Events and Seminars

LTAP Work-in-Progress  May and June 2024

Tuesday 28 May, 11.00am

Presenter: Dr Ben Stanford; Chair: Dr Gary Wilson

Dealing with the bad apples: The Recall of MPs Act 2015 

Much has been said of the recent trend towards democratic backsliding and declining accountability in the UK and beyond. One phenomenon arguably pushing back against such forces, however, is the ability of the electorate to depose an elected representative pursuant to a recall petition and the triggering of a new election. In the UK, this has been implemented through the Recall of MPs Act 2015, now approaching its first decade of existence. In essence, the Act allows for a Member of Parliament to be recalled by their constituents and for a by-election to be triggered if certain conditions are met. Relatively little was known about the mechanism until its first successful use in 2019, when Fiona Onasanya was recalled.

Since then, a further three successful recall petitions and subsequent by-elections have taken place, placating some of the Act’s earlier critics, with some now even suggesting that the threshold for recall is too low while highlighting the lack of alternative sanctions. As a rare example of direct democracy in the UK, the mechanism raises inherent questions concerning the balancing of interests between the electorate and Parliament, as well as more specific questions concerning natural justice and fairness during the process. These issues have been politically contentious in two recent high-profile cases, namely Owen Paterson and Boris Johnson. This paper attempts to address some of these issues, ultimately arguing that whilst reforms should be considered, the legislation can be seen as a positive recent development enhancing political accountability.

Tuesday 18 June, 11.00am

Presenter: Dr Mary Guy and Lee Newcombe; Chair: Dr Amber Pugh

Health inequalities and healthcare access in a two-tier system

Mapping NHS and private healthcare interaction in England

It is well-established that there are significant health inequalities across England, with a recognised North-South divide (e.g. Corris et al. 2020). The various definitions of “health inequalities” indicate that myriad factors are at play (The King’s Fund 2022), and among these are that variations in healthcare access are notable.

The coexistence of the NHS and private healthcare rightly generates concerns about the emergence of a two-tier system which would have the effect of exacerbating health inequalities as regards access to healthcare. This has been illustrated clearly by the reduction of NHS dentistry and development of private dentistry (Nuffield Trust 2023), but concerns of “postcode lotteries” are more widespread, and include diverse healthcare needs and treatment.

Successive governments have nevertheless relied on the interaction between the NHS and private healthcare to address increasing waiting lists. Expanding private sector delivery of NHS services has been linked with “patient choice” policies since the days of New Labour and the introduction of the NHS Constitution, but this has since been decoupled from competition by the Health and Care Act 2022 with Rishi Sunak recently pledging to develop patient choice further in connection with his government’s aim to reduce hospital waiting lists (UK government May 2023). The Shadow Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, is presenting recourse to the private sector as a means to reduce the NHS backlog as key policy theme for Labour if successful in the next general election. Streeting’s approach is to frame this as a “pragmatic and principled approach” to avoid a “betrayal” of working-class people who cannot afford to pay for care (The Guardian April 2024).

The coexistence of NHS and well-developed private healthcare market across England (relative to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) appears to present a contradiction: on the one hand, it could easily exacerbate health inequalities, but on the other, it may continue to prove useful in facilitating and extending access for NHS patients. While attention has properly focused on safety concerns (Goodair and Reeves 2022; BBC Panorama 2024), little recognition has been given thus far to how this interaction varies in different regions, and what the implications of structural aspects of different regions (i.e. where there may be more or less private healthcare) may be.

This paper makes an original contribution in this regard by mapping NHS and private healthcare interaction across England. The “four categories” model of English healthcare (Guy 2019; Guy and Odudu 2024) is used to outline the interaction in terms of NHS providers treating NHS patients (category 1), private providers treating NHS patients (category 2), NHS providers treating private patients (category 3), and private providers treating private patients (category 4). Monthly referral data is used to evaluate both patient choice policies and indicate the reach of independent sector providers, and insights are also given into how the private healthcare market across England varies, including by reference to NHS private patient units. While these reflect different aspects of NHS-private healthcare interaction (respectively categories 2 and 3), together they enable insights into an area which is developing to generate a rich research agenda. Additional lessons from competition policy offers insights into how this dynamic may evolve in future and where there may be implications for other countries of the UK.

Please note that we aim to offer both sessions in a hybrid format: if you wish to receive a link, email Dr Mary Guy (M.J.Guy@ljmu.ac.uk)

Wednesday 17 April 2024, 2.00pm

Presenter: Dr Hannah Baumeister; Chair: Dr Mary Guy

(Hybrid session)

One Convention to Bind Them All: State Obligations on Forced Marriage under the Istanbul Convention

The Istanbul Convention’s stated goal is to create a legal framework at pan-European level to protect women, prevent and prosecute violence against them, and develop integrated policies to eliminate it. One form of violence against women the Convention seeks to end is forced marriage.

In this presentation I assess how states that have ratified the Istanbul Convention meet their obligations to criminalise domestic and international forced marriage as well as attempting and aiding or abetting it. I also assessed how ratifying states meet their obligation to provide adequate sanctions, prohibiting justifications based on personal reasons, and incorporate specific circumstances relating to the character or conditions of the victim, the status of the offender, and to the nature, manner, and means of the commission of the offence and the degree of prejudice caused as aggravating factors into their national law.

I find that most, but not all, states meet most, but not all, of their obligations on forced marriage under the Istanbul Convention. The way states attempt to meet their obligations highlights the interconnectedness and continuous nature of different forms of violence against women and girls perpetrated by a multitude of people who participate in different ways in the commission of the crime of forced marriage. However, despite recognising forced marriage as a serious offence that can result in severe harm of the victim, domestic law in some states provides for low sanctions and leaves loopholes for unacceptable justifications that can mitigate punishment or absolve the perpetrator of their criminal responsibility.

To achieve the aims of the Istanbul Convention and protect victim-survivors and prevent, prosecute, and end forced marriage, all ratifying states should distinctly and expressly incorporate all elements of Article 37, 41, 42, 45, and 46 in their domestic law and establish specific, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions.

LTAP European and Comparative Public Law Cluster / International Law and Human Rights Cluster Work-in-progress sessions (in-person at LJMU unless otherwise stated)

11th March 2024, 1.00pm

Presenter: Andrew Munro; Chair: Dr Sofia Cavandoli

Economic and social rights and capitalism: the limits of the law

Much has been made of the relative failure of international economic and social rights law, as most States have failed to or refrained from adopting such rights domestically. Much has also been made of the strong historical opposition to these rights by Western capitalist liberal democracies. Implicit in this opposition has been the idea that capitalist liberal democracy will provide these rights through economic growth and fill any gaps through welfarist provision, an idea that is increasingly coming under challenge.

This paper will seek to advance such a challenge through an examination of the role of law in liberal capitalist societies, which will highlight the difficulties of advancing economic and social rights in light of the connections between law and capitalism at both the international and domestic levels. It will explore how the activities associated with economic and social rights, which themselves will be presented as essential activities for any form of society, are constrained by capitalism and liberal society, notably the placing of considerable power and control over those activities in the hands of a relative few, raising doubts about liberal capitalism’s suitability as a provider.

It will problematise the role of law in capitalist society, rejecting an uncritical faith in the ‘rule of law’, with reference to mainstream, formalistic and idealistic defences of law. Finally, this paper will attempt to demonstrate that both domestic and international law provide barriers to advancing economic and social rights in the absence of underlying changes to society and new legal approaches.

Climate Policy and The Financial Sector: A Matter of Incentives

4 March 2024, 2 to 3pm (medium to be confirmed)

Speaker: Richard Ridyard

Chair: Dr Blanca Mamutse

Questions about tackling climate change present themselves with a force not found elsewhere. An effective policy response, however, must include the financial sector. But, as climate change accelerates, the financial sector appears to be idling in neutral. This article concentrates on the role of banks and argues in favour of two policy changes: first, imposing greater capital requirements contingent on the holding of carbon-heavy assets. The second is to tether part of executive remuneration to a specified percentage of the value of the bank’s ‘green’ assets. 

Annual Lecture on ‘Race, Racial Discrimination and International Law’

Professor William Schabas
Chair: Professor Gaetano Pentassuglia
Concluding Remarks: Prof Keith George, PVC for Research and Knowledge Exchange
Wednesday 14 February 2024

Download the event flyer

“You’re Fired!” – “Wait, Can We Fire Someone That We Don’t Employ?”

Speaker: Laura Samaroo
Chair: Dr Francis Okanigbuan
7 February 2024, 1 to 2pm (medium to be confirmed)

Defining the employment relationship is crucial in understanding the rights and obligations of both sides of the relationship. Over the years the courts have developed a number of tests to determine the true nature of employment relationships. It is relatively simple to apply these tests when the workplace is a factory or an office, but what if the workplace is a velodrome, a swimming pool or an athletics track?

The employment relationship between an athlete who plays a team sport and their club is fairly uncontentious, the club is the employer and the athlete are the employee. The position of an athlete who participates in an individual sport, such as tennis, is also uncontentious, they are self-employed. However, the position of an athlete who generally competes as an individual but within a wider team set-up is the most challenging of all.

In recent years the traditional employment status categories have been expanded to include those who have previously been left wanting for a lack of identity. However, this incremental expansion has not been reflected in the sports sector where the relationship that an athlete has with their club / governing body may or may not be one of employment depending on the precise nature of the sport in question.

Most famously, in recent years, this issue has come to the fore in the case of Jessica Varnish and her action against British Cycling.

The work to be undertaken will argue that the expansion of employment status categories seen in the wider workforce should also be seen in the sports sector, particularly where athletes who compete as individuals but as part of a team are concerned.

Let’s talk about human rights and forced marriage!

Wednesday 13 December 2023 at 11 am: Human Rights Education Panel Discussion
Wednesday, 13 December 2023 at 12.13pm: Forced Marriage Comic Launch

We are delighted to launch our forced marriage comic in an event aimed to inspire active discussion and creative expression.

The comic launch will follow a separate but connected panel discussion focused on human rights education more broadly. Marking International Human Rights Day, I will be joined by members of the Liverpool World Centre and the Learning and Participation Team of the International Slavery Museum and the National Center for Teaching Black History of Legacies of Transatlantic Slavery. We will discuss the human rights education work we do, its importance and aims, and how it contributes to freedom, dignity and justice for all (this year’s Human Rights Day theme).

Please note
The event will be in-person at LJMU and there are no plans to record it.

For further information about the event, please contact Hannah Baumeister.

Research cluster seminars 2023-24

Examining AI Governance - Making the case for rights-based impact assessment (Working title)

Speaker: Dr Jennifer Graham
Chair: Dr Yinan Yin
7 December 2023, 11am to 12noon on MS Teams

AI (artificial intelligence) regulation is necessary. And whilst work is being done at a global level to form adequate regulatory regimes and governance measures, many of the ‘leading’ approaches have several shortcomings or are relatively underdeveloped. This article examines essential regulatory elements that will be fundamental to any AI governance framework, including whom the regulator should be, the target of the measures, what they command, and what the consequences for non-compliance should be. The findings of this examination will provide a detailed picture of what the ideal AI governance framework might look like.

Building upon this examination, this article features a proposal for a rights-based impact assessment for regulating AI (which draws upon the risk-based approach proposed within the European Union’s (EU) AI Act and the United Nations (UN) recommendations, albeit with amendments). This article emphasises the utility of using a rights-based impact assessment within AI regulatory efforts, alongside the importance of other traditional regulatory methods including primary legislation, secondary legislation where necessary, and industry standards.

To conduct this examination, this article considers AI regulatory initiatives adopted and proposed by various states and organisations, legislative agendas in similar technological fields such as IoT (Internet of Things), existing legislation and governance measures in fields such as human rights, equality protection and product safety, as well as industry standards. It is a combination of these elements that the author suggests will amount to an adequate AI governance framework.

The aim of this examination is multifaceted; overall, this article promotes the adoption of AI governance measures that encourage development, deployment and use of safe AI, which applies to economic actors involved in the AI life cycle, and ultimately users of AI (safe in this context can be understood as meaning AI that is to a reasonable extent explainable, transparent, and fair). Achieving this goal will not be an easy task, and so the evaluation of essential regulatory principles and consideration of the suitability of innovative governance measures is key.

LTAP Work-in-Progress Sessions
November 2023

Please note
The sessions are in-person at LJMU unless otherwise stated, and there are no plans to record the sessions.

For more information about these sessions, please contact Dr Mary Guy. 

Monday 13 November 2023 at 1pm: Dr Jules Bradshaw

Developing a theory of ‘socio-civic entropy’: identity and inclusion mechanisms beyond the citizenship paradigm

Traditional notions of belonging and identity are commonly phrased within the confines of ‘citizenship’. However, many people fall outside citizen classification and social practice is not reflected comfortably with such clear delineation between ‘us’ and ‘them’. This session will reflect work I am undertaking, at a preliminary stage, to develop a concept of ‘socio-civic entropy’ borrowing loosely from ideas in physics that will promote the benefits of broader integration and recognition beyond citizenship’s constraints.

Wednesday 29 November 2023 at 12pm and Friday 1 December 2023 at 11am via Teams: Dr Mary Guy

Understanding “NHS privatisation”: from competition to integration and beyond in the English NHS

References to “NHS privatisation” can be found in UK parliamentary debates since the early 1980s, but it remains not well understood as a concept, and can certainly be distinguished from the standard definition of “privatisation” meaning taking into private ownership. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that the characteristics of “NHS privatisation” include clear links with the evolving interaction between the NHS and private healthcare, a relationship which can be traced back to the inception of the NHS in 1948.

By juxtaposing primarily the debates of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA 2012) and the Health and Care Act 2022 (HCA 2022), it becomes possible to gain at least two insights into what “NHS privatisation” means. Firstly, it enables us to understand whether, and if so, how, “NHS privatisation” may be changing with the reversal of the controversial HSCA 2012 competition reforms by the shift to integration now enshrined by the HCA 2022. Secondly, we gain a greater understanding of how “NHS privatisation” has developed as a criticism capable of being invoked by diverse political parties and thus able to shape the development and implementation of NHS reforms. A further consideration is how “NHS privatisation” may operate to inhibit more radical NHS form in opposing directions by reference to the NHS Bill and the NHS (Co-funding and Co-payment) Bill.

17 July 2023 to 18 July 2023

9th ENCLE Conference 2023 @ Liverpool: Practical Information

Find out more information about the ENCLE Conference.

Thursday 13 October 2022, 1.30pm: Interdisciplinary Roundtable Event on the Current Situation in Ukraine

If you would like to know more about what is happening in Ukraine please join us at this Roundtable Event.

14 September 2022: LJMU Legal Advice Centre event in conjunction with Merseyside Law Centre - Exceptional Case Funding Clinic

Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) is the type of legal aid that must be made available where without access to legal advice/representation an individual's human rights may be breached. For many common legal problems, including most welfare benefits and family law cases, ECF is the only way in which people can access publicly funded legal support. The application process for this type of legal aid is lengthy and complex and as a result very few applications, outside of immigration law, are being made.

LJMU Legal Advice Centre is therefore now helping with making these applications in appropriate cases.

We invited potential referral organisations to come along and find out about what we are offering through the ECF Clinic, the kinds of cases we can take, what may make a case suitable for ECF, and how to refer cases to us.

29 June 2022: Discrimination and Human Rights in Housing Cases" Webinar by Diane Astin

22 June 2022: International Expert Workshop: The Impact of the Ukraine War on Majority-Minority Relations and Kin-State-Kin Minority Relations in the Neighbourhood

Liverpool John Moores University and University of Glasgow

The workshop will discuss the impact of the war in Ukraine on the role of a kin-state on the one hand, and on the accommodation of kin-minority groups on the other.  The Liverpool workshop is a follow-up event which is part of a wider collaborative ESRC/RE project jointly run with the University of Glasgow, featuring exchanges and collaborations with numerous academics and practitioners from international organisations (mainly the OSCE and Council of Europe). The first expert event was held in March 2022 to discuss a wide range of issues of minority participation in relation to pluralism, decision-making, and cross-border matters, including the early developments in Ukraine. The aim of the follow-up event in Liverpool is to deepen this debate with a specific focus on the real or potential implications of the war in Ukraine at the level of kin-state/kin-minorities involvement and an increased instrumentalisation of minority issues.

31 March 2022: Guest Seminar: Markku Suksi, Professor of Public Law, Åbo Akademi University, Finland - 12/noon (via Zoom)

Webinar title: ‘Self-Determination in the 21st Century: What Might the Legacy of the Aland Islands Case Be?’

In conversation with Gaetano Pentassuglia, Professor of International Law, LJMU Centre for the Study of Law in Theory and Practice

Abstract: The idea of self-determination had a great impact after WWI for the thinking of persons who held political aspirations that differed from the interests of established states. Self-determination for the Åland Islands did not become an issue at Versailles, because the Åland Islands were not actually belonging to a warring party, nor in its post-WWII fashion, because the inhabitants of the Åland Islands could not be considered a colonial people, have not been subjected to massive repression and do not constitute a people under public international law. However, through the legislative powers that the Åland Islands have, which are exclusive in relation to the legislative powers of the Parliament of Finland, it is possible to say that the Åland Islands have a share in the self-determination of Finland. Yet the Åland Islands case contains dimensions that pass on a legacy from the 1921 Settlement before the Council of the League of Nations in terms of the concept or idea of internal self-determination, essentially in the form of autonomy or, as it is called, self-government as opposed to independence or secession. The constitutionally established internal self-determination constitutes a case for dividing sovereignty and self-determination of a state by means of distributing law-making powers to two law-makers, one national and one territorially circumscribed.

23 March 2022: Work-in-progress Seminar: Dr Hannah Baumeister, Lecturer in Law, LJMI School of Law: 'Forced Marriage and Human Rights'; Andrew Munro, PhD candidate, LJMU School of Law: ‘Economic and Social Rights and the Liberal Democratic State: a Complicated Relationship?'

HR

17 to 18 March 2022: Roundtable Discussion: Integration through Participation: Facing Challenges to Minority Consultation

University of Glasgow and Liverpool John Moores University

The event (by invitation only) is part of a project entitled ‘Integration through Minority Participation: Addressing Challenges to Social Cohesion in Post-Covid Europe’, implemented by the University of Glasgow and Liverpool John Moores University. Academic experts and institutional practitioners/advisers will examine factors conducive to effective minority participation in decision- and policy-making at different levels of governance and in transborder cooperation. The workshop will focus on the role of the HCNM in these processes, and on how OSCE participating states may facilitate inclusiveness of consultative mechanisms as part of their due diligence responsibilities. The themes of the Glasgow event will be further discussed at a follow-up workshop in Liverpool. Both meetings will generate policy reports offering reflections and recommendations to be shared with relevant institutional parties within the OSCE.

9 February 2022, 2 to 3pm: Guest Seminar: Dr Michael Connolly, Reader in Law at the University of Portsmouth

Webinar title: ‘The Associative Discrimination Fiction’

Organised by the Business, Corporate, Banking and Financial Law research cluster 

Biography: Dr Connolly’s principal research interest is in Discrimination and Equality law, especially the employment discrimination laws of the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States, South Africa, Canada, and Australasia. He speaks regularly on this subject in Britain and the United States. He has published many papers on the comparative discrimination law and written three books on the subject. His latest book, ‘The English Judiciary, Discrimination Law and Statutory Interpretation: Easy Cases making Bad Law’ (Routledge), was published in September 2018.

Abstract: Associative discrimination is a consequence of the open formulas used in the UK (and EU) equality legislation to define direct discrimination. The treatment needs only to be ‘because of a protected characteristic’ (such as race, sexual orientation, etc) rather than because of his (or her) protected characteristic. Hence, a white worker dismissed for marrying a black person could sue for direct (racial) discrimination. The open formula is not limited to such cases and, so, treating associative discrimination as a term of art is a mistake, as this could unnecessarily restrict the reach of the deliberately open legislative formula. Dr Connolly’s talk will discuss the Supreme Court judgment in Lee v Ashers as an example of this mistake. It further asserts that any compromise for conflicting rights is found in the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), and not by distorting the definition of discrimination.

18 Nov 2021, 3-4.30pm: Guest Seminar: Dr Azadeh Chalabi, 'A Triangular Model of Gender Inequality', 

Biography: Dr Azadeh Chalabi is a Senior Lecturer and Director of Postgraduate Taught Programmes at School of Law and Social Justice, University of

Liverpool. Dr Chalabi is an expert on international human rights law, legal theory and sociology of law. Her most recent book ‘National Human Rights Action Planning’ (OUP, 2018) explores human rights planning from theoretical, doctrinal, empirical and practical perspectives. It is the first ever volume dedicated to this area and provides the most comprehensive study of human rights planning to date.

Abstract: Adopting a triangular model of gender inequality, called “FISITI” (Formal Inequality, Substantive Inequality and Transformative Inequality), this seminar examines women’s rights from empirical, theoretical, doctrinal, and practical perspectives. At the empirical level, by using secondary data, it offers a short profile of the three types of gender inequality around the world. At the theoretical level, three different approaches to the protection of women’s rights i.e. the “sameness approach”, the “flexibility approach” and the “transformation approach” will be explored. In the same manner, at the doctrinal level, it examines the triple approach to equality in international human rights law, in particular, CEDAW. Focusing on CEDAW, it shows that the convention incorporates various provisions that, read together (along with its General Recommendations and Concluding Observations), require states parties to take appropriate measures to guarantee formal equality, ensure substantive equality, and more importantly, move towards transformative equality. Based on this three-pronged approach to equality, then, at the practical level, three corresponding strategies for realising women’s rights including the “Individual Rights Strategy” (ISR), the “Social Support Strategy” (SSS) and the “Strategy of Social and Cultural Change” (SSCC) will be discussed.

9 November, 2021, 4-5pm: Work-in-progress Seminar: Dr Kenneth Kang, Lecturer in Law, LJMI School of Law

'Switching Constants and Variables in International Environmental Law'

Abstract: This article explores the different perspectives gained from switching constants and variables in International Environmental Law (IEL). Traditionally, legal doctrinal scholarship indicates the problem as a constant and then searches for variable solutions to solve the same problem. The challenge is this schema does not adequately consider contemporary trends towards law’s deformalization and the preference of sensitising expectations towards learning. Using IEL’s regulation of the South China Sea for illustration, this article offers an alternative descriptive approach to rediscover IEL’s social positionality within society. This we analyse by moving not from problem to solutions, but from solution to problems. Thus, we treat the solution, IEL norms, as a given phenomenon and specify instead (unknown) problems which these norms appear to solve. Drawing upon Niklas Luhmann’s systemic trinity of variation selection, and retention to give form to problems, we hypothesise: i) Environmental Impact Assessment obligations incorporate variant possibilities to solve the problem of contingency; ii) Due diligence obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment select expectations worthwhile protecting to solve the problem of confidence; iii) and cooperation obligations retain the acceptance of communication to solve the problem of trust. Overall, our aim is not to test correspondence with reality, but to; i) invite reflection on IELs' potentiality under conditions of uncertainty; ii) explore how IEL posits a systemic space in which legal problems come into play; iii) shed new insights on IELs’ relationship with planning systems, and diagnose this without pursuing normative agendas that limit our perception of complexity.

28 October 2021

Webinar title: Global South Dialogue on Economic Crime Webinar: AML - Lawyers as Gatekeepers

The webinar was themed “AML: Lawyers as Gatekeepers?” and explored lawyers’ roles in the fight against money laundering. The keynote speaker at the webinar was Dr Nathanael Tilahun, an Assistant Professor of Law at Coventry University’s Center for Financial and Corporate Integrity. Other speakers were Mr Emile Leiba, former President of the Jamaican Bar Association and partner at Duncox Jamaica; Dr Katie Benson, a lecturer in Criminology at Manchester University; Jamal Aziz, Executive Director, Research Society of International Law; and Benedict Daudu, Esq., Senior Associate at J.B. Daudu & Co., Nigeria. The jurisdictions under discussion at the webinar included Jamaica, Nigeria, the UK and Pakistan.

Detention during Pandemic 

This is the third webinar in the ‘Punishment, Detention, Crisis: Academic Judicial Dialogues’ series.  

Border crossing and the right to liberty

This is the second webinar in the ‘Punishment, Detention, Crisis: Academic Judicial Dialogues’ series. 

21 April 2021: Guest Seminar: The Rule of Law Today

The seminar discussed the modern application of the rule of law in international, constitutional and administrative law contexts and featured papers presented by Professor Robert Thomas (Manchester), Professor Mike Gordon (Liverpool) and Professor James Sweeney (Lancaster). Dr Gary Wilson led on this event, Dr Cavandoli chaired the meeting, and Dr Phillips moderated questions.

Human Punishment: Life Imprisonment and the Right to Hope

The event is organised by the Criminal Law Group of the European Court of Human Rights, LJMU School of Law, Bologna University and University of Zagreb. This is the first webinar in the ‘Punishment, Detention, Crisis: Academic Judicial Dialogues’ series.

26 January 2021: State of Emergency and Immigration Detention: The grey areas of the right to Liberty

This webinar, delivered in January 2021, was produced by Liverpool John Moores University and the University of Bologna. It addresses key legal and criminological questions arising from the expanded use of preventive detention.

Fears over use of autonomous weapons - Dr Thompson Chengeta takes a look

Ukraine: What’s Behind Putin’s Ethnic Irredentism? | Reset DOC