How to Write a First Class Law Dissertation – Complete Guide
by WardBlawg on November 18, 2010
“Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial and Civil Jurisdiction: Permitting Delay, Restricting Access and Recognising Incompatible Judgments”.
Below is my honours law dissertation together with tips and a very special video from an ex-Cambridge professor at the end. Enjoy!
And if you have any legal blog posts you’d like to share (whether after you have submitted your dissertation or before), please get in touch – our goal is to help share great legal information online to improve legal understanding and access to justice around the world.
How to write a first class legal dissertation: Content and Structure
Three tips can be suggested to get you started on the right foot:
First, research the subject in which you are most interested in writing about for your dissertation, then choose a sufficiently narrow angle to approach the subject or choose something that hasn’t been discussed much before.
Second, collect, or print out or photocopy all relevant materials which discuss that narrow subject.
Third, plan rough headings for sub-topics within the main subject. While the contents below were finalised towards the end of the writing process, the rough structure was formulated at an early point in the writing process. This is how many academics write their books: they provide themselves with lots of headings and subheadings, then chip away at the work, bit by bit until complete.
Examples contents for “Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial and Civil Jurisdiction: Permitting Delay, Restricting Access and Recognising Incompatible Judgments” are as follows:-
1. INTRODUCTION
2. ARTICLE 6: THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
2.1. Substantive Elements 2.2. Procedural Operation: Direct and Indirect Effect 2.3. The Human Rights Act 1998
3. REASONABLE TIME
3.1. Introduction 3.2. Framework under Article 6 3.3. Conflict with Lis Pendens: Erich Gasser 3.3.1. Delay in the Italian Court 3.3.2. A Clash of Treaties 3.3.3. Future Application 3.4. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens 3.4.1. General Operation 3.4.2. First Limb of Spiliada 3.4.3. Second Limb of Spiliada 3.5. Conclusions
4. ACCESS TO A COURT
4.1. Operation in Article 6 4.2. Anti-Suit Injunctions 4.3. Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and Waiving Convention Rights 4.4. Limitations on Jurisdiction 4.5. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens 4.6. Owusu v Jackson 4.7. Conclusions
5. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
5.1. Recognition of Contracting State Judgments 5.2. Recognition of Non-Contracting State Judgments 5.2.1. European Court of Human Rights 5.2.2. House of Lords 5.4. Conclusions
6. CONCLUSIONS
7. BIBILIOGRAPHY
7.1. Table of Cases 7.2. Table of Legislation 7.3. Table of Conventions 7.4. Textbooks 7.5. Articles
Writing your introduction
Together with the conclusion, the introduction is one of the most significant pieces of a dissertation that you have to get right. A well-written introduction can make all the difference between a first class and an upper second.
If you take just one thing away from this series of posts, it is this. You can develop a better stream of communication with your reader, forming a better relationship, if you tell them what you are going to say (introduction), say it (main body), then tell them what you have said (conclusion).
So, to the introduction, set the scene as fast as possible then tell the reader what you are going to say, but don’t be so amateurish as to write “I am going to discuss X, Y and Z”. Be more indirect. Suggest, for instance, that there are problems with the law that need to be resolved.
1. INTRODUCTION Long since inevitable initial encounters, human rights concerns, particularly regarding the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), have been accelerating in today’s civil jurisdiction and judgments arena in the United Kingdom, a notable consequence of the passing of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. More than six years from the Act’s coming into force, it is now imperative to reach conclusions which reflect the “importance attaching in today’s world and in current international thinking and jurisprudence to the recognition and effective enforcement of individual human rights,” as Mance LJ (as he then was) has noted. This necessity is reflected in the recent extensive consideration of the right to a fair trial in key works of some of the most authoritative conflict lawyers in the United Kingdom, including Sir Lawrence Collins, Professor Adrian Briggs and, most significantly, Professor James Fawcett. Methods of protecting the right to a fair trial and thus of avoiding a breach of Article 6 are irrelevant to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR); the Court is not concerned with reviewing under the Convention in abstracto the law complained of, but rather the application of that law. There is therefore a large amount of discretion afforded to the courts regarding techniques to avoid infringement of the Convention. In the context of civil jurisdiction and judgments, various methods of avoiding infringement, or indeed enabling protection, of the right to a fair trial exist. However, the extent to which these have been used in practice, both by the UK courts and the ECJ, has been limited, a result of various factors, the most striking of which being the wrongful application of the ECHR and even the conscious decision to ignore it. Before analysing specific fair trial concerns in detail, it is necessary to examine the general structure and operation of Article 6 as it applies to civil jurisdiction and judgments.
Chapter 1: Setting the scene
Depending on the nature of your dissertation, you may need to set the scene further. In a legal dissertation, by “scene” is meant the bits of law that are relevant to set up key arguments in the main body of the dissertation. With this example dissertation, the target readership was, for various reasons, international private law experts. Because human rights law was a key part of the debate, the relevant law had to be set out in such detail that the chapters following it could discuss, for instance, the right to a fair trial and the doctrines of direct and indirect effect without any need for constant repetitive explanation.
2. ARTICLE 6: THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 2.1. Substantive Elements Article 6(1) ECHR provides inter alia that “[i]n the determination of his civil rights and obligations…everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….” The ECtHR has reverberated that “the right to a fair administration of justice holds such a prominent place” that Article 6 should not be interpreted restrictively. Instead, the seemingly distinct provisions of Article 6 are not discrete, but are “rights which are distinct but stem from the same basic idea and which, taken together, make up a single right not specifically defined in the narrower sense of the term.” This single right is the title of Article 6: the “right to a fair trial.” This right comprises two particularly significant elements important in the context of civil jurisdiction and judgments. First, the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Expressly stated in Article 6(1), this right may be pertinent where proceedings are stayed in favour of a foreign court. Second, access to a court, an inherent element of Article 6(1). This may have relevance where access is denied to the UK courts through, for example, staying proceedings, or restraining foreign proceedings. 2.2 Procedural Operation: Direct and Indirect Effect Article 6 can operate through a number of mechanisms in the civil jurisdiction and judgments context, which must be distinguished for analytical purposes. First, through direct effect, where there is direct protection of a party’s right to a fair trial in the domestic courts themselves. Such protection is strong and somewhat easier to obtain because there is no test for the seriousness of the breach. Such infringement may occur through a refusal of access to the UK courts, which refusal may emanate from, inter alia, an exclusion of jurisdiction or stay of proceedings. Second, through indirect effect, where a person is transferred to another country where his right to a fair trial may be infringed in that country. In Soering v United Kingdom the ECtHR emphasised that it was for Member States to secure Convention rights of persons within their jurisdiction, but that this obligation did not extend to non-Contracting States, nor should it seek to impose ECHR standards on such States. Thus, for example, in respect of deportation of a person to the United States of America from England, there may be an indirect breach of Article 6, but only where the transfer creates or risks creating a flagrant breach of the claimant’s right to a fair trial in that other country. In presenting an argument for the creation of such risk, it is axiomatic that a strong compilation of evidence is essential, with reference to the circumstances of both the case and proceedings of the court in question. The difficulty with such an argument in the civil jurisdiction sphere is that stays of proceedings concern transfers of actions abroad, not persons. Notwithstanding, arguments for the application of the indirect effect doctrine in this context are still applicable because the situations are “essentially the same.” Indeed, it could be argued that staying proceedings amounts to a transfer of persons through effective compulsion. Nevertheless, no authority exists for this argument and indeed the indirect effect doctrine itself has not been successfully relied upon in an Article 6 context before the (former) Commission or ECtHR. Third, through indirect effect where enforcement in a Contracting State of a judgment from a foreign State, whether Contracting or non-Contracting, would breach Article 6 because that judgment itself breached Article 6 standards. It has been stated that such a breach by the foreign court must also be a flagrant one. However, the reasoning underlying this proposition is unclear and, as with many matters in the civil jurisdiction and judgments sphere, there are concerns as to the extent to which the right to a fair trial can be upheld in this respect. 2.3 The Human Rights Act 1998 The Convention rights, including Article 6, now have the force of law in the United Kingdom under the HRA 1998. The Act places two initial express duties on the UK courts: first, the duty to read and give effect to primary and subordinate legislation in a way compatible with the Convention rights, if possible; second, the duty to take into account inter alia any previous judgment of the ECtHR in determining proceedings which have a Convention right element, insofar as it has relevance to those proceedings. Moreover, under Section 6(1) of the HRA 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority, including a court, to act in a way incompatible with a Convention right. This is a significant duty on the courts, which indeed sparked considerable academic debate as to the Act’s impact on private commercial disputes. Thus, the courts have a duty to interpret and apply the common law or any exercise of discretion compatibly with the right to a fair trial under Article 6. Ultimately, this may amount to a positive duty to develop the common law, extending beyond mere interpretation of the common law to conform to the Convention principles. Notwithstanding this rather stringent theoretical framework for the courts upholding the right to a fair trial, there has been a lack of consistency in its practical impact in the field of civil jurisdiction and judgments. Endnotes *Converting c300 footnotes on a Microsoft Word document to a WordPress post is not feasible for this blawgger. They are, therefore, pasted below as endnotes. The full dissertation is available in the Juridical Review, vol 1 of 2008 pp15-31 Delcourt v Belgium (1979-80) 1 EHRR 355, at [25]; indeed, the principles of due process and the rule of law are fundamental to the protection of human rights (Clayton and Tomlinson: 2000, p550,) just as a fair trial is a fundamental element of the rule of law (Ovey and White: 2002, p139.) Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1, at [28]. Ibid., at [36]. Such cases can be labelled “domestic” ones: Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37, at [15], per Lord Bingham. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] AC 368, at [42]. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439. Ibid., at [113]; this test has been followed subsequently: e.g. Einhorn v France (no.71555/01, 16 October 2001) at [32], Tomic v United Kingdom (no.17837/03, 14 October 2003) at [3]. Fawcett; 2007, p4. Ibid. Montgomery (n12); Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745, p795; cf. Pellegrini v Italy [2001] ECHR 480. HRA 1998, s3(1). Ibid., s2(1)(a); such previous decisions are not binding; notwithstanding, as Lord Slynn observed in R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389 at [26]: “[i]n the absence of some special circumstances it seems to me that the court should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the [ECtHR].” Ibid., s6(3)(a). Wade: 2000; Lester and Pannick: 2000. Such discretion should be “exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings”: R v Jones [2003] AC 1, at [6], per Lord Bingham. HL Deb vol.583, p783 (24 November 1997); Grosz, Beatson and Duffy: 2000, para.4.56; cf.. Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] QB 770. Grosz, Beatson and Duffy: 2000, para.4.59.
Main Body Part 1
Next follows the first main chunk discussing and debating the title of the dissertation. To maintain structure, even this sub-section of the dissertation has its own introduction, some degree of scene-setting with Art 6 in the particular context of the chapter, argument through various levels and conclusions.
3. REASONABLE TIME 3.1. Introduction It has been stated that “excessive delays in the administration of justice constitute an important danger, in particular for the respect of the rule of law” and for the legal certainty of citizens. This importance is reflected in the express protection of the reasonable time requirement in Article 6. There have been recent challenges in the civil jurisdiction context on this ground, the most significant of which being raised in Erich Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl, concerning conflict with lis pendens. A further instance, the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens has been suggested to be so incompatible, which would therefore have implications for the doctrine in its now very limited common law habitat. 3.2. Framework under Article 6 In civil cases, time starts to run when the proceedings are instituted and stops when legal uncertainty has been removed, which normally requires that the final appeal decision has been made or the time for making an appeal has expired. It is generally accepted that the correct approach is to decide whether the overall delay is prima facie “unreasonable” for the type of proceedings concerned and thereafter consider whether the State is able to justify each period of delay. In assessing such justification, the limited guidelines indicate that all the circumstances will be considered, with particular regard to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and judicial authorities in addition to the behaviour of other parties to the case and what is at stake in the litigation for the applicant. Generally, where proceedings are stayed, there are three stages which must be distinguished for determining delay. First, the proceedings before the domestic court. Any unjustifiable delay at this point would amount to a direct breach of Article 6. Second, the transfer of proceedings to the foreign court. Delay at this stage would be less justifiable where, for instance, there was known to be a heavy backlog of cases. Notwithstanding, the “normal lapses of time stemming from the transfer of the cases” are not to be regarded as unjustified. Third, the proceedings before the foreign court. At the second and third stages, although any unreasonable delay by the foreign court will amount to a direct breach by that court, there could also be an indirect breach by the domestic court, but only to the extent that the party suffered, or risked suffering, a flagrant breach. Endnotes Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Resolution DH (97) 336, 11 July 1997. Fabri and Langbroek: 2003, p3. C-116/02 [2005] QB 1. Opinion of AG Léger in Owusu v Jackson C-281/02 [2005] QB 801 at [270]. A sist by the Scottish courts through forum non conveniens can be made where jurisdiction is founded on Art.4 of the Judgments Regulation or Convention: Collins et al: 2006, para.12-023. Moreover, a sist can be made on the ground that the courts of England or Northern Ireland are the forum conveniens, because intra-UK jurisdiction can be so settled: Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd, The Times, 8 June 1995; Collins: 1995. Scopelliti v Italy (1993) 17 EHRR 493, at [18]. Vocaturo v Italy [1991] ECHR 34. E.g. fewer than six years for a reparation action (Huseyin Erturk v Turkey [2005] ECHR 630.) Clayton and Tomlinson: 2000, p654; Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: 1995, p229. Eckle v Germany (1983) 5 EHRR 1, at [80]; an obvious consideration being delay in commencing proceedings. Buchholz v Germany [1981] ECHR 2, at [49]. Foti v Italy (1982) 5 EHRR 313, at [61]. Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 9; Guincho v Portugal [1984] ECHR 9; cf. Buchholz (n36), at [61], where the backlog was not reasonably foreseeable; exceptional circumstances were taken into account in Foti (n37) as a result of troubles in Reggio Calabria, which impacted proceedings in the courts in Potenza, to which cases had been transferred. Foti (n37), at [61]. Soering (n14) at [113].
Having set the scene, it is time to delve straight into comment and opinion, drawing on relevant facts and law where required. Where possible, suggest ways in which events or decisions could have been improved and do not be afraid to say that commentators, judges or even powerful institutions, like the ECJ, got it wrong.
3.3. Conflict with Lis Pendens: Erich Gasser Erich Gasser v MISAT concerned the validity of a choice-of-court agreement in favour of the Austrian courts where one party had first seised the Italian courts by way of negative declaration. Second seised, the Austrian Court sought a reference from the ECJ on, inter alia, whether it must stay its proceedings under lis pendens where the proceedings in the court first seised generally take an unreasonably long time, such that there may be a breach of Article 6. Both the claimant and the intervening UK Government invoked the ECHR, arguing that Article 21 of the Brussels Convention should be interpreted in conformity with Article 6 ECHR to avoid excessively protracted proceedings, given that proceedings in Italy were likely to take an unreasonably long time. Through this interpretation, it was argued that Article 21 should not be applied if the court first seised had not determined its jurisdiction within a reasonable time. In a very short response, the ECJ effectively said that the ECHR did not apply because first, it is not expressly mentioned in the Brussels Convention and second, there is no room for it in a collection of mandatory rules underpinned by mutual trust between Contracting States. 3.3.1. Delay in the Italian Court However, it may be seen that the stay de facto risked at least a standard breach in the Italian court. The Italian courts have been held in breach of Article 6 a staggering number of times because of unreasonable slowness. The existence of these breaches amounted to a practice incompatible with the ECHR and produced the notoriety of the Italian legal system as “the land that time forgot.” Indeed, the practice of seising the Italian courts first by way of negative declaration has become known as instituting an “Italian torpedo,” which may succeed in delaying proceedings substantially even where the Italian courts have no jurisdiction. It has already been noted that evidence is crucial in determining a real risk of a breach of Article 6. Instead, in Gasser, human rights arguments were based upon a general breach of the reasonable time requirement in Italian courts. Moreover, no ECtHR case law was relied upon when so arguing, nor was mention made of previous breaches. Therefore, a very weak argument, if any, was laid before the ECJ in respect of a risk of a breach. In effect, the ECJ was being asked something tantamount to whether there should be an exception to Article 21 in respect of certain Member States, a question justifiably answered in the negative. However, if the arguments had been more focussed, concentrating on the present case, with evidence to show the likelihood of breach in the Tribunale civile e penale di Roma, then the ECJ may have been more persuaded by Article 6 considerations, as Fawcett suggests. Notwithstanding previous delays, efforts have been made to reduce the backlog of cases. This is somewhat owing to Article 13 ECHR, which requires Contracting States to provide persons with an effective national remedy for breach of a Convention right. Such domestic remedies assist in reducing further breaches and ultimately reduce the need for the indirect effect doctrine. Thus, the Italian “Pinto Act” was passed, providing a domestic legal remedy for excessive length-of-proceedings cases. The existence of this remedy may have gone towards justifying application of Article 21, which indeed was one of the questions referred to the ECJ by the Austrian Court, although unanswered. 3.3.2. A Clash of Treaties Nevertheless, given that the ECJ so held that Article 6 considerations were irrelevant, there may be further legal implications, particularly for the Austrian Court which was required to stay its proceedings under the Brussels Convention. If this stay created or risked creating a flagrant breach of the reasonable time requirement in the Italian Court, Austria may itself have breached Article 6 indirectly. Such an indirect breach is clearly not justifiable on the ground that Austria is party to the Brussels Convention or Regulation made under the European Treaties. Hence, the judgment may lead to a clash between the ECHR and Brussels Convention or Regulation. This in turn raises the questions of how and to what extent the Brussels Convention or Regulation could have been interpreted to give effect to Article 6. Formerly Article 57 of the Brussels Convention, Article 71 of the Brussels Regulation provides inter alia that “(1) [t]his Regulation shall not affect any conventions to which the Member States are parties and which in relation to particular matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition of judgments.” Although the ECHR is not prima facie a Convention governing jurisdiction, all Member States are party to it and Article 6 contains the inherent right of access to a court. Thus, as Briggs and Rees argue, this may have application where a court with jurisdiction is prevented from exercising that jurisdiction in a manner compatible with the ECHR. Therefore, in Gasser Article 71 may have been applied to allow Austria to act in accordance with its obligations under the ECHR. This approach is complemented by Article 307 (ex 234) EC such that Article 21 or 27 of the Brussels Convention or Regulation respectively can be overridden by a Convention previously entered into, including the ECHR. Further, this conclusion is even more realistic in light of the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which is peppered with notions of protection for fundamental rights, and the express protection of these rights in Article 6(2) EC. Instead of even contemplating such an outcome, the ECJ showed that it was prepared to ignore a significant international convention. Perhaps, in addition to mutual trust between Contracting States, mutual recognition of international conventions should have been considered, especially due to the express provisions permitting such consideration. Endnotes Those having a duration of over three years: Gasser (n28), at [59]. At [71]-[73]. See Ferrari v Italy [1999] ECHR 64, at [21]. Ferrari (n46), at [21]; Article 6 imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet the requirements of the provision (Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14, at [24].) Briggs and Rees: 2005, Preface to the Fourth Edition, p.v. Messier-Dowty v Sabena [2000] 1 WLR 2040. Franzosi: 1997, p384. Transporti Castelletti v Hugo Trumpy, C-159/97, [1999] ECR I-1597. Supra p4. Opinion of A.G. Léger in Gasser, at [88]. When Gasser came before the ECJ, there was already a delay in Italian proceedings of 3½ years in determining jurisdiction. Fawcett: 2007, p15. Kudla v Poland [2000] ECHR 512. Fawcett: 2007, p4. Law no.89 of 24 March 2001. However, even this has breached Article 6(1): Riccardo Pizzati v Italy [2006] ECHR 275, at [66]; Mance suggests that the Act only partially solved if not repatriated the ECtHR’s overwhelming number of claims in this respect (Mance: 2004b, p357.) Notwithstanding, since 1999, there has been a trend of continuous breach, the ECtHR having adopted more than 1,000 judgments against Italy (Riccardo Pizzati, at [66].) As Briggs and Rees note, the ECHR “might as well have been part of the law of Mars for all the impact it had.” (Briggs and Rees:2005, para.2.198.) Soering (n14), at [113]. Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 12. Hartley: 2005b, p821 n35; the most important example of a conflict of treaties: Hartley: 2001, p26. Briggs and Rees: 2005, para.2.38. An approach recognised by both Mance (Mance: 2004a, paras.6-7) and Hartley (Hartley: 2005a, p383.) ERT v DEP C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925, at [41]; “Bosphorus Airways” v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1,at [73]; particularly for Article 6: Philip Morris International Inc v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-1, at [121].
Tip: Suggest Improvements for the Future
It may be that, in the course of the research for your dissertation, you discover previous decisions and actions that may happen again in the future. You may want to suggest that there is such a risk in the future and that there are ways in which that risk can be guarded against. You may also want to state challenges with implementing such safeguards. For instance, in the below section, there is comment that the ECJ is, sometimes, so myopic that its stance won’t budge.
3.3.3. Future Application The ECtHR has held that a failure by a national court to make a preliminary reference to the ECJ could be a breach of Article 6 ECHR in certain circumstances. Thus, it is arguable that where similar facts to Gasser arise again, the domestic court may have to make a reference to the ECJ, and in doing so, show cogent evidence of the risk of a flagrant breach, unlike that presented to the ECJ in Gasser. In this context, the ECJ will have another chance to take human rights seriously, with the opportunity to apply Article 307 EC complementing Article 71 of the Brussels Regulation and jurisprudence both of the ECJ and ECtHR. Notwithstanding, given the ECJ’s swift dismissal of human rights concerns in Gasser in favour of the inflexible system of lis pendens, it appears unlikely that it would permit exception in the future. For the ECJ legal certainty under the Brussels regime is clearly more significant than legal certainty either through party autonomy under jurisdiction agreements or through the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. As Merrett notes, “[t]he ECJ simply does not see questions of jurisdiction as being concerned with private rights at all,” a stance which will need to change, particularly in light of the pressing atmosphere of today’s human rights culture. Endnotes Soc Divagsa v Spain (1993) 74 DR 274. Legal certainty is perhaps more significant under the Brussels Regulation, particularly illustrated by the addition of Article 30. Cf. A.G. Léger in Gasser, at [70]. Merrett: 2006, p332. Hartley notes that this is perhaps not surprising given that the ECJ is more concerned with public law, and as such, should be expected to give more weight to State interests, rather than the interests of private parties (Hartley: 2005b, pp814-815.)
Take a proposition that has never been discussed and debate it
Another thing that truly separates a first class dissertation from a second class one is discussion of ideas and issues that have never before been discussed. The following is an example of such a proposition and discussion, all of which stemmed from one footnote in an academic article that said a certain proposition “had never been discussed before in the courts of the UK”. Finding this loophole was essential to the dissertation’s success.
3.4. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens An export of Scots law, forum non conveniens was accepted into English law in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, becoming indistinguishable from Scots law. Under the Spiliada test, there are two stages: first, the defendant must show that there is some other available forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, upon which a stay will ordinarily be granted; second, upon the first stage being satisfied, it is for the claimant to show, through cogent evidence, that justice requires that a stay should not be granted. Advocate General Léger has suggested explicitly that the forum non conveniens doctrine, as operating under this Spiliada test, may be incompatible with Article 6, given that the steps involved for the claimant in its application “have a cost and are likely considerably to prolong the time spent in the conduct of proceedings before the claimant finally has his case heard.” Although the UK courts have never discussed this proposition, there is a potential that forum non conveniens is indeed incompatible with the reasonable time requirement in Article 6. 3.4.1. General Operation Since the place of trial is decided through the exercise of judicial discretion, it is axiomatic that additional cost and time will be incurred in the domestic court, which may appear somewhat inappropriate in light of the parties having to “litigate in order to determine where they shall litigate.” Notwithstanding, given that the same forum will rarely be in the best interests of all parties, particularly highlighted by different choice of law rules, choice of forum is of crucial importance and rightfully so contested. In this respect alone, the time and cost involved may be justified. Moreover, it should be noted that it is the defendant who asks for a stay, thus incurring additional expenses, which expenses he might be expected to pay. Application for a stay is usually, and perhaps ought to be, made early. Procedural time-limits are set for such an application, despite the court retaining its discretionary power to stay proceedings. Notwithstanding, the longer an application is left, the greater the threat of the proceedings not being aborted as a matter of judicial reluctance. Moreover, if Lord Templeman’s view that submissions should be measured in hours not days with the rarity of appeals holds true, such time and expense should be contained to a minimum. This can be contrasted with the American experience of the doctrine, where forum non conveniens can produce forum battles that can last for years, such that the doctrine may even be labelled a “delaying tactic.” 3.4.2. First Limb of Spiliada As noted, there are various circumstances which can justify delay under Article 6. In assessing the complexity of a case, consideration is given to the number of witnesses , the need for obtaining expert evidence and the later intervention of other parties. It can be seen that these factors mirror the appropriateness factors considered under the first limb of the Spiliada test. Thus, in Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc the emergence of over 3,000 new claimants gave greater significance to the personal injury issues, the investigation of which would involve a cumbersome factual inquiry and potentially a large body of expert evidence, such that South Africa was rightfully identified as the most appropriate forum under the first limb of Spiliada. Moreover, in Spiliada, similar litigation had already taken place over another vessel, the Cambridgeshire, such that the proceedings would be more appropriate in England. Termed the “Cambridgeshire factor,” it is persuasive where advantages of “efficiency, expedition and economy” would flow naturally from the specialist knowledge gained by the lawyers, experts and judges in the related proceedings. However, successful use of this factor has been extremely rare. Although conveniens means “appropriate”, not “convenient”, considerations of convenience and expense are still relevant. Thus, in both The Lakhta and The Polessk , a stay was granted because the dispute could be resolved more appropriately in the Russian Court at far less expense and far greater convenience for those involved, in light of, inter alia, the availability of witnesses and other evidence. Further, speed of a trial itself may be decisive in balancing appropriateness factors. For example, in Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union, although the courts of both England and Belgium were appropriate, the dispute could be resolved more quickly in the English court given the more complex position of the plaintiff’s title to sue under the governing law in Belgium; therefore a stay of the English proceedings was refused. Moreover, the availability of an early trial date is material in determining the most appropriate forum ; indeed, “speedy justice is usually better justice.” It can therefore be seen that the factors considered in the first limb of the Spiliada test reflect the justifications for delay under the reasonable time requirement of Article 6(1) and indeed consideration of these factors may result in an overall speedier trial. Hence, determining whether or not to apply the forum non conveniens doctrine is more than justifiable. Further, it is worth considering whether delay by the foreign court itself can be avoided. Endnotes Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665. [1987] AC 460. Crawford and Carruthers: 2006, pp157-158. Spiliada (n13), pp474-477. Opinion of A.G. Léger in Owusu (n29), at [270]. Hare perceives that paragraph 42 of Owusu is “strangely reminiscent” of A.G. Léger’s suggestions: Hare: 2006, p172 n.96. Fawcett; 2007, p9. Slater: 1988, p554; Robertson: 1987, p414; Zhenjie: 2001, p157. Cf. Spiliada (n72), p464 per Lord Templeman. Crawford and Carruthers: 2006, p157. Bell: 2002, paras.2.40-2.42, 2.58. Svantesson: 2005, pp411-412. Briggs and Rees: 2002, p220. Despite potential for re-application: Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 433, p474. E.g. in England, CPR Part 11. Ibid., r.3.1(2)(f). Briggs and Rees: 2005, pp324-325. Spiliada (n72), p465. E.g. Lacey v Cessna Aircraft (1991) 932 F.2d 170. Green: 1956, p494. Supra p8. Andreucci v Italy [1992] ECHR 8. Wemhoff v Germany (1968) 1 EHRR 55. Manieri v Italy [1992] ECHR 26. [2000] 1 WLR 1545. [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383, p391; however, a stay was not granted because substantial justice could and would not be done in the South African forum under the second limb of Spiliada, see infra p25. Spiliada (n72), p469. Ibid., p486. Collins et al: 2006, para.12-030 n.34. The Atlantic Star [1974] AC 436, p475; Spiliada (n72), pp474-475. Hill: 2005, para.9.2.23; wastage of cost is an important consideration in granting a stay, whether under forum non conveniens or not (Carel Johannes Steven Bentinck v Lisa Bentinck [2007] EWCA Civ 175.) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 269. [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40. [1991] 2 QB 206. Ibid., p246. Xn Corporation Ltd v Point of Sale Ltd [2001] I.L.Pr. 35. Ibid., at [14]
Develop that new debate and get creative
As noted in the previous post, one of the most important breakthroughs in writing your dissertation can come from spotting a gap where something has not yet been discussed. Once writing to fill that gap, it may be helpful to ask yourself what other angles there are to the debate. Or think about if the matter went to an official debate or, for law dissertations, to court. Think about creative arguments that an advocate might run and try to develop them yourself. Such development can lead to your getting a first rather than a 2:1.
3.4.3. Second Limb of Spiliada Delay in the foreign forum is a fundamental consideration when determining the interests of justice at the second limb of the Spiliada test and may even be decisive if the anticipated delay is excessive. An example pertinent to justification under Article 6(1) is The Jalakrishna, where a delay of five years was anticipated if the case was tried in India, such that the claimant would be prejudiced given his need for financial assistance in light of his critical injuries in an accident. Thus, a stay was not granted, showing respect for both a potential delay itself and what was at stake for the claimant. Notwithstanding, such cases are rare. For example, in Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd, Collins J (as he then was) recognised that the Indian legal system had made attempts to reduce its backlog of cases, such that in the absence of sufficient evidence of an anticipated delay, it would indeed be a “substantial breach of comity to stigmatise the Indian legal system in that way,” somewhat reflecting the principle that the claimant must “take [the appropriate] forum as he finds it.” Indeed, one of the major advantages of the forum non conveniens doctrine is that it offsets the judge’s tendency to grab as many cases as he can and it respects the valuable international private law principle of comity. As Lord Diplock stated in The Abidin Daver, “judicial chauvinism has been replaced by judicial comity.” However, the interests of States cannot always be reconciled with private party rights. When considering whether to stay proceedings, in light of Article 6, the interests of States should yield to the interests of private parties. Thus, if evidence is sufficient to show a real risk of a flagrant breach in the foreign forum, as was not presented in Gasser, a stay should not be permitted. Again mirroring reasonable time justifications under Article 6, additional considerations of what is at stake in the litigation may arise and authorities may have to exercise exceptional diligence in the conduct of certain cases. An ECtHR case, X v France shows that where a person sought compensation following infection with the AIDS virus, what was at stake was of crucial importance in determining the reasonableness of the length of proceedings. What is at stake will be relevant and probably decisive following a stay of proceedings under forum non conveniens, as The Jalakrishna shows. Notably, in Owusu v Jackson, where forum non conveniens was not permitted, what was at stake for Owusu was significant as he was rendered tetraplegic through his accident. It can therefore be seen that forum non conveniens takes a pragmatic approach to preventing foreseeable unreasonable delays under the second limb of Spiliada. Not only does this further justify operation of the doctrine under Article 6(1) through direct effect, it also greatly restricts, if not eliminates, the possibility of an indirect breach by the domestic court, given that the risk of a flagrant breach of the right to a fair trial is a fundamental factor of the interests of justice. Notwithstanding, herein there are still concerns in light of Professor Fawcett’s suggestion that a hybrid human rights/international private law approach should be taken such that Article 6 concerns should be identified first, taking into account ECtHR jurisprudence, and thereafter it should be for the flexible second limb of Spiliada to apply to resolve these issues. Fawcett concedes that the same result will be achieved in most cases, yet suggests that there may be borderline cases where this solution would work better and human rights concerns will have been taken more seriously. However, this need for procedural restructuring of judicial reasoning is arguably not wholly convincing, particularly given that the indirect effect doctrine under Soering requires a flagrant breach of Article 6, not merely a standard breach; it is therefore difficult to imagine the existence of any “borderline” cases as such. Moreover, in the cases of potential flagrant breaches, the interests of justice principle has been shown to be flexible enough to prevent stays which may breach Article 6 indirectly, regardless of the classification of the delay as a breach of human rights or otherwise. In this respect, it is arguable that the international private law case law could be adequately relied upon. Nevertheless, initial consideration of ECtHR jurisprudence may have more importance than in providing a mere procedurally attractive measure; it may guide and influence those who fail to see the pressing importance of human rights today and will at least effect compliance with the Section 2 of the HRA 1998 which demands that such jurisprudence be considered wherever Convention rights are in issue. Endnotes The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 558, p560; Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] 1 Ch 409, pp435-436; cf. The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399,pp413-414, where Hirst J gave “minimal weight to the delay factor” upon direction by the appellate courts. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 628. Hill: 2005, para.9.2.38. [2002] 1 WLR 1269. Ibid., at [177]. Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc [1998] AC 854, p872. [1984] AC 398. Ibid., p411. A and others v Denmark [1996] ECHR 2, at [78]. [1992] ECHR 45. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.628. (n29). Notwithstanding, the ECJ’s taking 2¾ years to produce its judgment did not go towards acknowledging the express request by the English Court of Appeal to provide reasonably quick compensation. Of course, time taken for a required preliminary reference from the ECJ is entirely justified under Article 6 (Pafitis v Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 566, at [95].) Fawcett: 2007, pp36-37. Such that length-of-proceedings cases (see supra pp.7-8) should be consulted in the context of unreasonable delay. (n14).
Put your foot in the icy water: Don’t be afraid to come to powerful conclusions
A dissertation that is written with balanced conclusions is a boring one. Reasoned opinion is important. Nothing would get done in this world if we said “X is right, but Y is equally right, so let’s just leave things the way they are”. Sitting on the fence may well get you a good upper second class award but there is little chance of it getting you a first. A certain English teacher, Sandra MacCallum, at Kyle Academy once taught that, sometimes, “you’ve got to put your foot into the icy water”. Don’t be afraid to come to powerful conclusions. Hopefully the below example, with a reasonable, opinionated attack on the ECJ’s lack of respect for the common law principles of the Scottish export doctrine forum non conveniens, illustrates the significance of this suggestion.
3.5. Conclusions It is perplexing that in Owusu Advocate General Léger, and perhaps indirectly the ECJ, suggested that applying forum non conveniens may be incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1), whereas analysis of its proper operation shows that it is compatible and may even be a useful tool in providing faster and more economic litigation. Although it is at least somewhat refreshing to see ECHR arguments being acknowledged in an international private law context without encouragement, it is nevertheless peculiar that Article 6 concerns have been identified in relation to forum non conveniens, “one of the most civilised of legal principles” as Lord Goff of Chieveley put it, when the ECJ did not properly apply or even consider Article 6 in Gasser, where the need for its recognition was much more significant. The ECHR is not an optional instrument that can be applied to justify a course of reasoning, however misguided, on the one hand and dismissed when apparently greater considerations require it on the other; careful legal analysis is required for its operation, which analysis does not appear to have been applied or even respected by the ECJ.
A fresh perspective
Separating a dissertation into manageable chunks from the initial stages of structural planning gives you freedom to start afresh to write about a different but related topic once concluding another section. Access to a court, for instance, is a separate right from the right for a trial to be heard and decided within a reasonable time. It, thus, merits a separate chapter with its own introduction, subsections and conclusions.
4. ACCESS TO A COURT 4.1. Operation in Article 6 The fair, public and expeditious characteristics of judicial proceedings expressed in Article 6 would be of no value at all if there were no judicial proceedings. Thus, referring to the rule of law and avoidance of arbitrary power, principles which underlie much of the ECHR, the ECtHR has held that the right of access to a court is an element inherent in Article 6(1). Although this right is not absolute, any limitation must not restrict access to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired, provided that a legitimate aim is pursued with proportionality between the limitation and that aim. The potential for this right to arise in the civil jurisdiction context is high, given the intrinsic nature of the operation of jurisdiction rules. 4.2. Anti-Suit Injunctions A denial of access to a foreign court and, therefore, a potential Article 6 violation will occur through the grant of an anti-suit injunction, which seeks to restrain foreign proceedings. This issue arose in The Kribi, where the claimants sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain Belgian proceedings brought in contravention of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Aikens J held that “Article 6…does not provide that a person is to have an unfettered choice of tribunal in which to pursue or defend his civil rights” . Moreover, “Article 6…does not deal at all with where the right to a [fair trial] is to be exercised by a litigant. The crucial point is that civil rights must be determined somewhere by a hearing and before a tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.” Therefore, a court granting an anti-suit injunction, in the very limited circumstances in which it can now do so, would not be in breach of Section 6 of the HRA 1988 where another available forum exists. Contrastingly, Article 6 challenges remain for the “single forum” cases, where there is only one forum of competent jurisdiction to determine the merits of the claim, despite the cases already being treated differently. In such a case, the exemplary approach of Aikens J would easily resolve such human rights issues. Ultimately, in a commercially welcome judgment, human rights arguments were made and received properly. Moreover, Aikens J “logically” dealt with the human rights points first. Hence the case is a working model for Fawcett’s hybrid approach where human rights should be considered first before international private law principles. Contrasting with stays producing concerns of unreasonable delays, in this context of access to a court there is more impetus to follow Fawcett’s model, particularly given that such denial of access can constitute a direct breach of Article 6, thus producing a more realistic threat of contravention of Section 6 of the HRA 1998. 4.3. Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and Waiving Convention Rights Another instance pertinent to Article 6 is where a person has no access to the courts of the UK because of the enforcement of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Convention rights can, in general, be waived, including the right of access to a court under Article 6, which can occur where a jurisdiction agreement or agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable, but not where a person entered into the agreement without voluntary consensus. Generally, rights will be waived under a jurisdiction agreement meeting the requirements of Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation. However, as Briggs and Rees note, there may be instances, somewhat unattractive, where a party is bound by such a jurisdiction agreement without voluntary consensus as such, such that his right of access to a court may not have been waived, reflecting the more prudent stance taken towards compulsory alternative dispute resolution. Notwithstanding, Article 6 will be upheld provided there is another available court. 4.4. Limitations on Jurisdiction It is axiomatic that limitations on jurisdiction may restrict access to a court. The ECtHR has held that limitation periods are generally compatible with Article 6, particularly for reasons of legal certainty, provided that they are not applied inflexibly. This compatibility should encompass a stay under forum non conveniens for a forum barred by limitation, which is granted only where the claimant was at fault by acting unreasonably in failing to commence proceedings in the foreign court within the applicable limitation period. Contrastingly, blanket limitations are a more difficult species. An example of a blanket exclusion on jurisdiction is the English common law Moçambique rule, which provides that title to foreign land should be determined only at the situs of the land. This may conflict with Article 6 because of a denial of access to an English court. Although this proposition may be unfounded, particularly where access to a court is available somewhere, the exclusion on jurisdiction may still be challenged on Article 6 grounds if disproportionate its aim. Such proportionality concerns were considered in Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Following Al-Adsani v United Kingdom , a blanket limitation on jurisdiction was accepted because the grant of sovereign immunity, which restricted access to a court, pursued the legitimate aim of comity through compliance with international law and was proportionate. Notwithstanding, underpinning this reasoning is an inevitable tension between the interests of States and private parties, such that Mance LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal produced his judgment in light of ECHR considerations, taking a more flexible approach supportive of human rights. Mark v Mark also illustrates such inflexibility and proportionality considerations. The limitation in that case prevented access to the English courts, which may have been the only available courts, through a particular rule of public policy. This rule was therefore seen by Thorpe LJ to be incompatible with Article 6 and hence the HRA 1998. Contrastingly, in the House of Lords, Baroness Hale affirmed the decision on different grounds, dismissing ECHR considerations, such that she perhaps did not take human rights concerns entirely seriously. Although access to some court will be available following most limitations, the few cases where access would be denied to the only available court under a limitation warrant special attention in light of protection of the right to a fair trial. Such attention has been properly given on occasion, as demonstrated by both Mance and Thorpe LJJ. However, this approach is not consistently followed, shown by the dangerous approach of Baroness Hale. 4.5. Interaction with Forum non Conveniens In Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc, the defendant asked for a stay of proceedings. After identifying South Africa as the natural forum, the Court was faced with the argument that the stay would breach Article 6 because the complexity of the case and lack of funding were such that the claimant could not sue in that foreign court. After applying the Spiliada principles, which provided that a stay should be refused because the claimant could not obtain justice in the foreign court, Lord Bingham then turned to the Article 6 arguments and noted simply that “I do not think article 6 supports any conclusion which is not already reached on application of Spiliada principles.” Although the right to a fair trial was acknowledged and indeed protected under the refusal to grant a stay, the procedure in reasoning lowered the importance of human rights as the Spiliada principles took precedence to application of Article 6. Thus, if the Lubbe approach was followed in the future and a stay was granted to a foreign court in which there was a risk of a flagrant breach, the court may indirectly breach Article 6 in addition to Sections 2 and 6 of the HRA 1998. Similar techniques to that employed by Lord Bingham have been used in other forum non conveniens cases. For example, in The Polessk, the extent to which evidence showed the right to a fair trial in the St. Petersberg Court was considered under the second limb of the Spiliada test. Moreover, as discussed, reasonable delay has been considered consistently, although somewhat effectively, within this second stage of Spiliada. As noted, these latter instances show a sufficient degree of reconciliation with at least the indirect effect of Article 6, regardless of the characterisation of the breach as one of Article 6 or otherwise, particularly because it is difficult to imagine “borderline” cases amounting to flagrant breaches of Article 6, as Fawcett suggests. This analysis can be applied equally to the facts of Lubbe where access to the foreign court clearly did not exist, such that a stay would unequivocally produce a flagrant breach. It may be suggested that other cases are not so easy to evaluate, such as in determining whether access to a court exists through lack of legal aid, as Santambrogio v Italy illustrates. Nevertheless, surely if the decision is a difficult one to make, then the breach cannot be flagrant and, as such, there cannot be an indirect breach of Article 6. However, as noted, a procedural shift in judicial reasoning will have undoubted procedural benefits, if at the very least it effects compliance with Section 2 of the HRA 1998. Endnotes Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1, at [35]. Ibid., at [34]-[35]. Ibid., at [36]; this includes the right to a determination of proceedings on the merits (Gorbachev v Russia, No. 3354/02, 15 February 2007.) Ibid., at [38]. Winterwerp v The Netherlands [1979] ECHR 4, at [60], [75]. Ashingdane v United Kingdom [1985] ECHR 8, at [57]. OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep 76; now overruled on the specific point for decision (Turner v Grovit and Others [2005] AC 101). The Kribi (n131), at [42]. Ibid., at [42]. Following Turner v Grovit (n131), a court cannot grant an anti-suit injunction against a party who has commenced an action in a Brussels Convention State. British Airways v Laker Airways [1983] AC 58,at [80]. The Kribi, (n131),at [41]. Fawcett: 2007, pp36-37. Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692; cf. Loucaides: 2003, pp48-50. Deweer v Belgium (1979-80) 2 EHRR 439; indeed, this is a “natural consequence of [the parties’] right to regulate their mutual relations as they see fit.” (Axelsson v. Sweden, no.11960/86, 13 July 1990.) Malmstrom v Sweden (1983) 38 DR 18. Cf. under the common law (The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324); Briggs and Rees: 2005, p19. E.g. a person not party to a bill of lading bound by a jurisdiction agreement between shipper and carrier. Briggs and Rees: 2005, pp18-19. See generally Schiavetta: 2004, paras.4.2-4.21. Stubbings v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 44, at [51]. Briggs and Rees: 2005, p20 n.101. Spiliada (n72), pp483-484. British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602; for Scotland, Hewit’s Trs v Lawson (1891) 18 R 793. Briggs and Rees: 2005, para.4.06. [2006] UKHL 26. 34 EHRR 273. Cf. Markovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 1141, which held that although there was no blanket limitation on jurisdiction through sovereign immunity and that access to a court had been afforded, access was nevertheless limited in scope, such that the applicants could not receive a decision on the merits. [2005] QB 699. [2004] EWCA Civ 168, at [40]. [2006] AC 98. Fawcett: 2007, p34. [2000] 1 WLR 1545. (n72). Lubbe (n157), p1561. Further, no relevant decisions of the ECtHR were relied upon in the judgment e.g. Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3 where representation costs were “very high” and the procedure was too complex and would evoke emotions too great for the applicant to present her case. Cf. Santambrogio v Italy [2004] ECHR 430 (post-Lubbe), where legal aid was deemed unnecessary in the circumstances. Fawcett: 2007, p.11. (n102), p51. Supra pp.17-19. Supra p.19. (n160).
Get creative!
Creative argument is essential if you’re going to get a first. Perhaps only unless your tutor or professor doesn’t know the topic well can you get away rehashing old argument and ideas that have been discussed thousands of times before. Having worked with academia in trying to commercialise intellectual property rights (IP), through, for instance, spin-off companies, it is clear that innovation is crucial for the business models of universities. It goes something like this: University teaches its students; Students produce research in which they and/or the university have IP, such as copyrights or patents; Student and/or university commercialises that IP by selling or licensing it to journals or other entities, such as companies. Money, then, gets reinvested into the system or society, which gets to work with the new innovation or improvement. The below argument is example of how such creativity can light up your dissertation, add value to your University and get you a better mark overall.
4.6. Owusu v Jackson Further relevance of Article 6 can be seen in the context of the ECJ’s analysis of forum non conveniens in Owusu v Jackson. Fundamentally wrong, the ECJ believed that a defendant “would not be able…reasonably to foresee before which other court he may be sued.” However, it is the defendant who asks for a stay and thus his foreseeability of a stay in this respect is secured. Article 6 is underpinned by the principle of legal certainty. Although legal certainty has specific provision in some articles of the ECHR, it is not confined to those articles; the specific provisions require domestic law “to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the articles of the Convention.” Legal certainty comprises the particularly significant aspect of foreseeability. In this regard, the ECtHR has noted that: “a norm cannot be regarded as a ‘law’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct: he must be able…to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail.” It is at least arguable that this would encompass procedural certainty emanating from rules of jurisdiction. If the forum non conveniens doctrine permitted stays without the defendant’s asking, the defendant would have such little legal certainty that there may even be an arguable infringement of his right to a fair trial under Article 6, not only incompatible with the higher test of legal certainty of jurisdictional rules under the Brussels regime. This would result from the defendant’s lack of foreseeability as to where proceedings against him would take place. Contrastingly, cogent arguments can be made against forum non conveniens, inter alia, because of the uncertainty for the claimant. Notwithstanding, it could be said that his rights under Article 6(1) are upheld through his right of access to a court somewhere else. Moreover, he would have much more legal certainty than that of the defendant under the ECJ’s interpretation of forum non conveniens because stays under proper operation of forum non conveniens are granted, to some extent, within the confines of regulated and foreseeable discretion. It can therefore be seen that the ECJ had analysed something which would be incompatible not only with Scottish and English law, but also with the ECHR and HRA 1998. Although a proper analysis of forum non conveniens would probably not have altered the outcome of Owusu, it would have been much more respectable to the common law, already set to be dismantled through an inevitable course of Europeanization, not to knock down, to some extent, a “straw man.” 4.7. Conclusions It is clear that there are disparate approaches to the right of access to a court, perhaps emanating in part from varying attitudes to the importance of human rights. Most civil jurisdiction cases will involve access being denied to one court, while access to another is still available. These will generally not breach Article 6 since there is no right of preference of court under Article 6 as Aikens J held in The Kribi, a judgment fully respectable of human rights. Contrastingly, in the limited number of cases which do yield Article 6 concerns, respect for human rights has been inconsistent, a worrying position particularly in light of the recognition of new, potential Article 6 challenges, such as in the areas of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and limitations on jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, such concerns may be unfounded, given the flexibility of international private law rules, such as the demands of justice under the second limb of Spiliada, which can effectively prevent indirect breaches of Article 6. Endnotes Except in exceptional circumstances: Collins et al: 2006, para.12-006 n.20. E.g. Articles 5 and 7. Reed and Murdoch: 2001, para.3.33. Amuur v France [1996] ECHR 20, at [50]. Reed and Murdoch: 2001, para.3.36. Sunday Times (No1) v United Kingdom [1979] ECHR 1, at [49]. Harris: 2005, p939; despite a lack of express mention by the ECJ in Owusu (n29); cf. Opinion of AG Leger in Owusu, at [160]. Hartley: 2005b, pp824-828; cf. Mance: 2007. (n72).
Add Another New Topic
The following is a different slant on the fundamental theme of the dissertation.
5. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 5.1. Recognition of Contracting State Judgments An indirect breach of Article 6 may occur where a court recognises and thus enforces a judgment obtained in foreign proceedings contrary to the requirements of Article 6. Little challenge is presented where that judgment is obtained in a court of a State party to the ECHR; in such a case, recognition can be refused through Article 6 which is a facet of public policy under Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention. Notably, Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation provides that the recognition must be “manifestly” contrary to public policy, implying a higher threshold than in Article 27(1). The difference in wording is uncertain, but it is hoped that it will not be used to “sweep mere procedural defects under the rug.” Indeed, the importance of the right to a fair trial to the rule of law cannot be underestimated and thus it is arguable that any breach of Article 6 will be manifestly contrary to public policy. Notwithstanding, if the phrases “manifestly contrary to public policy” and a “flagrant breach of the ECHR” were to be compared, it may be just as arguable that a manifest breach of Article 6, not a standard one, is required for the operation of Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation. However, this may not be unwarranted in the context of judgments of Contracting States, as noted. Through Krombach v Bamberski , the housing of Article 6 under public policy effectively creates a hierarchical system, whereby EC rules have precedence over human rights rules, particularly because of the ignorance of the indirect effect doctrine. However, this may not be wholly unwelcome in light of the potential existence of a common EC public policy, somewhat emanating from the harmonisation through the ECHR in 1950. Moreover, as Meidanis suggests, the ECJ appears to see the protection of human rights as the common core of the European public policy and is prepared to sacrifice the basic principle of the free movement of judgments of the Brussels Convention to ensure protection of human rights. Notwithstanding, as noted, in other contexts, the ECJ does not so respect human rights, particularly highlighted by its emphatic rejection of Article 6 in Gasser. Although the flexibility through the public policy exception does not extend to the rules relating to jurisdiction, there are other mechanisms for protecting human rights within the Brussels Convention and, especially, the Brussels Regulation. 5.2. Recognition of Non-Contracting State Judgments More difficulty arises with recognition of a judgment obtained in a non-Contracting State. 5.2.1. European Court of Human Rights Such recognition was permitted without reference to Article 6 in Drozd and Janousek. However, in Pellegrini v Italy, the ECtHR held that the Italian court could not recognise a judgment obtained in a Vatican City court in contravention of Article 6 standards. This was so despite a Concordat between Italy and the Vatican requiring such recognition. Pellegrini can be considerably demarcated from the Soering/Drozd line of cases, which requires a flagrant breach to have occurred in the non-Contracting State, the underpinning theory being the “reduced effect of public policy.” Instead, Pellegrini requires full compliance with Article 6 standards as if the foreign court were party to the ECHR, such that failure to review a judgment against which standards is a risky practice. Notwithstanding, the actual breach of Article 6 standards in Pellegrini was flagrant, despite the court’s omission of this, and therefore the judgment may not represent such a large departure from Drozd. Moreover, the “reduced effect of public policy” approach of Drozd was followed eight days prior to Pellegrini in Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany. However, it is difficult to distinguish Hans-Adam II on its facts particularly given the sweeping reasoning in Pellegrini. Thus, as it stands, Pellegrini is the leading authority, prescribing the need for a review of foreign judgments against full Article 6 standards, ensuring full protection for the right to a fair trial. It is nevertheless hoped by some that the case will be revisited, perhaps with the preference of a variable standard. Further, a dictum in Pellegrini may have the effect of requiring such review only where the judgment emanates from the courts of a State not party to the Convention. Hence, as Kinsch submits, an a contrario reading may be imputed, such that review of Article 6 standards is optional where the judgment emanates from a Contracting State. However, this may not be wholly unwelcome given that the Member States of the EU are party to the ECHR in addition to the Brussels Convention and Regulation, which seek to limit the power of public policy from preventing recognition of judgments. 5.2.2. House of Lords In stark contrast to Pellegrini, the House of Lords in Montgomery required a “flagrant” breach in the United States, a non-Contracting State, for the judgment not to be recognised. Such a flagrant breach was not created in the United States and hence recognition of a judgment breaching regular Article 6 standards was permitted. In its judgment, the House of Lords attempted to distinguish Pellegrini through the existence of the Concordat between Italy and the Vatican City, which required Italy to ensure that the Vatican court’s procedure complied with the fundamental principles of Italian legal system, one being Article 6. However, this is hard, if not impossible, to understand, particularly since it assumes that the Concordat of 1929, as amended, could incorporate ECHR standards, when the Vatican City deliberately refused to subscribe to the ECHR. Further, the ECtHR in Pellegrini did not suggest in its judgment that the relationship between Italy and the Vatican was material to its decision. Therefore, Montgomery is seen to be wrong in so distinguishing Pellegrini. Briggs and Rees further suggest that the House of Lords applied the wrong test in Montgomery because of the analysis of deportation cases, such as Soering. In such a case, a prediction is required, whereas in Montgomery, or indeed in any case concerning recognition, there was no need for such a prediction as the foreign judgment could already be seen to have breached Article 6. However, Soering requires that the person “has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial (emphasis added.)” If he has already suffered a breach, there is no need for a prediction to be made; instead, the reason for the standard of flagrancy is based on the “reduced effect of public policy” theory, an approach followed in Drozd, as noted. The reasoning of Briggs and Rees in this respect is akin to that of the Court of Appeal in Montgomery where Lord Woolf CJ stated that “the reference in [Soering at [113]] to a future flagrant breach of Article 6 was no more than a dicta which should not be applied to the enforcement of a court order of a non-Contracting State.” However, Drozd, which was not cited to, or considered by, the Court of Appeal, expressly requires such a flagrant breach of Article 6 if enforcement of a court order of a non-Contracting State is to be denied, which clearly has nothing to do with making predictions. Instead, as Briggs and Rees indeed note, the reason why the House of Lords applied the wrong test in Montgomery is that Pellegrini, the leading ECtHR authority which overrides Drozd, was wrongly distinguished and therefore permitted recognition of a judgment in contravention of ECHR jurisprudence. It may be argued that this was not a case of human rights not being taken seriously, but was merely a case of wrongful interpretation of human rights law, yet this could only be accepted upon an assumption of the incompetence of the House of Lords. 5.3. Conclusions The leading authority of the ECtHR on operation of the indirect effect doctrine with respect to recognising foreign judgments, Pellegrini demands a review of full compliance with Article 6 standards of foreign judgments, perhaps limited to those emanating from non-Contracting State courts. Through this, the right to a fair trial can be fully upheld in national courts and, in the UK, breach of Section 6 of the HRA 1998 can be avoided. Notwithstanding, the House of Lords effectively got human rights wrong, thus paving the way forward for reduced protection of Article 6 in the UK. However, this area is not devoid of hope; to effect compliance with this framework, Montgomery must be overturned, which does not appear too remote a possibility given the extensive criticism of the case.
How to conclude a first class law dissertation
The conclusion to your dissertation is, arguably, the most important part and is, therefore, potentially a major differentiator between a first class dissertation and a second class one.
There are three things which you should bear in mind:-
1. A well-written dissertation, thesis, essay or, indeed, any story should have three main parts to it: an introduction; a main body; and a conclusion. Services like the essay writing service reddit can be incredibly beneficial when it comes to crafting essays. It reflects any good piece of oratory: say what you’re going to say, say it, then say what you’ve said. In your conclusion, you are, thus, trying to tell the audience what you’ve said throughout your dissertation. If the word limit is 10,000 words, 800-1000 words should, ideally, be used on your conclusion;
2. Don’t be afraid to put your foot into the icy water. As stated in an earlier section you should not be afraid to come to powerful conclusions even if they challenge the views of other academics, practitioners or even the general public, provided that your views can be fairly and reasonably supported. Which brings us to the third and most important aspect of any conclusion;
3. A well drafted conclusion should refer back to your analysis throughout your dissertation to support your suggested conclusions; it should not allow you to raise new arguments or thoughts which you haven’t already considered. Think about it like a civil proof in court: you conduct an examination-in-chief in which you ask open questions to get evidence from your witness; your opponent then cross-examines your witness to test their evidence; you then get a chance to re-examine the witness but you do NOT get a chance to raise anything new that was not covered in cross.
The conclusion to my dissertation, different from my Juridical Review version, is as below. Given the recent Supreme Court criminal law decision of Cadder v HMA, for which see the ScotsLawBlog Cadder article , the final words on getting human rights right attract even greater significance.
6. CONCLUSIONS The right to a fair trial has produced much concern in the conflict of laws arena today, a particular result of the evolution of a more stringent human rights culture in the United Kingdom. In the field of civil jurisdiction, the right to a trial within reasonable time and the right of access to a court, two of the most fundamental substantive rights of Article 6 ECHR, have emerged; in the sphere of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the indirect effect doctrine, a key procedural element of the ECHR, which protects the right to a fair trial indirectly but nevertheless just as significantly, has arisen. International private law mechanisms exist for the reconciliation of Article 6 with the sphere of civil jurisdiction and judgments. The extent to which these can be utilised to protect the right to a fair trial is undoubtedly immense. At the most extreme end of protection, Fawcett’s hybrid model could provide great procedural legal certainty, such that human rights concerns will be identified first, using ECtHR jurisprudence, following which international private law mechanisms can resolve these concerns with their inherent flexibility. This strict approach is not unwarranted, particularly where judges fail to see the function or even importance of human rights. Pertinent examples include the misapplication of human rights by the House of Lords in Montgomery , which indeed must be rectified, and other approaches not confined to the courts of the United Kingdom; for instance, the embarrassingly misguided approach of the ECJ in Gasser , where it refused to recognise human rights concerns in its myopic pursuit of the objectives of the Brussels regime, unyielding with respect for concerns of private parties, when there were measures available for reconciliation. This appears even more inadequate in light of Advocate General Léger’s later suggestions that forum non conveniens may actually be incompatible with Article 6, when the doctrine is more than justifiable as it seeks to produce faster and more economic litigation, through both the first and second limbs of Spiliada. Notwithstanding, the need for Fawcett’s model is more questionable in other situations; for instance, in those cases involving potential indirect breaches of Article 6 when transferring actions abroad, flexible international private law mechanisms appear to have been applied in a manner sufficiently compliant with the ECHR, regardless of the characterisation of the breach as one of Article 6 or simply of the demands of justice. For example, the second limb of Spiliada has effectively prevented stays where there is a real risk of a flagrant breach abroad, as is the Soering threshold for such an indirect breach, whether regarding unreasonable delay or lack of access to a court. Fawcett concedes that the overall result of many cases will remain unchanged but suggests that “borderline” cases may exist which pose as pitfalls for the courts. However, the requirement of flagrancy, as he correctly applied at the beginning of his analysis, makes the existence of such cases difficult, if not impossible, to imagine in practice. In this respect, Fawcett appears to be advocating an approach extending beyond avoiding breaching Article 6; instead, he is actively aiming at protection of a fair trial beyond the Article 6 threshold. However, this is not unwelcome; the importance of Article 6 is so great that it is worth adopting the strict approach. The consistent use of ECHR jurisprudence at the outset will, at the very least, prevent a breach of Section 2 of the HRA 1998; further, it may assist those judges who are misguided or fail to see the importance of human rights today. Ultimately, a strict approach may provide for considerable legal certainty in a fast and growing area of law which demands firm, human rights orientated answers.
New: we have published guides to some of the best personal injury lawyers , settlement agreement solicitors and best employment lawyers in the UK , in addition to helpful guidance on a range of other legal issues which may be useful if you or a friend need to point someone in the right direction.
How to write a bibliography to conclude your first-class dissertation
There are three stages for completing an abundant and competent bibliography. First, go into the footnotes on your document, select all, copy and paste to the foot of your article, then separate into different categories. Then, second, go back through the materials which you have read and add them. Finally, third, sort alphabetically using Word or Excel.
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 7.1. TABLE OF CASES A and others v Denmark [1996] ECHR 2 AG of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai [2005] EWHC 2102 (Ch), appeals dismissed [2006] EWCA Civ 390 Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119 Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3 Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam [2004] EWCA Civ 857 Amuur v France (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 533 Andreucci v Italy [1992] ECHR 8 Ashingdane v United Kingdom [1985] ECHR 8 Att. Gen. v Arthur Anderson & Co [1989] ECC 224 Axelsson v. Sweden, no.11960/86, 13 July 1990 Bensaid v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 10 Berghofer v. ASA SA Case 221/84 [1985] ECR 2699 Berisford Plc v New Hampshire Insurance [1990] 2 QB 631 Bock v. Germany [1989] ECHR 3 Boddaert v Belgium (1993) 16 EHRR 242 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi(“Bosphorus Airways“) v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1 Bottazzi v. Italy [1999] ECHR 62 Brazilian Loans (PCIJ Publications, Series A, Nos. 20-21, p.122) Bristow Heliocopters v Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation [2004] 2 Ll Rep 150 British Airways v Laker Airways [1983] AC 58 British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602 Buchholz v Germany [1981] ECHR 2 Carel Johannes Steven Bentinck v Lisa Bentinck [2007] EWCA Civ 175 Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Nomura International Plc [2003] IL Pr 20 Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] 1 Ch 409 Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc [1998] AC 854 Credit Agricole Indosuez v Unicof Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd.s Rep 196 Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd, The Times June 8, 1995 Darnell v United Kingdom (1993) 18 EHRR 205 Delcourt v Belgium (1979-80) 1 EHRR 355 Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] QB 770 Deweer v Belgium (1979-80) 2 EHRR 439 Di Mauro v. Italy ECHR 1999-V Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745 Eckle v Germany (1983) 5 EHRR 1 Elderslie Steamship Company v Burrell (1895) 22 R 389 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Jacqmain (Case 150/80) [1981] ECR 1671 Erich Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl, C-116/02 [2005] QB 1 ERT v DEP C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925 F v Switzerland [1987] ECHR 32 Ferrari v Italy [1999] ECHR 64 Foti v Italy (1982) EHRR 313 Fritz and Nana v France, 75 DR 39 Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1 Gorbachev v Russia, No. 3354/02, Judgment of 15 February 2007. Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37 Guincho v Portugal (1984) 7 EHRR 223 H v France (1990) 12 EHRR 74 Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Aegan Turkish Holidays Ltd [1979] AC 508 Hewit’s Trs v Lawson (1891) 18 R 793. Huseyin Erturk v Turkey [2005] ECHR 630. Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union [1991] 2 QB 206. Iveco Fiat v Van Hool Case 313/85 [1986] ECR 3337 Jones v Saudi Arabia [2004] EWCA Civ 1394 JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom [2005] EWHC 508 Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy (1994) 19 EHRR 368 Klockner Holdings GmbH v Klockner Beteiligungs GmbH [2005] EWHC 1453 Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269 Konig v Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 170 Krombach v Bamberski Case C-7/98 [2001] QB 709 Kudla v Poland [2000] ECHR 512 Lacey v Cessna Aircraft (1991) 932 F.2d 170 Ledra Fisheries Ltd v Turner [2003] EWHC 1049 Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 Malone v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 1 Malstrom v Sweden (1983) 38 Decisions and Reports 18 Manieri v Italy [1992] ECHR 26 Margareta and Roger Andersson v Sweden (1992) 14 EHRR 615. Markovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 1141 Maronier v Larmer [2003] QB 620 Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 12. Messier-Dowty v Sabena [2000] 1 WLR 2040 Netherlands 6202/73 1975 1 DR 66 OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep 76 Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 433 Owners of the Atlantic Star v Owners of the Bona Spes (The Atlantic Star and The Bona Spes) [1974] AC 436 Owusu v Jackson and Others C-281/02 [2005] QB 801 Pafitis v Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 566 Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692 Philip Morris International Inc v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-1 Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany ECHR 2001-VIII. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 1 AC 368 R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 R. (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389 R. (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26 Riccardo Pizzati v Italy [2006] ECHR 275 Robins v United Kingdom (1998) 26 EHRR 527 Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14 Salotti v RUWA Case 23/76 [1976] ECR 1831 Santambrogio v Italy [2004] ECHR 430 Scopelliti v Italy (1993) 17 EHRR 493 Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665 Soc Divagsa v Spain (1993) 74 DR 274. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Lid [1987] 1 AC 460 Standard Steamship Owners Protection and Indemnity Association v Gann [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 528 Stogmuller v Austria (1979) 2 EHRR 155 Stubbings v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 44 Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 245 The Al Battani [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 219 The Benarty [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244 The Fehmarn [1958] 1 WLR 159 The Jalakrishna [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 628 The Lakhta [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 269 The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399 The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324 The Polessk [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40 The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 558 Toepfer International G.M.B.H. v. Molino Boschi Srl [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 510 Trendex v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679 Turner v Grovit and Others [2005] 1 AC 101 Union Alimentaria SA v Spain (1990) 12 EHRR 24 Vocaturo v Italy [1991] ECHR 34. Wemhoff v Germany (1968) 1 EHRR 55 Winterwerp v The Netherlands [1979] ECHR 4 X v France [1992] ECHR 45 Xn Corporation Ltd v Point of Sale Ltd [2001] I.L.Pr. 35 Z and Others v. United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 3 Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 9 7.2. TABLE OF LEGISLATION European Union EC Treaty Art 6(2) Art 307 Council Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels Regulation) Art 2 Art 4 Art 27 Art 28 Art 30 Art 34(1) Art 34(2) Art 35(3) Art 71 Italy Law no.89 of 24 March 2001 (the “Pinto Act”). United Kingdom Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 11 r 3.1(2)(f) Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) s1(1)(a) s2(1)(a) s3(1) s6(3)(a) 7.3. TABLE OF CONVENTIONS Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels Convention) Art 21 Art 22 Art 57 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Art 5 Art 6 Art 7 Art 13 7.4. TEXTBOOKS Anton, A.E., and Beaumont, P., 1995. Anton & Beaumont’s Civil Jurisdiction in Scotland: Brussels and Lugano Conventions. 2nd ed ., Edinburgh: Greens Bell, A., 2003. Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation. Oxford: OUP Briggs, A., 2002. The Conflict of Laws, Oxford: OUP. Briggs, A., and Rees, P., 2002. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. 3rd ed., London: LLP Briggs, A., and Rees, P., 2005. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. 4rd ed., London: LLP Clarkson, C.M.V., and Hill, J., 2002. Jaffey on the Conflict of Laws. 2nd ed., Oxford: OUP Clarkson, C.M.V., and Hill, J., 2006. The Conflict of Laws. New York: OUP Clayton, R. and Tomlinson, H., 2000. The Law of Human Rights. Oxford: OUP Collier, J.C., 2001. Conflict of Laws. 3rd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collins, L., et al (eds), 2006. Dicey Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws. 14th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell Crawford, E.B., and Carruthers, J.M., 2006. International Private Law in Scotland. 2nd ed, Edinburgh: Greens Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh. The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press. Fawcett, J.J., 1995. Declining jurisdiction in private international law: reports to the XIVth congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, Athens, August 1994. Oxford: Clarendon Press Fawcett, J.J., Harris, J. and Bridge, M., 2005. International Sale of Goods in the Conflict of Laws. Oxford: OUP Grosz, S., Beatson, J. and Duffy, P., 2000. Human Rights: The 1998 Act and the European Convention,.London: Sweet and Maxwell Harris, D.J., O’Boyle, M., Warbrick, C., 1995. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Butterworth Hill, J., 2005. International Commercial Disputes in English Courts. 3rd ed Portland: Hart Publishing McClean, D. and Beevers, K., 2005. Morris on the Conflict of Laws. 6th ed., London: Sweet and Maxwell North, P.M. and Fawcett, J.J., 2004. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law. 13th ed. Oxford: OUP Ovey, C. and White, R., 2002. The European Convention on Human Rights. New York: OUP Raitio, J., 2003. The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Reed, R. and Murdoch, J., 2001. A Guide to Human Rights Law in Scotland. Edinburgh: Butterworths Scotland Starmer, K., 1999. European Human Rights Law. London: Legal Action Group 7.5. ARTICLES Baldwin, J., and Cunnington, R., 2004. “The Crisis in Enforcement of Civil Judgments in England and Wales.” 2004 PL (SUM) 305-328 Briggs, A., 2005a. “Foreign Judgments and Human Rights.” 121(APR) L.Q.R. 185-189 Briggs, A., 2005b. “The Death of Harrods: Forum non Conveniens and the European Court.” 121(OCT) L.Q.R. 535-540 Clarke, A., 2007. “The Differing Approach to Commercial Litigation in the European Court of Justice and the Courts of England and Wales” 18 E.B.L.Rev. 101-129 Collins, L., 1995. “The Brussels Convention Within the United Kingdom”, 111 LQR 541 Costa, J-P., 2002, Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, 435, cited in Kinsch, P., 2004. “The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments – A Survey of the Cases Decided by the European Human Rights Institutions,” in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp197-228, p228 n100 Crawford, E.B., 2005. “The Uses of Putativity and Negativity in the Conflict of Laws.” 54 ICLQ 829-854 Crifo, C., 2005. “First Steps Towards the Harmonisation of Civil procedure: The Regulation Creating a European Enforcement Order for Uncontested Claims.” C.J.Q. 2005, 24(APR), 200-223 Eardley, A., 2006. “Libel Tourism in England: Now the Welcome is Even Warmer.” 17(1) Ent. L.R. 35-38 Fabri, M., and Langbroek, P.M., 2003. “Preliminary draft report: Delay in Judicial Proceedings: A preliminary Inquiry into the Relation Between the Demands of the Reasonable Time Requirements of Article 6(1) ECHR and Their Consequences for Judges and Judicial Administration in the Civil, Criminal and Administrative Justice Chains”, CEPEJ (2003) 20 Rev Farran, S., 2007. “Conflicts of Laws in Human Rights: Consequences for Colonies”, (2007) 1 EdinLR 121 Fawcett, J.J., 2007. “The Impact of Article 6(1) of the ECHR on Private International Law.” 56 ICLQ 1-48 Fentiman, R., 2005. “English Domicile and the Staying of Actions” [2005] 64 CLJ 303 Flannery, L., 2004. “The End of Anti-Suit Injunctions?” New Law Journal, 28 May 2004, 798 Franzosi, M., 2002. “Torpedoes are here to stay” [2002] 2 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 154 Franzosi, M., 1997. “Worldwide Patent Litigation and the Italian Torpedo” 19 (7) EIPR 382 Green, L., 1956. “Jury Trial and Mr. Justice Black,” 65 Yale LJ 482 Halkerston, G., 2005. “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.” 155 NLJ 436 Hare, C., “Forum non Conveniens in Europe: Game Over or Time for ‘Reflexion’” JBL 2006, Mar, 157-179 Harris, J., 2001. “The Brussels Regulation.” 20 Civil Justice Quarterly 218 Harris, J., 2005. “Stays of Proceedings and the Brussels Convention.,” 54 ICLQ 933 Hartley, T.C., 1994. “Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention: Agreement and Lis Alibi Pendens.” 19(5) E.L.Rev 549-552 Hartley, T.C., 2001. “International Law and the Law of the European Union – A Reassessment”, 72 BYBIL 1 Hartley, T.C., 2005a. “Choice-of-court agreements, lis pendens, human rights and the realities of international business: reflection on the Gasser case” in Le droit international privé: mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde, (Dalloz, Paris, 2005), pp383-391 Hartley, T.C., 2005b. “The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law Conflict of Laws”, 54 ICLQ 813 Higgins, R., 2006. “A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations From the Bench.” 55 ICLQ 791-804. Hogan, G., 1995. “The Brussels Convention, Forum non Conveniens and the Connecting Factors Problem.” 20(5) E.L. Rev. 471-493 Hood, K.J., 2006. “Drawing Inspiration? Reconsidering the Procedural Treatment of Foreign Law.” 2(1) JPrIL 181-193. Hunt, M., 1998. “The “Horizontal Effect” of the Human Rights Act”. 1998 Public Law 423-443 Hunter-Henin, M., 2006. “Droit des personnes et droits de l’homme: combinaison ou confrontation? (Family Law and Human Rights: Can They Go Along or Do They Exclude Each Other?),” 95(4) Revue critique de droit international privé pp743-775. Kennett, W., 1998. “Service of Documents in Europe.” 17(JUL) C.J.Q. 284-307 Kennett, W., 2001. “The Brussels I Regulation.” 50 ICLQ 725 -737 Kennett, W., 2001. “The Enforcement Review: A Progress Report.” 20(Jan) CJQ 36-57 Kennett, W., and McEleavy, P., 2002. “(Current Development): Civil and Commercial Litigation” 51 ICLQ 463 Kinsch, P., 2004. “The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments – A Survey of the Cases Decided by the European Human Rights Institutions,” in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp197-228. Lester, A., and Pannick, D., 2000. “The Impact of the Human Rights Act on Private Law: The Knight’s Move.” 116 LQR 380-385 Loucaides, L.G., 2003. “Questions of a Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights.” (2003) HRLR 3(1), pp27-51. Lowenfield, A.F., 2004. “Jurisdiction, Enforcement, Public Policy and Res Judicata: The Krombach Case,” in in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp229-248 Mance, J., 2004a. “Civil Jurisdiction in Europe – Choice of Court Clauses, Competing Litigation and Anti-Suit Injunctions – Erich Gasser v. Misat and Turner v. Grovit: Address to Second Conference of European Commercial Judges, (“Problems of enforcement of european law”)” Paris – 14th October 2004; http://www.courdecassation.fr/formation_br_4/2004_2034/jonathan_mance_8239.html, (Accessed 10 March 2007) Mance, J., 2004b. “Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and European Ideals.” 120 LQR 357 Mance, J., 2005. “The Future of Private International Law.” 1(2) JPrIL 185-195 Mance, J., 2007. “Is Europe Aiming to Civilise the Common Law?” 18 EBLRev 77-99 McLachlan, C., 2004. “International Litigation and the Reworking of the Conflict of Laws” 120(OCT) LQR 580-616 Meidanis, H.P., 2005. “Public Policy and Ordre Public in the Private International Law of the EU: Traditional Positions and Moderns Trends.” 30(1), ELRev, 95-110 Merrett, L., 2006. “The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements within the Brussels Regime,” 55 ICLQ 315 Muir Watt, H., 2001. “Evidence of an Emergent European Legal Culture: Public Policy Requirements of Procedural Fairness Under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions.” 36 Tex. ILJ, p. 539. North, P., 2001. “Private International Law: Change or Decay?” 50 ICLQ 477-508 Orakhelashvili, A., 2006. “The Idea of European International Law.” 17 Eur. J. Int’l L. 315 Peel, E., 2001. “Forum non Conveniens Revisited.” 117(APR) L.Q.R. 187-194 Robertson, D.W., 1987. “Forum Non Conveniens in America and England: ‘A rather fantastic fiction’.” 103 LQR 398 Robert-Tissot, S., and Smith, D., 2005. “The Battle for Forum”, New Law Journal, 7 October 2005, p1496 Robert-Tissot, S., 2005. “The Battle for Forum.” 155 NLJ 1496 Rodger, B.J., 2006. “Forum non Conveniens: Post Owusu.” 2(1) JPrIL 71 Schiavetta, S., 2004. “The Relationship Between e-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights pursuant to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.” 2004 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2004_1/schiavetta/ (Accessed 28 February 2007) Sinopoli, L., 2000. Le droit au procès équitable dans les rapports privés internationaux (doctoral dissertation, University of Paris-I, 2000) Slater, A.G., 1988. “Forum Non Conveniens: A View From the Shop Floor.” 104 LQR 554 Svantesson, D.J.B., 2005. “In Defence of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens.” (2005) HKLJ 395 Van Hoek: 2001. “Case note on Krombach v Bamberski” (2001) 38 CMLR 1011. Wade, H.W.R., 2000. “Horizons of Horizontality.” 116 LQR 217-224 Williams, J.M., 2001. “Forum non Conveniens, Lubbe v Cape and Group Josi v Universal General Insurance.” J.P.I. Law 2001, 1, 72-77 Zhenjie, H., 2001. “Forum Non Conveniens: An Unjustified Doctrine.” 48 NILR 143
All the best with your dissertation and career!
- Latest Posts
Latest posts by WardBlawg ( see all )
- Choosing the Right AI-Based Contract Management Software for Your Law Firm - January 15, 2023
- ChatGPT, what are the biggest issues the legal industry faces in the future? [With AI Images via DALL-E] - January 14, 2023
- 10 reports that every Law Firm’s Managing Partner needs - October 5, 2022
Share this:
Related posts:
- How to write a first class dissertation: The Introduction
- How to write a first class dissertation: Chapter 3: Creativity
- How to write a first class dissertation: Chapter 2: Developing the Debate
- How to write a first class dissertation: Chapter 3: Fresh Perspective
- How to write a first class dissertation: Content and Structure
Tagged as: dissertation writing , essay , First Class Honours LLB , first class llb , Gavin Ward , glasgow university , How to write a first class dissertation , law degree , tutor's notes
Pingback: Tweets that mention Writing a First Class Law Dissertation | WardblawG -- Topsy.com ()
Dissertation introduction sets the stage explicitly to present your thesis in a professional manner, on what you are going to write or follows in the specified pages. It must comprise of an overview, and problem statement along with the significance of your research or study conducted. Writing dissertation introduction properly helps you prevent ambiguity and anxiety in delivering the quality work within the given timeline. The introduction must be precise i.e.
Upon selecting the dissertation topic, you need to compose the dissertation problem statement. The essence of your thesis comes by creating the right problem statement, which is written well and simple. Writing dissertation problem statement effectively is considered the soul of a thesis. So now, don’t get much bothered about how to write a simple and an impressive thesis statement? Instead, focus more on attracting readers by creating a vivid or striking problem statement that seems precise and easy to comprehend.
An excellent way to conclude introductions is to write a simple and effective dissertation objective. Always remember, short and clear introductions and dissertation objectives attract readers. Thus, the central issue of any dissertation is to furnish the clear objective with notable and significant purposes. Ensure that the writer has to provide citations, which would not appear in various sources. Email me for any help or you can try mailing [email protected] as these guys also helped me with my dissertation.
Pingback: Cadder v HMA and Loss of Identity for Scots Law | ScotsLawBlog ()
Previous post: How to write a first-class bibliography for a legal essay
Next post: Lawyers on Twitter: Tweetup Tomorrow 26th November 2010 – Come along
Search WardBlawg
Subscribe for updates.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Latest WardBlawg Tweets
Latest posts.
- Choosing the Right AI-Based Contract Management Software for Your Law Firm
- ChatGPT, what are the biggest issues the legal industry faces in the future? [With AI Images via DALL-E]
- 10 reports that every Law Firm’s Managing Partner needs
- How Can Law Firms Make More Sustainable Legal Tech, Knowledge Management & SaaS Vendor Choices?
- Mark Thorley comments on the importance of technology in courts
- Book Reviews
- Compensation
- Consumer Protection
- Banking and Finance
- Capital Markets
- Construction / PPP / PFI
- Future of Legal Services
- General Legal
- Guest Law Blogging
- Domain names
- E-marketing
- International Private Law
- Jurisdiction
- Law firm website design
- Law Practice
- Lawyers Who Tweet
- Legal Advice Online
- Legal Careers
- Legal Design
- Legal Mindmapping
- Linkedin Tips
- Medical Negligence
- Obiter Dicta
- Personal Injury Claims Law
- Private Client and Family Law
- Human Rights
- Social Media
- Starting a law blog
- Supreme Court
- Twitter for Law Firms
- Uncategorized
SEO Tips Websites
- MLT's SEO Blog
- Search Engine Land
- SEO Book's Blog
Get in touch
Your Name (required)
Your Email (required)
Location (town/city)
Your Message
Follow us on Twitter
Connect on linkedin.
Awards: ScotsLawBlog
Blogging Tips Websites
- Copyblogger
- LexBlog by Kevin O'Keefe
- The Blog Herald
- BabyBarista
- Defrosting Cold Cases by Vidocq
- Delia Venables Legal Directory
- GC's Eye View by Tom Kilroy
- Jonathan Lea's blawg
- Law Practice Strategy by Donna Seyle
- Lawyer in the Making Blog by Rebecca Morgan
- LegaleagleMHM by Michelle Hynes-McIlroy
- Pupillage Blog
- The Time Blawg
Copyright © 2010-2022. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions | Privacy & Cookies Policy
Free law study resources
No notifications.
Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.
View full disclaimer
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this help guide does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.
Writing a Law Dissertation - what is expected?
4428 words (18 pages) Law Dissertation Help Guide
25th Aug 2022 Law Dissertation Help Guide Reference this In-house law team
Writing a Law Dissertation and what is expected
The following notes are intended to provide the student with an overview of what is expected, or required, in relation to undertaking/completing a dissertation, and to assist the student avoid some of the inevitable confusion that surrounds the commencement of a dissertation. However, it is also assumed that these notes will be readily superseded as students achieve sufficient ‘independent’ momentum and understanding.
The rationale for this document
My own experience of helping students with dissertation projects (together with supporting anecdotal evidence) suggests that a supervisor’s initial contact/first meeting, whether with an MBA, MA or MSc student, frequently results in a commonly occurring pattern of relatively fundamental queries and questions. This document, therefore, is intended to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the initial contact/first meeting between the academic supervisor and the student, and to provide an agenda for subsequent meetings.
“Facts are always convincing, it is the conclusions drawn from the facts that need to be questioned!” Sherlock Holmes .
The first/early meeting(s) with a supervisor
The first meeting between a supervisor and a student usually, perhaps necessarily, focuses on the proposed content of a dissertation, rather than the regulations or administrative process – understandably, supervisors tend to find the proposed topic more interesting than the administrative process. It is also possible that supervisors will not be familiar with the regulations or the administrative process. Equally, supervisors often assume, sometimes incorrectly, that students will have read and understood any pre-commencement documentation, prior to their first meeting.
Despite these uncertainties, and the inevitable need for some early ‘manoeuvring’ and ‘clarification’, the first meeting is often very influential in determining the subsequent direction and focus of the entire dissertation. Students are advised, therefore, to thoroughly prepare for their first meeting with their supervisor and not to just ‘let it happen’.
It would also be expedient for the student to assess the ‘availability’ of the supervisor, particularly in the event of the student experiencing a serious difficulty (a crisis) that cannot wait until the next routine meeting.
Approving draft chapters
Don’t expect a supervisor to routinely read/approve draft chapters, especially prior to a supervisor/student meeting, particularly if the chapter(s) might be revised before the meeting.
The changing relationship between supervisor and student
Students should appreciate that their relationship with their supervisor will necessarily change/evolve from tutor, and then to mentor, and then, finally, to examiner. The fundamental requirements of a dissertation are that it should involve the student in ‘sustained independent study’ and that the dissertation, as submitted, is ‘substantially the student’s own work’. Clearly, the supervisor has a responsibility to ensure that these ‘fundamentals’ are not compromised. In other words, the student should appreciate that he or she will achieve a more sustainable relationship with their supervisor if they seek discussion with their supervisor, rather than simply asking ‘what shall I do?’ or even ‘is what I’ve done O.K?’
The proposal
The proposal is a blueprint of what you intend to do and why it would be useful (to your sponsor), if you did. It will be used to ascertain if what you propose is feasible and viable in relation to the expectations of the relevant university. The proposal must contain a substantial introduction (a first draft of chapter 1, perhaps – see below) and clearly stated objectives and outcomes. The more detail you provide the more useful will be the feedback from your academic supervisor.
This ‘blueprint’ will set in motion 12 months, or more, of work.
It is, therefore, unlikely that a one-page outline will be sufficient.
a one-page outline is simply not sufficient.
“A child of five could understand this… send someone to get a child of five!”
Groucho Marks
Resourcing the dissertation
Do not guess (speculate) about what resources or sponsor’s support is available to you – find out. Don’t assume that you will magically acquire the necessary resources or information to complete your dissertation at the eleventh hour (Harry Potter is fiction). Some dissertations are considerably more difficult than others, simply because ‘key informant’ access and availability were not adequately considered at the proposal stage. Remember that whatever you do for ‘proposal’ purposes, can be incorporated into your dissertation – work done is work done.
The more detailed the proposal, the more likely it is that you will find a suitable (the most appropriate) supervisor. Supervisors don’t like getting involved in something that they might regret later.
write a proposal to interest and excite a potential supervisor
how many chapters?
Use five or more chapters of equal length, suggested as follows:
Introduction, literature review, methodology, results and discussion, conclusions and outcomes (recommendations). It is important that all chapters are about the same length. In other words, the methodology chapter is no less important than the results chapter etc. Write about 10-15% more words than stipulated – because everyone else will write too much and your dissertation will look ‘light’ if you don’t.
five 5000+ word chapters
The introduction (chapter 1)
Use the introduction chapter (chapter 1) to set the scene. The introduction is particularly important to help ‘one time readers’ to quickly and easily understand and appreciate what the dissertation is about. Use a short case study and/or diagrams and/or anecdotal examples to simplify the introduction as much as possible. In this chapter, some general speculation is permissible if it provides a clearer explanation of why you’ve chosen this project (to solve this problem) rather than some other project (problem).
The introduction chapter should conclude with the words…
“and therefore my objectives are”……..
ensure your objectives are derived from your ‘introduction’
The introduction chapter should contain sufficient clarity to enable the one-time-reader to easily appreciate what the dissertation objectives are, even if not formally stated – although dissertation objectives should always be formally stated.
The literature review (chapter 2)
“…more has been written about Business Management than is actually known.”
David Farmer
Emeritus Professor, University of Wales, March 1995.
The primary purpose of the ‘review of literature’ chapter is for you to ascertain, and to demonstrate to others, that you are not re-inventing the wheel. In other words, it is not acceptable to do no more than rediscover what others have already discovered – the onus is on the student to demonstrate that the wheel has at least been ‘improved’.
Use existing knowledge to further knowledge
Choose 8-10 journal articles to review.
Generally, scientific journal articles have more academic credibility than books. Although books provide useful background, journal articles more easily imply the depth of understanding that your dissertation needs to achieve. Scientific journal articles, therefore, are ultimately the most useful. Although it might be necessary to at least browse a dozen or so journals and many dozens of articles, it is better to identify, and discuss in depth, no more than 8-10 journal articles for literature review purposes. Other interesting and relevant but discarded journal articles can be listed in the bibliography to indicate that you’ve extensively searched (researched) the literature.
The methodology (chapter 3)
This is the most important chapter but also the most difficult to write. A methodology is not just a statement that chronicles what you did. Issues surrounding research methodologies are extremely complex. It can be a difficult task, for both academic supervisor and student, to determine to what extent students need to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of research methodology – discuss this with your academic supervisor. Generally, students should decide whether their dissertation is to be under-pinned by a quantitative or qualitative methodology. Don’t try to use both methodologies – the potential benefits are not worth the added confusion.
For a useful (initial) discussion about methodology see:
- Jean Lee, S. (1992), Quantitative versus Qualitative Research Methods – Two Approaches to Organisational Studies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 9 (1), p.87-94.
Most business management dissertations use a qualitative methodology. A qualitative methodology often primarily involves key respondent interview data. A qualitative methodology can seem, at first, an easy (soft) option, but it is always very time-consuming, and it can be more difficult to persuade an ‘examiner’ that your dissertation’s outcomes are reliable and credible.
It should be appreciated that you (the student) will, most probably, rapidly become more ‘expert’ than the supervisor, and others, in relation to the specific problem being explored and discussed in the dissertation (especially if a qualitative methodology is used). This means that a supervisor might be confronted with an assertion that black has been discovered to be white. The primary purpose of the methodology chapter is to describe an appropriate method (a formula) for solving ‘the problem’ being investigated – a method that is generally understood to provide ‘correct’ answers. This means that examiners and others can approve the methodology ‘formula’ and by implication, approve your assertion that ‘black is white’, without having to independently repeat your investigation (your experiment). In other words, your conclusions (your solution) are less likely to be challenged or disputed, if your methodology chapter is credibly persuasive and thoughtful.
Although the dissertation is not an opportunity for the student to write down what they think they know, the student should acknowledge that what they know (prior learning) will significantly influence what they (subsequently) learn.
In a dynamic environment, results and discussion are similar to creating a photograph of a moving automobile. Even if a technologically advanced camera is used and the photograph is in focus and correctly exposed, it only depicts where the automobile was in the past, not where it is now or where it will be in the future.
Lei, Hitt and Bettis (1996), Dynamic Core Competencies… Journal of Management, 22(4), pages 549-570 (adapted).
The results and discussion (chapter 4)
Generally, your results will involve the presentation of data that was not (and is not) widely available from existing (published) sources. In other words, data that, it could be argued (and you may need to), did not exist until you created it. The understanding needed to ‘solve’ the problem being investigated must be directly, and solely, derived from the results chapter/the data.
However, it is also appropriate, in this chapter, to use the literature to discuss and interpret the primary data in respect of its significance and relevance to the ‘research objectives’. In many respects, the results and discussion chapter (chapter 4) provides ‘the facts’ from which the conclusions and outcomes are derived. Inadequate data must result in inadequate ‘outcomes’.
The conclusion and outcomes (recommendations) (chapter 5)
In some respects, this chapter seeks (needs) to present the reader with a ‘summation’ of what was ‘achieved’ in the previous chapters. This chapter often chronicles the most significant content of previous chapters. However, this chapter is also an opportunity for the researcher to integrate the content from the other chapters into a synthesised ‘final’ whole. This means that the ‘conclusions and outcomes’ chapter must be a stand-alone chapter that contributes far more to the overall dissertation than simply a synopsis of previous chapters. Indeed, many would argue that this chapter is easily the most important because it provides the answer to the problem being investigated – other chapters are merely contributory to the outcomes chapter (it could be argued).
This chapter (or possibly in a subsequent chapter) should also discuss whether the ‘research was successfully completed including, in the student’s opinion, the reasons for the success or the failure. It is also entirely appropriate for the student to ‘disclose’ to the reader, any significant milestones in their understanding, awareness and appreciation. In other words, the student should discuss, and explore, the benefits (to them) of undertaking and completing a research dissertation/project. This could/should take the form of a personal statement that is both informative and insightful. This statement can also serve to usefully indicate the student’s progression from ‘beginner’ to ‘finisher’ and should reflect both the ‘exit’ ability/awareness and maturity of the student.
It should also be appreciated that the academic supervisor may need to ‘defend’ your dissertation with both the second marker and the external examiner, to achieve the grade/mark that the academic supervisor believes is appropriate. However, the supervisor is usually more ‘informed’ than the other examiners in relation to the student’s commitment, enthusiasm and achievement. This ‘personal statement’, therefore, can also serve to ‘personalise’ the student’s overall achievement and provide all the examiners with a more equal understanding of what you’ve accomplishment, and in what (adverse) circumstances.
Miscellaneous
Write as much as you can as soon as you can.
As you write, amendments to content and structure will become apparent – often as a result of the highly productive exercise of arguing with yourself as you write (playing with the words).
Say what you’re going to say, say it, and then say what you’ve said
Throughout your dissertation, adopt the “say what you’re going to say, say it, and then say what you’ve said” approach. This applies to each chapter, as well as the whole document.
Using a storyline
Help the reader to quickly absorb and understand the chapters by devising a unifying theme (a storyline) that is common to all chapters.
Be suggestive!
Use language that acknowledges that you might not be ‘entirely’ correct in any assertion that you offer the reader (write with humility). For example, use phrases such as; this suggests that, it would seem, the probability is, the available evidence indicates, it could be argued that etc.
Know the rules if you want to win
A dissertation has some similarity with a game. You need to understand the rules if you want to play (and win).
The most important readers will only read your script once
The most significant people involved in the game (apart from the academic supervisor) are the external examiner(s) and the 2nd reader. Remember that these individuals will only read your script once. Your script must, therefore, be entirely coherent and meaningful to someone reading it for the first time.
Match objectives with outcome
Objectives and intended outcomes should be included in the ‘dissertation proposal’ document – this provides early direction and facilitates initial discussion with the supervisor. However, it is inevitable that a dissertation will be ‘judged’ to ascertain whether the stated objectives have been achieved. It is important, therefore, that the dissertation objectives reflect what was actually achieved, rather than what was ‘envisaged’ or intended in the proposal document.
Do not speculate – keep your personal baggage in the closet
Generally, the dissertation must NOT contain speculation. This includes your personal opinions, no matter how informed or knowledgeable you think you are. It is possible that YOU have particular/special knowledge that, to some extent, is why you’ve decided to choose a particular dissertation topic/theme, rather than another. However, it is not considered appropriate for a researcher to be a primary source of ‘evidence’ (primary data) to his or her own research/investigation.
suggestion ‘access’ to an abundance of key informants is often the ‘critically’ importance requirement for a successful dissertation.
A chronicle of what you do (or did) for your employer is not enough
A satisfactory dissertation is unlikely to be an essay that simply chronicles the work you do for your employer/sponsor firm – this includes an essay about a work problem together with a speculative suggestion of how the problem might, in theory, be solved.
Truth or perception
It is important to appreciate that it is often (nearly always) more important to understand what people in organisations believe to be true, rather than what is actually true. Indeed, students who rely on key informant interview data are exploring the respondent’s perceptions of what is true, rather than what is true. As a consequence, it might be argued that truth is what people perceive to be true.
ensure that you help your supervisor to help you
Do your best to help the supervisor to help you. A supervisor may inadvertently offer inappropriate advice because he or she may misunderstand, or not be aware of, what difficulties or problems you are experiencing.
don’t try to accomplish too much
A successful dissertation is likely to be a detailed and comprehensive analysis of a little, rather than a generalised overview of a lot.
most students attempt far more than can be achieved.
The role of serendipity
Serendipity is the facility of making fortunate discoveries by accident, and was coined by Horace Walpole, from the Persian fairytale The Three Princes of Serendip, in which the heroes possess this ability. In other words, successful knowledge acquisition often involves chance and good fortune. Luck and good fortune are more likely if the student is consistently inquisitive and enquiring.
Choosing a supervisor
Although it is desirable that a supervisor is thoroughly familiar with the subject or topic that is being researched, it is often decisively more important that the supervisor is familiar with the intended methodology and has an enthusiasm for supervision. The ultimate subject or topic of a dissertation is often not the subject or topic that was initially envisaged in the student’s proposal document. It is less important than is often assumed, therefore, that a supervisor with particular specialist knowledge is recruited. Indeed, it could be argued that selecting a ‘specialist knowledge’ supervisor might limit the student’s opportunity to develop his or her own ideas and themes.
Praise and criticism
In the early stages of a supervisory relationship, it is easy to destroy a student’s self-confidence by criticism, or give him or her a false sense of confidence by too much praise. It is a difficult line to follow and, sometimes, the supervisor will get it wrong. Students should cautiously consider both the criticism and the praise that they receive.
Time management
Regrettably, the most carefully calculated work schedule is seldom (never) maintained. Indeed, the consequences of ‘falling behind’ can result in unnecessary and unhelpful anxiety. Simply, a dissertation cannot be ‘scheduled’. Knowledge acquisition and understanding seldom occur to comply with pre-determined work schedules. However, students must be determined to complete their dissertation within a specified time. Without this ‘determination’, it is likely that you will never finish. The dissertation will consume as much time as you have.
If you think you have forever, it will take forever.
Comparative analysis
It is often expedient for students to adopt a study doctrine that could be referred to as comparative analysis. This involves examining a series of separate, although related, procedures, processes, situations, or, perhaps, scenarios. The necessary rigour of the dissertation, as well as the quality of its outcomes (the conclusions and recommendations), is achieved as a direct consequence of the process of comparative analysis. The dissertation becomes, therefore, a series of relatively short, and more manageable, case studies or case histories, rather than a single complex whole involving, necessarily, extremely detailed data and exhaustive analysis of a single event. Comparative analysis is a valid and accepted procedure for acquiring knowledge and understanding, especially in relation to problems that would otherwise be too complex to be manageable
Note, however, that the individual cases or examples, need to be linked by a single theme or concept that is encapsulated within the dissertation title, and the stated objectives of the dissertation.
Although ‘comparative analysis’ is a useful means of managing the apparent complexity of the dissertation process, it is essential to discuss its use with an (your) academic supervisor.
Plagiarism and collusion
A dissertation is intended to involve the student in a sustained period of independent study. However, it is also expected that students will both use ‘informants’ (and other primary data sources) and the published literature (and other secondary data sources). To comply with very strict university regulations regarding plagiarism and collusion, students must always acknowledge the source(s) of all data, information and ideas that are not entirely the result of their own independent work. In other words, it is entirely acceptable (required and expected) to use other people’s thoughts and ideas, as long as the origin of those thoughts and ideas are properly acknowledged. This form of ‘acknowledgement’ is known as citing. Various methods of ‘citing’ exist. It is important that whatever method is used, it is used consistently throughout the dissertation.
- properly cite the source of what is not entirely
- the result of your own work
- citing references
- Provide a list of references used, at the end of your dissertation as follows:
In your text cite as follows:
There is incontrovertible evidence that engineers know little about business and management (Jean Lee, 1992).
Jean Lee (1992) refers to “incontrovertible evidence that engineers know little about business and management”.
If you are citing a book, include relevant page numbers.
Different expectations of sponsor and university
It must be acknowledged that, for most students, the requirement of the dissertation project is that it should be of relevance and interest to the student’s sponsoring firm. However, the outcome expectations of a sponsor and an academic institution may differ significantly. The student must endeavour to meet both expectations. This might mean that different reporting styles (different documents) are used to adequately comply with the expectations of both sponsor and university.
Commercial or military restricted data
Quite obviously, students cannot undertake a project that cannot be properly reported and assessed because it includes commercial or military restricted data. However, students often discard good projects because they considerably over-estimate the degree of ‘sensitivity’ that their dissertation involves.
To some extent, if your dissertation topic cannot be subsequently (on completion) ‘publicised’ to a wide audience, it may not be the best choice of topic.
Journal publication
For a variety of reasons, students should always seek to publish their research findings (ideas and conclusions) in an appropriate academic scientific journal, if it achieves the necessary level of quality and originality. Discuss this ‘opportunity’ with your academic supervisor.
However, if it is confirmed that the dissertation needs a commercial or military restricted classification, then it is acceptable, for example, to code data to obscure the identities of firms and individuals (firm A, respondent B etc.). It might also be possible to limit the circulation of the dissertation report to a ‘need to know’ group, involving the supervisor, 2nd reader and the external examiner. For more information about projects that involve commercial or military restricted or sensitive information, contact the project administrator, industrial advisor or academic supervisor
The appendices
Remember that the appendices will not be read by anyone other than you. Don’t hide important results or data in an appendix. The appendix should not be included in the word count.
- Introduce the problem (the introduction)
- Define the problem (the objectives)
- Check if (how) the literature can help (literature review)
- Devise a method of investigating the problem (the methodology)
- Present and interpret the data you’ve collected (the results)
- Discuss the results and arrive at conclusions (the solution to the problem).
- Provide recommendations and indicate what further investigation is necessary – problems are never entirely solved
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related Services
- Law Dissertation Writing Service
- Law Dissertation Proposal Writing Service
- Law Essay Writing Service
Our academic writing and marking services can help you!
- Marking Service
- Samples of our Service
- Full Service Portfolio
Freelance Writing Jobs
Looking for a flexible role? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?
Study Resources
Free resources to assist you with your legal studies!
- OSCOLA Referencing
- SQE Study Guide
- Legal Case Summaries
- Act Summaries
- Lecture Notes
- Problem Question Examples
- Law Study guides
- UK Law Blog
Crazy Law Facts
Take a look at some weird laws from around the world!
Search Support Articles
*You can also browse our support articles here >
- Our strategy, reports and plans
- Help and advice
- Our standards
- Work with us
- News and events
- Law Society news
10 tips for writing a first class LLB dissertation
Stuart McRobbie is currently a Diploma student at the University of Dundee. He has accepted a traineeship with Stronachs LLP to commence in September 2016 and is set to become the first lawyer in his family.
Writing a dissertation as part of my LL.B was undoubtedly the most challenging thing that I have had to do at university, but it also turned out to be the most rewarding.
Like many, I was initially quite apprehensive about writing such an extensive piece having found 3,000 word assignments difficult enough. Universities recognise this and will provide students with detailed structural and formatting guidelines, as well as some high-level guidance with regards to being original and analytical. However, I found that there was a lack of practical advice from those who had been through the process and so I thought it would be good to share some wisdom from my own experience and that of others.
1. Choose a topic that inspires you
Students are likely to be given a list of potential questions to aid them in their search selection process. My advice would be to generally steer clear of these. It’s unlikely that you’ll feel truly inspired by a set question, however they can be useful as a basis for tailoring or simply generating ideas. From speaking to students that achieved the highest grades for their dissertations, it’s clear that they all had a genuine interest in what they were writing about. Creating a unique question encourages original analysis and is likely to be more interesting from a marker’s perspective.
2. Start your research early
The law library can become a bit like something out of Lord of the Flies as people turn their attention to reading everything that has ever been written about their chosen topic. Ordinary library rules of borrowing and returning may appear to go up in smoke and it can feel like every person for themselves. The earlier you start your research, the less likely it is you’ll encounter any problems. Whatever forms the basis of your research, ensure that you keep track of it. A great way to do this is by completing a bibliography as you go, rather than at the very end. There is nothing worse than forgetting in which case or by which judge you read a great dictum (hint: it was probably Lady Hale or Lord Denning!).
3. Make the most of your time
It is oft said that the human brain can only focus for 30-40 minutes at a time, however students are often guilty of ignoring this in favour of cramming for hours on end. This is likely to have a negative affect on the quality of your research and writing. I found that breaking my time up into 40-minute periods, with 20-minute breaks in between, increased my productivity. I also found that setting myself achievable daily targets made the task of writing an extended piece seem less daunting: 15,000 words to be completed in 3 months suddenly becomes just 170 words a day! Leave time for reviewing your finished dissertation and make sure you beat the queue at the local printing and binding business.
4. Get in the zone
It is vital that you create and work in an environment that is conducive to productivity and creative thought. That doesn’t mean installing soundproof walls and non-reflective surfaces à la Kanye West. Everyone is different but I found that sitting at a desk with just a pen and paper to jot down ideas, whilst Buddy Holly played in the background, was a great way to focus. Temporarily blocking certain websites might be a good idea, otherwise the temptation to binge-watch ‘Making A Murderer’ again will always be there!
5. Make the most of your supervisor
Supervisors are a great resource and can be a fantastic sounding board for ideas. Whilst there is only so much a supervisor can do, they may be able to point you in the right direction and they are likely to be au fait with the most appropriate resources and current trends in thinking. Supervisors are also likely to be incredibly busy with teaching commitments and so you need to establish when and how to approach them.
6. Think about the bigger picture
The law doesn’t operate in isolation. Many students make the mistake of simply writing about what the law was or what the law is without necessarily considering the wider social, political or economic consequences of the legislation or case law. Consider, for instance, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 which requires directors to act in the best interests of a company’s shareholders. Such a rule doesn’t affect just shareholders; it also has wide-ranging consequences for the rest of society in terms of the payment of corporation tax, wealth and health inequality, the growth in atypical workers and access to justice. In order to establish these links, it was necessary for me to draw upon financial textbooks, reports from charities and studies conducted by economists – not just legal resources.
7. Know the law
This goes without saying, but one of the major problems that students come up against is the evolutionary nature of the law. You will begin researching months before the submission date and there are likely to be some changes in that time. It’s therefore essential that you read relevant publications, bulletins and updates on the area of law you are writing about. Reading blogs by law firms is often a good way to keep track of any changes. Every couple of weeks I would also check on Lexis that the cases I had referred to were still good authority for the points I wanted to make.
8. Challenge authority
Lord Reed recently gave a talk at the University of Dundee in which he encouraged solicitors and advocates to challenge authority. The same holds true for students in their writings. In analysing case law and legislation, it is important to understand the historical context within which those decisions were made. Society in 2016 is vastly different to society 50 years ago. Even just one or two years can see dramatic changes in social values, technology and the economy. An excellent way to gain an understanding of the context in which certain pieces of legislation were passed is to consider any discussion papers issued prior to an Act being passed and to review Hansard.
9. Talk about it
Becoming isolated from friends and family as you focus your full attention on your dissertation is not good for either the quality of your work or your general well being. A great bit of advice I was given was to pair up with another student to allow us to talk about our projects and bounce ideas of each other. Speaking with people who aren’t law students, be they students of other subjects or even just family, will allow you to tap into the life experience of others and gain an insight from a perspective you might not have considered. Always allow time to socialise: a game of pool, watching a game of football with friends or geein it laldy on the karaoke will clear your head and allow you to refresh.
10. Finally: keep a notepad under your pillow
And another one on your person at all times! Given the amount of focus and effort that you put into your dissertation, random moments of insight are likely to arise as you carry out daily tasks. I would sometimes find myself returning home from work with something that resembled a sleeve tattoo drawn by a toddler. Better to avoid hastily scribbling notes on your arm and carry a notepad! Now and again I would also be awoken from my sleep by an idea and would have to write it down. Admittedly I would often find that the notes I had scribbled in a semi-conscious state were either illegible or just completely bonkers, but my final dissertation contained at least 3 points that came to me in my sleep. Maybe I’m just a bit weird!
- Career growth
- Fraud alerts
- New lawyers
- Professional support
- In-house lawyers
- International
- Research and policy
- For the public
- Business support
- Equality and diversity
- Journal online news
- CPD & training
- Mental health
- Human rights
- Criminal court work
- Criminal legal aid
- Family and relationships
- Consumer and civil rights
- Accident and injury
- Houses, property and neighbours
- Business premises
- Company and commercial
- Public Policy Committee
- Working in-house
- Family and divorce
- CPD & training events
- Law and technology
- Commercial skills for young professionals
- Professional skills courses
- Working in England & Wales
- Member benefits
- ‘Not proven’ on trial in second round of Dewar Debate
- Football controversy on trial as debating tournament kicks off
- Fortrose Academy wins Dewar Debate final at Scottish Parliament
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411 F: +44(0) 131 225 2934 E: [email protected]
- Find a Solicitor
- CPD & Training: Get more out of your CPD
- Rules and guidance
- Website terms and conditions
The Law Society of Scotland | ©2023
Made by Gecko Agency Limited
Writing a First-Class Dissertation: An Introduction to the Series
The Future Lawyer Weekly Update – w/c 4th November
Who is the new UKSC president
- News & Articles
- Tips for Students
- choosing a dissertation topic
- dissertation
- Law Student
- tips for students
As part of the Law degree at university, some schools may require law students to complete a supervised or completely independent research project in your final year, often termed a dissertation. This is to test your research, problem solving , critical thinking and analysis skills. This also further tests your soft skills such as your ability to prioritise, plan effectively and manage time whilst working on a time-taking project. I have created this five-part series as a guide to writing and presenting a very high-quality dissertation. Throughout this series, I intend to discuss various tips and strategies that worked for me whilst writing both my undergraduate and masters dissertation and getting a first. To this aim, I have classified all my strategies under four major headings: the planning stage, the research stage, the writing stage and the final stage. In this article, I discuss what a dissertation is, how it is structured and the process of choosing a topic.
As stated before, a dissertation is usually a research project, a topic either chosen by you or chosen from a range of topics, which usually lasts between 4 to 6 months, depending on the program (LLB or LLM). Depending on the institution, the length of a general dissertation or research project may vary between 5 000 words to 15 000 words. An undergraduate law dissertation usually varies between 10 000 to 12 000 words, while the masters dissertation ranges between 10 000 to 15 000 words. This expected length is enough evidence of the type of coverage you should be aiming for on your dissertation, as well as the nature of your dissertation’s content . If done properly, apart from attaining a first-class mark, the dissertation is an entire experience which allows you really delve into a law topic or area in more depth and analysis.
C hoosing a Topic
In my experience, this was perhaps the hardest and most exhausting part of my dissertation , especially from my undergraduate dissertation. There’s a wealth of areas of law that you would have studied right from your first year to the final year. For me, it was quite challenging trying to sift through all these areas, particularly the area I’d enjoyed and choosing a topic or even an idea that I’d wanted to build up from and actually write a dissertation on.
Choose an area of law that interests you. This is most likely something you’d hear quite a lot during the early stages of your dissertation or even before you dive into your first ‘dissertation’ lecture. It is very important to choose an area that you’re interested in or that you find very fascinating as this would determine the pace and effort you put into researching and writing. You do not want to find yourself stuck with a topic you have zero interest in as there may be no motivation to properly delve into the topic with as much depth as it requires. Doing this requires a lot of reading and researching. This could range from researching current legal news or developments, a new area of law or an a rea that is newly developing, or any changes or development to case law. I’d recommend creating a list of the areas of law you’d enjoyed throughout from your first to second year. Additionally, you could also just create a general list of areas of law you’re interested in, regardless of whether you’d studied it at university or not. From here, you can now write out topics you’ve covered that you find interesting or topics under these areas that you may consider writing your dissertation. This would give you an idea on the particular issue or problem you’d want to uncover within the topic you’ve chosen.
Research . One key tip whilst researching is opening up your mind and thinking outside the box. While thinking about my dissertation topic, I’d done a module in my second year called ‘Law and Society’, this introduced me to the idea of the liberal legal subject in Law. This was my starting point for my dissertation as I’d connected this with ‘reasonableness’ in law and drawn this to certain principles in jurisprudence. I’d also carried out research on this possible line of thought and realised it was possible to discuss the ‘loss of control defence’ from criminal law and ‘gender’ all under the heading of reasonableness ( t he short story of how I’d chosen my topic). My realisation here was that I was able to merge different areas of law whilst researching for my dissertation topic.
Ask Questions. Don’t be afraid to meet your tutor or lecturers and ask questions about the idea you have for your dissertation. Be intentional in who you approach and the manner you ask questions relating to your potential topics. Ask open questions that allow the person you’re asking form an opinion or to allow you see the approach with which they analyse and think about the question. No question is too ‘silly’ or ‘irrelevant’ as you never know, some of your dying questions may end up forming a part of your research objectives. And who knows , the p rofessor you’ve met may end up becoming your supervisor!
Understand what is expected and required from you when writing a dissertation. This is also highly important when choosing a topic . This would allow you determine the approach you want to take with the various possible topic options. You can decide to discuss broadly on the area with a real-life situation as your case study. Alternatively, you could decide to use a piece of legislation or case law to draw out reasons and arguments why your chosen topic is relevant enough to be researched on. The approach you take is highly dependent on your level of understanding of the dissertation expectations and what you personally want to achieve. Think about who your audience is. Who are your target readers? What do you want them to take out of reading your dissertation?
In the next part of this series, I will discuss the ‘planning stage’, what to expect and know from this stage and my approach to this stage of my dissertation.
Article by Oluwabunmi Adaramola.
Oluwabunmi Adaramola
Related posts.
Tracking Development in the SQE
The O Shaped Lawyer
Peaks and Troughs: A Forecast for the Car Industry in 2023
Leave a reply cancel reply.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
How to Write a First Class Dissertation
A dissertation paper is composed of 2 primary aims: first is to prove the student has taken a widespread know, how about a chosen theme to show of the pupil’s capacity to use important study approaches. The other one is to know how to write a first class dissertation that conveys the level of know how & training suited for all your academic goals in the next years to come, along with reaching your personal and professional aims. A first class dissertation is a type of research paper of the highest quality; you can achieve around 70% of your final marking by the end of the school years. This indicates that the essay might show off some symbols of quality, in terms of lucidity, demonstration, uniqueness & comprehension of some important concerns,
Moreover, a first class type of dissertation provides pupils a proof in a liberated way of thinking and decision making at the same time. More, so when you learn how to write a first class dissertation , pupils must learn how to recognize the essence of endless communication with the superiors. The stable reaction obtainable this way will make sure that any kind of problem met with during the research should be dealt with right away. It is wrong to escape your superior and it will result in the pupils getting a 2 nd or 3 rd class grade for the dissertation.
Writing the dissertation paper
Pupils who are familiar with the ways of how to write a first class dissertation can comprehend and apply the facts obtainable by his/her bibliographical foundations in an imaginative manner that shows some crucial thinking & innovation. More so, a first class type of dissertation mandates you to write the paper in an outstanding manner and be able to impose good writing skills when composing advises & taking the proof for a particular viewpoint. The selected bibliographic resources must be very much related, regardless of the location the pupil has taken from the web or libraries. Normally, a dissertation contains different separate parts:
- The introduction must give a background of the selected theme. A well written paper must be presented in the right part. A pupil who is familiar with the ways to compose a first class dissertation must know how to invite and make his readers well prepared for the paper’s content. The right indication may be to change the introduction as soon as you are done with the paper, since this is one of the hardest parts to write in an academic paper.
- The literature review is the 2 nd part of the essay; the author highlights the problems that will be discussed, showing some related pieces of proofs in it. By understanding the theories shown by the literature, you will prepare the basis for the succeeding part of the dissertation, this is the method.
- The method expands in every particular technique of the data analysis used in the paper. Learning the ways to work on a first class dissertation suggests the use of qualitative research techniques, more than the quantitative ones. Moreover, a research design must be very specific, with a timetable that classifies the number of days & weeks you have spent in learning every part of the argument. The method of checking the data must also be defined. As a whole, the paper will be more credible if the writer can explain the techniques used in processing for the proof of this paper.
A decent academic impression is created by presenting some opinions for the advantages and disadvantages linked to the subject of the paper. A person who knows the ways to compose a first class dissertation will provide a proof for and in contradiction with the subject he/she wish to justify, and will not abstain from accepting the restrictions of his/her study. Moreover, every table, statistic figures & charts must be well elaborated, if you will fail to do that, the paper will lose its value.
- The conclusion gives a summary of the entire argument & it brings it to a satisfying end. Each present problem linked to select a term must also be shown in this part, without additional new detail that asks for extra clarifications. A pupil who is familiar with the ways to compose a first class dissertation may also show some restrictions he/she has bumped into while working on the research; this must lead the reader to other optional studies that can give extra information about the topic.
A good type of conclusion must have a closer to the thesis & it must also support the credibility of the writer as well, close to the introduction, the conclusion is also a part that some pupils have a hard time composing. Lastly, the cited page along with the appendix is added at the latter part of the dissertation. The writer must give enough attention to the formatting style, because any carelessness will lead to loss of value of the paper.
Using of language, style and formatting
If you wish to get a high score, you need to pay close attention to the language & style of writing. A first class thesis must be well written in a formal style of writing with the use of the right terms. A pupil who is familiar with the ways to compose a first class dissertation will certainly prevent informal languages, on the other hand too much use of scientific terms or technical language is unwanted. Clear, accurate sentences are suitable for making your paper easy to understand. An arrogant type of writing will only indicate long sentences and it will later on loss the interest of the readers.
Moreover, do not use first person in the text, the words researcher and author are often used in an academic paper when it is about a person who has planned the thesis. Moreover, the words are expressed qualitative decisions like bad, good & perfect must not be used, while incorrect & correct will be more fit when it comes to presenting the advices or your thoughts. The stipulations of the formatting style must be well respected all the time. Normally, thesis uses Harvard & APA writing style, but some lecturers want a particular use of other referencing standards.
Lastly, you need to recheck your work for typos and grammar error. If you have the time, it will be better to show your paper in a native English speaker, you can ask where you went wrong in the paper and what may be changed in terms of the language used.
INSTANT PRICE
Get an instant price. no signup required.
We respect your privacy and confidentiality!
Share the excitement and get a 15% discount
Introduce your friends to The Uni Tutor and get rewarded when they order!
Refer Now >
FREE Resources
- APA Citation Generator
- Harvard Citation Generator
- Chicago Citation Generator
- MLA Referencing Generator
- Oscola Citation Generator
- Vancouver Citation Generator
- Turabian Citation Generator
New to this Site? Download these Sample Essays
- Corporate Law Thesis
- Political Philosophy
- Legal Writing Rules
- Sample Philosophy Thesis
Send me free samples >
How The Order Process Works
- Order Your Work Online
- Tell us your specific requirements
- Pay for your order
- An expert will write your work
- You log in and download your work
- Order Complete
Amazing Offers from The Uni Tutor Sign up to our daily deals and don't miss out!
Contact Us At
- e-mail: info@theunitutor.com
- tel: +44 20 3286 9122
Brought to you by SiteJabber
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2002-2023 - The Uni Tutor - Custom Essays. 10347001, info@theunitutor.com, +44 20 3286 9122 , All Rights Reserved. - Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
The Uni Tutor : We are a company registered in the United Kingdom. Registered Address London, UK , London , England , EC2N 1HQ
Your Assignment Our Responsibility
How to write a law dissertation?: Structure and Writing Help
This article on Law Dissertation Writing Help: How to write a law dissertation? was written by an intern at Legal Upanishad.
Introduction
A law dissertation is an official piece of writing generally done by a student pursuing a doctorate at any university. It’s a document that has details about the topic selected for research by the student and is approved by the professor or guide. It is an official document and has specific requirements to fit in the dissertation. It should be drafted properly and should be in the proper format according to the universities pattern. The dissertation should have relevant information related to research done by one. This article gives a general overview of basic law dissertation writing help to a law student.
What is a Law Dissertation?
A dissertation is a formal term for a thesis. It is an official, lengthy piece of writing. It is generally written by a Ph.D. student at uni. A dissertation is a piece of writing that enhances a different point of view as an outcome of the study. This is typically processed as part of a necessity for a better academic degree. The writer’s study and findings are proffered in the thesis.
A dissertation must conduct fundamental legal research. To review articles and essential laws. If needed the individual should take surveys to get precise results. Legal research helps to get to a broader aspect of the topic as sometimes it is not possible to get from the theoretical experience. Good legal research leads to a systematic finding and ascertainment of the law and advances it.
Structure of a law dissertation
To provide the law dissertation writing help, we have briefly explained, the structure of a law dissertation.
- ABSTRACT: – An abstract, the type of overview, gives readers an introduction to one’s thesis. It is a concise summary of one’s thesis in which one defines one’s study’s goals and objectives, methods, outcomes, summary, and strategic development.
- TABLE OF CONTENT: – The contents table includes the primary and subheadings of one’s document, as well as the ‘references’ and ‘annexures’ segments. This ought to be linked directly to the entire program and generated by the system by the Microsoft wizard.
- INTRODUCTION: – The whole first section ought to contain a description of the problem’s background in addition to an issue statement. The objective of the research should be clear, then the query question. One’s entire analysis initiative and subsequent sections must be responses to the query question you posed. One must provide precise definitions for the terms used in the task. One would also reveal one’s presumptions and overall results objectives.
- LITERATURE REVIEW: – This is probably the most significant and critical aspect of one’s analysis. Inside this section of your thesis, one will go over the qualitative research in a similar way that you did earlier. This section reflects one’s efforts and work.
- METHODOLOGY: – This section of the thesis focuses on how one found the assets and how one implemented the findings. One will reveal the study questions, establishing, attendees, information gathering, and information analysis procedures when composing a quantifiable thesis. Whether one is writing a quantifiable thesis, this section would then concentrate on the study concerns and postulate, both sample and population data, equipment, information gathering, and market research.
- SAMPLE SIZE: – The sample size must be appropriate, not too compact or too massive.
- DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES: – (Enrollment, Surveys, Interviews, Findings Directed) Data Analysis: Data must be analyzed as per the article’s requirements. The information must be compiled once it has been collected. The overall number of parameters utilized will be considered in the research, as well as the relationship between them will be examined.
- FINDINGS: – It is yet another critical point within a research project because it takes into account one’s cognitive innate talent or mental prowess. In the findings section, one repeats the study questions as well as talks about the findings.
- CONCLUSIONS: – One would then summarize the research and concisely describe the findings and results in the dissertation’s concluding section. Highlight the importance of explaining why one’s research results play a part in the academic world and how they can be implemented.
- RECOMMENDATIONS/ SUGGESTIONS: – It is the final section of one’s analysis, and it contains a section titled “Recommendations for future research,” wherein one suggests an additional study make clear the difficulties. Describe the reason why one thinks this study is necessary and also what form that should take.
- APPENDICES: – This is a chapter in which one will incorporate data from one’s article that one has supplemented. It is a type of additional material that doesn’t inevitably add anything to the primary content of the paper. It would include the questionnaire, charts, tabular, graphs, and any additional data sources that require further explanation.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY: – Use the citation style suggested for one’s field of research, and list all references utilized during the writing and research steps.
Differences between bibliography, footnotes, and reference
Bibliographies, footnotes, endnotes, and references are contributors and related substances for components used during studies that must be acknowledged. If indeed the supplies are not addressed, the work is considered copyrighted.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY: – The list of all sources and references is always found at the end of the research.
- FOOTNOTES: – This is always noted in the footer at the bottom of the document. It displays citations for every document individually.
- REFERENCES/ SUGGESTIONS: – These have always been usually found after publications or sections.
In this article, the author tries to provide law dissertation writing help to law students. Therefore, we can say that to do the desired dissertation legal research is necessary. The drafting of the document is essential in the dissertation. One should always mention all the cases and citations properly or else the document will be considered plagiarized and will not be valid. This article talks gives a general overview of a dissertation. Every university may have a different format of its own for dissertations for the students pursuing a Ph.D. It should clarify the idea of research and the basic purpose for doing such research.
- Article by Law Notes – Published on 5 th October 2020 “How to write Dissertation and synopsis” ( https://lawcolloquy.com/publications/blog/how-to-write-dissertation-and-synopsis/25 )
- Article by Law Dissertation Structure “LAW DISSERTATION STRUCTURE” ( https://www.lawdissertation.co.uk/law-dissertation-structure )
How to write a Legal Essay: All You Need to Know
Writing an essay is an important aspect of the legal field. Whether you are preparing for the judiciary or you are thinking about academics in both scenarios this habit of…
How to Write Good Legal Articles: A Guide for Law Students
Today, we will be understanding how to write good Legal Articles. Typically, when we begin to write a blog post or an article, we pick topics about which we are…
Types of Legal Research: All You Should Know
Regardless of their areas of practice, individual attorneys (advocates) and law firms need to conduct legal research. It aids in the crucial case search in the event of a question…
- Call Now +44 20 3287 7400
- Leave Your Message [email protected]
- 9.5/10 Reviews
- Law Writers
- Best Law Essay Writing
- Law Assignment Writing
- Law Dissertation Writing
- Law Coursework Writing
- Law Research Paper Writing
- Law Term Paper Writing
- Law Paper Editing
- Law Case Study Writing
- Administrative Law Essays
- Business Law Essays
- Civil Law Essays
- Commercial Law Essays
- Common Law Essays
- Constitutional Law Essay
- Contract Law Essays
- Corporate Law Essays
- Criminal Law Essays
- Employment Law Essays
- Family Law Essays
- International Law Essays
- Property Law Essays
- Taxation Law Essays
- Tort Law Essays
Tips for Writing a First-Class Law Dissertation
After completing coursework, you’ll be ready to start the last leg of your path: writing your master’s law dissertation to receive your degree.
Get a topic for your research paper that would encourage you to study and write, whether it be the matter of unlawful garbage dumping by companies in developing nations or the subject of endangered or newly find discoveries.
Here are some tips on how to write a superior law dissertation:
Pick a Topic that Intrigues You
Students are inclined to give a series of topics to help them narrow down their search options. A predefined topic rarely excites you, but it could be beneficial as a starting point for modifying or simply creating thoughts.
Speaking with students who received good marks for their thesis, it was evident that they were passionate about the subject matter. Developing a specific question stimulates fresh thinking and is much more certain to spark a marker’s curiosity.
Begin Your Research as Soon as Possible
Normal library lending and depositing norms might seem to vanish, and that it might feel as if everyone is on their own. The sooner you begin your research on your topic, the less probable you will run into issues.
Make sure you maintain a record of whatever constitutes the foundation of your work. Preparing a citation as you get further, instead of at the finish, is a perfect method to do it, though.
Make Use of All the Opportunities You Have
The human mind could hardly concentrate for 35-40 mins at the moment, but pupils are notorious for disregarding this fact in favor of stressing for hours at a time. It will almost certainly decrease the performance of your study and content.
Allow time to examine your completed dissertation, plus arrive early at the nearest copying and binder shop to avoid the line. Try to use every opportunity you could during your research time.
Put Yourself in the Mood
You must produce and perform in a setting that encourages efficiency and innovative thinking. For unique ideas, work in a relaxing setting and put yourself in the mood.
Make Much Use of Your Supervisor’s Presence
A supervisor is an invaluable resource and could serve as an excellent sounding board for new ideas. While a supervisor could only do so much, they might guide you mostly towards the correct path and are probably up-to-date on the best resources and modern thinking developments.
A supervisor is probably extremely busy because of their teaching responsibilities, so you’ll need to figure out how and when to reach them.
Observe the Greater Picture
The law does not work like most thought about it. Most pupils make the error of just talking about what the law is all about without examining the case legislation’s broader social, economic, or commercial implications.
Such a principle affects more than just stockholders; it has far-reaching implications for most of the community in aspects of corporate tax payout, wealth and social inequalities, development in unusual employees, and approach to courts. Financial schoolbooks, claims from charity organisations, and research studies by economic experts were used to make these connections not only lawful resources.
Understand the Law
Reading related papers, briefings, and bulletins on the topic of legislation you are writing about is critical. Reading legal firm articles is a fantastic method to stay up to date on any developments.
Dispute Authority
Understanding the historical circumstances in which other researchers took such judgments is critical. Social attitudes, technologies, and economics could all change significantly in only one to two years. Study debate papers to obtain a better insight into the circumstances in which those parts of the law were approved.
Discuss Your Topic
Pairing up with some other person was a splendid idea because it allowed us to discuss our work and share experiences. Interacting with individuals who aren’t students of law subject, whether they’re pupils of other courses or perhaps even kin, would enable you to connect into their experience and knowledge and gain insight from a viewpoint you hadn’t considering before.
Make time to interact to open your mind and recharge.
Contact Law Writing Service
If you require assistance with your law dissertation or guidance, we recommend getting in touch with our law dissertation writing service . We are a reputable law writing business with years of professional experience in the law sector. Many notable experts are on their crew of law dissertation writing and are accessible to guide students on any problem they may be experiencing!
- Buy Law Essay
- Law Assignments
- Law Dissertation
- Law Writing
Law Essay Writing
- Refund Policy
- Revision Policy
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
- +44 20 3287 7400
- [email protected]
- Unit F, Winston Business Park, Churchill Way Suite no: 67650, Sheffield, Yorkshire S35 2PS, UK
Disclaimer: All the information published on the Law Essay Writing website is for general information purposes only. We do not give authority to our clients to reproduce any part or full content as their own. This site’s content is for research purposes and should not be used without proper reference.
All the information published on the Law Essay Writing website is for general information purposes only. We do not give authority to our clients to reproduce any part or full content as their own. This site’s content is for research purposes and should not be used without proper reference.
© Copyright 2022 All Right Reserved By Law Essay Writing
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
1. A well-written dissertation, thesis, essay or, indeed, any story should have three main parts to it: an introduction; a main body;
Introduce the problem (the introduction) · Define the problem (the objectives) · Check if (how) the literature can help (literature review) · Devise a method of
10 tips for writing a first class LLB dissertation · 1. Choose a topic that inspires you · 2. Start your research early · 3. Make the most of your
University dissertation tips and advice. I hope you enjoy the video!✹ Buy my law notes at: https://eloiseslawshop.squarespace.com/✹
how to get a first in your dissertation!!https://tutoredit.com/ - USE CODE SelinaH10 for 10% off!*SHOP MY AMAZON FAVOURITES:
Be intentional in who you approach and the manner you ask questions relating to your potential topics. Ask open questions that allow the person
A first class thesis must be well written in a formal style of writing with the use of the right terms. A pupil who is familiar with the ways to compose a first
INTRODUCTION: – The whole first section ought to contain a description of the problem's background in addition to an issue statement. The
Tips for Writing a First-Class Law Dissertation · Pick a Topic that Intrigues You · Begin Your Research as Soon as Possible · Make Use of All the Opportunities You
Rather we are expecting to see a well organised, critical consideration of existing ideas in your field of study, which show a mastery (hence “Masters” Degree)