The University of Toronto Law Journal, founded in 1935, is the oldest university law journal in Canada. It continues to represent the broad and visionary approach to legal scholarship which was initially announced by W.P.M. Kennedy, the first editor of the Journal, when he ventured the hope that its publication would foster a knowledge of comparative laws 'not merely as substantive or adjectival systems, but as expressions of organized human life, of ordered progress, and of social justice.'
The journal publishes the work of the most internationally well known scholars, not only in the law, but also in the broad range of disciplines relating to the law, such as economics, political science, philosophy, sociology, and history.
Trebilcock Symposium Issue
Law, Economics and Public Policy: Essays in Honour of Michael Trebilcock (Spring 2010 issue)
The hallmark of Professor Michael Trebilcock's scholarship is his combination of rigorous economic analysis with a deep-seated humanitarianism and commitment to social justice. He has brought his unique blend of analytical skills to bear on a wide range of topics, including competition law and policy, immigration law, international trade law and law and development, and he has had a profound influence on generations of students and Canadian society at large. In celebration of Professor Trebilcock's career and his extraordinary contributions to legal scholarship and law reform, this issue of the University of Toronto Law Journal is devoted to articles by leading scholars in each of the focal points of his work. The issue is edited by Professors Anita Anand, Tony Duggan, Colleen Flood, and Ed Iacobucci.
ORDER NOW!(Select "Symposium Issue" from "Subscription Type" - the
price will then show as "1 YR - $35" which is the single-issue price)
Special Issue
The Role of the Courts in Constitutional Law (Winter 2010)
This special issue on "The Role of the Courts in Constitutional Law" brings together sceptics, enthusiasts and agnostics of judicial review. The issue's editors David Dyzenhaus and Adam Tomkins began by inviting sceptics about the virtues of judicial review to say what they think judges should do, while enthusiasts of the virtues of judicial review were invited to say what judges should not do.
Many of the authors approach the question of what judges should and shouldn't do through "close attention to both the way in which the legal and political orders mesh in liberal democracies and with regard to the rightful claims made by different institutions for a special place in the determination of the legal rights and duties of those subject to their decisions." Other authors approach the question more obliquely, through prior questions about "the very idea of a judge" or through an analysis of the prerogative as "we appear to be entering an era based on the politics of security and fear."
Contributors are T.R.S. Allan (Cambridge), Aileen Kavanagh (Oxford), David Dyzenhaus (Toronto), Jeffrey Goldsworthy (Monash), Thomas Poole (LSE), Adrienne Stone (Melbourne) and Adam Tomkins (Glasgow).
ORDER NOW!(Select "Special Issue" from "Subscription Type" - the
price will then show as "1 YR - $25" which is the single-issue price)
|
