Logo Logo Logo Logo Logo

In association with the International Commission of Jurists

  • Topics ↓
    • General
    • Use of Force
    • International Criminal Law
    • International Humanitarian Law
    • International Human Rights Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Trade & Economic Law
    • Law of the Sea
    • National Security Law
    • Foreign Relations Law
    • Organizations
  • Regions ↓
    • Africa
    • Asia-Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin & South America
    • Middle East
    • North America
  • Announcements ↓
    • Events
    • Calls for Papers
    • Jobs
  • Symposia ↓
    • Books
    • Articles
    • Themes
  • Media ↓
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Contributors
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Donate
  • Fresh Squeezed! Podcast
  • Topics ↓

    • General
    • Use of Force
    • International Criminal Law
    • International Humanitarian Law
    • International Human Rights Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Trade & Economic Law
    • Law of the Sea
    • National Security Law
    • Foreign Relations Law
    • Organizations
  • Regions ↓

    • Africa
    • Asia-Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin & South America
    • Middle East
    • North America
  • Announcements ↓

    • Events
    • Calls for Papers
    • Jobs
  • Symposia ↓

    • Books
    • Articles
    • Themes
  • Media ↓
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Contributors
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Donate
  • Fresh Squeezed! Podcast

Author: Maria Pilar Llorens

01 Nov

Fourth Annual Symposium on Pop Culture and International Law: Mafalda and the World – A Timeless Critique from a Twailer

[Maria Pilar Llorens holds a PhD in Law and Social Sciences and teaches International Public Law at the Faculty of Law of the Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. Dr Silvina Sánchez Mera teaches law and criminology at Robert Gordon University.] In the early 1970s, when asked about Mafalda, writer Julio Cortázar answered: ‘That does not matter at all. What is important...

Maria Pilar Llorens and Silvina Sánchez Mera | 0 Comments
Recent Posts
  • A rejoinder to the incidental civilian harm debate, part II: the untenability of understanding incidental as ‘knowingly and willingly’ killing civilians (no matter how many) without ‘desire’, under ICL
  • A rejoinder to the incidental civilian harm debate, part I: the untenability of understanding incidental as ‘fortuitous’ killing of civilians (no matter how many) under IHL
  • What the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels Means for the Duty to Co-operate
  • Unilateral Regulation Without Mirror Clauses? The Limits of the EU’s Brussels Effect in the EU–Mercosur Agreement
  • Symposium on the Global Sumud Flotilla: The Mechanics of Legal Accumulation – From the Namibia Precedent to the Sumud Flotilla

© Opinio Juris | Design by Open & Honest | In association with the International Commission of Jurists