1

Edinburgh Postgraduate Law Conference

2-3 December 2013

http://lawphdconference.ed.ac.uk/

FINAL REPORT

Table of Contents

1. Background and theme.................................................................................................................... 2

2. Fundraising ..................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Call for papers, conference publicity and registration procedures .................................................. 2

4. Conference panels and discussants ................................................................................................. 3

5. Keynote speakers ............................................................................................................................ 4

Professor Martin Loughlin,‘Law, Individual, Community: A Public Law Perspective’ ..................... 4

Dr Mark Taylor, Senior Lecturer,‘Privacy and the Public Interest: Must We Learn to Expect That

Which We Should Accept?’ ................................................................................................................. 4

6. Training component ........................................................................................................................ 5

Session One: Managing your PhD ...................................................................................................... 5

Session Two: Planning for an early academic career ........................................................................ 5

Session Tree: Academic publishing .................................................................................................... 5

7. Prizes ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Prize for best paper at the conference ................................................................................................ 6

Prize for best presentation at the conference ...................................................................................... 6

8. Feedback ......................................................................................................................................... 6

9. Future editions .............................................................................................................................. 10

2

1. Background and theme

The idea of this conference came out of a discussion in August 2012 between a group of six PhD

students who were entering into their second year. They found that, with a small number of notable

exceptions, there was precious little opportunity to present their work to and share their ideas with

PhD students outside of Edinburgh. The organising committee, made up of Katarzyna

Chalaczkiewicz-Ladna, Konstantine Eristavi, Giedre Jokubauskaite, Alexander Latham, Aisling

McMahon, and Silvia Suteu, thus set about organising a conference that would give law postgraduates

the opportunity to interact with one another in a relaxed setting. The theme selected for the conference,

‘Law, Individual, Community’, was perceived to speak fruitfully to a variety of areas of law and was

hoped to attract a diverse audience.

2. Fundraising

The organising committee began fundraising for the conference in November 2012. The conference

benefitted from financial support from the following sources:

The Researcher-led initiative fund of the Institute for Academic Development at the

University of Edinburgh,

Edinburgh Law School,

The Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law,

The Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law,

The University of Edinburgh Global Justice Academy, and

Cambridge University Press.

The organising committee also received invaluable assistance from Edinburgh Law School. The Head

of School, Prof Lesley McAra, was incredibly supportive of the project from the beginning and also

delivered the opening remarks at the conference. Dr Lisa Kendall, Director of Professional Services,

as well as the administrative staff, in particular Amanda MacKenzie, Gabriella Szel, Aimie Little,

Simon Kershaw, and Roddy McDougall provided guidance and vital support.

3. Call for papers, conference publicity and registration procedures

The call for papers was advertised on the conference website: http://lawphdconference.ed.ac.uk/,

Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/EdinburghPostgraduateLawConference, and Twitter

account: https://twitter.com/EdLawPhDConf, all launched in early June 2013. It was actively

promoted thereafter by directly contacting the law, politics, international relations, sociology and

related departments at all UK and Irish universities, websites distributing conference alerts, as well as

academic blogs in various sub-disciplines of law. The call for papers was also distributed internally

within the University and Law School. This broad distribution resulted in numerous blog posts, tweets

3

and Facebook mentions of the conference. It also resulted in 161 abstract submissions from

universities across four continents. The 32 selected participants represented 21 different universities

from five countries.

Registration for the conference opened in early October 2013. It was again widely publicised,

including in various schools and departments of the University of Edinburgh. Outside the University,

the conference received the most attention from postgraduate students at Scottish universities

(Glasgow, Strathclyde, Dundee, Aberdeen). It also attracted several participants from the rest of the

UK and Ireland. Over ninety participants registered to attend, of which more than a half were staff and

postgraduate students from the University of Edinburgh.

4. Conference panels and discussants

Twelve panels of two to three speakers each were lined up, to run in parallel sessions of three. They

covered a broad range of areas of law, including: constitutional law, medical law, IP law and

biotechnology, international law, criminal law, company law, human rights, family law, legal theory,

and economic law. The panels were put together after an extensive review of abstracts received and

with a view to incorporate the best submissions in terms of originality, quality, and clarity of research

projects. Student presenters were at various stages of their postgraduate careers, from advanced LLM

students to PhD students having completed their dissertations. They sent 5,000-word papers two

weeks in advance of the conference and also submitted PowerPoint presentations where part of their

presentations. The twelve panels were as follows:

Panel One: Constitutions and Collective Identity

Panel Two: Taming Global Markets: Law and Cross-Border Finance

Panel Three: Public vs. Private Interests in Biotechnology Patents: Implications for

Developed and Developing Countries

Panel Four: Democracy and Self-Determination

Panel Five: Contemporary Challenges to Comparative Company Law

Panel Six: International Criminal Law and its Narratives

Panel Seven: Gender and Sexuality

Panel Eight: Individual Rights in a Global Economy

Panel Nine: Balancing Individual and Public Interests in Medical Research and Donation

Panel Ten: Identity and the Law: Implications of Biotechnology

Panel Eleven: Critical Perspectives on International Law

Panel Twelve: Balancing Individual Rights and Community Interests

Ten of the twelve panels benefitted from

detailed feedback of discussants selected

from amidst the faculty of Edinburgh Law

School and the School of Social and Political

Science. Discussants gave constructive

criticism to individual presenters and

identified running themes for each panel. The

organising committee would like to thank the

following for generously agreeing to act as

discussants at the conference: Prof Emilios

Avgouleas, Chair in International Banking

Law and Finance, David Cabrelli, Senior

Lecturer in Commercial Law, Dr Elisenda

Casanas Adam, Lecturer in Public Law and

Human Rights, Dr Shawn H.E. Harmon,

Lecturer in Regulation and Risk, Dr James

4

Harrison, Lecturer in International Law, Dr Tobias Lock, Lecturer, Dr Euan MacDonald, Lecturer in

Jurisprudence, Stephen Neff, Reader in Public International Law, Gerard Porter, Lecturer in Medical

Law and Ethics, and Dr Mathias Thaler, Chancellor's Fellow in Politics.

5. Keynote speakers

Two keynote speakers were selected for the conference. Their interventions were meant to address the

conference theme from different fields of law, as well as different perspectives: one more theoretical,

the other closer to practice. Both were followed by very stimulating open discussion. The keynote

addresses were as follows:

Professor Martin Loughlin, Professor of Public Law, London School of Economics

‘Law, Individual, Community: A Public Law Perspective’, 2 December 2013, 14:15-15:45,

Playfair Library

Prof Loughlin addressed the conference

theme head-on with his talk. He gave a

stimulating account of how notions of

“individual” and “community” are implicit

within the idea of public law, reminding us

that public law both protects the rights of

citizens and facilitates the use of political

power by the state. A potted history of

political thought showed how the tension

between these ideas has persisted throughout

modernity, and we were enjoined not to

focus on one to the neglect of the other. This

keynote address was co-sponsored by The

Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law,

whose Director, Prof Stephen Tierney,

Professor of Constitutional Theory at the Law School, chaired the discussion.

Dr Mark Taylor, Senior Lecturer, The University of Sheffield

‘Privacy and the Public Interest: Must We Learn to Expect That Which We Should

Accept?’, 3 December 2013, 17:00-18:30, Playfair Library

Dr Taylor addressed the changes currently taking

place in the governance of confidential patient

health information in England and Wales, with

particular reference to the Care.data initiative

which seeks to improve research access to patient

data in the public interest. The keynote explored

how we should respond to the suggestion that a

reasonable expectation of privacy should take into

account the interests of others and patients should

expect access to their records. He interrogated the

nature of the public and private interests in this

respect. The keynote concluded with a reflection

on whether the time has come to move away from

the idea of balancing of private and public interests,

and instead to recognise that when it comes to the

use and disclosure of our personal information, we

can only be said to reasonably expect that which we have been given reason to accept. This keynote

5

was co-sponsored by The Mason Institute for Medicine, Life Sciences and the Law, represented at the

event by Leslie Stevens, PhD Convenor at the Institute.

6. Training component

The conference incorporated a strong training component, aimed at providing participants with

practical advice on key aspects regarding the different stages of their postgraduate careers. Three

training sessions were included in the programme, as follows:

Session One: Managing your PhD, 2 December 2013, 12:15-13:15, Lorimer Room

The session combined the insights of three people who were or had recently been involved, in

different ways, in PhD studies. Recent graduate Dr Jill Robbie gave a candid account of the PhD as a

personal experience, and provided attendees with practical tips along the way. Dr Fiona Philippi of the

Institute for Academic Development spoke about identifying training needs. Finally, Dr Claudio

Michelon, former Director of the PhD Programme at the Law School, explained how the PhD thesis is

a public document for a particular purpose, and is neither one’s life work, nor a description of an

intellectual journey.

Session Two: Planning for an early academic career, 2 December 2013, 12:15-13:15,

Raeburn Room

The session had three panellists from the Law School:

Prof Niamh Nic Shubihne, Professor of European Union

Law, Dr Dan Carr, Lecturer in Private Law, and Bonnie

Holligan, PhD Candidate. The first half of the session

operated in an interview-style format where the chair

asked the panel a number of questions guiding PhD

students through the academic job application process.

This commenced with a discussion of the different types

of academic posts available to PhD graduates such as

postdoctoral research fellowships, lectureships and

teaching fellowships, and the differences between them.

The panel then offered practical pointers on applying for

academic jobs. Finally, some questions were put to the

panel, including on the format of an academic interview,

the general types of questions asked at such interviews,

and how to go about preparing for presentations at the interview. The discussion was then opened to

the public for additional questions.

Session Tree: Academic publishing, 3 December 2013, 12:15-13:45, Playfair Library

This panel consisted of Prof Hector MacQueen, Professor of Private Law, Prof Martin Hogg,

Professor of the Law of Obligations, and Stephen Bogle, PhD student. Prof MacQueen described the

process of transforming a PhD thesis into a book and attracting a publisher. Prof Hogg concentrated

mostly on academic journals and how academic articles get published. He gave helpful suggestions on

how to choose a relevant journal and how to correctly approach its editorial board. Finally, Stephen

Bogle, speaking as editor-in-chief of the Edinburgh Student Law Review, brought the perspective of a

student-run journal. He encouraged participants to submit their conference papers to the journal and

listed requirements for articles to be accepted for publication. Silvia Suteu briefly relayed information

from Cambridge University Press, a sponsor of the conference, on their interests and requirements for

publication in law. The session ended with a Q&A which further illuminated publishing standards and

the procedures, both formal and informal, to follow in dealing with publishers.

6

7. Prizes

Two prizes were awarded at the conference, consisting of £75-worth of books generously offered by

Cambridge University Press. They were awarded as follows:

Prize for best paper at the conference

The prize went to Ashleigh Keall (University

College London) for her paper titled ‘Expressive

Harm in Constitutional Adjudication of Religious

Freedom’, which provided a fine example of how

theoretical considerations can be applied to help

deal with practical legal issues. The committee

was particularly impressed with the way in which

she reflected upon both the benefits and

limitations of her own approach, resulting in a

sophisticated and balanced argument. The paper

was exceptionally clear, original, and persuasive

and thus a worthy winner.

Prize for best presentation at the conference

This prize was awarded on the basis of audience feedback scores, collected after each panel and

tallied in record time by the organisers. The award was presented to Jayne Holliday (University of

Aberdeen) who spoke on ‘The Legal Problems Surrounding Surrogacy and Succession and

Inheritance Rights’. The presentation was delivered without PowerPoint, in a very engaging manner.

Jayne employed the innovative use of toy dolls as props to demonstrate the complexities of potential

succession claims prior to the grant of a parental order in the surrogacy context. She was a very

deserving winner, affirmed to by the level of interest the topic generated in the open discussion after

her presentation.

8. Feedback

Participant feedback was collected in two ways:

a general conference feedback form, distributed alongside conference packs during

registration, and

a panel feedback form, distributed at the start of each panel and used as basis for awarding the

prize for best presentation at the conference.

Informal discussions with attendees were also useful in conveying a sense of participant satisfaction

and in collecting useful suggestions for

improvement.

The general feedback of participants was

overwhelmingly positive. Twenty-five conference

feedback forms were collected from participants,

revealing high conference satisfaction, as detailed in

the following charts.

7

Participants particularly appreciated the speedy and comprehensive response to their

queries ahead of the conference. Positive comments were also received on the

conference website.

One participant did not like the small size and temperature of the venue chosen for

registration (Lorimer room), although the rest were very satisfied with registration

procedures.

While opinions were mixed to positive on catering offered during the conference,

participants overwhelmingly praised the quality of the conference dinner.

1. Pre-conference registration procedures

Excellent

Good

N/A

3. Registration and procedures at the

conference

Excellent

Good

Average

N/A

2. Conference information and documents

Excellent

Good

4. Venue, food and refreshments

Excellent

Good

Average

8

Participants generally praised the great variety of subjects covered by the panels.

Participants appreciated the keynote addresses at the conference, although one felt

they could have been shorter. Dr Mark Taylor’s presentation received particular praise,

with one attendee calling it “fresh, challenging and well-linked to the conference

theme” and another stating: “As a non-conference attendee at last night’s lecture:

excellent content , well delivered by a knowledgeable speaker. Venue: amazing! This

will be of use in my work on a Research Ethics Committee.”

While two participants questioned the appropriateness of having feedback given by an

academic from outside law and one expressed a desire for more critical comments, the

majority praised the high quality of comments received on their work. One participant

noted: “This was such a valuable feature of the conference and very beneficial for

early career researchers!” Another “enjoyed the helpful ‘capacity-building’ tone of

much of the feedback”, while yet another stated: “This was the best part for me!” and

found their discussant “fantastic and excellent”.

One suggestion was made to include a session on ‘Life as a PhD student’, which

could attract undergraduates to the conference.

5. Panel presentations

(quality of presentations and Q&A)

Excellent

Good

Average

7. Keynote addresses

Excellent

Good

Average

N/A

6. Discussant feedback

Excellent

Good

Average

Very poor

N/A

8. Training sessions

Excellent

Good

Average

N/A

9

Numerous participants praised the venue of the conference, particularly the ‘flagship

rooms’ of Old College.

Several participants informally told the organisers that this was one of the best

academic events they had attended, whether postgraduate or not.

Conference participants were unanimously positive in their feedback on overall satisfaction with the conference. Several singled out the quality of organisation as the strength of the conference, with such

comments as: “The organisation did a great job, and as far as I could see, all participants seemed to really have enjoyed it. Congratulations!” and “Excellent effort by the organisers! Everything ran smoothly!”

One participant wrote after the conference to say: “The conference was very well organized and the venues and catering facilities were first rate…I thoroughly enjoyed participating at the conference and its

success was a well-deserved reflection of all the hard work you and your colleagues on the organizing committee had put into the event.” Participants also found the organisers “friendly”, with one in particular

writing to say they had “really enjoyed it, and most of all I loved meeting all the other PhD students - including your wonderful group of Edinburgh students! You were all so lovely, encouraging, welcoming,

and fun. Also, organised. I appreciate good organisation and you definitely pulled it off!... It was the best conference I've been to in a really long time. And I am so happy to have met you.” The feedback from

discussants, staff attendees and the Head of School was also extremely positive and encouraging for future editions of the conference.

9. Conference facilities

(room, equipment etc.)

Excellent

Good

Average

Poor

10. How well did the conference meet your

expectations?

Very well

Well

Average

11. Overall satisfaction with the conference

Excellent

Good

10

9. Future editions

The success of the conference and the enthusiasm of postgraduate students at the Law School for this

event have ensured that a second edition is already being prepared. The outgoing organising

committee held a meeting on 23 October 2013 to gage interest in a future edition, following which a

committee of six second- and first-year doctoral students in law was formed (the members of the 2014

organising committee are: Humberto Carrasco, Tom Daly, Laura Downey, David Komuves, Ekrem

Solak and Leslie Stevens). Plans for the 2014 conference include an exciting theme: ‘Innovation in

the Law: New Challenges, New Perspectives’, a strong emphasis on the use of social media for

promoting both the event and academic work, an effort to attract more presenters working on

interdisciplinary research projects, as well as a desire to include more LLM students in the operation

of the conference. The outgoing committee wishes them well and hopes to have laid the foundation

for the conference to become a Law School tradition.

This report was prepared by Silvia Suteu, PhD student at Edinburgh Law School and member of the organising

committee of the Edinburgh Postgraduate Law Conference 2013. Please contact her with questions on this

report at s.suteu@sms.ed.ac.uk.