ECPR Standing Group on Law and Courts
@ecpr-law-courts.bsky.social
The ECPR Standing Group on Law & Courts. Join us and follow the last deadlines, publications, calls, etc., on Law, Courts and Politics.
We recommend that you first consider submitting your paper to one of the panel chairs. Please ensure that you follow the submission requirements: include a title (maximum 20 words), an abstract (maximum 500 words), 3-8 keywords, and your ECPR registered email address.
November 20, 2025 at 9:18 AM
We recommend that you first consider submitting your paper to one of the panel chairs. Please ensure that you follow the submission requirements: include a title (maximum 20 words), an abstract (maximum 500 words), 3-8 keywords, and your ECPR registered email address.
Submit your paper abstract to one of the panel chairs by December 15 to participate in one of the pre-organized panels or submit your stand-alone paper submission by January 5 through the ECPR system: ecpr.eu/MyEcpr/Forms...
November 20, 2025 at 9:18 AM
Submit your paper abstract to one of the panel chairs by December 15 to participate in one of the pre-organized panels or submit your stand-alone paper submission by January 5 through the ECPR system: ecpr.eu/MyEcpr/Forms...
Many thanks to this year's award jury, which was composed of Monika Glavina, @taraldberge.bsky.social , and @ripplingeralina.bsky.social!
November 7, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Many thanks to this year's award jury, which was composed of Monika Glavina, @taraldberge.bsky.social , and @ripplingeralina.bsky.social!
His paper "The comparative role of migration courts: How different legal institutions influence who gets protection in Canada and Sweden" offers a historical-institutionalist analysis of how different approaches to legal interpretation in national review processes influence outcomes for litigants.
November 7, 2025 at 1:58 PM
His paper "The comparative role of migration courts: How different legal institutions influence who gets protection in Canada and Sweden" offers a historical-institutionalist analysis of how different approaches to legal interpretation in national review processes influence outcomes for litigants.