Submitting to the ICLQ on�Comparative Law

PROFESSOR PAULA GILIKER

PROFESSOR OF COMPARATIVE LAW, UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL

Key points for submission:

• * The ICLQ publishes articles that deal with public international law, private international law, human rights law, comparative law and EU Law. Articles which do no more than rehearse familiar and well-known material, or which are concerned only with national law (other than private international law) in a non-comparative way, should not be submitted.
• * Long articles should not exceed 15,000 words including footnotes. Pieces of up to 8,000 words including footnotes will be considered for the 'Short Articles' section, which may secure earlier publication. 
• * The ICLQ only accepts submissions online via the ScholarOne platform. To upload your manuscript please go to: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/iclq.

Key questions to consider

​

1. Is my article comparative?
2. Can I achieve my goals within the word limit?
3. Do I want to write a long or short piece? A short piece is not of lower quality but will have a narrower focus e.g. J Ungerer, “A bidirectional Anglo-German comparison of consideration in contract law” (2023) 72 ICLQ 251-268
4. Read the style guide and think if you need assistance with your English (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/information/author-instructions/preparing-your-materials)
5. Make sure the submission is original, unpublished, work not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. 

​

Further questions

1. Which systems do I want to address (more than one please)? Not essential to include UK.
2. Does this choice of jurisdictions make sense to the reader?
3. What methodology do I want to use?
4. Can I explain my topic to a general readership and not just a few specialists who have read (almost) as much about the topic as the author?
5. Can I reference reliable sources that are up-to-date and indicate a good knowledge of the relevant scholarship in the field?

​

​

Think about the reader

Think about the reviewer

��The Review Process

​

​

​

1. This journal uses a double-anonymised model of peer review. Neither author nor reviewers know the identity of each other. 
2. They will be experts in your field, or, if you cover a number of disciplines, in different disciplines.
3. They will be asked to consider:

(a) The paper's contribution to the discipline;

(b) The academic rigour and accuracy of the paper; and

(c) The style and structure of the paper

​

Peer-reviewing offers a chance for expert input improving the quality of your paper or, more rarely, indicating that it is a good article but better suited elsewhere. See it as a constructive experience!

​

Think about book reviews: free book + exposure to ideas + publication

• If you wish to review a title for the ICLQ and require a copy of the book, please email your suggestion to the Managing Editor Anna Riddell-Roberts a.riddell@biicl.org including a brief biography indicating your suitability to review the book and your postal address. If the book is one we wish to have reviewed, a copy will be requested from the publisher for you.
• Alternatively if you already have access to a copy of the book, you may simply upload your review to the ScholarOne platform, where all reviews must be submitted: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/iclq
• Book reviews should be between 500 and 1,000 words.
• Longer book review articles which discuss more than one book covering a similar theme will be considered for publication, at the discretion of the book review editors. These should not exceed 1,500 words.

​

Success stories: (1) Fredman, S. (2015) 64 ICLQ 631: “Foreign fads or fashions? The role of comparativism in human rights law”

• Although there is a broadly similar core of human rights law and courts in different jurisdictions face strikingly similar questions, the use of comparative law in the human rights context remains controversial. Reference to foreign human rights materials is regarded as undemocratic, selective and misleading. Rather than searching for a single ‘right answer’, or expecting convergence, this article addresses these challenges from a deliberative perspective. A deliberative approach requires decisions to be taken on the basis of reasons which are thorough and persuasive. Even where outcomes diverge, there need to be good reasons, whether textual, institutional, or cultural. Part IV tests the deliberative approach against a selection of cases dealing with two particularly challenging issues, namely the use of substantive principles such as dignity, and the application of justification or limitation clauses in the context of prisoners' right to vote. Case law is drawn from countries which already cite each other and which have broadly similar institutional frameworks: the USA, Canada, South Africa, India, Australia, the UK, New Zealand and the ECtHR.

Example 2: Chen-Wishart, M. (2013) 62 ICLQ 1- 30: “Legal transplants and Undue Influence: Lost in Translation or a working misunderstanding?”

• Is legal transplant possible? The stark bipolarity of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer attracted by such a question is much less interesting and revealing than the question: what shapes the life of legal transplants? The answer to the latter question is contingent on a wide range of variables triggered by the particular transplant; the result can occupy any point along the spectrum from faithful replication to outright rejection. This case study of the transplant of the English doctrine of undue influence into Singaporean law asks why the Singaporean courts have applied the doctrine in family guarantee cases to such divergent effect, when they profess to apply the same law. The answer owes less to grand theories than to a careful examination of the nature of the transplanted law and the relationship between the formal and informal legal orders of the originating and the recipient society raised by the particular transplant.

Example 3: Arvind, T. (2010) 59 ICLQ 65-88: “The ‘transplant effect’ in harmonisation”

• This article examines the problem of divergent judicial interpretation of harmonized documents. Drawing on the experience of harmonization of the law of arbitration, it points out that divergent interpretation runs much deeper than is commonly assumed, and shows strong similarities to the ‘transplant effect’ discussed in the literature on legal transplants. The article examines why the transplant effect shows up in harmonization, and considers its importance for the eventual success or failure of harmonization projects.
• Broad range of jurisdictions including India, Egypt and Nigeria, finding “instances of harmonized laws being interpreted in a manner that is so different from what they were intended to achieve .. The root of the transplant effect lies in the relationship between the formal, written sources of the law, and unwritten conventions , norms and practices inherent in the legal system”.
• (Young Scholar Prize and cited >38 times)

​

What now?�� Next steps

​

​

​

• Think about whether your work fits within the remit of the ICLQ and the criteria mentioned in this lecture
• If in doubt, email Anna (we are happy to help!)
• Don’t be put off by not being accepted unconditionally – this is very very rare!
• Don’t be put off by revise and resubmit – a better article will result.
• See submission as an opportunity to get feedback on your work – we ALL need it!