations arising from international anti-trafficking instruments (the majority of which have been integrated in the ECHR) and those established under International Refugee Law, and emphasises the need for decoupling the issue of modern slavery and human trafficking from migration control.

Section 1 of the analysis focuses on the international law obligation to identify and protect every victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty expressly envisages the UK not completing the victim identification process in relation to individuals who are deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally. This is a breach of an explicit international obligation to identify and assist every victim of modern slavery and human trafficking, including those who entered or are present illegally, contained in both Article 4 ECHR and Article 10 ECAT.

Section 2 of the analysis explains international law obligations pertaining to the removal of victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. It finds that by providing for removal to Rwanda of suspected victims of modern slavery or human trafficking (individuals who there are reasonable grounds to believe are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking), Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty and the Safety of Rwanda Bill contravene the express international obligation in Article 10(2) ECAT not to remove such individuals (including to third countries) until the identification process is complete. Removing confirmed victims of modern slavery or human trafficking to Rwanda without an assessment of the risk of re-trafficking they may face, also gives rise to the risk of breaches of Article 4 ECHR by analogy with Article 16 of ECAT. The latter sets out conditions under which an identified victim of modern slavery and human trafficking can be returned to the country of their nationality/permanent residence, which is permitted only after conducting an assessment of the impact of such return on ‘the rights, safety and dignity of that person’, including the risk of re-trafficking. While the ECAT does not expressly govern the removal of identified victims to third countries, by analogy the same conditions ought to apply in such cases.

Section 3 of the analysis discusses the operational duty to protect victims of modern slavery or human trafficking contained in Article 4 ECHR, which includes the protection of those at risk of being subject to modern slavery or human trafficking and prevent re-trafficking. This obligation requires states to consider the risk of re-trafficking when making decisions to remove a suspected or confirmed victim of modern slavery and human trafficking from their territory to a third country. The Rwanda Treaty and the Human Rights Memorandum accompanying the Safety of Rwanda Bill fail to acknowledge the risk of violating this obligation and the need to instruct decision-makers to assess the risk of re-trafficking of presumed or confirmed victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.

Section 4 of the analysis considers the international law obligation to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of modern slavery and human trafficking. It finds that in addition to the obligation to identify every victim of modern slavery and human trafficking, the removal of individuals with a reasonable grounds decision envisaged by Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty risks breaching a duty to investigate and punish the perpetrators of this crime contained in Article 4 ECHR and Article 27 ECAT. Victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are often the only witnesses of this crime and without their assistance the perpetrators are likely to remain at large.

Overall, removing to Rwanda individuals with a positive reasonable grounds decision (suspected victims), as envisaged by Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty, will automatically and in all cases put the UK in breach of Article 4 ECHR as well as Article 10 ECAT. In addition, removing identified victims of modern slavery and human trafficking without conducting an individualised assessment of the risk of re-trafficking would breach the operational duty under Article 4 ECHR. Lastly, removing suspected or confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking risks interfering with an obligation to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of modern slavery and human trafficking contained in Article 4 ECHR and Article 27 ECAT.

Importantly, the conclusions in relation to the incompatibility of the Rwanda Treaty and Bill with the UK’s obligations under Article 4 ECHR and ECAT are not restricted to Rwanda alone, but would apply to removing individuals to third countries without specific safeguards prescribed by these international instruments.

Finally, the conclusion notes that while the present analysis found the provisions of both the Treaty and the Bill incompatible with protective obligations enshrined in Article 4 ECHR and ECAT, the Rwanda Bill prevents victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from raising those incompatibilities before UK courts. Clause 3 of the Rwanda Bill provides for disapplication of sections 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which would enable domestic courts to interpret this legislation in line with the ECHR in relation to Rwanda claims. Furthermore, clauses 1 (4) and (6) of the Rwanda Bill specify that its validity is unaffected by international law, including the ECHR and ECAT and clause 2(5) provides that the conclusive deeming of Rwanda as a ‘safe country’ applies notwithstanding any interpretation of international law.

You can read the full analysis here.

Is Law Computable? Insights from Essex Law Scholar Zhenbin Zuo’s Presentation at Computational ‘Law’ on Edge 2023

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Zhenbin Zuo, Lecturer at Essex Law School

On November 21st, 2023, an insightful presentation titled ‘Governance by Algorithms: from social norms to laws, to numbers and to code’ was delivered by Mr. Zhenbin Zuo, lecturer from Essex Law School, at the prestigious international conference of Computational ‘Law’ on Edge 2023. This conference, organised by the ERC Advanced Grant research project ‘Counting as a Human Being in the Era of Computational Law’ (COHUBICOL) in collaboration with the Journal of Cross-disciplinary Research in Computational Law (CRCL), stands at the forefront of exploring the evolving relationship between law and emerging technologies including AI.

Computational ‘Law’ on Edge 2023 is a world-leading symposium that converges scholars and experts from both domains of law and computer science. It serves as a dynamic platform for cross-disciplinary debate on the cutting-edge issues in the field of computational law, and focusing on the future of law in the age of AI and technological breakthroughs.

Mr Zhenbin Zuo presenting on the ‘layering’ of governance modes as a ‘volcanic’ model.

In his presentation, Mr. Zuo challenged the ‘legal singularity’ or substitution hypothesis , which suggests that AI and computer code might replace traditional legal processes based on texts, hermeneutics and natural language (text-driven law). Contrary to this view, Mr. Zuo proposed a novel ‘scaling and layering’ framework to better understand how code-based algorithms complement rather than supplant modern legal governance both in historical evolution and current practice. In the analysis this novel framework also helps reveal deeper nature/limitations of our current text-based legal systems, and asks how lawyers and/or scientists can improve the functioning of law in the challenges of new technologies like AI.

Mr. Zuo’s analysis reveals a hybrid governance model of our modern world, consisting of social norms, laws, numbers, and computer code, each representing increasing levels of formalization and abstraction. He proposes that computer code, when existing as a governance mode, can only achieve effective and legitimate functions by referring to frames in statistics/numbers and laws, in a similar way that legal governance have to rely on the wider framing effect of social norms-based governance at its sociological and normative core. The detailed argument is two-fold:

  1. Scaling: Historically more formal/abstract governance modes evolved from less formal ones, enhancing the capacity of societies to govern larger territories and populations.
  2. Layering: At any period of time (including current practices), these more formal modes of governance rely on and are influenced by the less formal ones, creating institutional path-dependencies with both positive and negative implications.

A key argument in Mr. Zuo’s presentation is the necessity for lawmakers to recognise the distinct nature and limitations of each governance mode in different spatio-temporal environments. He emphasised the importance of avoiding over-reliance on any single mode, particularly ‘code’ and ‘numbers,’ to prevent potential lock-in effects, ‘concept drifts’ or ‘model decay’, and ‘cold-start’ problems in designing institutions and polices. He briefly discussed the example of Zuboff’s ‘Uncontract’ chapter in Surveillance Capitalism (2018) which warns of Google’s potential to solely rely on smart contract and stop the car engine of e.g. a mother on her drive to see child in hospital; and how tax calculation algorithms need to adapt to new categories of employment such as ‘worker’ after the UK Supreme Court’s decision on Uber BV v Aslam [2021]. He also touched on how this framework can help us better understand China’s Social Credit Systems which adopt automation in courts, governments, train stations, airports and other spaces for debts enforcement, a paper Mr Zuo presented at the previous Computational ‘Law’ on Edge conference in 2022, and forthcoming in the journal CRCL.

Comments and discussions with Dr. Noura Al-Moubayed, Professor Mireille Hildebrandt, and others.

The presentation was well-received, with Dr. Noura Al-Moubayed, Associate Professor in Computer Science from Durham University, providing insightful comments and the audience engaging in a lively Q&A session. Mr. Zuo responded to the various questions, further enriching this cross-disciplinary debate.

For those interested in delving deeper into the nuances of Mr. Zuo’s presentation and the conference, a recording is available here. Additionally, Mr. Zuo welcomes further inquiries and can be contacted at zhenbin.zuo@essex.ac.uk.

How to Set up and Run a Law Clinic

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

By Professor Donald Nicolson, Essex Law School

The dark days of December were somewhat relieved by the arrival of my book, How to Set Up and Run a Law Clinic: Principles and Practices (published by Edward Elgar). It was written with two friends and colleagues: JoNel Newman and Richard Grimes. I met JoNel at a workshop on teaching ethics at Atlanta and subsequently we have co-written articles and given papers on clinics and ethics, and ran a student exchange programme between her Health Rights Clinic at the University of Miami and the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic which I set up. Richard and I go even further back, as he is one of the leading UK figures in clinical legal education and I learnt a lot from him when he was an external examiner for the innovative Strathclyde Clinical LLB I developed.

When Edgar Elgar approached me to write this book, I immediately turned to JoNel and Richard to ensure a variety of perspectives on clinics and clinical legal education. Richard has been involved in clinics for even longer than me, having set up one of the first in England while being involved in many others ranging from Afghanistan to Vietnam, as well as the Clinical Legal Education Organisation (of which I am trustee). He has always seen clinics primarily as a vehicle for improving legal education – though he is also passionate about serving the community. As someone who was involved in University of Cape Town Legal Aid, a totally student-run clinic, designed to redress the dire state of access to justice in apartheid South Africa, my motivation for setting up two law clinics in the UK was rather different. I saw community service through voluntary, as opposed to curricular, student activities as the overriding goal and instinctively involved students in clinic development and the management of the clinics I set up (the University of Bristol and University of Strathclyde Law Clinics). Much later, I came round to formalising student learning, not least because this aids in the inculcation of ethical and justice values. Indeed, I set up the Clinical LLB to allow students to integrate their three to five years of clinical experience throughout the standard law curriculum. JoNel fitted somewhere between our perspectives: all her students get credit for their one year of clinic work, but her clinic also seeks to serve as many of the community as is possible. As expected, these different perspectives gave rise to many robust debates between us, but hopefully – along with being able to draw on more than a hundred years of clinical experience – it enabled us to provide a comprehensive guide to all the things prospective clinics need to think about and existing clinics might benefit from rethinking. Pearls, after all, are created by grit in the shell!

Turning to the book itself, Chapter One provides an introduction to student law clinics and clinical legal education and their long history (the first clinic was established in Denmark more than 130 years ago!). The second chapter then examines the different goals clinics might have, most notably educating students and serving the community – the tension between which runs as a theme running throughout the rest of the book – as well as enhancing student employability, universities’ reputation, and a more diverse legal profession. The next chapter then looks at basic organisational options clinics must consider: whether they are curricular or extra-curricular; voluntary or optional; live or simulated; run in-house or through placements; managed by staff or students; and finally whether they are free or (surprisingly to some) fee-charging.

The next three chapters look at the heart of clinic operations. Chapter Four surveys what services clinics can provide. These range from the more limited and individually oriented ones of legal advice or other limited forms of ‘unbundled’ services like form-filling to the more extensive representation of individuals in disputes and the provision of ‘transactional’ services to businesses and other organisations. Much wider in their impact are what we call ‘wholesale services’ which try to help large groups of people by changing the law either through legislative or administrative reform or strategic litigation, by assisting communities acting to bring about social changes, or by educating the public or other service providers about the law (public legal education or Street Law). Chapter Fives looks at choices relating to service delivery models: by whom (students only on or professionals); when (term-time only, day-time only); where (on campus or in the community); and how (face-to-face, online or via the web). Having extensively researched the hundreds of clinics world-wide, it was highly instructive to learn how many different ways there are of serving the public and enhancing student development. No one clinic can come close to offering the full range of services, but a major aim of the book is to help them make more informed decisions about which to develop, and to consider alternatives to their current model.

Chapter Six is devoted to how best to train, supervise, teach and assess students, as well as other means of quality assurance in clinics. Chapter Seven looks at various ways to ensure that they are effective and sustainable and then the final chapter provides a checklist for establishing and maintaining a successful clinic. Here, in particular, I have drawn on much we do at  the Essex Law Clinic, such as our unique system of Bronze to Platinum progression and our ‘Summer List’ of possible improvements to the Clinic (so called because this is the only time we can take a breath from the helter-skelter of training, students, handling cases and running projects!).

However, the debt to Essex Law Clinic goes deeper than that. Having set up two law clinics based largely on my experience in the student-run University of Cape Town clinic, coming to a very different model forced me to rethink quite a lot of my assumptions and come up with new ways of ensuring that the clinic reaches its potential in serving the public and its student members. Hopefully, others will benefit from the extensive personal experiences and survey of the clinical literature we drew on to write this book.  

‘This book is very comprehensive and well-researched. It will be particularly helpful to academics wanting or needing to start a clinic. It shows them the choices they need to make on key issues and the options they have. It will also be a useful resource for those who take clinic design seriously.’

– Jeff Giddings, Monash University, Australia

‘How I wish this book had been available when I set up my first clinic! A comprehensive and detailed resource, full of wisdom, experience and practical know-how that will prove a go-to text for clinicians new and experienced alike. I am delighted that I will have it to hand hereafter.’

– Linden Thomas, University of Birmingham, UK

‘This book is a tremendous resource for legal educators around the world. It includes a comprehensive examination of the challenges of setting up an effective and sustainable legal clinic, with insightful analysis of often competing academic and public service goals as well as practical approaches to meeting those challenges.’

– Frank S. Bloch, Vanderbilt University Law School, US

‘The book is a comprehensive smorgasbord of options for establishing, managing and developing CLE programmes with a social justice service element, based on the extensive international and national experience of the three authors and other clinical law teachers. It provides a valuable addition to the global publications in the field.’

– David McQuoid-Mason, University of KwaZulu

Tackling the Blind Spot of the UK Anti-Slavery Regime: Groundbreaking Research on Modern Slavery Survivors in UK Prisons 

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Groundbreaking research led by Essex Law School’s Senior Lecturer Dr Marija Jovanovic uncovers the realities of modern slavery survivors in UK prisons in a report published on 28 November 2023. The report, Tackling the blind spot of the UK anti-slavery regime: the role and responsibility of prisons in securing the rights of modern slavery survivors, contains findings from a 12-month research project conducted in partnership between the University of Essex, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in the UK and Hibiscus Initiatives. It was commissioned by the Modern Slavery & Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (Modern Slavery PEC), which in turn is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).  

The research combined a doctrinal analysis of the relevant law, policy, and secondary sources with interviews with a range of stakeholders including adult survivors of modern slavery who had been in prison in the UK, NGOs, prison administration and staff in all three devolved jurisdictions, solicitors, police officers, and other experts. A survey was also conducted with Modern Slavery Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) recently appointed in all prisons in England and Wales. 

Dr Jovanovic and the IOM UK hosted a high-profile launch event on 28 November 2023 with more than 110 people in attendance, both online and in person. The speakers were the Chief of Mission of the IOM in the UK, the Executive Secretary of the Council of Europe’s expert group on human trafficking (GRETA), the Policy Lead on Modern Slavery at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), the Director of Policy Impact at Modern Slavery PEC, and Head of Policy and Public Affairs at Hibiscus Initiatives.  

From left to right: Ann Snowden (HMPPS), Petya Nestorova (GRETA), Christa Rottensteiner (IOM UK), Marija Jovanovic (University of Essex), Olivia Hesketh (Modern Slavery PEC).
From left to right: Ann Snowden (HMPPS), Petya Nestorova (GRETA), Patrick Burland (IOM UK)

The report reveals the reality of how countries treat modern slavery survivors, which is more complicated than commonly thought. Dr Jovanovic pointed out that contrary to the clear and express international obligations of states to identify and protect the survivors of modern slavery and prosecute and punish the perpetrators, “it is not out of the question that there might be more survivors than perpetrators in UK prisons”. Instead of being protected, many survivors are sent to prisons sometimes for the crimes they were forced to commit by their traffickers. Jakub Sobik from the Modern Slavery PEC said: “Prisons represent a missing piece in the UK’s response to modern slavery – this groundbreaking research is the first one to fill this gap, even though there’s clearly more to uncover.”  

Audience at the launch event

The research identified key challenges in the UK’s complying with its international obligations to identify and protect every survivor of modern slavery, including those in prisons. They include: the lack of systematic information-sharing between prisons and the designated Home Office Competent Authorities in charge of victim identification; insufficient training of prison staff about the issue of modern slavery; prison staff not being authorised to refer potential victims to the National Referral Mechanism designed to facilitate victim identification and support; and barriers to disclosure in prison.  

The report also includes proposals for a number of legal, policy, and practical measures required to bring current practices in line with requirements arising out of international and domestic law. 

Audience at the launch event

For more details of the research and report, you can find the press release here and the full report here. 

The Crown’s Final Act: Unveiling Insights into Public Law with Professor Maurice Sunkin

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Professor Maurice Sunkin discussed the new relationship between the Crown and the Government

The eagerly awaited concluding part of the series The Crown is set to arrive on 14 December 2023. Professor Maurice Sunkin recently engaged in an interview with Italy’s esteemed public national broadcaster RAI, delving into the intricacies raised by this acclaimed historical drama.

The show, a fictional portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II’s journey intertwined with the pivotal political events of her reign, prompted probing questions regarding public law. During the interview, Professor Sunkin provided insightful perspectives on topics such as the Crown’s impartiality and legitimacy. A noteworthy excerpt from his interview is highlighted below:

What will the reign of King Charles III be like?

His mother was very widely respected and admired and even loved by many. In part because she presented the image of a kindly grandmother. In part, because she had served the country for so long. In part, because people recognised the troubles that she must have confronted. And in part, possibly in large, part because she generally kept herself aloof and apart. She had a deep respect for the sanctity of the institution that she represented. For the most part she kept the Crown away from the trials and tribulations of daily life and politics. This has always been very important.

Charles III is a rather different person – his personal life has been much more public. He is known to have views on matters of public discussion, and has been willing to have his views  expressed. In these senses he is much more likely to make the Crown a more engaged institution. But this carries risks. The Crown’s standing depends largely on its symbolic and institutional status as above and beyond politics and normal life. There are real risks that this status could be challenged if the King becomes  more active and open to personal criticism.

So there’s a very fine balance – between modernising the Crown and shaking off the dust of previous periods while retaining the symbolic status of the Crown as an institution  above and beyond day to day life and politics. We’ll have to see how well that balance is achieved.

How can he maintain his commitment to the environment while preserving impartiality as head of State?

This is one of the challenges that he and his advisers are no doubt thinking about very carefully.  One the one hand he will not want to get too closely involved in political disputation or in direct campaigning. On the other he will be concerned to ensure that the Crown is seen to be aware of, and concerned, about the need for environmental protection.  If he does too much he will damage the Crown by dividing opinion. If he does too little he will damage the Crown by presenting it as unaware, uncaring and out of touch.  

The key will be in his and his family’s own actions. How he is seen to be managing his estates. How he is seen to be conducting his own affairs. Careful attention to matters such as travel. Sensitive organisation of the Crown’s affairs. Supporting environmentally friendly charitable activities

Considering the majority of the population declares themselves as non-Christian (Census 2021), what legitimises the role of bishops in the House of Lords and a King as both head of Anglican Church and State?

This is an important and big question. The King is the head of the Church of England. The Bishops are in the House of Lords because of the standing of the Church of England. Some will see these as out dated relics that no longer fit with a modern liberal pluralist democratic society. In these respects they represent the archaic character of the Crown itself – but they add an increasingly challenging dimension as the UK becomes more diverse and less religious. 

When the King is crowned it will be a heavily religious ceremony rooted in Christian Anglicanism. It will be interesting to see if there is anything in the ceremony to reflect a non Anglican view of the world. Either way it will be interesting to see how people react. There can be little doubt that Charles III is alive to these issues and will do everything he can to strengthen links with non-Anglicans.

Could the reform of the House of Lords, a Labour proposal, change the institutional structure of the State?

Like the Crown, the House of Lords is a feature of the UK’s constitutional system that is not obviously democratic.  But reform has been on the agenda for years and little has been achieved. Whether reform will alter the structure of the state depends of course on the nature of the reform. In my view a second chamber is valuable not least because it diffuses the power of the executive in the HC. But it’s clearly no longer appropriate to have a second chamber with no political legitimacy. So, a way needs to be found to provide political legitimacy without simply duplicating the power relationships in the HC.  If this can be done it will significantly strengthen the work of Parliament. 

 Is it time for the UK to have a written Constitution?

This is a good exam question for first year law students. The UK constitution is a complete mystery to most people –even to those of us who haves studied or work with it for years. Every time public issues arise – such as around the power of the executive in relation to Brexit or its ability to prorogue Parliament – or about the powers of the executive to send troops abroad – we realise how little we understand about some of the basics of our constitution. 

So, one of the key benefits of attempting to write down our constitution down is educational we would learn more about it. Key issues – such as around matters that we’ve been talking about – would be more widely discussed including in schools.

Setting things in written would also add clarity. If the key institutions and their powers and responsibilities  were set out in a single clear document this would have tremendous value and add clarity and help most of us understand the system – it would in sense be a great boost to our democratic culture and to the rule of law.

That’s not to say that everything could be written down. We shouldn’t assume that setting out the basics would resolve all the problems or tensions. The system would still have to operate and practice and culture would still evolve. But we would have a clearer written starting point would be a great help. I’m a great enthusiast for trying to present the nature of our system as clearly as possible and at the moment too much power is in the hands of those on the inside who have the ability to determine what the constitution requires.

Human Rights is a good example. The Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporated the Convention Rights made these rights much clearer and accessible. Now there are threats to repeal the Act and replace it with more amorphous principles. Such a reform will not add clarity but will make the system less clear and possibly open the UK to greater scrutiny from the ECtHR.  

Decoding Historical Power Struggles and Shifting Paradigms in Assisted Death: In Conversation with Dr. Rees Johnson

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Assisted death remains a complex and polarising issue. On one hand, proponents highlight the need to preserve dignity in dying calling for a more compassionate response to the law. Opponents object, emphasising concerns about diminishing the sanctity of human life, the risks of introducing a slippery slope, and highlighting negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. The debate around assisted death is staggering which begs the question: what more could be said of the problem of assisted death that has not been said 100 times over?

For Dr Rees Johnson, there is an important underlying context that is essential to future reform attempts. Dr. Johnson is a Lecturer at the Essex Law School. His research interests include end-of-life matters and the racial/cultural contexts of end-of-life care. He teaches Medical Law and Property Law. Rees recently concluded his PhD: Situating Medical Power within the Modern (Legal) History of Assisted Death: 1936 – Present.

The Research Visibility Team interviewed Dr. Rees Johnson to find out more about his thesis and research.

In layman’s terms, what is the problem your research aims to fix and how would you describe your contribution to your subject area?

My PhD was borne out of frustration. The frustration I had was with the state of the academic debate and how I felt the way the problem of assisted death was being debated. After conducting an extensive literature review, I felt that the conventional framing of assisted death as a legal and/or ethical problem created a cyclical effect. Ethical and legal discourses have been deployed to advocate reform; and yet the same ethical and legal discourses have been inverted to argue the opposite. Rinse and repeat for nearly 100 years.

Considering this circular argumentation, how could the law progress when it is hindered by uncertainty and indeterminacy? What is the function of this uncertainty and indeterminacy? Who stands to benefit from this uncertainty and indeterminacy? What strategies have been deployed to preserve this uncertainty and indeterminacy? These were some of the questions I felt needed answering.

By adopting a critical historical analysis inspired by Michel Foucault, I examined the legal history of assisted death to determine whether something else was going on beneath the conventional framing.

I came to realise that the legal developments of assisted death have been constrained by an underlying tension: the tension between preserving medical power and authority on the one hand; and subverting it on the other.

My PhD therefore mapped out the ways this tension has played out. Using a historical frame, it charted the interest-driven strategies, interpretive struggles, and discursive practices of institutional actors (judges, lawyers, academics, medical professionals etc.) as well as the impact of these on the legal development of assisted death.

If your thesis was a front-page story in a newspaper, what would be the headline?

Facing the Challenge of Medical Power: A Call for Assisted Dying Law Reform

What inspired you to delve into the intersection of law, ethics, and power dynamics within the context of assisted death?

My background is in environmental law, having done Law with Environmental Science LLB at Northumbria University in 2014 and an LLM in Sustainable Development and Environmental Regulation at Newcastle University in 2016. I wrote my LLM dissertation on the legal rights of nature and the need for a pragmatic middle-ground.

During the LLM, I was introduced to the work of Michel Foucault when I studied ‘Critical Geopolitics’ in the Politics Department at Newcastle University, following a three-month trip to Israel in 2015. This introduction changed my worldview about pretty much everything – especially the law, and the way law supports and fosters power relations to the detriment of those at the margins.

After the LLM, I received a £30,000 funding package from Newcastle University to develop a SmartBot that could write a will for the purpose of estate planning. It was here that I became interested in death and dying. This seems like an unusual trajectory, but the PhD is simply a meeting of these two worlds.

Your thesis employs a critical historiographical method inspired by Michel Foucault. What key insights does this approach offer that traditional legal and ethical frameworks might overlook?

I think adopting a method of legal analysis that moves away from concentrating on formal modes or structures of power and authority is important. Foucault teaches us to consider the underlying, subtle ways in which power is exercised that are not immediately obvious, such as through discursive practices like medicalisation and expertise. In parliamentary debates or case law on assisted dying, it is difficult to unsee how politicians and judges help to legitimise and uphold these techniques.

The methodological approach was also helpful in that it allowed for the explication of power relations inherent in the development of legal knowledge and how this unfolds over time. Legal knowledge is not neutral but historically contingent and situationally negotiated through a constellation of power relations. This helps us to adopt a more critical approach to the development of legal knowledge and legal ideas.

Your thesis suggests the need to draw a line as a matter of policy to avoid conferring too much power and authority to the medical profession in the context of assisted death. Could you elaborate on potential alternative approaches or policies that could genuinely empower patients while ensuring a balance between autonomy and medical authority? What considerations should future proposals take into account?

In my PhD, I argue that the reason the law has not changed is that current and historic proposals would undermine the status quo of medical power and authority.

The issue the medical profession has had with reforming the law is that reformers have proposed bringing in third parties, such as referees/judges, into proceedings. As long as these safeguards remain, the dominant medical culture will remain opposed where external involvement risks undermining its professional autonomy. These are too explicit terms, however. Often you will hear about the need to preserve the doctor-patient relationship which seems noble. However, the foundation of this power relationship is trust; and trust is essential to maintaining the professional autonomy of the medical profession. It is from this autonomy that the profession derives its power and authority. 

To circumvent this, I drew upon the work of Suzanne Ost and Margaret Brazier to propose de-medicalising assisted death to enable people to have an assisted death beyond the grip of medical power and authority. I see no reason why assisted death needs to be within the domain of medical practice. There are important policy/social reasons why we might not want to extend the power of the profession to encompass power and authority over death itself. For that reason, I would reject the need to strike a balance between patient autonomy and medical authority.

Reflecting on your research journey, what challenges did you encounter in examining the historical contingency and power relations surrounding assisted death?

The project was a huge undertaking. The debate in Britain is nearly a century old. There have been a lot of shifts in the debate, its discourses, and the range of institutional actors that have emerged within the debate at different historical points. Trying to capture this in 80,000 words meant I had to be very selective. A lot of my ‘darlings’ had to be killed, and so learning to let certain ideas or contexts go was difficult.

The biggest hurdle was attempting to incorporate Foucauldian philosophy into an ethico-legal analysis of assisted dying. I faced difficulties trying to convince others of the value or utility of my theoretical and methodological choices especially those who have fed into the conventional frame.

My critical approach is not traditional within the bioethical intellectual space. Whilst others were saying assisted death is a legal problem, or an ethical problem, I was arguing that the frameworks of law and ethics occlude an underlying context –– that assisted death is better problematised as a problem of ideology, of power.

The preservation of medical power and authority is the root of the failure of past reform attempts. In knowing this, future reform attempts can concentrate their efforts on new points of resistance that can overcome the constraining effects of medical power and authority.

Now that you submitted your thesis, how do you plan to move forward in terms of your research?

Having examined the ways in which medical power and authority have shaped legal developments of assisted death, I am now keen to examine the other aspect of the power relationship: the patient.

I am interested in those patients who are more susceptible to the effects and constraints of medical power and authority.

Currently, I am exploring the racial and cultural contexts of assisted dying reform and how changes in the law might impact people of colour and, importantly, what we ought to do about this.

Elevate Your Academic Journey: SENSS and Essex Law School Unite for Excellence

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Image via Shutterstock

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

What is SENSS?

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.

SENSS provides fully-funded doctoral studentships, mentorship from global experts, personalised research methods training, and diverse placements as part of its Doctoral Training Partnership. 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 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 Dr. Andrew Fagan 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 Theodore Konstadinides, who is also a founder 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 individuals explore a broad range of exciting topics under expert supervision, forming a vibrant tapestry of ideas.

Image via Shutterstock

Our Essex Law Research Blog features Vanessa Topp, a SENSS-funded doctoral candidate at the Essex Law School & Human Rights Centre, who offers below her insights into the application process and provides valuable advice for prospective candidates.

Can you share your experience with the application process for the SENSS Doctoral Training Partnership and highlight how the partnership’s collaborative approach influenced your decision to apply? 

“I applied for the student-led studentship with SENSS, and throughout the application process, I received invaluable support from my supervisors and my department which allowed me to refine and greatly improve my proposal.”

“While the multiple rounds of review and steps involved in the application process initially felt somewhat intimidating and fast-paced, the ability to receive and implement feedback from several different perspectives was ultimately crucial to building a successful application.”

“There are several reasons why I was particularly drawn to SENSS. I am particularly excited to be a part of the SENSS network because it allows me to collaborate with academics from other institutions that are part of the DTP working on research relevant to my own and I look forward to participating in cross-institutional knowledge sharing.”

“I also appreciate the opportunities provided through SENSS to conduct fieldwork in collaboration with external partner organisations or to potentially participate in an overseas institutional visit at another university which I feel will lead to more meaningful and impactful research.” 

Reflecting on your successful application, what tips or insights would you offer to prospective candidates aiming to secure SENSS funding and maximise the opportunities offered by this collaborative platform of universities? 

“Start the process as early as possible so you can revise your application several times and be open to taking on board feedback, while also remembering that ultimately it is your project, and you have to be happy with the proposal you design.”

“The SENSS application contains a lot of different elements – not just the proposal – so make sure to take your time with these as well. The space to write your proposal in the application form is quite compact, so these other parts of the application form can provide an important opportunity to provide more information that you could not include in the proposal for space limitations; about your project, who you are as a candidate, and how you are the best fit to your project.” 

“SENSS is a collaborative network, so it is also important to look into what this means and to highlight what aspects you would like to participate in and what your contributions will be.”

Where can you find out more?

Explore the opportunities offered by the SENSS 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 scheme, please contact Dr. Anil Yilmaz Vastardis, our Postgraduate Research Director. 

Specific questions about academic disciplines? 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 join SENSS at the Essex Law School, where innovation, excellence, and transformation define the doctoral experience.