Most Recent

view more


When a ‘Like’ Is Not a ‘Like’: A New Fragmented Approach to Data Controllership

In Fashion ID, the CJEU held that an operator of a website featuring a Facebook ‘Like’ button is a data controller jointly with Facebook in collecting and transmitting personal data to Facebook, but Facebook alone is a data controller for any subsequent data processing. We question whether this ‘fragmented’ controllership helps to achieve the goal of 'no gaps' in the protection of individuals.

Monika Zalnieriute & Genna Churches

book review

Review of Gardner, John, From Personal Life to Private Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, viii + 242 pp, hb £31.49.

John Gardner draws on an eclectic range of examples from literature, cinema, and television to offer philosophical reflections on questions such as: What is the value of friendship? Why apologise? What does any of this have to do with the legal resolution of a contractual dispute or the law governing compensation for automobile accidents? Everything, Gardner argues.

Sina Akbari

book review

Review of Arthurs, Harry W., Connecting the Dots: The Life of an Academic Lawyer, Montreal & Kingston: McGill‐Queen's University Press/Toronto: the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, 2019, 170 pp, hb £33.00. Twining, William, Jurist In Context: A Memoir, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, 382 pp, pb £24.99.

Autobiographies of law professors are like buses: one waits a long time, then two come along at once. There have been memorable biographies in the UK, but in the Commonwealth, there has never been, as far as I know, a full length, cradle to great age, autobiography. Why might an autobiography of a law professor now be of interest?

Hugh Collins

MLR Forum

view more

Stepping into the Normative Void: Comments on M Favale, M Kretschmer & PLC Torremans, ‘Who is Steering the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice? The Influence of Member State Submissions on Copyright Law’ (2020) 83 MLR 831

Intellectual property tends to be highly technical and of low political salience. Within the EU legislators tend to leave that complexity to be worked out by courts. Favale, Kretschmer and Torremans’ recent piece shows how the CJEU attempts to fill this ‘normative void’ and how Member States influence this process.

Luke McDonagh

Gender Self-Declaration and Women’s Rights: How Self Identification Undermines Women’s Rights and Will Lead to an Increase in Harms: A Reply to Alex Sharpe, ‘Will Gender Self-Declaration Undermine Women’s Rights and Lead to an Increase in Harms?’ (2020) 83(3) MLR 539

Alex Sharpe argues that gender self-declaration will not undermine women’s rights or lead to an increase in harms. We present the gender critical rebuttal, arguing that it indirectly undermines women’s rights to single sex spaces and that this will lead to harm.

Alessandra Asteriti and Rebecca Bull

Judging by Numbers: Comments on Gary Edmond and Kristy A. Martire, ‘Just Cognition: Scientific Research on Bias and Some Implications for Legal Procedure and Decision-Making’ (2019) 82(4) MLR 633

Experiments on bias demonstrate the inability of judges and jurors, and other professionals to shrug off so-called ‘anchoring’ effects, and other common cognitive biases. The goal of ‘Just Cognition’ is to interrogate precisely what these examples teach us about (the veracity of our assumptions about) how bias operates within the judicial sphere.

Tatiana Cutts

Responsibility and Reason-Responsiveness: Comments on John Gardner’s 2016 Chorley Lecture, ‘The Negligence Standard: Political, Not Metaphysical’, (2017) 80(1) MLR 1-21

Is it OK for the law to assign responsibilities to persons who lack the ability to respond to reasons? For John Gardner, the answer is 'normally, no'. Even when we do saddle those persons with responsibilities, we do so because we treat them, fictitiously, as if they are able to respond to reasons. Is that right?

Emmanuel Voyiakis

Hans Kelsen’s Judicial Decisionism versus Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the One ‘Right’ Judicial Decision: Comments on Stanley L Paulson, 'Metamorphosis in Hans Kelsen's Legal Philosophy' (2017) 80(5) MLR 860-894

Stanley Paulson's intriguing tracing of the developments of Hans Kelsen's work seems to maintain that Kelsen's decisionist stance of judicial decision-making was tamed by his constructivist 'Kantian' approach to law. While agreeing with Paulson’s jurisprudential analysis, a denial of the radicalism of Kelsen's decisionism often is the basis for the classic juxtaposition between his and Carl Schmitt's decisionist theory. But the opposite view is more appropriate: Schmitt's judge has much less room for individual political views than Kelsen's.

Jochen von Bernstorff

The Past and Future of the World’s Smallest Global Court: Comments on Tracy Robinson and Arif Bulkan, ‘Constitutional Comparisons by a Supranational Court in Flux: The Privy Council and Caribbean Bills of Rights’ (2017) 80(3) MLR 379–411

Robinson and Bulkan make a convincing case that the past and present of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is of great concern for the future constitutional orders of the Caribbean, Commonwealth and United Kingdom. This note further explores the historical context to understand that future and its politics.

Coel Kirkby

A Time Traveller’s Guide to Law and Finance: Comments on Carsten Gerner-Beuerle, ‘Law and Finance in Emerging Economies: Germany and Britain 1800–1913’ (2017) 80(2) MLR 263–98

This comment connects Gerner-Beuerle's article on the evolution of company and securities law to the 'law and finance school', exploring the problems of original 'law and finance' research, Gerner-Beuerle's contribution in this direction, and suggesting how and why we may need a 'time traveller's guide' to law and finance.

Mathias Siems

Keeping It Real? Comments on Kimberlee Weatherall, ‘The Consumer as the Empirical Measure of Trade Mark Law’ (2017) 80(1) MLR 57-87

Professor Weatherall’s thought-provoking critique of the selective resistance to empiricism in trade mark law is a significant and welcome intervention. But the existence of certain structural features suggests that only a qualified turn to empiricism is possible, and the broader engagement between Law and Science holds other cautionary lessons.

Dev S Gangjee

MLR news

MLR Covid-19 Fellowships

In response to the effect that Covid is having on opportunities for early career scholars, the MLR is making available a fund to support research through MLR Fellowships. The Fellowships provide funding for early career scholars of up to £10,000 as well as the option of mentoring support from an MLR Editorial Committee member. More details about the fund and the application process can be found here:

MLR Information Session for Female Academics recording

On 10th June 2020 members of the Modern Law Review Editorial Committee hosted a Zoom information session for women on publishing in the MLR, with the goal of encouraging submissions from female academics.

The video is now available at this link.

The session was attended by 217 women from 62 institutions and 16 countries across the world. The MLR Committee were delighted to host the event, and will continue to reflect on ways to build on our commitment to ensuring that the MLR is a welcoming platform for women.

In the meantime, we look forward to receiving your submissions!

July Issue Now Online

The July Issue of the Modern Law Review is now available, with articles on macro and micro justice in contract, abortion law reform in Northern Ireland, new public management and the ombudsman, and member state influence on the CJEU, case notes on new decisions on data controllership and joint authorship, a review article on gender and analytic general jurisprudence, and book reviews on shareholder duties in common law Asia, private law theory, and biographies of academic lawyers.

Publishing in the Modern Law Review: A Zoom Information Session for Female Academics - Wednesday 10 June, 4-5pm BST

Members of the MLR Editorial Committee will host a Zoom information session for female academics on publishing in the Review. The session will take place on Wednesday 10 June at 4-5pm BST.

MLR Committee members Jo Braithwaite, Tatiana Cutts, Conor Gearty, Kate Greasley, Orla Lynskey, Virginia Mantouvalou, Vanessa Munro and Sarah Paterson will be providing information and answering questions about the kind of work published by the MLR, the nature of the MLR’s peer review process and how to increase your chances of publication. The session is open to women at all career stages, including doctoral students: email to register or ask any questions.

During the session, the committee will also be inviting views on potential barriers to submission, and other steps the Committee might take to help redress those barriers. If you would like to comment but would prefer to do so confidentially, please feel free to do so by email either before or after the session.

Chorley Lecture Rescheduled to June 2021

Due to the ongoing situation with Covid-19, we are very sorry to inform you that the MLR 49th Chorley Lecture and Dinner scheduled for 17th June 2020 has been cancelled. Professor Hugh Collins’ lecture: ‘Fat Cats, Production Networks, and the Right to Fair Pay’ will be rescheduled for June 2021 (dates to be confirmed).

MLR 5 days ago

RT @DrTomPoole: US law academics - leave your law review troubles behind. Why not submit to @ModernLRev, the UK’s top generalist law journa…

Register with MLR

Join our mailing list