A few years back, I was lucky enough to be invited by research scientists at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab — especially the late Roger Hurwitz — to participate in a Minerva Grant project studying norms and governance in cyberspace.  In the interim, norms have become one of the hot topics in cybersecurity discussions in international fora. Together with Martha Finnemore, I began to think more about the processes by which norms work, including the ways they relate to international law.

I’m pleased to report that after a couple of years of research and thinking, Marty and I have the results of our work forthcoming in the American Journal of International Law:  Constructing Norms for Global Cybersecurity.  You can get a preview of the article on SSRN here.  And, for those looking to learn more about our piece, here is the abstract:

Cybersecurity now stands at the top of the U.S. security agenda. As sources of cyber insecurity have proliferated, States and other stakeholders have increasingly turned to norms as the regulatory tool of choice, hoping to shape the behavior of diverse actors in this space. Proponents of cybernorms have so far focused on what the new norms should say and on what behaviors they should require or prohibit. They have paid little attention to how new norms would actually work—how they could successfully be constructed and the processes by which they would create desired effects. In other words, they have paid a lot of attention to the “cyber” component of cybernorms but very little attention to the “norms” component and the issues of how normativity actually works in the world.

In this Article, we offer an inter-disciplinary analysis of the processes by which cybernorms might be constructed and some of the choices and trade-offs involved in doing so. We first situate the current discourse in the varying contexts surrounding cybersecurity. We define the norm concept and examine the diverse array of norms currently populating the landscape of cyberspace. We next draw on the rich body of work in social science about norm construction in other policy areas to understand how norms can be cultivated successfully and how they create effects, both intended and otherwise. Of course, if cyberspace is unique, lessons from other policy domains might not be applicable but we assess these arguments and find them unconvincing.

Our paper then unpacks some of the strategic choices facing norm promoters in their decisions on which norms are needed, who should conform to them, not to mention where and how they should do so. We do not prescribe a particular path for norm promoters, but rather emphasize the need to recognize and accommodate the consequences and trade-offs these choices involve. Our paper thus offers lessons for States, industry, civil society, and others interested in promoting norms in cyberspace. By situating our work in both international law and international relations, this paper also provides a case study of the strategic social construction of norms that offers both political scientists and international lawyers more information on how non-legal mechanisms could regulate global problems like cybersecurity.

Comments and thoughts on the article are most welcome as Marty and I are continuing to do more research and writing in this space.  Next up, is a project that assesses various ways to institutionalize a norm such as the duty to assist idea that I first called for a few years back.

Last year, I criticised ASIL for limiting its very prestigious Lieber Prize to academics under 35. I described that limit as “ageist,” noting that in today’s academic world there are many law professors over 35 who, because they joined academia late, should rightfully be considered junior scholars. So I am delighted to note that ASIL has changed the eligibility criteria for the 2017 Lieber Prize:

Anyone may apply for the article or book prize. For those in academia or research institutions, the prize is open to those who are up to 8 years post-PhD or JD or those with up to 8 years in academic teaching or research position. Membership in the American Society of International Law is not required. Multi-authored works may be submitted if all the authors are eligible to enter the competition. Submissions from outside the United States are welcomed.

This is a much better approach to eligibility. Kudos to ASIL for the change.

In the past few weeks, Jack Goldsmith and Matt Waxman on the one hand, and Marty Lederman on the other, have restarted a discussion about the significance of Congress’ ongoing failure to enact legislation expressly authorizing the United States’ expansive use of force against ISIL in Iraq, Syria, and now in Libya. In a piece for Time Magazine, Jack and Matt faulted the Obama Administration for failing to “return to the Congress and the American People and insist on a new authorization for this new war.” They argued that the Administration “took away every political incentive that the responsibility-shy Congress might have to debate and authorize the war” by advancing the dubious notion that the existing 2001 statute (the AUMF) (authorizing force against Al Qaeda and its associates) affords the President sufficient authority to attack ISIL as well. Responding at Just Security, Marty quite agrees (as do I) it would be better if Congress had enacted (or would enact) an ISIL-specific use of force. But Marty is skeptical there was much more President Obama could have done to secure congressional action, and also questions whether Congress’ failure to enact new authority really sets as worrisome a precedent for democratic governance or executive power as Jack and Matt think.

Jack and Matt are right to point out that Obama’s legal reliance on the 2001 AUMF to justify the use of force against in Iraq, Syria and Libya is more than a little suspect. (I’ve written previously about why I think so, e.g., here.) Marty is right to doubt whether blame for Congress’ failure to act on ISIL can fairly be placed, as Jack and Matt seem to suggest, at Obama’s doorstep. But there is plenty more to the story I think both pieces miss. (more…)

Today, on the opening of the GA, and in his final such speech as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon indicated that a compensation package for victims of Cholera is forthcoming. Speaking in French (original here), he expressed regret over the recent peacekeeper sexual abuse scandals and the Cholera epidemic in Haiti, and promised a package of assistance and support for better sanitation and water systems to victims would be forthcoming.

His speech confirms a significant and welcome shift in the UN’s approach to the cholera epidemic in Haiti. Since the outbreak in 2010, the UN steadfastly denied the assertion that a causal connection existed between the cholera outbreak and a UN peacekeeper base wherein blackwater was funneled into one of the main tributaries in Haiti.  The UN also rejected claims for compensation by victims and their families stating, in a now infamous letter, that the claims were “not receivable” under the UN Convention on Privileges and Immunities. For my full assessment of the Cholera Claims and the UN’s response to this and other recent mass torts claims, see my recent article in the Chicago Journal of International Law here.

The first signs of a change in the UN’s approach came about in August, when Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq said in an email quoted in the New York Times that “over the past year, the U.N. has become convinced that it needs to do much more regarding its own involvement in the initial outbreak and the suffering of those affected by cholera.” The Times reported he also stated that a “new response will be presented publicly within the next two months, once it has been fully elaborated, agreed with the Haitian authorities and discussed with member states.”

Significantly, this communication was released days before a widely anticipated appeals decision  was  handed down by the Second Circuit.  In this decision, the judges rejected the claimants appeal for compensation from the UN, relying on principles of contract interpretation to uphold the key finding that the “UN’s fulfillment of its Section 29 obligation is not a condition precedent to its Section 2 immunity” under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the UN.

There are several factors that might explain the UN’s new response. One is a reputational concern.   The release of a very critical report by Phillip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights in August, concluded: “[that] a new approach is desperately needed.   The starting point is that there should be an apology and acceptance of responsibility in the name of the Secretary-General. Consideration should then be given to constructing a policy package to address the need for compensation to the victims.”  Alston’s report  provides an instructive and poignant account of how the UN has mishandled this claim, while also illustrating how complex mass claims are for the Organization, given shrinking budgets, the sui generis legal position of the UN, and the lack of internal precedents on providing transparent process and remedies.

Another reason for the UN’s reconsideration of its stance clearly involves the upcoming elections for a new UN Secretary General.  Later this fall, Ban Ki Moon will step down, and some believe that he wants to ensure his legacy is not tarred by the perception that the Haiti case was mishandled. Another theory is that it is better for the Organization to address this case within the current SG’s mandate, rather than saddling a new SG with such an albatross.

The key issue at present is what a compensation package for victims would look like.  Alston’s report urges the UN to make use of other precedents for lump sum settlements, such as the 9/11 trust fund, the USA-France agreement to compensate Holocaust victims, and the Canadian Reparations Programme for the Indian Residential School System. He further notes: “it is clear that the United Nations could make use of these various precedents in order to shape an approach to compensation as part of a broader package that would provide justice to the victims and be affordable.”

While full details of the package will be released in October, advocates are hard at work at the UN, attempting to ensure a victim centered approach prevails.  A letter sent to the UN Secretary General yesterday, for example, argues that there are four necessary components of an effective remedy:

“An effective remedy requires: (1) issuing a formal, public apology to the victims of cholera in Haiti, (2) ensuring full funding of the previously announced but largely unfunded cholera elimination plan, (3) committing to providing victims of the epidemic with material compensation in a timely fashion, and (4) implementing a transparent and participatory process.”

What seems clear at this stage is that the UN is not acknowledging any legal responsibility for the introduction of Cholera into Haiti for fear of setting precedent.   Nonetheless, there is an opportunity here for the UN to improve the process of claims settlement, to adhere to its obligation to provide a remedy for damages incurred, and to demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law. Let’s hope the UN does the right thing. If it doesn’t, advocates in the Haiti Cholera litigation noted in a blast email today that they still have three months to appeal to the Supreme Court.

International Law Weekend, the annual conference of the American Branch of the International Law Association is fast approaching. See the following notice from ABILA:

International Law Weekend 2016

Registration is now open for International Law Weekend 2016.

International Law Weekend 2016 – the premiere international law event of the Fall season – will be held October 27-29, 2016, in New York City.  The Opening Panel will take place on Thursday evening at the New York City Bar Association.  The Friday and Saturday sessions will be held at Fordham Law School.

You can register for the conference here: http://www.ila-americanbranch.org

The unifying theme for ILW 2016 is International Law 5.0.

The world is changing at an accelerating rate. From technological advances to environmental transformations, international lawyers are forced to confront emerging forces and new scenarios. Even settled principles of law are no longer settled. These tectonic shifts have been felt throughout the geography of international law. Legal professionals at every level – local, national, regional, and international – must change their practice to meet a changing world. Innovation will become necessary for survival.

ILW 2016 will explore these issues through a collection of engaging and provocative panels. A broad array of both public international law and private international law topics will be offered.

We look forward to seeing you at ILW 2016.

By the way, as a Co-rapporteur for the ILA’s Committee on Recognition/Non-Recognition in International Law, I will be on the panel Recognition and Non-Recognition of States and Governments: Current Issues in U.S. Practice on Friday, October 28 at 4:45 pm, along with my Opinio Juris colleague Peggy McGuinness and Brad Roth, both of whom are committee members, and Wladyslaw Czaplinski, the committee’s chairperson. Here’s the panel description:

For over five years the International Law Association’s Committee on Recognition and Non-Recognition has studied how states do or do not recognize other regimes as states and governments. This panel will bring together members from the ILA Committee to discuss the findings of their reports, with a particular focus on emerging issues in U.S. practice, including responses to secessions and unilateral declarations of independence after Kosovo; the problem of two or more regimes claiming to be the government of a single state, and the U.S. domestic effects of non-recognition.

In case you haven’t seen it, The High Commissioner for Human Rights’ recent speech addressed to “populists, demagogues and political fantasists” is well worth reading.   The speech can be viewed here, and a link to the video here.

As Prince Zeid says:  “The proposition of recovering a supposedly perfect past is fiction; its merchants are cheats.  Clever cheats.”

I have admired Mark Tushnet’s work since I was a law student, so I was very disappointed to read his critique of the now-notorious letter the University of Chicago sent to first-year students about “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.” Here is the bit that got Tushnet so riled up:

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

Most of Tushnet’s arguments involve reading the letter as uncharitably as possible — such as claiming that the University of Chicago would force a veteran to remain roommates with an anti-war activist who insisted on badgering him about the war every night. (Geoffrey Stone has already made clear that the University was not talking about dormitories.) But I was truly shocked when Tushnet made the following claim about the classroom as a safe space:

Even there, though, sometimes the university should condone the creation of a space in which there is a sharp restriction on “ideas and perspectives different from” the ones being offered in the class. Consider a course described clearly in the catalogue as a course dealing with Austrian economics, with a syllabus whose readings focus tightly on that topic. Students who want to discuss Marxist economics can, I think, properly be silenced in that class – perhaps as long as there is some other university-based venue in which they can explore Marxist economics – so that students only interested in Austrian economics can get on with their studies of that topic. Again – a safe space for the study of Austrian economics.

Really? As long as the University offers a course in Marxist economics, it’s fine for professors to “silence” a student who wants to use Marxist economics to question Austrian economics? The professor in the Austrian economics class should just say, “sorry, questioning Austrian economics is not permitted in this class. We’re here to learn what Austrian economics is about — not why it’s wrong. If you want to know why Austrian economics is wrong, go take a class with my hippie colleague”?

That strikes me as a terrible idea. Of course reasonable limits on discussion are appropriate — the Marxist student shouldn’t be able to dominate the class by questioning every assertion, nor should he or she be able to bring in Marxist ideas that have no relevance to Austrian economics. (“The proletariat will smash your bourgeois Austrian-economics state!”) But that is a far cry from saying it’s fine to “silence” the Marxist student so students “only interested in Austrian economics can get on with their studies of that topic.” That isn’t a “safe space.” It’s a propagandistic one that reduces learning to the uncritical reception of a professor’s preferred ideas. Little wonder the University of Chicago rejected the idea! Tushnet simply makes the University’s point.

PS: Given my lefty tendencies, it’s not surprising that Tushnet’s particular example got my hackles up. But the same criticism would apply to any course that wanted to create a “safe space” for learning a subject by excluding critical perspectives. I would be no less offended if the professor in an ICL course told a student who tried to challenge the value of punitive trials to shut up and go find a course on transitional justice.

Buzzfeed’s Chris Hamby is out today with the first installment of a promised four-part investigative report into the system of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).  Like all such reports, it needs a spectacular headline and summary to draw clicks, and this one’s a doozy:

The Court That Rules the World

A parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else, helps executives convicted of crimes escape punishment.

The article itself is much more fair and thorough than this ridiculous headline teaser suggests.  It contains lots of original reporting on three ISDS cases involving Egypt, El Salvador, and Indonesia where Hamby says actual or threatened ISDS actions allowed corporate executives to escape criminal punishment.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of Hamby’s reporting on these cases. But I do have two initial somewhat critical reactions:

• ISDS does give foreign investors leverage with host nations like Egypt or El Salvador that they wouldn’t otherwise have.  But I think Hamby overstates the amount of leverage a real or threatened ISDS claim creates.  Foreign governments don’t immediately comply with all ISDS awards and collecting judgments against foreign sovereigns, even weak ones like Egypt or El Salvador, is no easy task given those states’ sovereign immunity legal defenses and the difficulty of seizing state-owned assets.  Moreover, research shows that ISDS shows that states win more often than investors do, or they at least prevail as often as investors do. (See Footnote 3 to this letter defending ISDS as well as this EU Commission report).  ISDS may have allowed some foreign investors to unjustly avoid liability for their actions, but it is hard to know (and Hamby’s article cannot prove) that such cases represent a majority, or even a meaningful percentage, of overall ISDS actions.
•  I don’t have a problem with Hamby reporting on these cases where it seems ISDS has been abused.  But I think it is important to keep the larger context of ISDS in mind.  What would be the impact of not having ISDS at all?  Would it make cross-border investment less common?  A lot less common?  Would the elimination of ISDS result in more corruption as foreign investors feel a need to pay protection money to host countries rather than resort to legal means?  Would the elimination of ISDS result in simply more cross-border investment among “rich” countries with well-developed domestic legal systems such as the US and Europe to the exclusion of “poor” countries with developing legal systems?  In other words, ISDS may be bad in many ways, and much abused (although I doubt the abuse is as common as Hamby intimates), but would eliminating ISDS be worse?

I am not an uncritical cheerleader for ISDS. I am doubtful, for instance, that ISDS adds much to the (now pretty much dead) proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US.  And I have questioned the constitutionality under US law of the ICSID Convention’s requirement of automatic enforcement of ISDS awards.   But I do feel ISDS critics should eventually have to answer the question: If not ISDS, then what? And will that non-ISDS future be better or worse? Hopefully, one of Hamby’s remaining three parts will address this important policy issue.

Defense One points to a news story in the Baghdad Post that the Iraqi Security Forces may be preparing to deploy a ground-combat robot:

Loosely dubbed Alrobot — Arabic for robot — it has four cameras, an automatic machine gun, and a launcher for Russian-made Katyusha rockets, and can be operated by laptop and radio link from a kilometer away, the [Baghdad Post] story says.

One point is important to emphasize, the Alrobot is a remotely-controlled four-wheeled drone, it is not an autonomous weapon. By contrast, an autonomous weapon would be, in the words of a recent article from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “capable of selecting and engaging targets without human intervention.”

However, while the Alrobot would not be autonomous, Defense One also notes that it will also not be the first remotely-controlled battlefield weapon deployed in Iraq:

Back in 2007, the U.S. Army deployed three armed ground robots called the Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System, or SWORDS, from weapons maker Foster-Miller (now owned by Qinetiq). SWORDS basically consisted of a Foster-Miller TALON robot armed with a machine gun.

However, the SWORDS unmanned ground vehicles (UGV’s) were never used on patrol. A 2008 Wired article (to which Defense One linked) explained in an addendum:

Senior Army leadership, however, was not comfortable with sending them out to do combat missions due to safety reasons, and they are now placed in fixed positions, said Robert Quinn, vice president of Talon operations at Foster-Miller…

It seems to be a “chicken or the egg” situation for the Army, he said. The tactics, techniques and procedures for using armed ground robots have not been addressed.

But until there is an adequate number of SWORDS to train with, these issues can’t be worked out, he said.

.A successor weapons system, the Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System (MAARS) is currently being developed by QinetiQ. Like its predecessor, MAARS would  not be an autonomous weapon, but a remotely-controlled battlefield robot with humans making the tactical decisions. Consequently, the legal issues here would be less like the many concerns stemming from using artificial intelligence to make targeting and live-fire decisions, but rather would be similar to the legal issues arising from the use of armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s). Possible questions would include whether the use of the cameras and other sensors on the UGV would allow its operator to adequately discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Does inserting an remotely-controlled armed robot make one more likely to use force? Under what situations would using such a system be disproportionate?

This may depend, in part, on how such systems are deployed. There could be different legal implications in using a UGV to, for example, “stand post” to guard the perimeter of a platoon that is out on patrol in a remote mountainous region as opposed to using a UGV in an urban combat situation where there are many civilians in close-quarters. The U.S. Marine Corps, for example, is considering when and how the use of weapons like MAARS would be appropriate.

For another recent post on robots and regulations, see my post from earlier this summer.

We are looking for two Senior Teaching Fellows. Here is the advertisement:

Salary: £34,336 – £40,448 per annum pro rata inclusive of London Allowance

Fixed term, part time for two years from September 2016

SOAS, University of London is the world’s leading institution for the study of Asia, Africa and the Near and Middle East, offering programmes in arts, humanities, languages, law and social sciences. Inaugurated in June 1916, SOAS has had an international reach since the arrival of its first students in February 1917 and is celebrating its Centenary in this year. As an institution we combine language scholarship, disciplinary expertise and regional focus, and have the largest concentration in Europe of academic staff concerned with these specialisms.

The School of Law invites applications for two year fixed term Senior Teaching Fellow positions available from September 2016.  The vacancies are designed on a 0.5 FTE part-time teaching basis to support postdoctoral individuals who might be seeking to develop an academic career in conjunction with their personal research interests.

You will have academic expertise in an area of the law that is consistent with the SOAS mandate as a specialist institution in the study of Asia, Africa and the Near and Middle East. Ideally, you will also have a PhD in Law.  You will be expected to teach to a high standard undergraduate and postgraduate students in two or more of the following areas of law: Contracts, Property, EU, Human Rights Law and Law and Society in Asia and Africa. You will be expected to engage in teaching-related administration, supervision of Masters dissertations, pastoral care, and administration.

Prospective candidates seeking further information about SOAS and the Department may contact the Head of the School of Law, Professor Carol Tan (ct9 [at] soas [dot] ac [dot] uk).

These are excellent positions. Applications are due August 10. Full information here.

I have been trying to move on from writing about the blockbuster UN Convention on the Law of the Sea arbitral award on the South China Sea.  As our readers know, I have written way too much on this topic lately.  But the Chinese government’s outrageous statements criticizing the award deserve one last post from me before I head out for a South China Sea-free vacation this summer.

In particular, I wanted to turn our readers’ focus to statements such as those made by China’s Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Liu Zhenmin, shortly after the award was released.  In his remarks denigrating the arbitral tribunal, Liu implied that the arbitrators may have been bribed to adopt the views of the Philippines in the award.  Below is an excerpt of a transcript of his remarks:

Besides, who supported the Arbitral Tribunal? The arbitrators are paid by certain parties, but who? Maybe by the Philippines or other countries. This system is completely different from the ICJ or the ITLOS.

Judges of the ICJ or the ITLOS receive salaries from the UN for the sake of independence and impartiality. But these five judges of the Arbitral Tribunal are doing it for a profit, and their payments come from the Philippines and probably others, too. We are unsure about the details but they do provide paid services.

These comments are outrageous on so many levels.   Liu knows, or should know, that the arbitrators were paid by the government of the Philippines.  The tribunal announced publicly in its Rules of Procedure Article 31-33 that it was exercising its treaty powers under Article 7 of Annex VII to UNCLOS to require payment from both parties. But Liu also knows that the only reason the arbitrators received all of their compensation from the Phillippines government is because China refused to participate and refused to pay its share. If China had actually showed up, it would have been obligated under Article 7 of UNCLOS Annex VII to pay half of the fees.  There is no evidence, and Liu cites none, that any government other than the Philippines paid the arbitrators.  Liu also conveniently fails to mention his own government’s failure to pay its fair share.

Such payments are almost always made in advance of the award being issued, or even before the proceedings begin.  In other words, the payments could not influence the award’s contents because the Philippines did not know the content of the award before they made their payments.

This manner of compensating arbitrators is so standard and unremarkable that China’s own leading commercial arbitration organization, CIETAC, allows in Rule III.C.1 for one party to pay fees for the entire arbitration even if the other party does not show up and refuses to pay its own share.   This is essentially the situation that the Philippines found itself in.  It could continue to demand that the Tribunal seek money from China for its share of the expenses, or it could pay up. It chose to pay China’s share as well, and (as a reward) is now being lambasted by China for doing so.

Vice-Minister Liu is not a party hack who doesn’t know anything about arbitration.  He is, in fact, on the roster of arbitrators available for appointment by the Permanent Court of Arbitration and he is a arbitrator of the aforementioned CIETAC.  In other words, Liu knows exactly how arbitration works, and he is feigning ignorance in order to defame the character of the UNCLOS arbitrators.

In the same press conference, Liu also claimed that UNCLOS arbitration is some sort of aberration that has never happened before, unlike the more established ICJ or ITLOS systems.  On this point, Liu is flatly incorrect. In fact, there have already been seven UNCLOS arbitrations convened under the exact same rules that were applied to the Philippines/China arbitration.  In fact, as Liu well knows, the Chinese government freely chose arbitration instead of the ICJ or ITLOS for any dispute settlement under UNCLOS.

When acceding to UNCLOS, China could have chosen under Article 287 to specify the ICJ or ITLOS as its preferred forum for dispute settlement.  It did not do so, thereby forcing any dispute involving China to be sent to UNCLOS arbitration pursuant to Article 287(5).  In other words, the Chinese government made a conscious choice to avoid the ICJ and ITLOS for disputes arising under UNCLOS.  It is astounding for one of China’s leading diplomats to denigrate the integrity of a system of dispute settlement that China freely chose and in fact demanded.

Liu’s borderline defamatory remarks matter even if China and the Philippines eventually work out a settlement of their dispute.  Liu has knowingly denigrated the integrity of five arbitrators – three of whom continue to sit on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – using facts he almost certainly knows are false. As the esteemed Professor Jerome Cohen of NYU has noted, in many jurisdictions, this could be enough to constitute defamation or slander.  Since Liu would have immunity for his remarks, perhaps the softer sanctions could be imposed, such as demanding his resignation from the PCA’s roster of arbitrators or perhaps his removal from the position as an Associate Member of UNIDROIT.  At the very least, this sort of casual character assassination should not be forgotten nor forgiven.

Are you a new PhD or about to finish your PhD? Do you focus on comparative constitutional law? If so, you will definitely want to apply for one of the two postdocs at Melbourne Law School that Adrienne Stone, now a Laureate Fellow, is offering:

About the role

Professor Adrienne Stone’s Kathleen Fitzpatrick ARC Laureate Fellowship Program aims to address a problem for liberal democracies: the need to reconcile the tensions between the pursuit of diversity and the promotion of social cohesion. The critical problem is becoming increasingly urgent as nations grapple with the challenges of highly diverse multi-cultural societies. The team working on the Fellowship will draw on the experiences of constitutionalism throughout the world to investigate how Constitutions, in their design and in their application, can serve as a unifying force while still nurturing the diversity appropriate for a complex, modern society.

About you

Applicants must have graduated or have met the requirements to graduate with a PhD in Law, or a related field by 1 December 2016. Applicants must provide evidence of the award of their PhD, including date of award. Applicants must be able to commence employment between 1 December 2016 and no later than 1 December 2017.

Melbourne is a great place to live and work — and there is quite simply no one better to work with than Adrienne. She is not only one of the world’s leading comparative constitutional law scholars, she is an extraordinarily wonderful person. She was one of my favourite colleagues at Melbourne, and she remains one of my dearest friends.

Deadline to apply is August 12.