oxford law essay competition 2021

Essay  COMPETITION

2024 global essay prize, registrations are now open all essayists must register  here  before friday 31 may, 2024.

The John Locke Institute encourages young people to cultivate the characteristics that turn good students into great writers: independent thought, depth of knowledge, clear reasoning, critical analysis and persuasive style. Our Essay Competition invites students to explore a wide range of challenging and interesting questions beyond the confines of the school curriculum.

Entering an essay in our competition can build knowledge, and refine skills of argumentation. It also gives students the chance to have their work assessed by experts. All of our essay prizes are judged by a panel of senior academics drawn from leading universities including Oxford and Princeton, under the leadership of the Chairman of Examiners, former Cambridge philosopher, Dr Jamie Whyte.

The judges will choose their favourite essay from each of seven subject categories - Philosophy, Politics, Economics, History, Psychology, Theology and Law - and then select the winner of the Grand Prize for the best entry in any subject. There is also a separate prize awarded for the best essay in the junior category, for under 15s.

Q1. Do we have any good reasons to trust our moral intuition?

Q2. Do girls have a (moral) right to compete in sporting contests that exclude boys?

Q3. Should I be held responsible for what I believe?

Q1. Is there such a thing as too much democracy?

Q2. Is peace in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip possible?

Q3. When is compliance complicity?

Q1. What is the optimal global population?  

Q2. Accurate news reporting is a public good. Does it follow that news agencies should be funded from taxation?

Q3. Do successful business people benefit others when making their money, when spending it, both, or neither?

Q1. Why was sustained economic growth so rare before the later 18th century and why did this change?

Q2. Has music ever significantly changed the course of history?

Q3. Why do civilisations collapse? Is our civilisation in danger?

Q1. When, if ever, should a company be permitted to refuse to do business with a person because of that person’s public statements?

Q2. In the last five years British police have arrested several thousand people for things they posted on social media. Is the UK becoming a police state?

Q3. Your parents say that 11pm is your bedtime. But they don’t punish you if you don’t go to bed by 11pm. Is 11pm really your bedtime?

Q1. According to a study by researchers at four British universities, for each 15-point increase in IQ, the likelihood of getting married increases by around 35% for a man but decreases by around 58% for a woman. Why?

In the original version of this question we misstated a statistic. This was caused by reproducing an error that appeared in several media summaries of the study. We are grateful to one of our contestants, Xinyi Zhang, who helped us to see (with humility and courtesy) why we should take more care to check our sources. We corrected the text on 4 April. Happily, the correction does not in any way alter the thrust of the question.

Q2. There is an unprecedented epidemic of depression and anxiety among young people. Can we fix this? How?

Q3. What is the difference between a psychiatric illness and a character flaw?

Q1. “I am not religious, but I am spiritual.” What could the speaker mean by “spiritual”?

Q2. Is it reasonable to thank God for protection from some natural harm if He is responsible for causing the harm?

Q3. Does God reward those who believe in him? If so, why?

JUNIOR prize

Q1. Does winning a free and fair election automatically confer a mandate for governing?

Q2. Has the anti-racism movement reduced racism?

Q3. Is there life after death?

Q4. How did it happen that governments came to own and run most high schools, while leaving food production to private enterprise? 

Q5. When will advancing technology make most of us unemployable? What should we do about this?

Q6. Should we trust fourteen-year-olds to make decisions about their own bodies? 

ENTRY REQUIREMENTS & FURTHER DETAILS

Please read the following carefully.

Entry to the John Locke Institute Essay Competition 2024 is open to students from any country.

Registration  

Only candidates who registered before the registration deadline of Friday, 31 May 2024 may enter this year's competition. To register, click here .  

All entries must be submitted by 11.59 pm BST on  the submission deadline: Sunday, 30 June 2024 .  Candidates must be eighteen years old, or younger, on that date. (Candidates for the Junior Prize must be fourteen years old, or younger, on that date.)

Entry is free.

Each essay must address only one of the questions in your chosen subject category, and must not exceed 2000 words (not counting diagrams, tables of data, endnotes, bibliography or authorship declaration). 

The filename of your pdf must be in this format: FirstName-LastName-Category-QuestionNumber.pdf; so, for instance, Alexander Popham would submit his answer to question 2 in the Psychology category with the following file name:

Alexander-Popham-Psychology-2.pdf

Essays with filenames which are not in this format will be rejected.

The candidate's name should NOT appear within the document itself. 

Candidates should NOT add footnotes. They may, however, add endnotes and/or a Bibliography that is clearly titled as such.

Each candidate will be required to provide the email address of an academic referee who is familiar with the candidate's written academic work. This should be a school teacher, if possible, or another responsible adult who is not a relation of the candidate. The John Locke Institute will email referees to verify that the essays submitted are indeed the original work of the candidates.

Submissions may be made as soon as registration opens in April. We recommend that you submit your essay well in advance of th e deadline to avoid any last-minute complications.

Acceptance of your essay depends on your granting us permission to use your data for the purposes of receiving and processing your entry as well as communicating with you about the Awards Ceremony Dinner, the academic conference, and other events and programmes of the John Locke Institute and its associated entities.  

Late entries

If for any reason you miss the 30 June deadline you will have an opportunity to make a late entry, under two conditions:

a) A late entry fee of 20.00 USD must be paid by credit card within twenty-four hours of the original deadline; and

b) Your essay must be submitted  before 11.59 pm BST on Wednesday, 10 July 2024.

To pay for late entry, a registrant need only log into his or her account, select the relevant option and provide the requested payment information.

Our grading system is proprietary. Essayists may be asked to discuss their entry with a member of the John Locke Institute’s faculty. We use various means to identify plagiarism, contract cheating, the use of AI and other forms of fraud . Our determinations in all such matters are final.

Essays will be judged on knowledge and understanding of the relevant material, the competent use of evidence, quality of argumentation, originality, structure, writing style and persuasive force. The very best essays are likely to be those which would be capable of changing somebody's mind. Essays which ignore or fail to address the strongest objections and counter-arguments are unlikely to be successful .

Candidates are advised to answer the question as precisely and directly as possible.

The writers of the best essays will receive a commendation and be shortlisted for a prize. Writers of shortlisted essays will be notified by 11.59 pm BST on Wednesday, 31 July. They will also be invited to London for an invitation-only academic conference and awards dinner in September, where the prize-winners will be announced. Unlike the competition itself, the academic conference and awards dinner are not free. Please be aware that n obody is required to attend either the academic conference or the prize ceremony. You can win a prize without travelling to London.

All short-listed candidates, including prize-winners, will be able to download eCertificates that acknowledge their achievement. If you win First, Second or Third Prize, and you travel to London for the ceremony, you will receive a signed certificate. 

There is a prize for the best essay in each category. The prize for each winner of a subject category, and the winner of the Junior category, is a scholarship worth US$2000 towards the cost of attending any John Locke Institute programme, and the essays will be published on the Institute's website. Prize-giving ceremonies will take place in London, at which winners and runners-up will be able to meet some of the judges and other faculty members of the John Locke Institute. Family, friends, and teachers are also welcome.

The candidate who submits the best essay overall will be awarded an honorary John Locke Institute Junior Fellowship, which comes with a US$10,000 scholarship to attend one or more of our summer schools and/or visiting scholars programmes. 

The judges' decisions are final, and no correspondence will be entered into.

R egistration opens: 1 April, 2024.

Registration deadline: 31 May, 2024. (Registration is required by this date for subsequent submission.)

Submission deadline: 30 June, 2024.

Late entry deadline: 10 July, 2024. (Late entries are subject to a 20.00 USD charge, payable by 1 July.)

Notification of short-listed essayists: 31 July, 2024.

Academic conference: 20 - 22 September, 2024.

Awards dinner: 21 September, 2024.

Any queries regarding the essay competition should be sent to [email protected] . Please be aware that, due to the large volume of correspondence we receive, we cannot guarantee to answer every query. In particular, regrettably, we are unable to respond to questions whose answers can be found on our website.

If you would like to receive helpful tips  from our examiners about what makes for a winning essay or reminders of upcoming key dates for the 2024  essay competition, please provide your email here to be added to our contact list. .

Thanks for subscribing!

The John Locke Institute's Global Essay Prize is acknowledged as the world's most prestigious essay competition. 

We welcome tens of thousands of submissions from ambitious students in more than 150 countries, and our examiners - including distinguished philosophers, political scientists, economists, historians, psychologists, theologians, and legal scholars - read and carefully assess every entry. 

I encourage you to register for this competition, not only for the hope of winning a prize or commendation, and not only for the chance to join the very best contestants at our academic conference and gala ceremony in London, but equally for the opportunity to engage in the serious scholarly enterprise of researching, reflecting on, writing about, and editing an answer to one of the important and provocative questions in this year's Global Essay Prize. 

We believe that the skills you will acquire in the process will make you a better thinker and a more effective advocate for the ideas that matter most to you.

I hope to see you in September!

Best wishes,

Jamie Whyte, Ph.D. (C ANTAB ) 

Chairman of Examiners

Q. I missed the registration deadline. May I still register or submit an essay?

A. No. Only candidates who registered before 31 May will be able to submit an essay. 

Q. Are footnote s, endnotes, a bibliography or references counted towards the word limit?

A. No. Only the body of the essay is counted. 

Q. Are in-text citations counted towards the word limit? ​

A. If you are using an in-text based referencing format, such as APA, your in-text citations are included in the word limit.

Q. Is it necessary to include foo tnotes or endnotes in an essay? ​

A. You  may not  include footnotes, but you may include in-text citations or endnotes. You should give your sources of any factual claims you make, and you should ackn owledge any other authors on whom you rely.​

Q. I am interested in a question that seems ambiguous. How should I interpret it?

A. You may interpret a question as you deem appropriate, clarifying your interpretation if necessary. Having done so, you must answer the question as directly as possible.

Q. How strict are  the age eligibility criteria?

A. Only students whose nineteenth birthday falls after 30 June 2024 will be eligible for a prize or a commendation. In the case of the Junior category, only students whose fifteenth birthday falls after 30 June 2024 will be eligible for a prize or a commendation. 

Q. May I submit more than one essay?

A. Yes, you may submit as many essays as you please in any or all categories.

Q. If I am eligible to compete in the Junior category, may I also (or instead) compete in another category?

A. Yes, you may.

Q. May I team up with someone else to write an essay?  

A. No. Each submitted essay must be entirely the work of a single individual.

Q. May I use AI, such as ChatGPT or the like, in writing my essay?

A. All essays will be checked for the use of AI. If we find that any content is generated by AI, your essay will be disqualified. We will also ask you, upon submission of your essay, whether you used AI for  any  purpose related to the writing of your essay, and if so, you will be required to provide details. In that case, if, in our judgement, you have not provided full and accurate details of your use of AI, your essay will be disqualified. 

Since any use of AI (that does not result in disqualification) can only negatively affect our assessment of your work relative to that of work that is done without using AI, your safest course of action is simply not to use it at all. If, however, you choose to use it for any purpose, we reserve the right to make relevant judgements on a case-by-case basis and we will not enter into any correspondence. 

Q. May I have someone else edit, or otherwise help me with, my essay?

A. You may of course discuss your essay with others, and it is perfectly acceptable for them to offer general advice and point out errors or weaknesses in your writing or content, leaving you to address them.

However, no part of your essay may be written by anyone else. This means that you must edit your own work and that while a proofreader may point out errors, you as the essayist must be the one to correct them. 

Q. Do I have to attend the awards ceremony to win a prize? ​

A. Nobody is required to attend the prize ceremony. You can win a prize without travelling to London. But if we invite you to London it is because your essay was good enough - in the opinion of the First Round judges - to be at least a contender for First, Second or Third Prize. Normally the Second Round judges will agree that the short-listed essays are worth at least a commendation.

Q. Is there an entry fee?

A. No. There is no charge to enter our global essay competition unless you submit your essay after the normal deadline, in which case there is a fee of 20.00 USD .

Q. Can I receive a certificate for my participation in your essay competition if I wasn't shortlisted? 

A. No. Certificates are awarded only for shortlisted essays. Short-listed contestants who attend the award ceremony in London will receive a paper certificate. If you cannot travel to London, you will be able to download your eCertificate.

Q. Can I receive feedba ck on my essay? 

A. We would love to be able to give individual feedback on essays but, unfortunately, we receive too many entries to be able to comment on particular essays.

Q. The deadline for publishing the names of short-listed essayists has passed but I did not receive an email to tell me whether I was short-listed.

A. Log into your account and check "Shortlist Status" for (each of) your essay(s).

Q. Why isn't the awards ceremony in Oxford this year?

A. Last year, many shortlisted finalists who applied to join our invitation-only academic conference missed the opportunity because of capacity constraints at Oxford's largest venues. This year, the conference will be held in central London and the gala awards dinner will take place in an iconic London ballroom. 

TECHNICAL FAQ s

Q. The system will not accept my essay. I have checked the filename and it has the correct format. What should I do?  

A. You have almost certainly added a space before or after one of your names in your profile. Edit it accordingly and try to submit again.

Q. The profile page shows my birth date to be wrong by a day, even after I edit it. What should I do?

A. Ignore it. The date that you typed has been correctly input to our database. ​ ​

Q. How can I be sure that my registration for the essay competition was successful? Will I receive a confirmation email?

A. You will not receive a confirmation email. Rather, you can at any time log in to the account that you created and see that your registration details are present and correct.

TROUBLESHOOTING YOUR SUBMISSION

If you are unable to submit your essay to the John Locke Institute’s global essay competition, your problem is almost certainly one of the following.

If so, please proceed as indicated.

1) PROBLEM: I receive the ‘registrations are now closed’ message when I enter my email and verification code. SOLUTION. You did not register for the essay competition and create your account. If you think you did, you probably only provided us with your email to receive updates from us about the competition or otherwise. You may not enter the competition this year.

2) PROBLEM I do not receive a login code after I enter my email to enter my account. SOLUTION. Enter your email address again, checking that you do so correctly. If this fails, restart your browser using an incognito window; clear your cache, and try again. Wait for a few minutes for the code. If this still fails, restart your machine and try one more time. If this still fails, send an email to [email protected] with “No verification code – [your name]” in the subject line.

SUBMITTING AN ESSAY

3) PROBLEM: The filename of my essay is in the correct format but it is rejected. SOLUTION: Use “Edit Profile” to check that you did not add a space before or after either of your names. If you did, delete it. Whether you did or did not, try again to submit your essay. If submission fails again, email [email protected] with “Filename format – [your name]” in the subject line.

4) PROBLEM: When trying to view my submitted essay, a .txt file is downloaded – not the .pdf file that I submitted. SOLUTION: Delete the essay. Logout of your account; log back in, and resubmit. If resubmission fails, email [email protected] with “File extension problem – [your name]” in the subject line.

5) PROBLEM: When I try to submit, the submission form just reloads without giving me an error message. SOLUTION. Log out of your account. Open a new browser; clear the cache; log back in, and resubmit. If resubmission fails, email [email protected] with “Submission form problem – [your name]” in the subject line.

6) PROBLEM: I receive an “Unexpected Error” when trying to submit. SOLUTION. Logout of your account; log back in, and resubmit. If this resubmission fails, email [email protected] with “Unexpected error – [your name]” in thesubject line. Your email must tell us e xactly where in the submission process you received this error.

7) PROBLEM: I have a problem with submitting and it is not addressed above on this list. SOLUTION: Restart your machine. Clear your browser’s cache. Try to submit again. If this fails, email [email protected] with “Unlisted problem – [your name]” in the subject line. Your email must tell us exactly the nature of your problem with relevant screen caps.

READ THIS BEFORE YOU EMAIL US.

Do not email us before you have tried the specified solutions to your problem.

Do not email us more than once about a single problem. We will respond to your email within 72 hours. Only if you have not heard from us in that time may you contact us again to ask for an update.

If you email us regarding a problem, you must include relevant screen-shots and information on both your operating system and your browser. You must also declare that you have tried the solutions presented above and had a good connection to the internet when you did so.

If you have tried the relevant solution to your problem outlined above, have emailed us, and are still unable to submit before the 30 June deadline on account of any fault of the John Locke Institute or our systems, please do not worry: we will have a way to accept your essay in that case. However, if there is no fault on our side, we will not accept your essay if it is not submitted on time – whatever your reason: we will not make exceptions for IT issues for which we are not responsible.

We reserve the right to disqualify the entries of essayists who do not follow all provided instructions, including those concerning technical matters.

• News & Events

2021 Undergraduate Essay Prize - winners announced

The winners of the sixth Merton College Undergraduate Essay Prize have been announced: History and Modern Languages student Holly Plater was chosen as winner of the first-year prize, with Evelyn McGrory (Modern Languages) and Anna Stephen (English) receiving commendations; and Louis Cameron (English) and Luke Bateman (History) were named as joint winners of the second-year and above prize.

Holly's essay was entitled 'How important a role does the influence of French historiography play in Vicens Vives’ methodology?' and looked at how the Annales school , a group of historians associated with a style of historiography that stressed long-term social history, was one of the major influences that catalysed the thinking of Jaime Vicens Vives , a prominent Catalan historian of the 20th century:

"I thoroughly enjoyed writing this essay, as it enabled me to contextualise Vicens Vives, introduced me to a range of historians, and allowed me to undertake comparative, explorative work. The text which this essay focusses on, the Aproximación a la historia de España , represents Vicens’ endeavour to recapitulate Spain’s main historiographical problems. Vicens Vives was arguably the most influential Catalan historian working within Francoist Spain. In this insular climate, Vicens’ interaction with foreign historians was fundamental in innovating methodological practices and reinvigorating the study of history in Spain. "Vicens Vives was a dynamic, international historian, who proactively engaged with new developments in historiography and was open to experimentation. Therefore, to reduce him to being a historian of a single group would be inadequate. He was selective in adopting a variety of working practices which suited his unique academic mission. Finding parallels between the works and working practices of Vicens and his contemporaries was fascinating. The essay afforded me a deeper understanding of how these historians mutually benefitted one another, and how historical writing is a composite product of many influences."

Holly added:

"I am extremely grateful to the Junior Research Fellows for taking the time to read and consider our essays. Achieving this level of recognition for one of my pieces of work has been really encouraging."

Louis Cameron was one of the joint winners of the second-year and above prize; his essay took a quotation from George Eliot's Daniel Deronda  as the starting point for a consideration of how 19th century fiction attempted to describe human beings:

"The broad scope of my title allowed me to explore several ideas within a single essay, looking at the way the representation of bodies is shaped by the use of certain literary modes, and the way these modes are themselves profoundly ideological, rooted in the writer’s assumptions about human nature and, by extension, their political allegiances. My essay focussed on Aphra Behn ’s prose narrative Oroonoko and Margaret Cavendish ’s romance The Blazing World . In both, the human body is a site for the conflict between the aristocratic values implicit in the romance genre and the values of a nascent mercantile or scientific materialism which threaten them with obsolescence; at stake in the representation of the body is not only the validity of Behn and Cavendish’s favoured social order but also their authority as writers. "I am extremely grateful to the Junior Research Fellows for taking the time to read all our essays. I thoroughly enjoyed reading and writing about these two unusual and fascinating texts, and it is very encouraging to have my work recognised."

The other second-year and above prizewinner, Luke Bateman, considered how the 'imagined geographies' of cosmology were institutionalised and used in the governance of both Aztec society and Song dynasty-era China:

"I wrote this essay whilst sitting the inspiring ‘Global Middle Ages’ paper. The idea of ‘cosmologies’ instantly intrigued me, allowing examination of thought systems and divinity without the monotheistic baggage of ‘religion.’ It also offered a different slant on global history: how did the people I was studying conceptualise the globe, and why? I was fascinated by how humanity’s relationships with higher planes of existence seeped into everything from education to political hierarchies, rendering the local shrines of Song China spaces of political competition and influencing Aztec gender theory. "This essay also gifted me new geographic perspectives. So often History is confined to Europe or the Mediterranean, but this essay provided a blessed first glimpse of Aztec Mexico and Song China. Both academically and personally, it is challenging and fulfilling to learn from peoples and societies usually overlooked in the western tradition. I hope to return to these topics one day. "I’d like to express immense gratitude to my tutor Amanda and tutorial partner Savannah for eight wonderful weeks of learning and conversation, and to the Junior Research Fellows for their careful and kind consideration. I had enormous fun writing this essay, and am delighted others could share in my fascination."

The Undergraduate Essay Prize competition was open to all current Humanities and Social Science undergraduates, with a single prize of £150 for the winning essay. The essay had to be one which had already been submitted for a tutorial, and could be no more than 3,000 words in length.

The entries were judged by Merton’s Junior Research Fellows in Humanities and Social Sciences, who considered:

• clarity of thought and expression;
• logical and effective organisation of ideas to build a coherent argument;
• effective integration of supporting evidence, where appropriate;
• effective use of elements of style to enhance meaning;
• independence of judgement; and
• accurate referencing, appropriate to subject-specific conventions.

• Online Lectures
• Past events

© Merton College, Oxford 2024

Site by Franks + Franks & Olamalu

OWLSS INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH ESSAY COMPETITION 2021 

We are pleased to announce that the OWLSS International Women’s History Month Essay Competition is now open! 

'My hope for the next 100 years is that the parity which women have achieved in joining the profession will lead both women and men to do whatever they can to promote the cause of women’s equality in the future – not all women are feminists but many men are and that gives us hope for the future.’   ( Lady Hale at the BACFI Denning Lecture 2019, Athenaeum, Pall Mall, London, 4th Dec 2019)

What is the most important change which should occur in the legal profession by 2121? Why?  

The competition is designed to give the students an opportunity to give expression to their vision of the future of the law profession as they imagine it and to provide some exposure to the type of work they will be expected to do at a university level in terms of independent thinking and writing skills - we hope that participation will not only encourage students to pursue higher education (including at Oxford) but also help a young generation of aspiring lawyers visualise the ideal they would want to work towards in their future careers. 

Entry Criteria:

All students (of any gender identity and religion) currently enrolled in Year 11/12/13 at a UK state school and aged 16+ are welcome to enter the competition.

What are we looking for?

It is strongly advised that students pursue their own lines of argument in their responses. The entries will be marked against a set of criteria including attention to the question asked, structure, clarity and persuasiveness of the argument, identification of multiple lines of argument and creativity. It is to be noted that there are many angles from which the essay question can be approached - the quotation provided does not form part of the essay question, but rather a starting point for students’ own research. 

The responses to the essay question need not focus on women’s rights - as long as the essay presents a clear argument using specific examples, discussion of any area of possible changes is welcome. The entrants are not expected to be familiar with any areas of law in a capacity greater than that expected from their own research - the essays will be marked on the strength of the argument and its creativity, and therefore original argument about the future of the legal profession is encouraged rather than attempting to engage in a detailed analysis of the present law.

Word Limit:

Entrants are invited to submit a response which should be between 750 and 850 words (including footnotes and captions). The judges will be instructed to disregard any parts of the submissions exceeding the word count.   All sources must be appropriately acknowledged and cited (any academic citation format is accepted, as long is it used consistently), and a bibliography – including websites consulted – should be attached (though excluded from the word count). Entrants are expected to submit their own work - consultation with teachers, family or others is accepted, as long as the ideas included remain substantially the participant’s. Any works used must be attributed to their authors. 

he three winning essays will be awarded prizes of respectively £75 for first place, £50 for the second, and £25 for the third. The authors of the winning and the commended entries will also receive certificates of their placement. As well as monetary prizes all participants will be invited to an exclusive event where our outstanding panel of judges will be discussing their journeys into law to provide access for state school students to gain an insight into the profession of law. This will allow all participants to network and gain valuable insights from some of the most established women in the field of law while celebrating International Women's History Month!

This competition closed on Sunday 14th March 2021. We hope to run more like this in future! Please keep an eye out...

LNAT (National Admissions Test for Law)

What is the lnat, how do i register, when do i take the test.

• How do I get my results?

Practice materials

If you are applying for either  Law or Law with Law Studies in Europe , you will be required to sit the LNAT as part of your application.

The Law National Admissions Test (LNAT)  is a 2-hour 15-minute test divided into two sections.

Section A is a computer-based, multiple-choice exam consisting of 42 questions. The questions are based on 12 passages, with 3 or 4 multiple-choice questions on each. You are given 95 minutes to answer all of the questions.

You’ll be asked to read passages of text and answer questions that test your comprehension of them. Your answers to the multiple-choice section of the test are checked by computer, and a mark out of 42 is created. This is known as your LNAT score.

In Section B you will be given 40 minutes to write an essay from a list of three proposed subjects. This section is marked by the tutors at the college to which you apply, and this mark is taken into account as part of the selection process. The essay is your opportunity to show your ability to construct a compelling argument and reach a conclusion.

The LNAT isn’t designed to test your knowledge of Law or any other subject. Instead, it helps us to assess your aptitude for studying Law. 

Why do I have to take a test?

Most applicants to Oxford University have outstanding academic credentials. It can therefore be difficult for us to choose between so many well-qualified candidates, especially as applicants come from all over the world and take different qualifications.

Tests give us an extra piece of information for every student who has applied for a given course, wherever they are from. Considered together with the other elements of the application, this helps us to identify the very best candidates. However, there is no specific mark that will guarantee that you will be invited to interview.

The tests vary each year, and your test score will be considered alongside the scores of other students who apply for your course.

Do I have to pay?

The LNAT is administered by an independent company who charge candidates a fee of £75 to take the test in the UK or EU. If you are taking the test in a centre outside the UK or EU there is a fee of £120.

However, we do not wish the cost of sitting the test to be a barrier to doing so. An LNAT bursary scheme is available to candidates struggling to pay for their LNAT test. Test fees will be waived for UK/EU students in receipt of certain state benefits.

You must apply for a bursary before booking the LNAT. It could take at least a week to process a bursary application from the date of receipt so you should allow for this extra time when planning your LNAT booking.

For more information on applying for a bursary please read the detailed information about LNAT bursaries  on the LNAT website.

How are the tests designed and reviewed?

The LNAT is not run by Oxford University. The test is used by nine UK universities as part of their admissions process for undergraduate applications to Law.

The content of the LNAT is managed by the members of the LNAT Consortium (made up of six of those universities) and the test itself is administered by Pearson VUE, under contract to LNAT. A statistical report is produced each year for reviewing purposes and made publicly available.

Find out more about the LNAT . 

In order to register for the LNAT you must follow these steps: 

Step 1: set up an account on the LNAT website .

You can do this from 1 August in the year you intend to apply. There are further instructions on the information you will need to provide and how to do this are on the LNAT website . 

Step 2: register with a test centre. 

Unlike our other admissions tests, candidates sitting the LNAT normally do so in a registered test centre, rather than in their school or college. There are over 500 LNAT test centres around the world with 150 in the UK. 

To find your nearest test centres you can use the LNAT  live test centre locator . If you cannot find your country listed in the test centre locator or in the list of test centres scheduled to open soon, please  contact the LNAT Administrator .

Step 3:  book your test .

In order to meet our deadlines, you should register for the LNAT by 15 September and take the LNAT before 15 October in the year you apply.

You may take the test on any day when there is availability at your chosen test centre between those dates. The earlier you book, the more chance you have of getting an appointment on the day of your choice. You are therefore strongly advised to begin making arrangements as soon as possible.

Step 4:  pay for your test .

The LNAT must be paid for online in advance of your test, either via credit or debit card. If you do not have to an acceptable payment card, or live in a  country with credit card verification problems  you can apply for LNAT vouchers. 

Find out more about LNAT bursaries . 

Access arrangements

If you are normally entitled to access requirements in your exams (e.g. extended time for dyslexia, arrangements for impaired mobility, hearing or vision) you shouldn’t book your test online. Instead, you should follow Step 1 to register, then fill out an  Examination Access Requirements form , which you should submit, alongside appropriate documentary evidence, before booking your test.

Please note that while some examination access arrangements, such as extra time, can be verified and accommodated within a few days, others such as booking a reader recorder will take at least three weeks. Please allow for this extra time when planning to take your LNAT.

Once your request has been approved you will be given instructions on booking your test.

Visit the LNAT website for further information on access arrangements .

Candidates for the LNAT must take the test before 15 October in the year they apply, but not before the summer holiday of the year in which they apply. Please see below for a summary of the important dates and deadlines:

• 1 August – 15 September : register and book the LNAT. It is highly recommended to register and book by 15 September in order to secure an LNAT test date before the 15 October deadline. A delay in booking may mean applicants have to travel further to an available LNAT location.
• before or on 15 October : take your test. In order for your score to be considered by us, you must sit your test before or on 15 October.
• 15 October : deadline to submit your UCAS form

On the test day:

It is important that you arrive at the test centre at least 15 minutes before the scheduled start of your test. Please note that on the day of the test, you must take a printout of your confirmation email and a  recognised form of photo-identification  (such as a passport). If you do not bring ID you will not be allowed to sit the test.

If you don't take the admissions test(s) required for your course, either because you didn't register or didn't attend on the test day, then your application will be significantly affected. Your UCAS form will still be viewed by our admissions tutors. However, as the admissions test forms an important part of our selection process it will be extremely difficult for your application to be competitive when viewed against other candidates who have fulfilled all the admissions criteria.

It is not possible to re-sit the LNAT once completed. If you were ill on the day of the LNAT please contact the Law faculty ( [email protected] ) and let them know, include your UCAS PID and LNAT registration number. If there was some form of disruption at the test centre you should ask for an incident number on the day of the test and contact the LNAT Consortium as soon as possible afterwards.

Read more information on the complaints procedure .

How do I get my results?     

Candidates sitting the LNAT will receive their results in mid-February.

All scores and essay will be made available to the faculty selection committee in time for them to make their shortlisting decisions in November, so candidates do not need to send their results to us separately.

Taking any type of test or exam can be stressful, but you can help build your confidence by doing a bit of preparation ahead of time.

You may also do better in the real test if you've had a chance to practise some sample or past papers, and got used to the format and timings of the admissions test you have to take.

Here are our top tips for preparing for the LNAT:

• Review the sample papers for the LNAT provided below. This will help you to feel familiar with the test paper and know what to expect. Make sure to have a look at the online simulation  too.
• Sit at least one past paper in test conditions. This is really important as it will help you get used to how much time to allocate to each question.
• Have a look at the LNAT website, which contains lots of useful information on how to prepare including hints and tips from former candidates and an LNAT preparation guide .

Don't worry if you find the past or specimen papers very difficult - they're supposed to be! All our tests are designed to stretch you further than you have been stretched before – most candidates will find them really hard.

Section A practice papers

The first section of the LNAT is a screen-based multiple-choice test of 42 questions. You may find it useful to familiarise yourself with the format of the test using  this online sample test . You may also like to attempt the following practice test papers which can be downloaded as PDFs. Remember you are given 95 minutes to answer all of the questions.

• Practice test paper 1
• Practice test paper 2
• Practice test commentary
• Practice test marking scheme

Section B essay questions

In the second section of the LNAT you will be given 40 minutes to write an essay from a list of three proposed subjects. Here are a few sample essay questions for you to think about. Remember that you get 40 minutes to write a maximum of 750 words – ideally about 500-600 words .  

• How should judges be appointed?
• Make the best case you can for public funding of the arts.
• Does it matter if some animal and plant species die out? 
• ‘It is right that students should contribute to the cost of their degrees.’ Do you agree?
• What disciplinary sanctions should teachers be allowed to use?
• ‘We must be prepared to sacrifice traditional liberties to defeat terrorism.’ Discuss.
• Should the law require people to vote in general elections?
• Should private cars be rationed? If so, how?
• What is ‘political correctness’ and why does it matter? 
• Make the best case you can for public funding of the arts
• Does it matter if some animal and plant species die out?
• What is 'political correctness' and why does it matter?

Further resources

You may wish to prepare by simply reading a good quality English-language newspaper. As you read, think about the issues being raised; what assumptions are being made? What information is being relied on to draw which conclusion? How would you frame a counterargument? This will help you to be aware of the world around you.

The LNAT essay topics will not be specifically about current affairs, and you will not be judged by what facts you know. But knowing how the world ticks, in general terms, will help you to write intelligently about a host of different topics.

We have listed some newspapers below worth considering. You can read the online versions (usually freely available, although registration may be required).

If you do read the online versions, remember to read the comment pieces as well as the news. (One question you might ask yourself: What exactly is the difference between news and comment? Is the contrast really apparent in practice?)

• The Economist
• The Financial Times
• The Guardian
• The Independent
• The Irish Times
• The New York Times
• The Scotsman
• The Sydney Morning Herald
• The Daily Telegraph
• The Washington Post

As part of your preparation you may also like to look at some materials on critical thinking. Here is a selection. Some of them include exercises that can help you develop your LNAT skills.

• Alec Fisher,  Critical Thinking: An Introduction  (Cambridge University Press, 2001) 
• Roy van den Brink-Budgen,  Critical Thinking for Students  (How to Books, 2000)
• Nigel Warburton,  Thinking From A to Z  (Routledge, 2000) 
• Peter Gardner,  New Directions: Reading, Writing, and Critical Thinking  (Cambridge University Press, 2006)  (mainly for those who have English as a second language)

YOU MUST TAKE THE LNAT IF YOU ARE APPLYING FOR:

Law   Law with Law Studies in Europe

Oxford only admissions tests:

BMSAT CAT HAT MAT MLAT PAT Philosophy test TSA

CAN'T FIND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR?

Try our extensive database of FAQs or submit your own question...

ANY QUESTIONS?

Follow us on social media

Follow us on social media to get the most up-to-date application information throughout the year, and to hear from our students.

Trinity College was pleased to launch the Robert Walker Prize for Essays in Law in 2013. The prize is named after the Rt Hon. The Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe GBS PC (1938–2023), a judicial member of the House of Lords from 2002 and Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from its creation in 2009 until his retirement in 2013. Lord Walker read law at Trinity, and became an Honorary Fellow of the College in 2006. He was a generous and dedicated supporter of Law at Trinity, meeting current and prospective students at College events, judging moots (legal debates) and helping to connect the practice of law with its academic study.

The Robert Walker Prize has three objectives:

• to encourage students with an interest in Law to explore that interest by researching, considering and developing an argument about a legal topic of importance to modern society;
• to encourage those interested in Law to apply for a university course in Law; and
• to recognise the achievements of high-calibre students, from whatever background they may come.

The 2024 competition has closed.

The rules for the competition are as set out below:

• Essays can be of any length up to 2,000 words (including any footnotes).
• If there are special reasons why a potential candidate cannot submit an essay online, a request exceptionally to submit in hard copy may be made. Requests will be considered by the Law Fellows. Please contact the Admissions Office at Trinity College Cambridge, CB2 1TQ; tel: +44(0)1223 338422; fax: +44 (0)1223 338584; email:  [email protected] .
• The competition is open to students in their final or penultimate year of secondary school, except students who have entered the competition in the past. No individual student may submit more than one entry into the competition.
• Candidates may discuss the subject matter of the essay with other students and teachers at their school; however, the formulation of the argument and the writing of the essay must be the work of the student alone.
• Essays will be assessed by reference to a range of factors, including the development of argument, the quality of expression and the appropriate use of supporting facts and material.
• Entries will be considered in two divisions: a United Kingdom Division and an International Division.
• It is anticipated that first prizes of £300 and second prizes of £200 may be awarded in each Division; the prizes may be shared.
• It is anticipated that the authors of the ten top-placed essays in each Division will be invited to a Prize Ceremony at Trinity to see the College and to meet the Law Fellows.
• The decisions of the judges are final; no correspondence will be entered into. Essays will not be returned, so candidates should keep a copy for their own reference.

Sorry. This form is no longer available.

PAST ROBERT WALKER PRIZE-WINNERS

2023 (153 entries):

First Prize (United Kingdom Division): Chloe Green, Royal Grammar School Newcastle First Prize (International Division): Minh Phuong Dang Tran, Raffles Institution (Singapore) Second Prize (United Kingdom Division): Jessica Williamson, Tiffin Girls’ School Second Prize (International Division): Ziqi Li, Shenzhen High School (China)

2022 (172 entries):

First Prize (United Kingdom Division): Jiwon Heo, St Paul’s Girls’ School First Prize (International Division): Kaitlyn B Wong, Chinese International School (Hong Kong) Second Prize (United Kingdom Division): Toby Bowles, Rushcliffe Spencer Academy Second Prize (International Division): Nikki Han, Queenwood School for Girls (Australia)

2021 (278 entries):

First Prize (United Kingdom Division): Ben Mays (Colyton Grammar School) First Prize (International Division): Yu Du (Raffles Institution, Singapore)

Second Prize (United Kingdom Division): Afzal Hussain (Eton College) Second Prize (International Division): Judy Yi Ting Ma (Presbyterian Ladies’ College, Australia)

2020 (175 entries):

First Prize (United Kingdom Division): George Hargreaves (Royal Grammar School, Guildford) First Prize (International Division): Antonia Vig (Colegiul Național Alexandru Papiu Ilarian, Romania) Second Prize (United Kingdom Division): Charlotte Fowler (Highgate School) Second Prize (International Division): Annabelle Chua (Hwa Chong Institution, Singapore)

2019 (107 entries):

First Prize (United Kingdom Division): Christopher Long (Woodbridge School) First Prize (International Division): Jonathan Teng (Raffles Institution) Second Prize (United Kingdom Division): Eleanor Hargrove (King’s College School, Wimbledon) Second Prize (International Division): Wong Zi Yang (Raffles Institution)

2018 (154 entries):

First Prize (United Kingdom Division): David Edwards-Ker (Westminster School) First Prize (International Division): Gergely Berces (Milestone Institute, Hungary) Second Prize (United Kingdom Division): Dorothy Biyere (Sutton Grammar School) Second Prize (International Division): Xinyi Gao (Hwa Chong Institution, Singapore)

2017 (135 entries):

First Prize (United Kingdom Division): Eve Loveman (Peter Symonds’ College) First Prize (International Division): Lauren Park (Pymble Ladies’ College, Australia) Second Prize (United Kingdom Division): Mary Hassan (St. Michael’s Catholic Grammar School) Second Prize (International Division): Ruilin Fang (Dunman High School, Singapore)

2016 (112 entries):

First Prize (United Kingdom Division): Ellis Napier (Lawnswood School) First Prize (International Division): Allegra McCormack (Kambala, Australia) Second Prize (United Kingdom Division): Johnny McCausland (Wellington College) Second Prize (International Division): Gabriel Tan Jin Hsi (Hwa Chong Institution, Singapore)

First Prize (shared): Charlotte Witney (Saffron Walden County High School) First Prize (shared): Ricky Ham (Pymble Ladies’ College, Australia) Second Prize (shared): Priya Radia (North London Collegiate School) Second Prize (shared): Katharine Cook (Wellington College)

First Prize: Noelle Huang (Hwa Chong Institution, Singapore) Second Prize: John Cheung (Abingdon School)

First Prize: Emily Harbach (Haberdashers’ Aske’s School for Girls) Second Prize: Alistair Ho (Merchant Taylors’ School)

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share via email
• previous post: R.A. Butler Politics Prize
• next post: Courses

Access and Outreach Hub

Privacy overview.

I'm looking for..

Peter cane legal reasoning prize.

The Peter Cane Legal Reasoning Prize is a fantastic opportunity for aspiring lawyers to analyse a legal text and communicate their analysis.

Peter Cane Prize 2025

Details about the Peter Cane Prize 2025 will be released here in late 2024/early 2025.

The Prize day usually takes place in mid-March. 

Peter Cane Prize 2024

The Peter Cane Prize Giving Day took place on Tuesday 12th March 2024. We welcomed 10 attendees who had received 'Highly Commended' certificates for their work to the College, as well as our second runner up, Sydney Chan, our first runner up Freddy Moorman , and our winner, Isabel Chan .

Congratulations to Isabel, Freddy, and Sydney! And many thanks to all those who participated and sent in their work.

The History of the Peter Cane Prize

The prize was launched in 2017 and seeks to promote engagement with the ideas and reasoning behind law and legal studies, and particular to encourage those from all backgrounds and walks of life to apply to engage with the academic study of law. The prize is named after the distinguished lawyer, Professor Peter Cane, an internationally acclaimed scholar of legal theory, obligations and public law, and Corpus’ first dedicated law fellow. Each year, the final shortlisted candidates are invited to attend an afternoon event hosted by Corpus Christi, with legal workshops and an award ceremony. The Prize is open to all Year 12 and Year 13 students (or equivalent). You can see the sample question  and the sample answers:

Sample answer 1 Sample answer 2 Sample answer 3

If you have questions about the Peter Cane Law Prize, please contact the Outreach Team at  [email protected]

Student voices "My favourite parts were the law workshop and the interactions with the teaching staff, as they gave me a fantastic opportunity to experience university-style teaching. I particularly enjoyed the small-group discussions as they allowed me to discuss ideas with my peers and receive feedback from the tutors" Peter Cane Attendee 2023

Bookings Open for Online Summer Courses

Watch our Explainer Video

How Our Essay Competition Works

Submit your entry.

Research and write your essay and then submit it, along with your references, via our short form below.

Entries close at 9pm UK time on 15th April 2024 !

Awards Ceremony

All shortlisted entrants and their parents and teachers will be invited to attend our Awards Ceremony in May 2024, where the winners will be announced.

Over £100,000 Worth of Academic Prizes

Free Conference place

The first thousand students who are successfully shortlisted will be awarded a free place at one of our OxBright Conferences (worth £95) in the autumn. Alternatively, you can put this credit towards an Online Course or Online Internship .

All shortlisted entrants and their parents and teachers will be invited to attend our online Awards Ceremony in May 2024, where the winners will be announced.

Matilda Winner, History, 2023

I’m both thrilled and flabbergasted at the outcome of the competition.

Winning this competition undoubtedly made me feel much more confident in researching and writing in my field from now on, opening a lot of new doors for me!

Regina Winner, Psychology, 2023

I’m very happy and grateful to win such a meaningful competition. I truly learned a lot.

My advice to anyone considering entering is to try to think deeper and further about your chosen topic.

Alex Winner, Philosophy, 2023

Frequently Asked Questions

Entering the essay competition, how will entering the oxbright essay competition help me in the future, why do you run an essay competition.

OxBright is about giving students the edge to help them to succeed, find their purpose and make a difference in the world.

We think it’s the greatest time to be alive, but we’re aware that young people face challenges their predecessors didn’t. We’re passionate about encouraging students to be optimistic about the future by being active thinkers interested in collaborating to create a better future for the long-term. You can read more about this in our Worldview .

Our essay competition combines these two elements – encouraging students to think actively about the future, and giving them tools to help them to succeed.

Who can enter?

Anyone can enter – the only eligibility criteria is that you must be aged between 15-18. You don’t need to have previously joined an OxBright programme in order to take part.

Kindly be aware that to be eligible to take up any of the free places offered as prizes, such as our online courses/internships, winning students must be between the ages of 15 and 18 at the commencement of the programme.

Can I write more than one essay?

Sorry, we only accept one essay per student in each Essay Competition. This is due to the volume of essays we receive.

Can I enter jointly with a friend?

No, we can only accept entries from individuals, and it’s important to make sure that your work is entirely your own.

Is there a fee to enter the OxBright Essay Competition?

No, the essay competition is completely free to enter.

When is the entry deadline?

The deadline has been extended, and is now the 15th April 2024, at 9pm.

Are you connected to any university?

No, OxBright is an independent education organisation which is not connected to any university.

Where can I see the results of the Essay Competition 2023?

You can see the results of our previous Essay Competition, including the winning essay in full, here .

Writing Your Essay

What are the subject categories i can enter for, how long should my essay be.

There are three parts to the essay:

• Essay title: the title of your essay can be up to 100 characters long, including spaces
• Essay: your essay can have up to 3,800 characters , including spaces (this is about 500 words). This includes everything you write, like the main text and in-text citations. In-text citations are little notes you put in your essay to show where your information came from. For example, if you quote something from a book by John Smith, you would add (Smith, 2010, p. 50) right after the quote. These citations are part of your word count, so make sure to include them
• References: as for references, there’s no word limit – you can include as many as you need! These are important for showing where your information came from. Please use the Harvard Referencing Style for your references (you can find how to do this in the guidelines provided here ). This won’t count towards your essay character limit, so please list all the sources you used

What are the evaluation criteria?

We’ll be assessing essays on the following criteria:

• Fluency of written English
• Relevance to the question
• Creativity and originality of ideas
• Use of evidence or examples
• Relevance to the OxBright Worldview

Should I use references?

Please make sure to include references to your sources, using the Harvard Referencing Style (guidelines here ).

What makes a good essay?

Make sure to read our criteria carefully (you can find it in the FAQ above).

We want essays that are thoroughly researched, packed with examples and solid evidence. What really catches our attention are essays with unique analysis. So, we’re not just interested in essays that simply describe things – we want your thoughts, analysis, and fresh ideas.

Don’t forget, it’s crucial to use and mention trustworthy sources for the evidence you provide.

Do you accept personal or descriptive essays?

We’re looking for clear, concise and compelling answers to the question above, written and formatted in an academic style. Please don’t submit personal essays or creative writing samples.

What Happens Next?

When will i hear the results.

We’ll be in touch within two weeks of your entry to let you know whether or not you’ve been shortlisted (all entrants who meet our core standards of relevance and coherence will be shortlisted).

All shortlisted entrants and their parents and teachers will be invited to our Awards Ceremony in May 2024, when the winners in each subject category will be announced.

How are essays assessed?

You can read about the criteria we use to assess your essay in the FAQ above (“What are the evaluation criteria?”).

Essays are assessed using our proprietary system which combines a mixture of technology and personal assessment. Essays which are deemed to be plagiarised or be written by AI will be rejected and our decision on this is final.

There are two stages to our assessment process:

Shorlisting Our first stage assessment reviews whether the essay is relevant and coherent. If so, your essay will be shortlisted, you will be offered a free place at an OxBright Conference and you will be invited to the Awards Ceremony.

Awards Shortlised essays are then given further assessment by our panel. This includes a review of the References. In the application form, we ask for a the name of a teacher who is familiar with your academic work. If your essay is nominated for an Award, we will ask this teacher to confirm that the essay was genuinely written by you.

What are the prizes?

Please click here for more information about the prizes and awards.

Why is the overall prize a place at Oxford Scholastica in 2025, not 2024?

Will i receive feedback.

Unfortunately, due to the volume of entries received, we are unable to provide feedback on essays.

Does everyone who enters get a free place at a Conference?

The first thousand students to who make a valid submission and are shortlisted will be invited to attend an OxBright Conference of their choice, free of charge (worth £95). Conference subjects include Business, Medicine, Law and Psychology. It is optional to attend a Conference.

Alternatively, you’ll be able to choose to apply the £95 credit toward another programme with us.

Does everyone receive a certificate?

Only students who win one of the awards receive a certificate. Certificates are issued in online format.

Do you publish the names of the award winners?

Yes, award winners will be published on our website after the Awards Ceremony.

How can I pass on some feedback about the essay competition?

• Personal Profile
• See all online law products
• Subscriber Services
• Guided Tour

• Case reports
• Domestic court decisions
• NCA decisions
• European court cases
• Commentary and analysis
• Book content
• European instruments and materials
• EU directives
• EU regulations
• EU decisions
• European Commission recommendations
• European Commission notices
• European Commission guidelines
• International instruments and materials
• Supporting instruments
• Other instruments and materials
• Official publications
• Article 101 TFEU
• Article 102 TFEU
• Basic principles of competition law
• Enforcement and procedure
• Intellectual property rights (IPR)
• International Instruments / Materials
• Jurisdictions
• Market sector
• Merger control
• State and competition law
• Bellamy & Child
• Faull & Nikpay
• Whish & Bailey

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search

Welcome to Oxford Competition Law

Oxford Competition Law (OCL) is the only fully integrated service to combine recognised market-leading commentaries with rigorous, selective National case reports and analysis from EU member states. OCL provides a suite of fully interlinked competition analysis, peer reviewed case reports and source materials - the ideal resource for assisting with case preparation.

This service includes enhanced online versions of Oxford University Press' key commentaries in EU competition law: Bellamy & Child: European Union Law of Competition , Faull & Nikpay on The EU Law of Competition , and Whish & Bailey's Competition Law .

October 3, 2022

Case reports from w/c 26 september 2022.

This month OXCAT  published 2 new articles. 

March 22, 2022

Case reports from 7-18 march 2022.

This month OXCAT  published 5 new articles. 

December 1, 2021

Ocl 2021 case reports.

Oxford Competition Law  added 26 new cases in 2021

February 23, 2021

Contributor applications open.

Oxford Competition Law is currently accepting applications for new contributors to join the global team of experts for our case headnotes collection.

LATEST CONTENT

Combatting corruption and collusion in public procurement : a challenge for governments worldwide, regiojet/české dráhy (disclosure of documents), regiojet as v české dráhy as and česká republika - ministerstvo dopravy (intervening), final judgment, case c-57/21, ecli:eu:c:2023:6, ocl 331 (eu 2023), 12th january 2023, court of justice of the european union [cjeu]; european court of justice [ecj]; european court of justice (2nd chamber), sumal sl v mercedes benz trucks españa sl, final judgment, case c-882/19, ecli:eu:c:2021:800, ocl 322 (eu 2021), 6th october 2021, court of justice of the european union [cjeu]; european court of justice [ecj]; european court of justice (grand chamber).

Tweets by @OUPLaw

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.136]
• 81.177.182.136

Home › Essay Competition 2024 › Essay Competition Winners › 2021 Essay Competition Winner – 16-18

2021 Essay Competition Winner – 16-18

Table of Contents

Take a look at one of the winning entries to the Immerse Education Essay Competition from the Business Management category. Congratulations to all participants and in particular to those who won 100% scholarships!

by Kornelia K . Read Kornelias Scholarship Story Here.

What makes a good role model in business?

A role model can mean different things to different people however a widely accepted term is a person who someone admires and whose behaviour they may imitate(1). To be a good role model in business, one should be responsible, ethical, and possess good judgement. These admirable characteristics are a necessity in order to ensure that those under the influence of a person will emulate those qualities, instead of ones that could be viewed as harmful, such as selfishness or unreliability. Moreover, in business, adopting unethical practises and poor judgement can lead to dire consequences. Some repercussions can include legal issues, loss of your company or an inadequate reputation.

Being ethical is one of the most fundamental attributes of a role model, particularly in a business environment. Unethical business practices are anything that falls below minimum standards for business code of conduct (2) and some examples can include defamation, harmful habits,, false product claims and discrimination. The gender pay gap is one controversial case of unethical business practice; in 2020 it was reported that from 2019 to 2020, there was a mean wage gap of 6.5% and a median of 15.9% between men and women (3). Difference in salaries is just one method of discrimination. Fortunately, in a further progressing society, prejudice is being viewed as what it is : unethical. It is crucial for a role model in business to be ethical as aspiring entrepreneurs may believe certain practices to be acceptable which produces a generation of corrupt business people. Another quality of a successful role model is responsibility. To be responsible is to be accountable for one’s behaviour or action (4). Part of human nature is to make mistakes and although this may be inevitable, our actions subsequently are ultimately our decision. Whether we accept responsibility or place blame on other individuals can define our character to those around us. When one acknowledges their errors, it encourages those who associate with them to do the same and also makes adopting solutions uncomplicated. On the other hand, confessing to one faults can make one seem incompetent; however disclosing your short-comings not only assists you in learning from them, but also those who consider you a role model. Having good judgement is an essential aspect of being an influential role model. A person’s reputation can rely heavily on the decisions that affect a business. Kay Whitmore (former CEO of Kodak) unfortunately lacked this attribute when he failed to adapt to an evolving reality. His poor judgement cost him his position when he was eventually fired from his own company in 1993 (5). In contrast, Elon Musk shaped his career through a series of intelligent choices. One of his most prominent companies (Tesla), is believed to be defining a new era with its electric cars (6). They adapted to the world’s concern of climate change and have created one of the most sustainable cars (7) which not only is environmentally friendly but also motivates customers to buy from them. The difference between whether one’s judgement is poor or not, can change your or your company’s reputation. In summary, to be a good role model in business, one should possess qualities of responsibility, morality and be able to make decisions that help your company evolve. Only then can the next generation of entrepreneurs truly thrive.

Bibliography

Cambridge Dictionary, “Role model”. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/role-model (Accessed 2021-05-28)

L. Holton, “The Ugly Truth About Unethical Business Practices [Updated]”, 17-05-20. https://myva360.com/blog/the-ugly-truth-about-unethical-business-practices

(Accessed 2021-06-03)

Gov.uk, “DIT gender pay gap report 2019 to 2020”, 15-12-20.

%20gender%20pay%20gap,hourly%20difference%20is%20%C2%A34.04 (Accessed 2021-06-03)

Lexico, “Responsible”. https://www.lexico.com/definition/Responsible (Accessed 2021-06-03)

business.com Member, “Leading By Bad Example: Famous Leaders You Want to be Nothing Like”, 09-02-16.

https://www.business.com/articles/famous-leaders-you-want-to-be-nothing-like/   (Accessed  2021-06-12)

E . Taylor, N. Shirouzu, J. White, “How Tesla defined a new era for the global auto industry”, 22-07-20.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-tesla-newera-insight-idUSKCN24N0 (Accessed 2021-06-12)

M. Lewis, “EGEB: Tesla (surprise!) is the most eco-friendly car brand – study”, 13-12-19. https://electrek.co/2019/12/13/egeb-tesla-most-eco-friendly-car-brand-european-green-deal/ (Accessed 2021-06-12)

Why Apply To The Immerse Education Essay Competition? 

Are you a highly motivated student aged 13-18? Have you ever wanted to experience studying at Cambridge or Oxford? 

The Immerse Education essay competition allows you the chance to submit an essay for the chance to be awarded a scholarship to the award-winning Cambridge summer school . 

How To Apply To The Immerse Education Essay Competition? 

The Immerse Education annual essay competition is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win a scholarship to a Cambridge or Oxford summer school . 

If you’re aged 13-18 and you’re interested in applying to the Immerse Education essay competition then please visit our essay competition page for more details.

Related Content

How is san francisco shaping the future of data ai.

Each year we welcome 15 to 25 scholars from around the globe into our community as non-degree International and Comparative Law Research Scholars to conduct research and engage fully in the intellectual and social life of Michigan Law School. Visits vary in length from a few weeks to one year.

As you can imagine, we receive many more excellent applications than we could ever accept, so those chosen are senior scholars with impressive accomplishments, mid-career intellectuals who are beginning to make their mark, or early-career researchers who show special promise for the future. While they may come from many walks of life—junior or senior faculty members in law or related fields, doctoral or postdoctoral students, and public service practitioners—in all cases, they are exploring areas of law that intrigue our faculty members and for which we can provide meaningful academic support.

International and Comparative Law Research Scholars pay a fee of $2,500 for each semester or $5,000 for each full academic year in residence, prorated for stays of less than a semester.  Requests for fee reductions or waivers are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Research Scholar Program Privileges 

With the intention of ensuring that all our Research Scholars have productive, lively and satisfying experiences while they are with us, our program includes the following privileges:

• Assigned personal workspace (private office or individual workstation) within a large suite that is dedicated solely to Research Scholars and SJD  students.
• Attend JD classes with the permission of the professor.
• Access the Law School’s extensive library collections and first-rate research facilities, including Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis.
• Access the library resources of the larger University.
• Participate in a weekly colloquium of Michigan Research Scholars and SJD students to discuss works in progress.
• Assist in organizing the Michigan Law School Junior Scholars Conference.
• Attend workshops, lectures, and other events.
• Engage with the broader University campus, including other schools, departments and centers.

Program Participants

Most recently, our research scholar program has included faculty members from Kyoto University in Japan, the University of Osnabrueck in Germany, Peking and Renmin universities in Beijing, the University of the Philippines and of Aix-Marseille in France, as well as the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland; a counsel to the Slovenian Ministry of Justice, the former chairperson of the Irish Society for European Law; staff members of the Japanese and Korean Ministries of Justice; a consultant to the UNHCR office in Morocco and a policy adviser to the Danish Refugee Council; counsel to the Brazilian legislature; a deputy chief at the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation; and doctoral students from major universities all over the world. Their research interests have encompassed a broad array of legal and interdisciplinary subjects.

How to Apply

You will need a Google account to access, save, and submit applications.

Next, please complete the online Michigan Law Research Scholar application form. The application form asks for biographical data, educational and work history, proposed dates of stay, and the names of the University of Michigan Law faculty with whom you would like to confer during your stay.

Please note that you are not expected to contact Michigan Law professors in advance of your application. We will notify the appropriate faculty on your behalf as part of the admission process to gauge their level of interest.

You will also be asked to upload the following materials with your application:

• CV or resume
• Description of your intended research project and its purpose (e.g. doctoral thesis, journal publication), as well as a description of how a research scholar visit will be of value
• Two letters of reference from academics familiar with your work
• Level of English fluency, in particular speaking and listening comprehension, and a description of your training and experience in EnglishTOEFL or IELTS score and/or academic records may be requested on a case by case basis.

Apply Now

International and Comparative Law Research Fellowships 

Applicants to the Law School’s research scholar program may be eligible for very limited supplemental funding, which is granted on a competitive basis and considerate of need. 

After submission of the applicant’s International and Comparative Law Research Scholar application, those interested in being considered for these fellowships will be asked to submit a separate fellowship application. 

International and Comparative Law Research Fellowships are intended to assist with living expenses while researchers are in full-time residence. Most research scholars are supported by funds from other sources, such as Fulbright or sabbatical leave salary from their home university. Because of stiff competition for Michigan Law funding, applicants are encouraged to seek alternate sources of support. 

Due to funding limitations, we are not in a position to provide support for accompanying family members. 

Deadline: January 15 

The application deadline for the International and Comparative Law Research Scholar Program and for International and Comparative Law Research Fellowships is January 15 for visits proposed in the following summer, fall, or winter terms (June through May). 

Applicants are encouraged to apply to multiple institutions as the selection process is competitive. Although applications are welcome at any time during the year, those who apply after January 15 risk that space and funding may no longer be available.​​

Research Scholars

Bio:  Luís Armando Saboya is a Brazilian lawyer and professor. He holds a degree in Law from the University of Fortaleza, a postgraduate degree in Business Law and Management from the University of Fortaleza, and a master’s degree in Constitutional Law from the University of Fortaleza. Currently, he is a Ph.D. candidate in Commercial Law at the University of São Paulo.

Research Focus:  Luis’ research focuses on the rights of minority shareholders in cases of Judicial Recovery.

Languages: Portuguese (native), Spanish (fluent), French (beginner-level proficiency)

Bio:  Maxim Bönnemann is a research fellow at Humboldt University Berlin and the Kassel Institute for Sustainability. In 2022 he defended his PhD in the law and politics of Special Economic Zones at Humboldt University for which he was awarded the Law School Prize for Best Dissertation in Public Law. Since 2021, he has also been a permanent editor of the Verfassungsblog, covering comparative constitutional and environmental law. Maxim has been a visiting researcher at the National Law University, Delhi, and at the Centre for Policy Research ( CPR ). Before his legal studies, he worked for a human rights NGO in Moscow. Maxim has authored several papers and book chapters on comparative legal theory and has edited a book on “The Global South and Comparative Constitutional Law” ( OUP , 2020).

Research Focus:  Maxim’s main research interests lie in comparative legal theory, political institutions and international economic law. During his stay at Michigan he will pursue a project on the role of non-majoritarian institutions in environmental and climate governance, in addition to a comparative project on the evolution of national Special Economic Zone laws.

Languages : German (native), Russian (proficient), French (elementary)

Bio:  Jonathan Bonnitcha is an Associate Professor, in Law at the University of New South Wales. He holds the degrees of DP hil, MP hil and BCL from the University of Oxford, where he studied as a Rhodes scholar, and the degrees of LLB and BE c from the University of Sydney.

Jonathan’s research examines international and domestic legal regimes governing foreign investment. He is the author of two books on investment treaties, including (with Lauge Poulsen and Michael Waibel) The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime.

Much of Jonathan’s research is inter-disciplinary. His article (with Emma Aisbett) ‘A Pareto Improving Compensation Rule for Investment Treaties’ won the John Jackson prize for the best article published in the Journal of International Economic Law in 2021. A forthcoming article (with Zoe Phillips Williams) in Law & Policy empirically examines the impact of investment treaties on domestic governance in developing countries, through cross-country quantitative analysis and a detailed qualitative case-study on Myanmar.

Research:  Jonathan is currently working on two research projects. The first (with Taylor St John) is a comparative study of domestic investment laws. The project seeks to identify and explain shifts in the functions and content of national investment laws over time and space. The second (with Zhenyu Xiao) uses a series of case studies from across the Belt and Road Initiative to explore the legal and political dynamics in renegotiation of infrastructure contracts between Chinese foreign investors and host governments.

Languages:  Spanish (intermediate); Burmese (basic)

Bio:  Mireille is a doctoral student in legal history and civil law at Université Laval’s Faculty of Law in cotutelle with the Sciences Po Law School in Paris. She is a member of the Groupe de recherche sur les humanités juridiques. Mireille holds a bachelor’s degree in civil law and common law from the McGill Faculty of Law (2016) and a master’s degree in law and society from the University of Victoria (2018). Her master’s thesis focused on the intellectual contexts of the 1900 Comparative Law Congress in Paris. A member of the Quebec Bar since 2018, she worked as a law clerk at the Quebec Court of Appeal from 2018 to 2020. 

Research Focus:  Mireille’s research focuses on the contributions of civil society to the development of the civil law in the controversy over the nature and origins of legal personality in 19th-century France. In particular she looks at the way legal arguments published by lawyers and non-lawyers in the public press contribute to transforming the formal legal landscape in caslaw and doctrinal works. She is interested in developing a law and humanities research framework that can be applied in civil law countries, by mobilizing existing French-language theoretical resources and translating some English theoretical pieces to French.

Languages : French, Spanish

Bio : Jiwon Jheong has been a presiding judge of Geochang Branch of Changwon District Court of the Republic of Korea since 2020. She served as an associate judge of Seoul Central District Court from 2018 to 2020, and served as an associate judge of Ansan Branch of Suwon District Court from 2015 to 2018. She worked as a law clerk at Seoul High Court from 2014 to 2015. Before entering her profession, from 2012 to 2013, she was assigned to the two-year program at the Supreme Court of Korea’s Judicial Research and Training Institute. As a judge and a former law clerk, she has dealt with a wide range of labor cases as well as civil and criminal cases. She won 2020, 2021 Outstanding Judge of the Year by Gyeongsangnam-province Bar Association. 

Jiwon is also a member of the Labor Law Community of the Supreme Court of Korea. She is one of the co-authors of the revised edition of “The Commentary on the Trade Unions and Labor Relations Adjustment Act ( TULRAA )”, a notable legal commentary in Korea.

She obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Seoul National University College of Humanities in 2012 and a Master of Laws degree in administrative law from Seoul National University School of Law in 2018. 

Research Focus : Jiwon’s research first focuses on the criteria for deciding an appropriate bargaining unit in the U.S. legal system. Korea’s collective bargaining system is unique in that the TULRAA defines the bargaining unit as a business or workplace. However, the Labor Relations Commission ( LRC ) may divide the bargaining unit if there is any considerable disparity in working conditions, employment status, and bargaining practices. As there is a scarcity of precedents on the separation criteria of bargaining units, she hopes to deepen her understanding of the concrete criteria for determining an appropriate bargaining unit in the U.S. 

The second part of her research focuses on the legal principle of joint employment in the U.S. A segment of Korean legal society argues that the adoption of the U.S. approach will represent an expansion of the nature of employers as a party to collective bargaining compared to the currently dominant interpretation under TULRAA . Scrutinizing the legal principle of joint employment in the U.S. will provide an additional perspective on the concept of an employer in a collective bargaining setting and determining whether it is possible to expand the concept of a client company in an in-house subcontracting relationship. 

Languages : Korean (native), Chinese (intermediary), Japanese elementary)

Bio:  Dr. Muhammad Asif Khan is an Associate Professor at the Department of Law at the School of Social Sciences and Humanities in the National University of Science and Technology Islamabad, Pakistan. He is also the Head of the Department of Law. He holds an LL .B. from University of Peshawar (Pakistan), and an LL .M. from the University of Liverpool ( UK ) in Public International Law. He defended his PhD thesis “Adjusting Business Entities in a Globalized World: The Concept of an International Treaty Regulating Transnational Corporations against Violations of International Law” at the University of Salzburg (Austria) in May 2015. He has vast experience in teaching Public International Law and has served in different public sector universities in Pakistan. He has worked as a consultant with the International Committee of the Red Cross ( ICRC ) in Pakistan. He has also worked as a Business and Human Rights Specialist with the United Nations Development Program ( UNDP ) in the Decentralisation, Human Rights and Local Governance Project ( DHL ) in Pakistan. He has remained a member of the governance committee of teaching business and human rights forum for one year (2021-2022). He is an associate editor of the  Manchester Journal of Transnational Islamic Law and Practice  and the  NUST Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities . His teaching activities include undergraduate and postgraduate courses on Public International Law, International Humanitarian Law, Business and Human Rights, Human Rights Law and Jurisprudence.

Research Focus:  Dr. Khan’s research activities focus on Business and Human Rights along with issues related with International Humanitarian Law including cyber warfare. Previously, his research has focussed on the regulation of transnational corporations and other business entities through an international treaty. At Michigan he will be focussing on human rights protection through international investment law. The major outcome will be to explore the possibility of including human rights protection clauses in bilateral investment treaties and international investment agreements from the perspectives of South Asian states. 

Languages:  Pashto (native), Urdu and English

Bio:  Kana Koyasu is a public prosecutor in Japan. She graduated from Waseda Law School with a Juris Doctor degree. After she passed the Japanese Bar Exam, she was appointed Public Prosecutor in December 2017 and has been working at the Sapporo District Public Prosecutors Office since 2023. She has been working in both the criminal and trial division of a number of District Public Prosecutors Offices for six years, gaining experience as a public prosecutor.

As a practicing lawyer, she has handled a number of difficult and complex criminal cases and has successfully prosecuted and argued a number of them. She was recommended by the Public Prosecutors Office in Japan and is currently beginning studies and research at the University of Michigan Law School as a research scholar.

Research Focus:  Kana’s research focuses on recent developments in the legislation and practice of the criminal justice system in the U.S. In general, the U.S. is much quicker than other countries in reflecting changes in socioeconomic conditions in its legal systems and practice. There are many lessons that Japan should learn in order to timely catch socioeconomic changes and expeditiously take legislative and other actions in line with such changes. A general study of such recent legislation and its practice will be indispensable for the future development of the criminal justice system in Japan.

Languages:  Japanese (native)

Bio:  Isola Clara Macchia is a Ph.D. Researcher at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. Her Ph.D. project investigates how the European Union enforces sustainable development clauses in its Free Trade Agreements, and whether variations in enforcement can be detected. She holds a Law degree from the University of Bologna and an MS c in European and International Public Policy from the London School of Economics. Isola Clara is a member of the Jean Monnet Module “Reforming the Global Economic Governance: The EU for SDG s in International Economic Law” research team at the University of Bologna, funded by the European Union. Before her Ph.D., she worked at the European Commission in the Directorate-General for Employment as a trainee on Directives’ implementation and infringement proceedings. She also served as a researcher at the Attorney General’s Office in Bologna working on regional cooperation in law enforcement and as a research assistant in international law at the University of Bologna. 

Research Focus:  At Michigan Law School, Isola Clara’s research will focus on the comparison between the EU ’s and U.S.’ approaches to enforcing international law, specifically in the area of trade and sustainable development. The choice to compare these two legal systems stems from the recurrent juxtaposition of the EU ’s cooperation-based model with the U.S.’ sanction-based one. The doctoral project investigates the mutual supportiveness of these two different approaches and whether their combination can help in ensuring a more consistent enforcement.

Languages:  Italian (native), Spanish (intermediate), French (elementary)

Bio:  Csongor István Nagy is professor of law at the University of Szeged and research professor at the Center for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Research Network. He is a recurrent visiting professor at the Central European University (Budapest/New York/Vienna) and the Sapientia University of Transylvania (Romania), and an associate member at the Center for Private International Law at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. 

Csongor graduated at the Eötvös Loránd University of Sciences (dr. jur.), where he also earned a Ph.D. He received master ( LL .M.) and S.J.D. degrees from the Central European University and a D.Sc. degree from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He pursued graduate studies in Rotterdam, Heidelberg and Ithaca (New York) and had visiting appointments in the Hague, Munich, Brno, Hamburg, Edinburgh, London, Riga, Bloomington (Indiana), Brisbane, Beijing, Taipei and Rome. 

He has more than 260 publications in English, French, German, Hungarian, Romanian and (in translation) in Croatian and Spanish. 

Research Focus:  The purpose of Csongor Nagy’s research in Ann Arbor is to put the current European rule-of-law debate in the context of comparative federalism and to provide a normative analysis through the lens of US constitutional ideas. Benchmarking Europe’s idiosyncratic “federalism” should be an important facet of the social discourse on the “European project”, and comparative federalism could contribute significantly to the resolution of the EU ’s current constitutional crisis. The path the EU is walking in the direction of an “ever closer Union” is far from unprecedented and, as far as multilevel constitutionalism is concerned, EU law may draw on the experiences of various regimes where centralized human rights protection and state constitutional identities coexist.

Languages : German (fluent), Hungarian (native), Romanian (fluent), French (working knowledge), Spanish (basic)

Bio : Since November 2021, Orlando has been a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for European Law, KU Leuven. He obtained his master’s degree in law from the University of Pisa and his LL .M. in European, Comparative and International Law from the European University Institute. He holds an Honors Degree and a PhD in Law from Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa. He was a visiting graduate student at the University of Toronto. After his PhD, Orlando was an Emile Noël Global fellow at NYU School of Law and a postdoctoral researcher at LUISS Guido Carli in Rome. He is admitted to the Italian Bar and is author of  Radical Constitutional Pluralism in Europe  (Routledge, 2023).

Research   Focus:  At Michigan, Orlando will be working on the incorporation of federal rights and on the subsequent emergence of New Judicial Federalism in the United States. This study of the American system is part of a broader research project on the incorporation of rights and on the reaction at the level of the constituent units in federal and quasi-federal systems. Part of the broader ERC RESHUFFLE at the KU Leuven, the project aims at comparing the twofold dynamic of incorporation and subsequent contestation in the United States, Canada, and the European Union.

Languages : Italian (native), French (advanced).

Bio:  Johannes Thierer is a PhD student at the Chair of Constitutional Law (Professor Johannes Masing) at the University of Freiburg (Germany) where he also worked as a research assistant from 2020 till 2023. He studied law at the University of Freiburg and the School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and graduated in 2020. In his position as research assistant, he taught first and second semester students in constitutional law and European law. 

He currently works on his thesis about the European and American single market. His doctoral research is funded the German National Academic Foundation.

Johannes’ interests include European law, constitutional law and comparative law.

Research Focus:  Johannes’ PhD-project explores constitutional constraints against economic regulation of single member states in federal systems. It compares the fundamental freedoms of the European Union with the dormant Commerce Clause of the American Constitution. Whereas the doctrines and tests of the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court seem strikingly similar at first glance, Johannes’ aim is to examine the different notions and concepts behind the norms. Building on this, the project intends to rethink the EU ’s fundamental freedoms.

Languages:  German (native), Swedish (intermediate), French (elementary)

Bio:  Holding a Master’s Degree in Law  magna cum laude , Justin started his career as a researcher at KUL euven (Belgium). After completing this first professional experience, he wanted to gain practical experience and help disadvantaged groups. Therefore, Justin worked as a legal counsel in an association helping young people. After this first practical experience, he undertook the bar traineeship. Justin was fully admitted to the bar after successfully passing the bar exam in 2016. While doing his bar traineeship, he also started working at UCL ouvain (Belgium) in 2012. Justin has been lecturing various courses as a teaching assistant and, since 2020, as a lecturer. In 2021, he defended his Ph.D. thesis dealing with distressed sovereign debts. Justin will conduct postdoctoral research at the University of Michigan Law School as a B.A.E.F.  Fellow.

Research Focus:  In his Ph.D. thesis, Justin analyzed the regulation of the so-called “vulture funds” and proposed a new judicial approach in order to better address their speculation on sovereign debts. He wishes to expand the scope of his research findings and undertake a deeper comparative analysis during a one-year postdoctoral research stay at the University of Michigan Law School. The goal of this research project is to outline a legislative proposal concerned with profiteering in sovereign debts. Such a proposal appears to be of paramount importance given the boom in borrowing following the pandemic crisis.

Languages : French (native) and Dutch (proficient)

Bio : Eva-Maria Wettstein is a PhD student at the University of Cologne in Germany. She completed her state exam in law in 2022, which included a specialization on private international law, civil litigation, and economic law. Wettstein currently works as a trainee lawyer at Osborne Clarke’s Dispute and Risk Team in Cologne, where she is involved in an investor state arbitration proceeding. Additionally, she is a research fellow with the International Investment Law Centre Cologne ( IILCC , University of Cologne). In this capacity, Wettstein contributes to research and teaching in international investment law, arbitration law and public international law. As speaker of the German doctoral researchers’ network for international investment law, Wettstein regularly organizes events and encourages interaction between practitioners and academics.

Research Focus : Wettstein’s research focuses on the enforcement of investor-state arbitration awards between European investors and European Union member states (“intra- EU arbitration awards”) in the USA . The heart of the research question – whether intra- EU arbitration awards are enforceable in the USA – lies in the relationship of public international law, EU law and US law. Against this background, the research project aims to explore the interaction between courts of both sovereign EU member states and the USA as well as the interaction between their laws from an international legal perspective.

Languages : German (native), French (intermediate), Portuguese (elementary)

Bio:  Ms.Xiaodan ZHU is a Chinese professor specialized in International Tax Law. In this capacity, Xiaodan works at the Law School, Dalian Ocean University, where she also is the director of both Bachelor and Master Degree programs in Law. Prof. Zhu obtained a Ph.D. in International Tax Law from Xiamen University of China in 2013. She has been a Grotius Research Scholar of the University of Michigan Law School during 2015 and 2016. Her teaching activities include courses on international economic law, China’s tax law, and international tax law. Her wiritings (including journal articles and monographs) have appeared in many Chinese and English academic publications. Moreover, Professor Zhu is also a brilliant practical expert in tax law. She has been seconded to the Department of Tax Policy, Ministry of Finance of China in 2020, and she has been a part-time tax lawyer for almost six years in China.

Research Focus:  Professor Zhu’s research is titled “ Interaction Between the OECD ’s Global Minimum Tax Proposal and Tax Competition Rules: From the Perspective of China”, and the project addresses the following key issues: (1) What is the impact of OECD ’s Global Minimum Tax 

Proposal (Pillar 2) on China’s tax competition rules and domestic tax law? (2)Is there any legal experience in US tax law relating to minimum income tax which is valuable for China? (3) How would China figure out the tax reforms conflict between international “Global Minimum Tax ” and domestic “Tax and Fee Reduction Policy”? 

Languages:  Mandarin Chinese (native)

Bio: Niklas Burkart is a research assistant at the Institute for Public Law, Department of Constitutional Law at University of Freiburg. He currently works on his thesis about the conflict between Freedom of Art und Copyright. Burkart studied Law at Freiburg and Speyer. He was a research assistant at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law. During his legal clerkship he worked at a law firm specialized in administrative law and at the German Federal Foreign Office, Department of Human Rights, in Berlin. Burkart coordinates the DFG (German Research Council) project “Handbook of Constitutional Law – German Constitutional Law from a Transnational Perspective”. In his position as research assistant, he teaches first and second semester students in constitutional law. 

Research Focus:  Burkart’s PhD-project explores the relationship between Freedom of Art and Copyright from a fundamental law perspective. The thesis is driven by the idea of strengthening Art without threatening Copyright. This requires to reveal the parts of Copyright that are not based on Freedom of Property but on Personality Rights. Given the fact that German Copyright Law is regulated by European Law, the thesis has to address not only German but also European Fundamental Rights. To contrast the results, the conflict between Freedom of Art and Copyright shall also be examined under US  Law. 

Languages:  German (native), French (elementary)

Bio:  Andrew Cecchinato is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Global Fellow at the University of Michigan Law School and the School of History at the University of St Andrews. He is PI of the Horizon 2020 project on  John Selden’s Harmonic Jurisprudence. A European Interpretation of English Legal History . Previously, he was a postdoc in St Andrews, working on the ERC project  Civil Law, Common Law, Customary Law: Consonance Divergence and Transformation in Western Europe from the late eleventh to the thirteenth centuries . 

Andrew is book review editor for the American Journal of Legal History. He has received scholarships from the Max-Planck-Institute für europäische Rechtsgeschichte and the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies. He has also been a visiting researcher at the Robbins Collection in Civil and Religious Law, the Georgetown University Law Center, and the Library of Congress. He studied law at the University of Trento, where his PhD on  The Legal Education of Thomas Jefferson  won the faculty prize. 

Research Focus:  Andrew’s main research aims to repurpose the idea of Europe by studying how the seventeenth-century jurist, historian, and Hebraist John Selden harmonized the history of English law and the authority of the European legal tradition. His project will center on Selden’s effort to preserve and harmonize the history of English law within the inclusive order of nations recognized by a distinct reading of medieval and modern European jurisprudence. The research will thus focus on the cogent yet overlooked reasoning by which Selden proved that no law, however discrete, can rightfully be understood if isolated from the continuum of legal experience. 

Languages:  English and Italian (native), French and German (elementary)

Bio:  Fabian is a PhD Candidate in public international law at Gonville & Caius College, University of Cambridge. His doctoral research is funded by a W.M. Tapp Studentship and the German National Academic Foundation. Previously, Fabian was a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg, and read law in Hamburg (Dipl. Jur.) and Oxford (M.Jur.).

At the University of Cambridge, Fabian has supervised undergraduates and conducted workshops for Cambridge LL .M. students in International Investment Law and International Law as a Legal System. He is currently an Associate Editor at International Law in Domestic Courts ( OUP ) and an Assistant Editor for Investment Arbitration at Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

In recent years, Fabian has worked as a research assistant for Professor Campbell McLachlan, Professor Eyal Benvenisti and Sir Christopher Greenwood. In 2022, his article on informal communications to the ICJ was awarded the Rosalyn Higgins Prize of The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals.  

Research Focus:  Fabian’s research interests lie in the areas of general international law, international dispute settlement, international investment law and German public law. His PhD project (“Self-Judgment in International Law”) investigates to what extent states can authoritatively auto-interpret international law. It traces the evolution of self-judgment throughout the history of international law, unearths links between self-judgment and the concept of obligation in international law, and assesses the approach of international courts and tribunals. Against this background, the project develops a theoretical and doctrinal framework to accommodate self-judgment in international law. 

Languages: German (native), French (proficient, C1 ), Spanish (advanced, B1 / B2 ), Hindi (Basic), Italian (Basic)

Bio : Hijratullah Ekhtyar is an International & Comparative Law Research Scholar of the University of Michigan Law School. He served as a lecturer at the Nangarhar University Faculty of Law and Political Science since 2012 to 2021, and also was provincial director for the Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Services Commission of Afghanistan in Nangarhar province since 2018 to 2021. Ekhtyar also worked as a local coordinator and journalist for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting ( IWPR ) in eastern provinces (Laghman, Nangarhar, Kunar, and Noristan) from 2011 to 2014. He served as a Lawyer and Provincial Commissioner for the Independent Electoral Compliant Commission ( IECC ) of Afghanistan in Nangarhar province from 2009 to 2011. Moreover, he served as an administrative clerk for the Economic Committee of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of Afghanistan from 2008 to 2009. He also worked for Mediothek Afghanistan, a German based NGO as an in-charge of Academic and Cultural Affairs from 2007 to 2008.

He obtained LL .M degree in Sustainable International Development ( SID ) program from the University of Washington Law School in 2017, and completed his undergraduate studies in the Nangarhar University Faculty of Law and Political Science in 2008.

Ekhtyar participated in the University of Washington School of Law visiting scholar program in 2015, and attended the International Visitor Leadership Program ( IVLP ) of the State Department of the United States in 2013.

Ekhtyar also run Ekhtyar Legal Services ( ELS ), a non-profit legal assistance provider organization in Nangarhar province from 2009 to 2015. He was a certified defense lawyer under the Afghanistan Independent Bar Association during 2009-2015.

After completion of his graduate studies in the University of Washington Law School, he served as a Legal Research Intern in the Library of Congress in 2017.

During his tenure with IWPR , Ekhtyar wrote about 30 articles for  www.iwpr.net . He also published an article about combating corruption in Afghanistan in  https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ilsajournal/vol24/iss1/4/  and  https://www.ijlsr.in/ijlsr_special_issue_june_2018 . Furthermore, he wrote/ translated more than 20 books and numerous articles that are published in national language, Pashto.

Ekhtyar received a Medal of Excellence from Zhwand Group of Companies and Green Motion for his writings in 2014. 

Research Focus : Ekhtyar’s research focus is on International Law of Armed Conflicts, Good Governance, Corruption, and Constitutional Law. He recently completed his research project on the Hiring Process of lecturers in Afghanistan universities. He is currently working on another research project focusing on Constitutionalism in Afghanistan. The main theme of his research is how to adopt a comprehensive constitution for Afghanistan to end up the long-lasting crises and war in that country.

Languages : Pashto and Dari (native), English (excellent), and Urdu (elementary).

Bio: Giulia Giusy Cusenza is a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty of Law at the University of Udine in Italy, where she is also an adjunct professor of administrative law at the Engineering Faculty. She earned her Ph.D. in administrative law from the University of Trento in 2020, and in 2018 she obtained an Intensive International Master of Laws ( I.I.LL.M. ) held by the European Public Law Organization in Athens. In recent years she has been lecturing various courses as a teaching assistant and as a lecturer. Moreover, she became a lawyer in 2018, and she was awarded the title of lawyer specialized in administrative law in June 2022 by the Italian National Bar Council.

Research Focus: Giulia’s research investigates the implications of the digitalization process and the application of artificial intelligence on public administrations and judicial activities. She is conducting comparative research on assessment procedures for developing algorithmic systems within the public administration. Her current project aims at studying the benefits of prioritizing stakeholders’ welfare in algorithm design for public administrations by implementing democratic and participatory processes. Her research interests revolve around administrative law and comparative administrative law.

Languages: Italian (native)

Bio:  Maria Haag is a lecturer of European law at Tilburg University Law School (Netherlands). She holds an LL .B. from Durham University (United Kingdom), and an LL .M. from the European University Institute (Italy). She defended her PhD thesis “A Sense of Responsibility: The Shifting Roles of the Member States for the Union Citizen” at the European University Institute in October 2019. She has previously worked as a trainee at the Legal Service of the European Commission and a research assistant at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advance Studies (Italy). From August to December 2016, Maria visited Michigan Law School for the first time as a Grotius Research Scholar. She is an editor for the European Law Blog and an external editor for the European Journal of Legal Studies. Her teaching activities include undergraduate and postgraduate courses on EU constitutional law, internal market and free movement law, judicial protection, and migration law.

Research Focus:  Maria previously developed the concept of responsibility as a prism to re-evaluate the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and to differentiate between the roles that the home and the host Member States play for EU citizens. Building on this, she now wishes to examine further aspects of the concept of responsibility: the responsibilities of citizens in EU law, on the one hand, and the responsibility of the Union as whole for its citizens, on the other.

Languages : German (native), French, Dutch

Bio:  Lucas Hartmann is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Legal Theory at the University of Freiburg, Germany. Prior to that, he conducted research at the Institute for German and European Administrative Law at the University of Heidelberg. Lucas’ research interests focus on legal theory, on comparative law studies, and on European Union Law.

Lucas defended his PhD entitled “The Codification of EU Administrative Law” (“Die Kodifikation des Europäischen Verwaltungsrechts”) at the University of Heidelberg in 2019. He was also a visiting researcher at Université Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne (France) in 2021 and was awarded a three-year full-time Senior Researcher Fellowship (“Eigene Stelle”) from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – DFG ) in 2020. 

Research Focus:  At Michigan, Lucas will focus on his comparative research project on judicial lawmaking. The aim of this research project is to compare German concepts of dynamic interpretation with similar understandings concerning the role of judicial lawmaking in the USA , France, and the EU that allow or forbid courts to develop the constitution, statutes, or “the law” in general. In particular, he intends to learn about the American practice and literature on constitutional and statutory construction, common law reasoning, and judicial activism/restraint.

Languages:  German, English and French

Bio:  Moshe Jaffe is a JSD candidate at Bar Ilan University, and an LLM Graduate from Columbia Law School. Jaffe is a constitutional law Adjunct Professor at the Academic Center of Law and Science in Israel, and an Adjunct Professor at Cardozo School of Law. As an Israeli lawyer, Jaffe represented dozens of cases before the Israeli Supreme Court with emphasis on Religion and State, Human Rights, and National Security. Simultaneously, Jaffe serves as a legal advisor for the Counter-Terrorism section in the IDF ’s Department of the Legal Advisor to Judea and Samaria. Jaffe also serves as an administrative judge on the Confiscation of Funds Committee of the Money Laundering Headquarters tribunal.

Research Focus:  Jaffe’s research comparatively addresses the constitutionality and the use of proportionality tests in judicial review of tax legislation. The research focuses on three different judicial systems — Israel, the U.S, and Jewish Law. Alongside the main issue, the research addresses the questions of tax definitions and equality in tax law. The research’s main argument is that the Israeli proportionality doctrine is the most effective and correct instrument for applying judicial review to tax legislation. This stands in contrast to the use of the scrutiny doctrine, which struggles to adapt itself to the flexibility and balances that tax laws require.

Languages : Hebrew – native, Spanish – proficient, France – elementary.

Bio:  Shajan Kreuter is a PhD student at the University of Freiburg in Germany. He studied law at the University of Frankfurt and spent his clerkship at the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt. 

Shajan Kreuter is admitted to the bar and works at Sullivan Cromwell LLP in Frankfurt.

Research Focus:  In his PhD thesis Kreuter portrays the regulation of crypto assets in Germany, the EU and the US . The thesis examines the current regulation of crypto assets in Germany and the EU and analyses the digital finance package of the European Commission which contains three draft legislations constituting the first comprehensive regulation of crypto assets in the EU . Furthermore, the thesis describes the current regulatory landscape and developments in the US and compares the EU draft legislation with the US regulatory regime.

Languages:  German (native), French (proficient)

Bio:  Linda Meister is a PhD student at the Department for Private International Law, International Civil Litigation and Comparative Law at the Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen in Germany. After her state exam in 2020 which included a specialization on Private International Law, International Civil Litigation and Comparative Law, she started working as a Research, Teaching and Grading Assistant at the University of Tuebingen. In this capacity she has taught courses in Public Law, Private Law and Private International Law. During her undergraduate and doctoral studies, she also participated successfully in the certificate programs “Law, Ethics, Economics” and “Human Rights Law in Practice”.

Her interests include Principles of Private International Law, International Civil Litigation, Comparative Law and Human Rights Law.

Research Focus:  Linda’s research focuses on the principle of neutrality in Private International Law. This area of law determines which country’s law is applicable in a case with connections to multiple countries. The classical European approach aims to treat all legal systems equally and abstracts the question of applicable law from the content of the different laws. This abstraction is called the principle of neutrality. However, this principle is being challenged. Developments in Europe and especially teachings in the US focus on a just outcome rather than a neutral decision. Linda tries to substantiate the principle of neutrality and assess deviating developments.

Languages:  German (native), French (intermediate), Spanish (intermediate), Turkish (elementary)

Bio:  Zhiruo Ni is a PhD candidate in the College of Comparative Law, China University of Political Science and Law, in Beijing. Prior to her PhD studies, she received a Master of Laws at King’s College London and a Bachelor of Laws at the University of International Business and Economics in China. In 2017 she was a Visiting Student at Bar-Ilan University, Tel Aviv (Israel). From 2016 to 2018, she held legal internships in the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission ( CIETAC ) and JunHe LLP , China. Her research interests mainly include Antitrust Law and Comparative Law.

Research Focus:  Ni’s research focuses on antitrust regulation toward vertical integration. She has found that antitrust law is getting primary attention in China, but there is still a lack of Law & Economics studies and relevant cases, due to a long-term regulatory and judicial oversight before the information age. As vertical integration has been a dominant characteristic of some major 

industries in the U.S., she hopes to build a comparative antitrust study on the issue between both jurisdictions, where the digital platforms could be the most suitable legal subjects for antitrust analysis at present.

Languages:  Chinese (native)

Bio:  Saba Pipia holds a Ph.D. degree in Law from Tbilisi State University (Tbilisi, Georgia). He taught international law at several universities in Tbilisi, Georgia. Throughout his doctoral and post-doctoral studies, he was a visiting researcher at Michigan State University ( USA ), The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Germany); The University of Groningen (The Netherlands); Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece); Max Planck Institute for Comparative and Private International Law (Germany), Peace Palace Library (The Netherlands) and Jerusalem Institute of Justice (Israel). He was an invited lecturer at the University of Porto (Portugal) and the University of Iasi (Romania). He is a recipient of multiple research scholarships including from the Georgian National Scientific Foundation, German Academic Exchange Service ( DAAD ), European Commission (Erasmus program), and the US State Department (Fulbright Visiting Scholars program). Areas of his research include international humanitarian law, international criminal law, global animal law, and international environmental law. He has published academic publications in Georgia and abroad.

Research Focus:  Saba’s research project is about missing persons. He intends to study the issue of missing persons from all possible international legal angles and provide an analysis, which will be useful for various target groups, including academics, students, governments, and armed forces. Saba thinks that there is a need to develop the concept of ‘international law of missing persons’ and examine this multi-dimensional issue through the lens of various international law instruments to determine the body of law, that regulates the issue of missing persons, and which can be 

applied whenever there is a need to deal with missing persons. The most important goal of this research visit is to promote legal scholarship in the emerging field of international law – missing persons law – and eventually to produce an academic publication on this topic.

Languages : Georgian (native), Russian (limited working proficiency), Hebrew (elementary proficiency)

Bio:  Dr. Elena Pribytkova is a Lecturer in Law at Southampton Law School. She received a Doctor of the Science of Law ( J.S.D. ) degree from Columbia Law School and is a Habilitation candidate at the Faculty of Law of the University of Basel. She held various research and teaching appointments at leading universities and research institutes all over the world, including Columbia Law School, New York University School of Law, University of Oxford, European University Institute, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg University, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, University of Basel, Radboud University Nijmegen, and National University of Singapore. She has more than fifty publications, including publications in top U.S. law reviews and internationally recognized peer-reviewed law journals, such as the  Chicago Journal of International Law ,  University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law ,  Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie ,  RphZ – Rechtsphilosophie – Zeitschrift für Grundlagen des Rechts , and  N.Y.U. Journal of International Law & Politics .

Research Focus:  Elena has worked extensively on individual and collective multidisciplinary research projects on theories of justice, human dignity, law and morality, governance, and human rights, in particular, socio-economic rights and their role in reducing poverty and inequality as well as in promoting social, global, and environmental justice, and sustainable development. Her current project  Towards a World of Accountability: Extraterritorial Obligations in the Area of Socio-Economic Rights from Philosophical, Legal and Practical Perspectives  pays special attention to human rights obligations of non-state actors. Her Habilitation monograph  A Decent Social Minimum in the Language of Human Rights  focuses on mechanisms for ensuring the social minimum guarantees in international, regional, and national orders.

Languages:  Russian (native speaker); English & German (fluent); French (intermediate); Slavic languages & Swiss German (basic knowledge)

Bio:  Sabrina Ragone (PhD) teaches comparative law at the University of Bologna’s Department of Political and Social Sciences, where she holds the post of Head of International Relations. She is also a member of the scientific committee of the Buenos Aires Campus and the excellence college of the University. She is Senior Research Affiliate of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Heidelberg), where she pursued her research between 2015 and 2017. Previously, she was a García Pelayo Fellow at the Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales – Madrid (2012-2015) and researcher at the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (2011-2012). She has taught comparative law in Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, and Argentina. 

She has collaborated with several competitive national research projects funded by the Italian and Spanish ministries of education as well as by research institutes in Latin America. Between 2018 and 2021 she was the PI of the Jean Monnet Module CRISES “Critical Risks for Integration and Solidarity in the European Space”, Erasmus+ Program. See:  https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/sabrina.ragone2/cv-en  

Research Focus:  Sabrina Ragone’s research comparatively addresses constitutional adjudication, territorial organization, and the interaction between international and domestic laws. She deals with Latin American constitutionalism from a comparative perspective, taking into account its transnational dimension. Her book on constitutional adjudication on constitutional amendments was the first comprehensive assessment of the issue (“I controlli giurisdizionali sulle revisioni costituzionali” 2011 in Italian, 2012 in Spanish). She then focused on the core constitutional issues of European integration, publishing several pieces on the issue, among them, the edited book “Managing the Euro Crisis. National EU policy coordination in the debtor countries”, Routledge 2018, and the volume “Parlamentarismos y crisis económica: afectación de los encajes constitucionales en Italia y España”, Bosch, 2020.

Languages : Italian (native); Spanish (proficient); German (good); French (intermediate); Portuguese (working knowledge); Catalan (working knowledge) 

Bio : Lea Schneider is a PhD student at the Institute for International Law and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. From 2020 to 2022, she served as Research and Teaching Assistant at the University of Zurich, where she taught courses and co-organized the 22nd Conference of Young Research Scholars in Public Law ( Junge Tagung Öffentliches Recht ) and co-edited the annual anthology for young legal researchers of the University of Zurich ( APARIUZ ). Prior to pursuing her PhD studies, she received an LL .M. in Transnational Law from King’s College London and a Master of Laws from the University of Zurich. Her interests include public international law, public law, international economic law, transnational law and human rights law.

Research Focus : Lea Schneider’s research centers on the regulatory landscape of transnational corporations ( TNC s) regarding human rights and environmental standards. In her PhD thesis she analyses what insights are gained from a transnational perspective on the regulatory landscape of TNC s. Schneider conceptualizes transnational law, along the lines of Peer Zumbansen, as a methodology. In her thesis, she claims, for example, that a transnational perspective allows us to gain an enhanced understanding of the role and functioning of international soft law-initiatives in this regulatory area.

Languages : German (native), French (proficient), Italian (elementary)

Bio:  Francesco Tumbiolo is a Ph.D. student in Legal Sciences at the University of Milan-Bicocca. He was awarded a doctoral scholarship for his research project about cryptocurrencies’ taxation. Francesco is also a teaching assistant at the University of Insubria (Como), where he graduated in law. He was admitted, ranking among the top five students, to the School of Specialization in Legal Professions of the University of Milan. After getting the specialization diploma, he passed the bar exam, and he is currently an attorney-at-law in Italy at a renowned tax law firm with branches in Rome and Milan.

Research Focus:  Francesco’s research focuses on cryptocurrencies’ taxation, especially from the Italian tax law point of view. However, he is now interested in giving his doctoral thesis a comparative perspective: his aim is to find what are the solutions adopted by different OECD members, like the US , to fix the same problems every country faces in taxing cryptocurrencies. Since they are in rapid development, he agrees that policymakers have to progress in considering cryptocurrencies’ tax implications in order to find a shared best practice.

Languages : Italian (native)

Bio : Wu Weiding is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Law of Renmin University of China ( RUC ). His areas of interest include corporate and securities law and arbitration law. He received his Bachelor of Laws degree and Juris Master degree respectively from China University of Political Science and Law ( CUPL ) and Peking University ( PKU ). Wu has participated in several research programs, such as “Research on Major Problems of Bankruptcy of Listed Companies” and “Improvement of Governance Mechanism of Listed Companies”. He has worked as an intern in Beijing JunZeJun (Changsha) Law Firm, Beijing Tiantong Law Firm and the People’s Court of Changping District. Currently, he is an editor of  Renming University Law Review . Wu has also already published a number of academic papers in core journals of China.

Research Focus : Wu has been focusing on social enterprises in the form of companies in China. Social enterprises are the types of enterprises pursuing both profits and public welfare. In China, there are a large number of social enterprises taking the form of companies. The core problem is that in China, the company is an organizational form purely pursuing profit-making goals, and Company Law of the People’s Republic of China does not provide any strong institutional guarantee for social enterprises to achieve social goals. Questions to be addressed in Wu’s research are as follows: Why do an increasing number of social enterprises exist in the form of companies in China? How can these social enterprises achieve their social goals without “mission drift”?

Languages:  Chinese (native) and German (elementary)

Bio:  Ms.Xiaodan Zhu is a Chinese professor specialized in International Tax Law. In this capacity, Xiaodan works at the Law School, Dalian Ocean University, where she also is the director of both Bachelor and Master Degree programs in Law. Prof. Zhu obtained a Ph.D. in International Tax Law from Xiamen University of China in 2013. She has been a Grotius Research Scholar of the University of Michigan Law School during 2015 and 2016. Her teaching activities include courses on international economic law, China’s tax law, and international tax law. Her writings (including journal articles and monographs) have appeared in many Chinese and English academic publications. Moreover, Professor Zhu is also a brilliant practical expert in tax law. She has been seconded to the Department of Tax Policy, Ministry of Finance of China in 2020, and she has been a part-time tax lawyer for almost six years in China.

Bio:  Zhiyu Li is an Assistant Professor in Law and Policy at Durham Law School and a Fellow at the Durham Research Methods Centre. She holds undergraduate degrees in law and economics from the East China University of Political Science and Law and a J.S.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.

Zhiyu’s research investigates issues that lie at the intersection of law and policy, with a particular emphasis on the role of courts in democratic and authoritarian regimes. The findings of her research have been published in or accepted by U.S. and international journals, including the  Harvard International Law Journal , the  Columbia Journal of Asian Law , and the  Cornell International Law Journal , and presented at various fora, such as the Stanford International Junior Faculty Forum and the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Comparative Law.

Research Focus:  Zhiyu’s current research asks whether the rejection of the separation of powers principle in socialist jurisdictions makes it easier for courts to take on extrajudicial functions and exercise influence in ways that are salutary but forbidden to their liberal democratic cousins.

At Michigan, she will work on a joint project that aims to study cognitive biases of legal professionals and lay persons through survey experiments fielded on judges and university students. The project findings are expected to have normative implications for institutional choices in the civil and criminal justice system. She will also further her work on specialized judicial empowerment.

Languages:  Mandarin Chinese (native)

Bio:  Sarah Zimmermann is a PhD student at the Max-Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory in Frankfurt am Main (Germany) where she also works at the European and Comparative Legal History department.

Zimmermann studied Law and European Studies in Mainz (Germany), Maastricht (Netherlands) and Dijon (France). Prior to pursuing her PhD, she obtained the German State Exams and a Masters (Maîtrise en Droit) from the University of Dijon with a focus on European economic law. She also holds a joint LL .M in international private law and European Law from the universities of Mainz and Dijon. She has received various scholarships during her studies and for her PhD research. During her legal clerkship she worked at the Frankfurt office of WilmerHale obtaining professional experience in the field of regulatory affairs and European Law.

Her interests include European law, procedural law, comparative law and administrative law.

Research Focus:  Zimmermann’s PhD research focuses on the procedural law of the Courts of the European Union. It looks at the emergence of these rules in the 1950s from a historical and comparative legal perspective. She is evaluating to which extent the ECJ procedural rules during that time were comparable to the national procedural rules of the member states and to those of international courts. She is using sources from the archives of the European institutions and the relevant ministries of the founding states and seeks to give insight into one of the first decision making processes of the Community.

Languages : German (native), French (proficient), Dutch (elementary)

Bio:  Alain is a Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) at the School of Law, University of Glasgow ( UK ). Alain holds graduate degrees in Philosophy ( MS c, London School of Economics), History ( MA , Graduate Institute) and Law ( LL .M., Toronto). He was awarded his doctoral degree at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. His doctoral dissertation was published as a monograph with Routledge ( The ECHR and Human Rights Theory ). Alain subsequently obtained three post-doctoral fellowships funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the European University Institute in Florence (Max Weber Fellowship) and the University of Oslo (PluriCourts Centre of Excellence).

Research Focus:  Alain’s research aims to reconstruct and evaluate the practices of constitutional law, human rights law and international law from the perspective of normative theory. In particular, Alain has examined the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, UN treaty bodies and the International Criminal Court. His research has appeared in leading peer-reviewed journals such as  International Journal of Constitutional Law  (2019, 2022),  Global Constitutionalism  (2016, 2021, 2022),  Ratio Juris  (2019),  Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy  (2019, 2021),  Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence  (2016) and  Criminal Law and Philosophy  (2018), among others. Alain is also currently Senior Research Fellow at the University of Oslo (PluriCourts Center for Excellence) for a two-year project (2021-23) studying the nexus between theories of populism and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. His monograph on the topic is under contract with Cambridge University Press.

Languages : English, French, German, Spanish

Andrew Cecchinato is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Global Fellow at the University of Michigan Law School and the School of History at the University of St Andrews. He is PI of the Horizon 2020 project on John Selden’s Harmonic Jurisprudence. A European Interpretation of English Legal History . Previously, he was a postdoc in St Andrews, working on the ERC project Civil Law, Common Law, Customary Law: Consonance Divergence and Transformation in Western Europe from the late eleventh to the thirteenth centuries . 

Andrew is a book review editor for the American Journal of Legal History. He has received scholarships from the Max-Planck-Institute für europäische Rechtsgeschichte and the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies. He has also been a visiting researcher at the Robbins Collection in Civil and Religious Law, the Georgetown University Law Center, and the Library of Congress. He studied law at the University of Trento, where his Ph.D. on The Legal Education of Thomas Jefferson won the faculty prize. 

Research Focus

Andrew’s main research aims to repurpose the idea of Europe by studying how the seventeenth-century jurist, historian, and Hebraist John Selden harmonized the history of English law and the authority of the European legal tradition. His project will center on Selden’s effort to preserve and harmonize the history of English law within the inclusive order of nations recognized by a distinct reading of medieval and modern European jurisprudence. The research will thus focus on the cogent yet overlooked reasoning by which Selden proved that no law, however discrete, can rightfully be understood if isolated from the continuum of legal experience. 

English and Italian (native), French and German (elementary)

Apostolos Chronopoulos is Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London.

Apostolos has studied law at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. He continued his studies at Queen Mary University of London ( LLM Lond.) and the Ludwig-Maximilian University of Munich ( LLM Eur. and Dr. Jur.). During his Ph.D. studies, he was supported by a scholarship from the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition, and Tax Law (now MPI for Innovation and Competition). At the postdoctoral level, he has received scholarships that allowed him to conduct research as a visiting scholar at Stanford Law School and as an invited overseas researcher at the Institute of Intellectual Property in Tokyo, Japan.

His research interests span the broader field of intellectual property and competition law. Currently, his focus is on US and EU trademark law, unfair competition law, patent law, economic analysis of intellectual property law, comparative intellectual property law, the relationship of intellectual property law and general private law, the interface between Intellectual property and antitrust law.

His latest publications include: Exceptions to Trade Mark Exhaustion: Inalienability Rules for the Protection of Reputational Economic Value [2021] 43(6) European Intellectual Property Review 352-365; Reconstructing the Complete Patent Bargain: The Doctrine of Equivalents , [2020] Intellectual Property Quarterly, Issue 2, 138-160; Strict Liability and Negligence in Copyright Law: Fair Use as Regulation of Activity Levels , 97 Nebraska Law Review 384-468 (2018).

English, German, Greek

Viviana Galletto Farro graduated from the Catholic University of Uruguay with a Juris Doctor degree. She has been a professional judge in Uruguay since 2014, and she is currently nominated by the Supreme Court of Justice of this country for an upcoming promotion. She has attended on a wide range of cases in both civil and criminal law matters, gaining experience as a judge.

She is a contract law specialist and holds an LL .M degree in Contract Law. In addition, she is pursuing an LL .M degree in Criminal Procedure Law, while she currently works on her Ph.D. thesis in Legal and Research Sciences from the Catholic University of Argentine.

She is a graduate teaching assistant in civil and procedural law at the Catholic University of Uruguay. Her writings have been published in numerous legal publications. She has received multiple scholarships and awards, including the Fulbright Scholar grant to study at the University of Michigan Law School as a research scholar.

The purpose of the research will be to identify the relevant legal standards for the admission, evaluation and sufficiency of the evidence presented by the parties in the intermediate stage of the criminal process, in order to discover the truth and achieve effective, fast and fair solutions.

The main focus will be to analyze the objective parameters that constitute the rules of evidence by which judges issue their rulings, so these criteria could be used as a framework in the Uruguayan Criminal Procedure System during the intermediate stage of trials.

Spanish (native), Italian (elementary). 

Jaka Kukavica is a Ph.D. Researcher at European University Institute in Florence, Italy. His Ph.D. project comparatively examines consensus analysis as an interpretative method in various multilevel polities. He is also working as a researcher on “The Court of Justice in the Archives” project at the Academy of European Law and the “Judicial Networks between Supreme Courts in Europe” project led by Prof. Mathias Siems. Before commencing his doctoral project, Kukavica studied law at Ljubljana and Cambridge. He is the Head of Section for European Law at the European Journal of Legal Studies and he served as an Editor of the Cambridge International Law Journal in the past. He has received multiple scholarships and awards, including the Mary Higgins Scholarship and the Lilian Knowles Prize awarded by Girton College, University of Cambridge.

Kukavica’s doctoral research examines the relationship between the structure of multilevel polities and the types of consensus analysis courts use when interpreting legal norms. Kukavica argues that different types of consensus analysis imply different understandings of the value of state autonomy. On these grounds, he examines whether courts use consensus analysis in a way that fits the structure of the multilevel system in which they operate. In particular, he focuses on the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Justice of the EU , the European Court of Human Rights, and the UN Human Rights Committee.

Slovenian (native), Serbo-Croatian, and Italian (proficient)

Caroline Maciel is a doctoral researcher in open data of the Quality of Law Research Clinic, which is a member of the International Association of Legislation. She works as Regulatory Affairs and Government Relations at Stone Co (financial and software solutions) and is interested in Big Techs entrance in financial markets and how regulation should approach this matter. She studied Law at UFMG (Brazil) and University of Leeds ( UK ) and won two of the university’s prizes (best in civil and procedure law). Her master degree Institutions and Public Policies (Arraes: 2019) won two awards. She was a Research Fellow at AI Labs in a project on artificial intelligence to understand Congress. Her teaching and academic activities include courses on law and technology, constitutional law, administrative law and legal theory. Her writings have been published in numerous peer-reviewed publications, some in english.

Caroline’s research addresses how technology, such as machine learning-based systems, can be used to improve regulatory and legislative risk management. She argues that Brazil has substantial unequal access to public data and political players. Given this, tools to automatically process, analyze and categorize data, identify trends and predict best courses of legal action could change how advocacy is done, reducing this asymmetry. She analyzes some of these situations in financial market, as Big Tech’s started to provide payment services in Brazil. She chose to collect improvements from the US private and public sector because it is one of the front-runners in AI and algorithmic transparency, which can be used in Regulatory Impact Assessment Brazilian models. She evaluates how to decipher the government’s decision-making process patterns (without losing the political aspect) and the possible benefits to the democratic and economic development. 

Portuguese (native), English (proficient) and Spanish (intermediate)

Veena Manikulam is a PhD student at the Institute for International Law and Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. From 2019 to 2021, she served as Research and Teaching Assistant at the University of Zurich, where she taught several courses and co-authored three articles in the area of international economic law. Prior to pursuing her PhD studies, she received an LL .M. in Transnational Law from King’s College London and a Master of Laws from the University of Zurich. In 2016, she was an exchange student at the National Law School of India University. Her interests include international economic law, transnational law and human rights law.

Veena Manikulam’s research centres on the reform of international investment law. In her PhD thesis she addresses to what extent the concept of investor accountability has been incorporated in investment law. Based on the insufficient adoption of investor accountability in existing investment agreements, her research focuses on the question how mechanisms to enforce substantive standards (including human rights, labour and environmental standards) could be designed to adequately incorporate the notion of investor accountability in investment law. Manikulam argues that a transnational approach to this question presents the chance to propose innovative enforcement mechanisms.

German (native), Malayalam (native), French (proficient), Hindi (limited working proficiency), Arabic (limited working proficiency)

Marcin Menkes is an Associate Professor at Warsaw School of Economics, in the Department of Business Law, where he also heads the Post-Graduate Studies of Law and Economics of the Capital Market. He is a member of the International Law Association Committee on the Rule of Law in International Investment Law and the Investor-States Dispute Settlement Academic Forum. He has held visiting fellowships at top universities including Cornell University, Cambridge University, Università di Torino, Università degli Studi di Firenze, and Università di Bologna.

His research interests include international investment arbitration, international monetary and financial matters, sovereign debt restructuring, sovereign immunities, and economic sanctions. He has published four books, over 100 scientific articles, and more than 1,000 blog posts, newspaper articles, etc.

Besides his academic work, he is also Of Counsel in Queirtius, an international litigation and arbitration law firm.

Menkes’s recent piecemeal projects are part of a larger research agenda on the evolution of public international law. His overarching hypothesis is that current diagnoses of the Westaphalian international order crisis are superficial and address only symptoms, not the roots of change.

While at Michigan Law School, he will examine the extent to which blockchain carries the potential to go beyond what has been debated and analyzed so far: to undermine the legal personality of states, to recognize the personality of MNE s, to open up the catalog of sources of law, and, ultimately, to undermine the foundations of the entire system.

Polish (native), French (proficient), Italian (proficient), Spanish (Intermediary), Dutch (elementary)

Zarina Mussakhojayeva is a lawyer specializing in international trade law and compliance, focusing particularly on regulatory compliance, international sanctions, and anti-bribery regulations. Zarina has worked for multinational companies, advising on corporate compliance and governance issues in the areas of Antitrust, U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, U.K. Bribery Act, Antiboycott and economic sanctions. Zarina is an experienced lawyer qualified to practice law in Kazakhstan with professional experience covering matters related to mining operations, corporate finance, and mergers and acquisitions in the oil and gas industry.

Zarina received her B.A. in law from Kazakh Humanitarian Law University in 2006, where she received the University President’s Scholarship award. In 2008 she obtained her LL .M. degree at Duke University School of Law. Zarina was awarded a prestigious Kazakhstan Government-sponsored International Scholarship to pursue her studies at Duke. Zarina studied at American University in Washington, D.C. and Minnesota State University as an exchange student under the U.S. Department of State “Freedom Support Act” Fellowship Program.

Zarina’s research focuses on regulatory and legal aspects of implementing global compliance practices in Russia and Kazakhstan. The research is intended to identify regulatory compliance challenges faced by multinational corporations operating in the region. It is aimed at analyzing applicable regulatory environment in these post-Soviet countries, understanding available compliance function and established practices, and investigating recent FCPA enforcement actions. The research identifies the OFAC -imposed economic sanctions and Russian countersanctions and conflict between Russian antimonopoly legislation and U.S. anti-boycott regulations as key areas for further examination. In addition, some of the essential legal concepts are proposed to overcome the identified challenges.

Kazakh (native), Russian (native), and English (fluent)

Azusa Ogasawara has been a public prosecutor in Japan for six years. She graduated from Kyoto University Law School with a Juris Doctor degree. She has worked on a wide range of cases in both the investigation and trial departments, gaining experience as a practicing lawyer. She was recommended by the Public Prosecutors Office in Japan and is currently studying at the University of Michigan Law School as a research scholar.

Azusa’s research investigates legislative and operational issues related to laws against money laundering. In recent years, Japan has seen an increase in the amount of money laundering cases. However, the reaction of Japan to these crimes has not been fulfilling due to the lack of our experience in this field; thus, Japan must consider further strengthening its regulations while referring to the efforts of other countries. She chose these issues, because she believed that studying in the U.S., where research in this field is more advanced, would provide meaningful results for Japanese criminal justice.

Japanese (native)

Aparna Singh is a lawyer licensed to practice in India. She holds law degrees from the University of Cambridge ( U.K. ) and the University of Delhi (India).

After graduating from Cambridge with an LL .M. degree in International Law, she joined Fietta LLP (London). At Fietta LLP , she assisted in ongoing investor-state arbitrations and even worked on several maritime law issues including, but not limited to, extent of the territorial waters of archipelagic states.

Prior to pursuing the LL .M. program, Aparna practiced law in India for four years. As a Senior Associate at a premier law firm, she represented private parties and government authorities in cases covering diverse areas of law, ranging from government regulation to cross-border transactions. Aparna also had the opportunity to work on several international arbitrations and received favorable awards for the firm’s clients.

Before coming to the University of Michigan Law School, Aparna practiced as an Arbitration Consultant in India, advising clients on international and domestic arbitration issues. 

Aparna’s current research includes a comparative analysis of regulatory regimes adopted in developed and developing countries to promote cross-border transactions and foreign direct investment. She intends to expand the scope of this research by looking at regulatory practices adopted by the U.S. and how India’s recent reforms stand in comparison. In light of India’s recent termination of many of its Bilateral Investment Treaties ( BIT s), this research will also encompass India’s dispute resolution system, both within and without the new Model BIT , and how it can be improved to meet the challenges ahead.

Hindi (native), Spanish (basic/learning)

John Trajer is a doctoral researcher in law at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. Over the course of his PhD, he has been a visiting fellow at the Amsterdam Centre for Migration and Refugee Law (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and at the Dickson Poon School of Law (King’s College London). Prior to commencing his doctoral degree, he obtained a BA from the University of Oxford, a Joint MA from the universities of Göttingen and Groningen, and an LLM from the European University Institute. He has acquired professional experience in the field of migration and refugee law at a range of NGO s and international organizations, including the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and the Council of Europe.

John’s doctoral research explores the scope of states’ protective duties towards trafficked

persons under international and regional European law. Specifically, it examines the conditions under which host states are obliged to ensure access to rehabilitative assistance for trafficked migrants, focusing on points of intersection between anti-trafficking, human rights, and refugee law. Beyond his PhD project, John is interested generally in the fields of migration, criminal, and international human rights law. At the European University Institute, he is one of the coordinators of the Migration Working Group (Migration Policy Centre) and an active participant of the Human and Fundamental Rights Working Group (Law Department). He is also a member of the Human Trafficking Research Network based at Queen’s University Belfast.

John is proficient in Hungarian and Italian, while he speaks Dutch and German at an upper-intermediate level.

I am Professor of International Law and Co-Director of  PluriCourts – Centre for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order , University of Oslo, Norway. I have been Director of the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo. I was Co-chair of the International Law Association’s Study Group on the ‘Content and Evolution of the Rules of Interpretation’ and am Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board, Max Planck Institute for Procedural Law, Luxembourg. I have been a member of the Executive Board of the European Society of International Law.

I will give a special course as part of the 2022 Hague Academy Winter Course on ‘Deference by International Courts and Tribunals to National Organs’. I have committed to write a book on the basis of the lectures, to be published in the Academy’s  Collected Courses . I am looking forward to writing the book in the research environment provided by the University of Michigan.

English (some German and French)

Thomas Verellen is Assistant Professor in European Union and International Law at Utrecht University (Netherlands) and a Research Fellow at the Institute for European Law, KU Leuven (Belgium). Thomas is an expert in EU and comparative foreign relations law and has a particular interest in the impact of geopolitical change on the governance of EU trade and investment policy. 

Thomas defended his PhD entitled ‘ EU Foreign Relations Federalism. A Comparison with the United States, Canada and Belgium’ at KU Leuven in September 2019. From 2018 to 2020, Thomas practiced EU and international trade law at the Brussels office of Bird & Bird LLP . Thomas has held visiting positions at the University of Michigan Law School (2016-2017) and the Université de Montréal (2015) and was a trainee in the chambers of Professor Koen Lenaerts, President of the Court of Justice of the EU  (2015).

At Michigan, Thomas will start a comparative research project on legal and political accountability mechanisms in EU and U.S. trade and investment policy, and he will work on the book version of his PhD, which will be published in 2022 as part of Oxford University Press’ Comparative Constitutionalism series. In addition, Thomas will teach European Union Law at Michigan during the 2022 Winter Term.

Dutch, French and English

Dr. Eddie Wei is an International and Comparative Law Research Scholar at the University of Michigan Law School under the mentorship of Professors Catharine MacKinnon and Kimberly Thomas. During his stay in Michigan, he is also a postdoctoral fellow in the China- US Scholar Program, which is administered by the International Institute of Education. Dr. Wei received his PhD in Gender Studies from the University of Cambridge and JSD from City University of Hong Kong. His research interests include judges’ gender and sentencing, sexual abuse and violence, and feminist judgments project. He received the Graduate Student Paper Award from the Division on Women and Crime, American Society of Criminology in 2019, as well as the Jiang-Land-Wang Outstanding Student Paper Award from the Association of Chinese Criminology and Criminal Justice in the same year. His publications can be found in peer-reviewed journals, such as Feminist Criminology, Feminist Legal Studies, British Journal of Criminology, Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, and International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology . He has been a member of the All China Lawyers Association since 2008.

Legal studies worldwide have documented the ways in which sentences of rape are influenced by victims’ relationships with offenders. The systematic failure to effectively sanction private sexual violence speaks to the influence of extra-legal factors on judges’ decision-making processes. Nevertheless, what typically has been found in the literature on the categorization of rape offenders is the dichotomy between strangers and non-strangers to victims. Such classification is problematic because of the distinct nature of the relationships captured in acquaintance rape. I will use a more refined categorization of victim-offender relationships to examine the predictive power of relationship type in sentencing outcomes.

Mandarin (native) and Cantonese (proficient)

Sonya Ziaja is an assistant professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where she teaches Environmental Law; Climate Adaptation, Law and Equity; and Property. Ziaja holds a Ph.D. in Geography from the University of Arizona; M.Sc. in Water Science, Policy and Management from the University of Oxford; and J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

Ziaja’s research interests focus on the overlapping areas of environmental governance and law, technology and society: How can environmental law and institutions sustainably adjust to rapidly changing bio-geophysical conditions and societal demands associated with climate change? And with what consequences for equity and democratic participation? Her approach to these questions draws on her interdisciplinary background in geography, water policy and law, as well as her practical knowledge of energy regulation.

Prior to entering academia, Ziaja worked in energy regulation at the California Public Utilities Commission and was the research lead for the Water, Energy, Climate Nexus at the California Energy Commission. She was a lead author of California’s Fourth Climate Assessment. Her research has informed the climate adaptation strategy of the U.S. National Parks Service and the first climate adaptation regulation of investor-owned energy utilities in California.

Dr. Ziaja’s current research project examines an emerging paradox in climate adaptation and equity. Climate adaptation is necessarily dependent on algorithm assisted decision making. These algorithmic tools are new fora for deliberation and environmental lawmaking. But these necessary tools also embed value laden assumptions and biases that make them counter to democratic participation and equity. This project is based on multiple years of qualitative research and detailed analysis of two cases where decision support software has informed climate adaptation for water and energy sectors. Through these case studies, Ziaja’s research provides a novel framework for evaluating procedural and substantive equity in algorithmic tools. Early versions of this research benefitted from discussions at the University of Columbia’s Sabin Colloquium for Innovative Environmental Scholarship and the University of Michigan Law School’s Junior Scholars Conference. Ziaja’s article, How Algorithm Assisted Decision  Making is Influencing Environmental Law and Climate Adaptation , is forthcoming in volume 48 of Ecology Law Quarterly .

Lorenzo Giovanni Luisetto is a Ph.D. student in Comparative and European legal studies from the University of Trento in Italy. Prior to receiving his scholarship to pursue his Ph.D, studies, he received an M.A. in law at the University of Trento. Luisetto received the Giorgio Ghezzi Award - Mention of Merit in 2018 for the adoption of a comparative and multidisciplinary method in his master’s thesis, entitled  “Working Conditions at “Amazon”: a Comparison between the United States and Italy.”  In 2018 he was a Visiting Researcher at the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations ( AFL - CIO ), Washington D.C. ( USA ), and in 2020 he was a Visiting Scholar at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven ( BE ), where he worked at the Institute for Labour Law. His research interests include Comparative Labor and Employment Law, Antitrust Law and EU  Law.

Luisetto’s research focuses on the interaction between Antitrust Law and Labor and Employment Law. He is conducting a comparative study between the United States’ and the European Union’s models of anti-competition law and their application to labor issues. His research question is based on the ineffectiveness of both Labor and Employment Law in protecting workers and the possibility of antitrust principles providing better protections for workers in different kinds of labor markets. Luisetto argues that antitrust should not only focus on consumer welfare but also on other important interests, such as the welfare of workers. More generally, he believes the goals of anti-competition law should be reconsidered in order to expand protection for labor. 

Francesco Marotta is a doctoral student in commercial law at the University of Padua. He was awarded a doctoral scholarship in 2019 after submitting a research project aimed at investigating the main legal issues posed by the Italian insolvency law reform. After graduating in Law at the same university in 2017, he worked for a year and a half as a deputy Public Prosecutor’s assistant in the section of the Prosecutor’s office specialized in economic, financial and tax crimes. He currently holds lessons and seminars for students at the university during the course of Commercial Law and Business Crisis Law. Marotta published academic articles/papers on insolvency and commercial law in various Italian law reviews. He is also a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute (International member) and the International Association of Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Professionals ( INSOL ). 

Marotta’s research interests lie primarily within international comparison of insolvency laws, with a particular emphasis on the different legislative policies aimed at preventing insolvency and promoting business rehabilitation. Marotta’s research project analyses, with a comparative approach, the differences between the Italian and American legal regimes governing the prevention of business crisis. His purpose is to verify if the U.S. system is the most suitable for preventing insolvency without jeopardizing companies themselves. In this way, it will be possible to draw several inspirations to improve the Italian insolvency law, especially considering the high percentage of businesses that will probably experience financial difficulties due to the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic.

An Guohui is a Ph.D. candidate majoring in law and economics at China University of Political Science and Law. He focuses on economic analysis of law, especially administrative law and tort law. He studied law in China-Euro School of Law and received a Juris Master. Before he started his Ph.D. program, he worked in the China Export & Credit Insurance Corporation, Chinese official Export Credit Agency. He previously was in an internship at the International Finance Corporation (World Bank Group) as a temporary consultant.

The social disciplining on various wrong doings is a new and fast-growing means of regulation. The wrong doings consist of criminal offense, administrative offense, contempt of court, bad faith in civil cases, etc. These are supposed to reduce the social transaction cost by reinforcing the authority and enforcement of law. As a very new regulation with universal influences, the disciplining is lack of prudent demonstration. Especially, an economic analysis needs to be used to deliberate the cost and benefit of the regulation. Due process in the disciplining is also a key issue.

Janis Beckedorf is a fellow of the doctoral research group “Digital Law” at Heidelberg University, an interdisciplinary institution of the Faculty of Law and Computer Science carrying out fundamental research to prepare and accompany the development of legal expert systems. Janis studied law at Bucerius Law School in Hamburg, Germany and at the University of Michigan during the fall term of 2014. Currently, he works on his PhD thesis and conducts a research project on “Complex Societies and the Growth of the Law” with three other scholars. Janis’ research is funded by the Foundation of German Economy (Stiftung der deutschen Wirtschaft) and the State of Baden-Württemberg. He is co-founder of iusio, a company providing customized software to law firms and insolvency administrators. 

Tax law is regularly criticized for being too complex. What does complexity mean in respect of law, how can it be quantified and what insights can be gained about law? To answer these questions, the research uses insights from economics, systems theory and network science. The first objective is to elaborate a definition of legal complexity. The second objective is to develop new methods to measure legal complexity laying a focus on network science. As underlying data for these approaches, the research uses federal laws of the United States and Germany as well as court decisions.

Won Kyung Chang is an associate professor in the Scranton Honors Program at Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea. She received a joint doctoral degree (Ph.D. in Law and Social Science) from the Maurer School of Law and the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University-Bloomington.

Her research addresses a broad range of issues related to society, law, and public administration, including legal consciousness and legal culture, alternative dispute resolution, collaborative public administration, biomedical law and ethics, legal interpreting, and school violence. She has published around 30 articles in journals of law and public administration, such as  Asian Journal of Law and Society ,  Canadian Journal of Law and Society , and  Public Administrative Review . She also serves as a member of the Conflict Management Committee in the Ministry of Justice, Republic of Korea, and as a member of the board of directors in the Korean Society for the Sociology of Law and the Asian Women Law Association.

Dr. Chang’s main research question has always been how to design a legal apparatus that gives a sense that the justice system is, in fact, just. In searching for answers, she studied different concepts of justice—procedural, distributive, restorative, and relational—in alternative disputes resolution, public participation in administrative procedure, and biomedical law and ethics. Currently, she is investigating the institutionalization and evolution of American class actions, a project she believes will provide a basis for analyzing the mobilization of collectivized disputes in South Korea, and, ultimately, contribute to elaborating the theory of interaction between social transition and legal systems.

Lukáš Hrdlička is a Ph.D. candidate at the Faculty of Law of Charles University in Prague and a former bills drafter working for the Ministry of Finance. Lukáš was asked to draft a bill implementing the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (“ ATAD ”), thus becoming the author of the first rules dealing with hybrid mismatches enacted in the Czech Republic. He was also a member of the team drafting the first exit tax and CFC rules in the Czech Republic.

Regarding his studies, Lukáš is the principal investigator of the “International Co-operation in Tax Matters” research project funded by the Grant Agency of the Charles University and a researcher of several other research projects. His article about loopholes in the ATAD ’s CFC rules won the faculty prize and led to an amendment of a proposed bill implementing the ATAD . Lukáš is a co-author of a commentary to the Income Tax Act and a recipient of the prestigious Hlávka Foundation scholarship.

Lukáš’ research encompasses both taxation and financial regulations, but his visit to the University of Michigan Law School shall be focused rather on tax policy, income taxation, and, particularly, international taxation from the US and EU perspective, e.g. hybrid mismatch rules, CFC rules. In his current research, Lukáš analyzes the impact of the OECD anti- BEPS project on the European tax system and how the proposed and/or enacted EU rules implementing this project should be amended to become more effective and bring a greater fairness to the European tax system.

Dr. Constantin Hruschka works as a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy in Munich since November 2017. He is part of the Research Initiative of the Max Planck Society in “Challenges of Migration, Integration and Exclusion” (for further information see:  https://www.eth.mpg.de/4397290/wimi ). 

Before fully returning to academia, he had inter alia worked as head of the protection department at the Swiss Refugee Council (2014-2017) and as a lawyer for UNHCR , the UN Refugee Agency (2004-2014) in Nuremberg and Geneva. Dr. Hruschka studied law, history and philosophy in Würzburg, Poitiers and Paris. He holds a PhD in history from the university of Würzburg and a maîtrise en histoire from Université Paris IV (Sorbonne). In addition, he is a fully qualified lawyer and has passed his bar exam in 2002. 

He is teaching European Law and European Asylum Law as well as Human Rights Law mainly at the Universities in Germany and Switzerland. 

His current research project is focused on responsibility sharing mechanisms in the asylum context from a regional and global perspective. He looks into the structural challenges of regional and global asylum governance as well as into the compatibility of existing schemes with the 1951 Convention and the human rights standards. This focus derives from his longstanding research on the Common European Asylum System and on the 1951 Convention.  In addition to his research on refugee law, he is currently working on a research project looking at the access of European Union citizens to welfare in other EU Member States in cooperation with the University of Lausanne.  He has authored many publications on international, European, Swiss and German asylum and migration law inter alia he co-authored (with Francesco Maiani) a commentary on the Dublin III Regulation, is co-editing a comprehensive commentary on the Swiss migration law (5th edition 2019) and is the editor of the first German language commentary on the 1951 Convention (forthcoming 2020).

Niamh Kinchin is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, University of Wollongong, NSW , Australia. Niamh teaches Administrative Law, Constitutional Law and Refugee Law. From 2008-14 she was as a sessional lecturer at the University of Wollongong and the University of New South Wales ( UNSW ), teaching a variety of subjects including Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Torts and Contracts Law. Prior to teaching, she worked at the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal as a legal officer. Niamh was admitted as a legal practitioner to the Supreme Court of NSW in 2002. She holds a Bachelor of Social Science from University of Newcastle, a Bachelor of Laws (Hons Class 1) from Western Sydney University, a Masters of Administrative Law and Policy from University of Sydney and a PhD from UNSW . The title of Niamh’s PhD is ‘Accountability in the Global Space: Plurality, Complexity and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’.

Niamh’s primary research interests are in global accountability and administrative justice, administrative decision-making within the refugee context and constitutional interpretation within the international and Australian settings. Her current research includes projects on the potential and risks of artificial intelligence in refugee status determination, the accountability of UNHCR in a time of Global Compacts, the interpretation of the constitutions of international organizations, NGO participation in the United Nations ( UN ) and the evolution of constitutional principles in Australia. In December 2018, Niamh published a monograph with Edward Elgar Publishing ( UK ) focusing upon Administrative Justice within the UN .

Andreas Th. Müller is Full Professor at the Department of European Law and Public International Law of the University of Innsbruck, Austria. He studied law and philosophy at the Universities of Innsbruck, Strasbourg and Yale Law School. He has been a regular Visiting Professor at the University of Alcalá, Spain, the Universidad Panamericana, Mexico, as well as Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. In 2009/2010, he clerked for Judges Abdul G. Koroma and Bruno Simma at the International Court of Justice. His habilitation thesis dealt with Effet direct. The Direct Effect of EU Law. He is the principal investigator of the research project “Permissive Rules in Public International Law”, funded by the FWF (Austrian Science Fund). His teaching activities include courses on public international law, EU law, constitutional law, asylum and migration law and legal philosophy. 

Müller’s research focuses on international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, international and European migration and asylum law, EU constitutional law and questions of legal philosophy and legal theory. His current research project starts from the observation that lawyers are trained to focus on rules ordering or prohibiting a certain conduct. However, numerous examples for permissive rules can be found also in public international law. The research project seeks to identify and systematize them and examine whether a distinction between thin and thick permissive rules may help to better conceptualize the architecture of contemporary public international law.

Tatjana Papić ( LL .B. Belgrade, LL .M. Connecticut, PhD Union Belgrade) is a professor of international law at the Union University Belgrade Law School. She teaches courses in public international law, international human rights law, and the European Court of Human Rights. She was a Visiting Professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law (2013). She is a former Head of Legal Department of the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights. Tatjana received Ron Brown Fellowship and OSI ’s Civil Society Scholar Award. She has published on questions of law of international responsibility, human rights, European Court of Human Rights and domestic reception of international law. Her work has been cited by the UN International Law Commission and the High Court of England and Wales.

Tatjana’s research addresses interactions between international law and domestic politics in post-conflict societies. Specifically, she explores impact of the international dispute settlement mechanisms – both on a dispute as such and on parties in the dispute – by focusing on highly political cases involving the states of the former Yugoslavia. Tatjana is, in particular, interested to see if, how and to what extent these proceedings have affected bilateral relations of the states involved, as well as their internal political dynamics and discourse. This will provide a background against which broader conclusions can be reached on the potential of legal means of settling international disputes in a post-conflict setting.

Louise Southalan is a lawyer working in the area of prison and detention health systems and is currently undertaking a  Churchill Fellowship  examining ways in which national agencies can best support state-based prison and jail mental health services.  As part of this travelling fellowship, she is delighted to be spending September at the University of Michigan Law School as a Michigan Grotius Research Scholar.

Louise works in the  Western Australian Department of Justice  on prison health projects and as a researcher with the  Justice Health Unit in the University of Melbourne’s School of Population and Global Health .  Her current projects with the University of Melbourne include undertaking a review for the  Australian National Mental Health Commission  on justice and health policies and strategies at federal and state levels, to identify ways in which they could better meet the mental health needs of justice-involved people.  Her previous roles include:

Working for  Australian Red Cross  monitoring conditions of detention in immigration detention facilities, 

In the  Western Australian Mental Health Commission , commissioning prison mental health services and developing forensic policy, and

Practicing as a lawyer.

She is very interested in international collaborations involving prison and detention health and would welcome opportunities to collaborate with colleagues from the University of Michigan.  Louise is a steering committee member of  WEPHREN , the Worldwide Prison Health Research and Engagement Network , a non-executive director of  HepatitisWA , and a collaborator on several international justice health projects.  She has a law degree and masters degrees in International Development and in Mental Health Policy and Services and is a graduate of the  Australian Institute of Company Directors .

Piotr Tereszkiewicz is a tenured Associate Professor of Private Law at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland, and a Senior Research Affiliate at the University of Leuven, Belgium. After obtaining his PhD at Jagiellonian University and a Magister Juris Degree at University of Oxford, Tereszkiewicz spent several years as a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Heidelberg, working on comparative contract law, funded by German Research Council. At Jagiellonian University, Tereszkiewicz teaches core private law courses (including contracts, torts, succession) as well as international commercial contracts. His published works deal in particular with contract and commercial law, financial services regulation, mostly from a comparative, international and European perspective. Tereszkiewicz held visiting positions among others in Zurich, Ferrara and Bloomington (Mauer School of Law).

Tereszkiewicz’s research analyzes the practice and theory of commercial cooperation between manufacturers and their suppliers and dealers in the automobile industry in the United States and selected European countries. It explores what legal and non-legal (economic, social, cultural) factors determine the content of long-term cooperation between manufacturers and their suppliers and dealers. The central assumption of the study is that an in-depth examination of network governance within the automotive industry should build upon three major perspectives: the economic approach, the sociological approach and the contract law approach. In particular, a profound comparative study of contract law rules dealing with manufacturer-supplier and manufacturer-dealer relationships is undertaken.

Sina Van den Bogaert, Dr. jur. (2017), Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University (Frankfurt am Main), is a Legal Officer at the European Commission in Brussels, and a voluntary research affiliate at the KU Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies. She is a former Research Fellow of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. Her doctoral dissertation on Segregation of Roma Children in Education (Brill Nijhoff: 2018) was awarded magna cum laude. The dissertation examines how the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Council of Europe) and the Racial Equality Directive 2000/43/ EC (European Union) have contributed towards desegregation of Roma children in education in Europe. Sina has also published several articles on European Non-discrimination Law. 

Sina has been awarded a post-doc Fulbright and BAEF grant to study how US desegregation injunctions can be of inspiration for European judges when they seek to establish a proportionate, dissuasive and effective sanction mechanism in cases of school segregation. She argues that European judges should impose positive desegregation measures on infringers, if the effectiveness of the Racial Equality Directive is to be ensured. She identifies a recent shift in jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union towards ‘effective judicial protection’ for practicing rights derived from EU law, to the detriment of procedural autonomy of the EU Member States. She will focus on two intertwined developments: tackling domestic obstacles to effective enforcement and the possible creation of remedies otherwise unavailable in domestic law, based on the notion of ‘effectiveness’ and on Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Wang Qi is a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Law of Renmin University of China ( RUC ). He studies commercial law as his major and works as a research assistant in the Research Center of Civil and Commercial Jurisprudence of RUC , which is funded by the Ministry of Education of China. Wang Qi received his master’s degree from RUC and bachelor’s degree from Wuhan University both in law. He was awarded the “Outstanding Graduate” by the Beijing Municipal Education Commission in 2017. He has been awarded a scholarship under the China Scholarship Council ( CSC ) to pursue study at the University of Michigan Law School. Wang Qi has participated in several research projects, including “The Theory and Practice of Dual-Class Share Structure”, “The Institutional Structure of the Initial Compensation of Sponsors”, and “The Regulation of Securities Investor Protection”. He has published a number of academic papers in numerous Chinese journals.

Wang’s research focuses on the securities investor protection in China. He chose to study this issue, because minority investors constitute the main body of China’s capital markets; therefore, the protection of their interests is closely related to the effective operation of the stock markets. By comparing the investor protection systems between China and the US , he analyzes the institutional deficiencies of investor protection in China based upon China’s Securities Law Amendment and the reform of the registration-based IPO system at the Shanghai Stock Exchange. He is exploring the approaches to improve the investor protection system in China.

Dr. Tadesse Kassa Woldetsadik is an Associate Professor of International Law and Human Rights at Addis Ababa University (Ethiopia) and Principal Advisor to the Ethiopian Investment Commission on Investment Policy and Jobs Compact. He was a Visiting Scholar at the Xiangtan University (China), Martin Luther University of Halle Wittenberg (Germany) and Fulbright Visiting Scholar at the UC Berkeley. He has published a book titled International Watercourses Law in the Nile Basin, Three States at a Crossroads (Routledge, Oxfordshire 2013) and co-authored edited books including Ethiopian-African Perspectives on Human Rights and Good Governance ( NWV Pub., Graz, Austria 2014). He is deeply involved in the drafting of national investment, industrial park, CRRF and refugee related laws and policies in Ethiopia, and has extensively published articles, book chapters and policy briefs on refugee law, human rights, labor rights and legal aspects of Ethiopian foreign policy.

Tadesse’s research focuses on the fast-evolving refugee law and policy setting in Ethiopia. It addresses lingering issues relating to legal frameworks, institutional response mechanisms, challenges and opportunities in the implementation of the new refugee policy and the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework in Ethiopia. Specifically, the research analyzes what the new normative and institutional responses on refugees imply in terms of the rights of refugees recognized under international instruments and whether such approaches represent sustainable solutions.

Andrew Woodhouse is a lecturer in law at the University of Liverpool and co-director of the EU Law @ Liverpool research unit. Andrew received his PhD in EU law from the University of Liverpool with no corrections. He has engaged with a number of European universities, co-organizing a transnational PhD colloquium with the Universities of Leiden and Oslo and spending time as a visiting researcher at the University of Antwerp. He has taught and lectured on courses in EU law, UK constitutional law and comparative constitutional law. As part of the EU Law @ Liverpool research unit, Andrew has helped to shape the debate on the UK ’s withdrawal from the European Union. This has included engaging with governmental actors, as well as contributing to the public debate through national ( LBC ) and international media ( Yahoo ). 

Andrew’s research interests lie in the area of constitutional law and theory. His PhD research focused on the role of national parliaments in the European Union assessing the limits of national representative democracy in a multi-level governance framework. His work on the potential for judicial review of national parliamentary action in the EU legislative process was published in the  Common Market Law Review . Andrew will continue to explore the role of national parliaments in the European Union as a Michigan Grotius Scholar, reflecting on the extent to which they are being instrumentalized in the EU . In particular, he will ask whether the symbolism of national parliaments is being used by a range of national and European actors in pursuit of political ends.

Junseok Yoon has been a judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea for seven years. He has obtained a Master of Laws degree from and has completed Ph.D. coursework in tax law at Seoul National University School of Law. He is also a member of the International Association of Tax Judges and the International Fiscal Association. He has published articles and given presentations on tax issues, such as “Tax Statutory Interpretation in Law and Economic View“, “A Study on Notification on Changes in Amount of Income”, “Requirements of Acquisition Tax Exemption on Real Estate for Religious Organizations”, “Commercial and Tax Accounting in Korea” and “Withholding Tax on Domestic Source Income”. Since he has been interested in and conducted research on other legal issues as well as tax issues, he participated in the WIPO IGC 35th Session and UNCITRAL Working Group 3 ( ISDS Reforms) 37th session as a member of a Korean Delegation.  He is also a member of the Task-Force Team for Judicial Support for the Disabled.    

Junseok’s main research topic is “Prevention of Treaty Abuse and Limitation on Benefits of U.S. Model Income Convention”. He argues that in light of the substantial interaction between Korea and the United States, they might agree to revise the current income tax treaty and align their agreement with contemporary international tax policy on the prevention of treaty abuse. Because there have been few studies on the Korean Supreme Court’s Decision on LOB provision or comprehensive LOB in Korea, his research on the LOB provision will serve as valuable guidance for both judges and researchers.  

Also of Interest

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of European Competition Law & Practice
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

I. introduction, ii. abuse of dominance: the return of price control, iii. anticompetitive agreements: what is a concerted practice, iv. merger control: an avalanche of filings, v. conclusion.

• < Previous

Reform of Russian Competition Law: It's a Long Way from Brussels to Moscow

Ianis Girgenson is a special counsel at the Brussels office of Covington & Burling LLP. Anna Numerova is an associate at Alrud law firm (Moscow, Russia).

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ianis Girgenson, Anna Numerova, Reform of Russian Competition Law: It's a Long Way from Brussels to Moscow, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice , Volume 3, Issue 3, June 2012, Pages 293–299, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lps011

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The level of competition enforcement in Russia is excessive, with thousands of new investigations launched every year.

The regulator sometimes pursues objectives unrelated to the promotion of competition.

Economic analysis plays a marginal role in Russian competition enforcement.

A drastic reform is required: the regulator should focus on the most serious infringements and improve the quality of its economic analysis.

In this paper we provide an overview of Russian competition law and discuss its ongoing reform. 1 The Russian competition authority is a powerful and pro-active agency that is relentless in its enforcement of competition law. Indeed, we believe that the current level of enforcement is excessive and that a further reform, akin to the ‘modernisation’ of EU law, is required.

Today Russia is the tenth largest economy in the world by GDP. After suffering a deep recession in the 1990s, Russia has experienced a decade of uninterrupted growth with GDP increasing by 7 per cent per year on average (between 1998 and 2008). It has gradually opened up to international trade and has recently concluded negotiations on WTO accession. However, according to the World Economic Forum, Russia still lags behind other BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries in terms of economic competitiveness. It has a high level of market dominance and among the lowest levels of local competition in the world. 2

The Russian government seeks to modernise the economy and increase competitiveness, in particular by implementing and enforcing competition laws. Russia adopted its first competition legislation in 1991. While enforcement was limited throughout the 1990s, things began to change under President Putin's administration. In 2004, the government set up a new competition authority, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS), and in 2006 the Parliament adopted a new competition law (the ‘Federal Law’). 3

The 2008 global economic crisis was a watershed moment in the development of Russian competition policy. As Russia entered a new period of economic turbulence, the government criticised the FAS for failing to investigate pricing policies of large Russian companies. The FAS reacted by launching hundreds of new antitrust investigations and imposing fines on major industrial players such as Gazprom, Rosneft, Mechel, Severstal, and Evraz.

The FAS also supported legislative amendments aimed at increasing maximum fines, introducing criminal liability, and encouraging leniency applications. Since 2006, the Parliament has amended the Federal Law several times; the most recent reform was signed into law by President Medvedev on 6 December 2011 and entered into force on 6 January 2012 (the ‘2011 Law’). 4

As a result of these developments, Russian competition policy shows a mixed record. It is clear that the era of laissez-faire is over and the FAS is eager to fight cartels and abusive conduct. However, the FAS's approach suffers from three major weaknesses: Below we review Russian legislation and enforcement practice relating to abuses of dominance, anticompetitive agreements and merger control. We discuss key amendments introduced by the 2011 Law and identify the areas in which further improvements are required.

The level of enforcement is excessive. For instance, in 2010, the FAS reviewed 9,569 merger filings and launched 4,207 competition investigations. 5 These figures are substantially higher than comparable EU statistics.

Competition law is sometimes used to achieve objectives unrelated to the promotion of competition. For example, the 2008 crack-down was instigated by the government and focused on politically sensitive industries (e.g., food, fuel, and energy).

Economic analysis plays a marginal role in competition law enforcement. Key concepts such as collective dominance and concerted practices, are defined based on statutory presumptions and depart from standard microeconomics.

Article 10 of the Federal Law prohibits abuses of dominance and provides a list of possible abuses. Certain categories of abuses are exempted from prohibition if they generate efficiency gains that satisfy the requirements of Article 13 of the Federal Law (modelled upon Article 101(3) TFEU). If it finds that an abuse was committed, the FAS may order the dominant undertaking to discontinue abusive practices and/or impose a fine of up to 15 per cent of the proceeds realised as a result of the abuse. 6 Repeated abuses constitute a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years. 7

In recent years the FAS has investigated an extraordinary number of cases relating to abuses of dominance. For example, in 2010 it launched 1,918 investigations under Article 10 of the Federal Law and issued 2,736 decisions. 8 These figures are stunning when compared to EU statistics. Most European competition agencies investigate only a handful of abuse of dominance cases every year; in 2010 the European Commission adopted only four decisions under Article 102 TFEU. 9

The FAS's decisional practice relating to abuses of dominance exhibits two distinctive features. First, in order to define dominance the FAS relies on statutory presumptions based primarily on market share thresholds. Second, a large proportion of FAS decisions relate to exploitative abuses and, in particular, to excessive prices.

A. Presumptions of dominance

Article 5(1) of the Federal Law establishes a rebuttable presumption of single dominance where the relevant company holds a market share greater than 50 per cent. A company that holds a share between 35 per cent and 50 per cent may be found dominant if certain other conditions are met (e.g. stable market shares, weak competitors, high barriers to entry). A share less than 35 per cent is generally sufficient to rule out single dominance.

Pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Federal Law, collective dominance is presumed in markets which meet the following conditions: Market shares play a decisive role in the FAS's analysis of dominance. For instance, in a number of recent cases the FAS found collective dominance based on the parties' combined shares, without thoroughly examining other market features (cf. the cases relating to oil companies and mobile operators, examined below).

three operators hold a combined share of more than 50 per cent or five operators hold a combined share of more than 70 per cent (provided that each operator has a share of at least 8 per cent); and

market shares remain stable for at least one year, there are high barriers to entry, price increases do not trigger corresponding decreases in demand, and the relevant market is transparent.

The approach adopted by the Federal Law and by the FAS runs contrary to modern economic doctrine. Indeed, Article 5(3) of the Federal Law, as interpreted by the FAS, equates oligopoly with collective dominance. This approach ignores the fact that an oligopolistic market may be highly competitive even if it exhibits some of the features listed in Article 5(3) (e.g. transparency and entry barriers).

In the EU, the concept of collective dominance is frequently used in merger control cases; however, the collective dominance test as defined by the Airtours ruling is much stricter than the test established by Article 5(3) of the Federal Law. In order to prove that the transaction is likely to create or strengthen a collective dominant position, the European Commission must demonstrate that post-transaction tacit coordination can be achieved and would be sustainable over a substantial period of time. 10 Moreover, an even stricter test of collective dominance is used in abuse of dominance cases: the Commission must prove that dominant undertakings act as a ‘ collective entity ’. 11 We believe that the approach adopted by EU law is better aligned with modern microeconomic theory than that followed by the FAS.

B. The fight against excessive prices

Article 10 of the Federal Law lists excessive prices (literally ‘monopolistically high prices’) as a potential abuse of dominance. Pursuant to Article 6, prices charged by a dominant company are deemed abusive if (i) they exceed the company's costs and reasonable profits related to the production and distribution of the relevant goods and (ii) they exceed prices that prevail in comparable Russian or foreign markets.

This two-pronged test was probably inspired by EU case law dating back to the 1970s. In United Brands , the Court of Justice established a similar test based on a combination of ‘cost plus’ and comparator-based approaches. 12 However, in the EU, excessive pricing allegations have been brought in only a few cases and have been generally rejected by the Commission and/or the Courts. There is a consensus today that the determination of ‘fair’ prices should normally be left to market forces.

While an excessive pricing doctrine is dormant (if not extinct) in the EU, it is alive and well in Russia. In recent years the FAS has imposed heavy fines in a number of excessive pricing cases. For example, in 2008–2009 the FAS fined four Russian oil companies (Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil, and TNK-BP) a total of RUR 26.1 billion (around €635 million) for charging excessive prices in Russian wholesale markets for oil products. This case illustrates the FAS's approach to both collective dominance and excessive prices: Another recent high-profile case involved mobile operators. In October 2010, the FAS found that three Russian mobile operators (MTS, VimpelCom, and MegaFon) collectively dominated the Russian market for roaming services and charged excessive roaming prices. The FAS's analysis of collective dominance was based essentially on the parties' market shares. The FAS then compared costs and pricing structures of roaming services to those of certain other mobile telecommunication services. It found that the prices charged by the oligopoly members for international calls were between 2 and 2.5 times lower than those charged to customers of other networks for roaming services supplied within Russia. The FAS considered that the costs of these services were identical and, therefore, roaming prices were abusive. The decision does not contain an in-depth analysis of the parties' costs and it is not clear how the FAS reached its conclusions. Nevertheless, the parties offered remedies aimed at lowering their roaming charges. 14

The FAS considered that the oil companies held a collective dominant position because their combined market shares were above the thresholds set by the Federal Law and remained stable in 2007–2008 (i.e. a period of only one year). According to the FAS, collective dominance was also illustrated by the fact that price increases did not trigger corresponding decreases in sales.

The finding of abuse was based on the fact that domestic wholesale prices increased faster (and decreased slower) than international prices. The FAS's decisions do not provide any insight into the parties' costs, margins, pricing policies, or extraneous market factors. 13

The investigations described above were triggered by customer complaints and were highly publicised. While the general public appears to support the FAS's struggle against ‘price gouging’, this decisional practice has been disavowed by Russian economists. 15 Similarly, in its recent Economic Survey of the Russian Federation, the OECD criticised Russian authorities for using competition law to curb inflation and control prices. 16

C. The fining cap

As part of the 2011 reform, the Parliament imposed a fining cap of RUR 1 million (around €25,000) for abuses that harm third parties but do not reduce or eliminate competition. 17 While this provision primarily targets exploitative abuses committed by utilities and electricity suppliers, we believe that it should apply in all excessive pricing cases. Excessive prices may harm customers but they do not normally reduce competition: on the contrary, by charging supra-competitive prices, dominant undertakings indirectly encourage new entries. Consequently, the reform appears to reduce the fines for excessive prices to symbolic levels.

It should, however, be emphasised that the FAS retains its power to issue administrative orders in abuse of dominance cases. In the past, the FAS frequently ordered dominant companies to reduce their prices by a certain percentage and/or to a certain level after finding that these prices were excessive. 18 We are concerned that the FAS will continue to use this power in order to directly interfere with the pricing practices of market operators. 19 As explained above, this approach would run contrary to modern economic theory and to the OECD recommendations.

Russian legislation relating to anticompetitive agreements is inspired by Article 101 TFEU and by EU block exemptions: The FAS rightly views the fight against cartels as one of its enforcement priorities. However, its interpretation of the standard of proof applicable in cartel cases and of the concept of ‘concerted practices’ differs significantly from that adopted by EU authorities.

The Federal Law prohibits anticompetitive agreements and concerted practices but provides a general exemption modelled upon Article 101(3) TFEU. 20

Vertical agreements are exempted if each party's market share is below 20 per cent. Resale price maintenance and exclusive distribution agreements that do not relate to branded goods are per se illegal. Other vertical agreements are subject to the same rules as horizontal agreements. 21

The parties may submit their draft agreements to the FAS for review; this procedure is comparable to the one that existed in the EU until 2004. 22

The FAS may impose administrative fines on undertakings that participate in anticompetitive agreements and concerted practices. These fines are capped at 15 per cent of the proceeds realised as a result of the infringement. Cartels constitute a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years. 23

A. Broad definition of concerted practices

Concerted practices are defined by Article 8 of the Federal Law. Pursuant to Article 8 (as originally worded) concerted practices were deemed to take place when several undertakings acted in such a way that (i) their actions could only be in their interest if the undertakings had prior knowledge of each other's commercial strategies and (ii) the actions of each undertaking were caused by the actions of other operators and not by extraneous factors.

In 2008, the Supreme Commercial Court held that this poorly drafted provision allowed the FAS to establish and punish concerted practices without any written evidence of an agreement between participants. The Court also ruled that prior knowledge by market participants of each other's strategies could be deduced from the parallelism of their actions. 24

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, Article 8 of the Federal Law allowed the FAS to sanction parallel pricing and other forms of parallel conduct without proving the existence of an anticompetitive agreement. The FAS argued that this approach contributed to the fight against cartels. According to the FAS, the goal of eliminating cartels ‘ is rather furthered than weakened by evidentiary rules that permit cartel prosecutions without evidence of explicit agreements ’. 25

This approach is at odds with the oligopoly theory that prevails in modern economics and with the evidentiary requirements adopted by EU and US agencies:

Economic research has demonstrated that in oligopolies, parallel conduct is often achieved spontaneously, especially if the relevant market is transparent and pricing information is publicly available. In a concentrated market, operators tend to align their prices without entering into an anticompetitive agreement.

Both EU and US competition authorities consider that spontaneous parallel pricing is not illegal and that antitrust enforcement should focus on secret cartel agreements.

It appears that in recent years the FAS relied extensively on the concept of ‘concerted practices’ because it did not have the tools required to collect direct evidence of cartel activities. Indeed, it is much easier to derive the existence of concerted practices from parallel pricing than to provide evidence of a secret anticompetitive agreement.

B. Modernisation of Russian anti-cartel enforcement

Russian and international experts have repeatedly criticised the FAS's interpretation of evidentiary requirements in cartel cases. 26 It soon became clear that the FAS needed adequate tools to collect direct evidence of cartels instead of relying on questionable presumptions. In 2007, the Parliament introduced a leniency programme encouraging companies to reveal to the FAS their involvement in cartel activities in exchange for immunity from fines. 27 In 2009, the Parliament enabled the FAS to conduct unannounced inspections at corporate premises; it also introduced criminal sanctions for anticompetitive agreements and concerted practices. 28

The 2011 Law further modernised and improved Russian anti-cartel legislation: The reform is welcome insofar as it limits the scope of criminal penalties and introduces several new exemptions. However, the definition of concerted practices remains vague and may still give rise to decisions that would run contrary to modern economic theory. As the Court of Justice recognised in the Wood Pulp case, price announcements and other public statements by market participants do not necessarily reveal the existence of an anticompetitive agreement or conduct; they may constitute rational and legitimate behaviour in an oligopolistic market. More generally, market players have the right to adapt themselves to the existing and anticipated conduct of their rivals and parallel conduct cannot normally be viewed as evidence of illegal coordination. 32

Cartels are now defined as agreements between competitors involving price-fixing, bid rigging, market-sharing, limitation of output, or collective boycotts. Only cartels can be subject to criminal penalties. Other anticompetitive agreements (including vertical agreements) and concerted practices no longer constitute criminal offences. 29

Concerted practices are exempted if the participants hold a combined market share of 20 per cent or less and if each participant holds a share of 8 per cent or less. 30 The 2011 Law also exempted certain intra-group agreements and concerted practices. 31

The 2011 Law slightly amended the definition of concerted practices: such practices are only deemed to exist if the undertakings have prior knowledge of each other's commercial strategies as a result of a public statements made by one of them.

It remains to be seen how the FAS will interpret the new definition of concerted practices. We believe that the FAS should limit its reliance on this concept and focus on seeking direct evidence of alleged cartel activities.

During the last decade, the legislature has repeatedly increased merger control filing thresholds. While the number of filings has been significantly reduced, it remains too high compared with western merger control regimes. Moreover, the FAS frequently imposes behavioural remedies that unduly limit the parties' business strategies.

A. Low filing thresholds

Under Russian merger control rules, the parties are required to submit a filing to the FAS if the transaction is deemed reportable and exceeds certain thresholds. The FAS conducts its initial review within one month but this deadline can be extended. If the transaction is likely to create or strengthen a dominant position or otherwise impede competition in Russia, the FAS shall either block it or impose conditions. Certain transactions that do not meet pre-closing notification thresholds are subject to a post-closing filing. Merger filings are extremely detailed and their preparation is time-consuming. Failure to comply with these rules may be punished by an administrative fine. 33

Reportable transactions are broadly defined and include certain acquisitions of minority non-controlling stakes. Moreover, filing thresholds remain low. In particular, under Article 28 of the Federal Law, a filing is required if: Since 2002, the Parliament has amended merger control thresholds four times. As a result, the number of filings was reduced from 24,000 to around 9,500 per year. Recent statistics are provided in Table  1 .

the aggregate book value of the parties' global assets is above RUR 7 billion (€170 million) or the parties' combined global revenues are above RUR 10 billion (€243 million); and

the book value of the target's global assets is above RUR 250 million (€6 million). 34

Filing statistics 2007–2009

Source : FAS 2010 Annual Report, p. 217.

Notwithstanding recent improvements, these figures remain significantly above the number of filings received by competition authorities in large western economies. In the EU, Germany is generally viewed as the country with the lowest merger control thresholds and the broadest definition of reportable transactions. But even German statistics are nowhere near Russian figures: in 2007, at the peak of the M&A wave, the Bundeskartellamt received 2,242 filings; the number of filings has dropped significantly in the following three years. 35

The 2011 Law amended filing requirements relating to transactions in which the target company is incorporated outside of Russia. These transactions are now reportable only if they result in an acquisition of control and the target had sales in Russia in excess of RUR 1 billion (around €24 million) during the year preceding the transaction. 36 The 2011 Law also amended the thresholds relating to the creation and restructuring of companies. 37 However, the thresholds relating to M&A deals not involving foreign targets remain unchanged.

Foreign investors and their lawyers will certainly welcome the introduction of the RUR 1 billion threshold. Based on our experience we expect the number of Russian filings relating to foreign deals to drop by around 40 per cent. By contrast, we believe that the number of filings relating to deals involving Russian companies is unlikely to change significantly. The reform is therefore unsatisfactory from the standpoint of Russian companies and foreign investors acquiring Russian businesses. 38

B. Intrusive behavioural remedies

Under Article 33 of the Federal Law, the FAS may oppose transactions that are likely to impede competition, for example by creating or strengthening a dominant position. The FAS may also make its clearance conditional upon certain structural or behavioural remedies.

The FAS has issued guidelines which explain the methodology used to define relevant markets, calculate market shares, and conduct competition analysis. 39 While the guidelines provide detailed advice with regard to market definitions, the sections relating to substantive analysis are short and superficial. Similarly, the published versions of the FAS's merger control decisions are generally very brief and do not contain any serious competition analysis.

In 2010, the FAS imposed remedies in 8 per cent of the cases in which a pre-closing filing was required. 40 According to a recent study, most of the remedies imposed by the FAS are behavioural and relate to the following issues: The remedies described above are frequently imposed, inter alia, on foreign companies acquiring Russian targets. Consider, for example, the recent acquisition by Pepsi-Cola of Wimm-Bill-Dann, the leading Russian manufacturer of juices and dairy products. This $3.8 billion deal is the largest foreign acquisition of a Russian company completed in 2011. The FAS found that post-transaction the parties would hold a combined share of 42–47 per cent in the Russian juice market. Based on this finding, the FAS conditioned its clearance on a series of remedies. Pepsi is required to submit detailed information to the FAS every six months regarding its juice production and prices. It must also submit to the FAS an ‘economic analysis’ of any price increase exceeding 10 per cent. Moreover, Pepsi is required to obtain the FAS's approval prior to reducing its juice production or to acquiring any businesses active in Russian juice markets. 42

Pricing: the FAS frequently orders merging companies not to increase their prices above a certain level over a certain period of time and/or to advise the FAS of any price increases.

Production: companies are sometimes required not to divest their main assets, not to discontinue production or not to reduce their output without the FAS's prior approval.

Contractual terms: over 50 per cent of the remedies prohibit discriminatory practices in relation to customers and/or suppliers. 41

The approach adopted by the FAS in this and other recent merger control cases is in stark contrast to the approach adopted by the European Commission. First, the Commission always explains its reasoning in great detail, unless the transaction clearly does not raise concerns and is subject to a simplified procedure. Second, the Commission usually accepts only structural remedies; it considers that the remedies relating to the parties' future behaviour (e.g. future pricing) are inefficient and ‘ may be acceptable only exceptionally in very specific circumstances ’. 43

The 2011 Law did not address the fundamental weaknesses of Russian competition policy: over-enforcement, lack of economic analysis, and the pursuit of goals unrelated to the promotion of competition. We believe that a more drastic reform is required. This reform should be twofold:

Reconsider enforcement priorities: the FAS should focus on transactions that raise competition concerns and on the most serious infringements (i.e. cartels and exclusionary abuses). The number of filings and investigations should be reduced, in particular through a further increase in merger control thresholds.

Put sound economics at the centre of competition enforcement: the concepts of dominance, excessive prices and concerted practices should be redefined in line with generally accepted microeconomic principles. The FAS should carry out a comprehensive economic analysis in every case that raises competition concerns.

The title of our paper is inspired by an article in which the US Department of Justice criticised the European Commission's decision in GE/Honeywell . See William J Kolasky, ‘Conglomerate Mergers and Range Effects: It's a Long Way from Chicago to Brussels’, 9 November 2001, available at < http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/9536.htm >.

See World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness Report 2010–2011, p. 15 (global ranking: Russia ranked 63rd), 420 (local competition: Russia ranked 115th) and 421 (market dominance: Russian ranked 88th). All rankings are for a total of 139 countries.

Federal Law No 135-FZ of 26 July 2006 on Protection of Competition.

See Federal Law No 401-FZ of 6 December 2011 Amending Federal Law on Protection of Competition (this law is generally referred to as the ‘third antimonopoly package’).

See FAS 2010 Annual Report, pp 217 and 228. These statistics reflect investigations launched under Articles 10 (abuse of dominance), 11 (anticompetitive agreements) and 14 (unfair competition) of the Federal Law. The FAS also launched 7,224 investigations under other provisions of the Federal Law (relating primarily to alleged infringements by public bodies).

See Article 23 of the Federal Law (FAS's orders), Article 14.31 of the Administrative Offences Code (fines). The fine is capped at 2% of the company's turnover.

See Article 178 of the Criminal Code.

See FAS 2010 Annual Report, pp 228–9.

See European Commission, Report on Competition Policy 2010, COM(2011) 328 final, p. 17. US agencies have not brought any monopolisation cases under the Bush administration.

See Case T-342/99, Airtours plc v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585; cf. Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings, 2004 OJ C 31/5, paras 39–57.

See Case T-193/02, Laurent Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-209, para. 110.

See Case 27/76, United Brands Company v Commission [1978] ECR 207.

For an overview of these cases, see FAS 2010 Annual Report, pp 203–7. The Russian Supreme Commercial Court confirmed FAS's decisions.

See FAS decision of 23 Nov. 2011, available at < http://www.fas.gov.ru/solutions/solutions_31513.html >, last accessed on 20 February 2012.

See S. Avdasheva et al. , ‘Abuse of Collective Dominance Under the Competition Law of the Russian Federation’, MPRA Paper No. 33742 (Sept. 2011), available at < http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/33742/ >, last accessed on 20 February 2012.

See OECD Economic Surveys: Russian Federation 2011 (Dec 2011), pp 81–4.

See Article 14.31 of the Administrative Offences Code (as amended by Federal Law No 404-FZ of 6 December 2011).

See, e.g., FAS press releases of 1 October 2010, available at < http://www.fas.gov.ru/fas-in-press/fas-in-press_30841.html > (dairy products); 11 August 2009, available at < http://www.fas.gov.ru/fas-in-press/fas-in-press_25851.html > (broadband Internet access); 12 March 2009, available at < http://www.fas.gov.ru/fas-news/fas-news_22703.html > (parking in the Vnukovo airport), last accessed on 20 February 2012.

The 2001 Law also enabled the FAS to issue written warnings to dominant companies that appear to be involved in abusive conduct (but only in cases relating to refusal to deal or unfair contractual terms). See Article 39.1 of the Federal Law.

See Federal Law, Articles 11 (cartels and anticompetitive agreements), 11.1 (concerted practices), 13 (general exemption).

See Federal Law, Article 11(2) (prohibited agreements) and 12 (exemptions). Note that the supplier is allowed to impose a maximum resale price.

See Article 35 of the Federal Law. Cf. Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, 1962 OJ 13/204.

See Article 178 of the Russian Criminal Code (criminal sanctions); Article 14.32 of the Administrative Offences Code (administrative fines).

See Russian Supreme Commercial Court, Resolution No. 30 of 30 June 2008, para. 2.

See OECD, Prosecuting Cartels without Direct Evidence of Agreement, Contribution from the Russian Federation, p. 155 (December 2005), available at < http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/49/37391162.pdf >, last accessed on 20 February 2012.

See, e.g., OECD Economic Surveys: Russian Federation 2011 (Dec. 2011), pp 81–4.

See Article 14.32 of the Administrative Offences Code. The programme was initially very popular because full immunity was granted to all applicants. In 2009, the Parliament restricted the immunity to the first applicant; as a result, the number of applications has substantially decreased.

See Articles 25.1–25.6 of the Federal Law (inspections); Article 178 of the Russian Criminal Code (criminal sanctions).

See Article 11(1) of the Federal Law and Article 178 of the Russian Criminal Code.

See Article 11.1(5) of the Federal Law.

See Articles 11(7) and 11.1(6) of the Federal Law.

See Joined cases C-89/85 et al. , A . Ahlström Osakeyhtiö et al. v Commission [1993] ECR I-1307.

See Federal Law, Articles 27–29 (pre-closing filing requirements), Article 30 (post-closing filing requirements), Article 32 (information that must be included in the filing), Article 33 (FAS decision-making), Article 34 (gun-jumping penalties); Article 19.8 of the Administrative Offences Code (fines for gun-jumping).

A filing is also required if any company within the buyer's or the target's group is mentioned in the Russian register of dominant businesses. Articles 27 (creation and restructuring of companies), 29 (financial companies), 30 (post-closing filings) and 31 (intra-group transactions) provide other sets of thresholds. Euro equivalents are approximate and vary depending on the exchange rate.

See Bundeskartellamt, Activity Report 2007/2008, p. 7. The European Commission has received less than 5,000 filings in twenty years since the adoption of EU merger regulation.

See Federal Law, Article 26.1 (new threshold) and 28(1)(9) (acquisition of control). Cf . Article 3 of the Federal Law (extra-territorial application of competition law).

See Article 28 of the Federal Law.

The acquisitions of Russian companies by foreign investors are also subject to Federal Law No 57-FZ of 29 April 2008 on Foreign Investments in Business Entities with Strategic Importance for Russian National Defence and State Security (recently amended by Law No 322-FZ of 16 November 2011).

See FAS Order No 220, 28 April 2010, available at < http://www.fas.gov.ru/legislative-acts/legislative-acts_50604.html > (replacing previous guidelines issued in 2006), last accessed on 20 February 2012.

See FAS 2010 Annual Report, page 219. The FAS also imposed remedies in 1% of cases involving post-closing filings. The FAS ‘rejected’ 2% of the filings; most of these rejections relate to incomplete filings. Separate statistics regarding prohibition decisions are not available but such decisions are rare.

See S. Avdasheva et al. , Razvitie i primenenie antimonopol'nogo zakonodatel'stva v Rossii, 2d ed. (2011), pp 81–97, available at < http://www.hse.ru/news/hse_pubs/28221970.html >, last accessed on 20 February 2012.

See FAS decision of 27 Jan. 2011, available at < http://www.fas.gov.ru/solutions/solutions_31944.html >. The FAS imposed similar remedies as part of its clearance of the acquisition of Unimilk by Danone. See FAS decision of 15 October 2010, available at < http://www.fas.gov.ru/solutions/solutions_31310.html >, last accessed on 20 February 2012.

See Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004, 2008 OJ C 267/1, para. 17.

Author notes

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• About Journal of European Competition Law & Practice
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2041-7772
• Print ISSN 2041-7764
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.