llm dissertation structure

• Home »
• Editorial »
• Advice »
• LLM Student Life »

Guide To LLM Dissertation Writing

Find your perfect llm program search our database of over 2500 courses.

Choosing the topic

Five key considerations when choosing your dissertation topic are:

• Why are you studying an LLM in thr first place?
• Which modules have you enjoyed the most?
• Which areas of the law have a good support base at your institution?
• What are the strengths of your law library?
• Is your potential topic a wide enough question?

Obviously, choosing a topic is a necessary stage to get underway before you can start researching and writing your dissertation. You should spend time carefully considering the subject of your dissertation as it might end up being the clincher for that  first job  after you finish your studies. Make sure you pick a topic that you find interesting, but that also has the balance of support from your lecturers and professors.

You'll need to be uniquely motivated to produce a dissertation about a subject that none of your lectures or professors knows much about. Understanding why you have picked the particular subject will ensure you're choosing the right topic, but don't spend too much time considering what to do as you'll need to get on with it. 

Dissertation support

You will have plenty of dissertation support organised through your law school. Some of it might be compulsory sessions that you must undertake as part of your LLM program, while others may be support sessions that can help you stay focused throughout your dissertation work.

Make sure you attend these sessions and don’t hesitate to ask questions if in doubt. It might be a good idea to share your dissertation structure with tutors or designated academic contacts that can give you feedback on your progress. Law school libraries usually have  books  that tell you how best to prepare for your dissertation. Keep an eye out for skills sessions on writing or research methods. These will prove useful when you get down to drafting content for your dissertation and will enable you to put to practice acquired skills that you picked up during these sessions.

Planning and organisation

Some people love creating a filing system and hopefully, you're one of them as this is a great way to organise your LLM dissertation. You'll need to keep your research well organised to enable you to quickly access it when you are writing your dissertation. It's a good idea to have research divided into chapters early on.

It's a good idea to follow a file management procedure to save your dissertation material. This material could consist of both printed (photocopies from the library or print-outs of research articles) and online documents. Try to follow a consistent labelling/naming convention so that you can locate documents quickly. For instance, if you have a vast number of online articles and research papers to go through, then categorise them in such a way that they fall under relevant chapters of your dissertation.

Any research you do online will need to be backed up, and of course, you will have the dissertation itself backed up too. Do not have everything saved on one ancient laptop, instead build in a routine for how you save and backup your data daily so it just becomes part of how you work. If you start as early as you can on your dissertation, then you'll be able to build in planning time and create a realistic timetable for your work, with escapes from your dissertation to let you reflect on what you have done so far. 

Researching

There is no easy or quick way around this, you are just going to have to get going with the research as soon as possible. Remember that law libraries get busy during the second semester so you'll need to get there early in the mornings or stay late sometimes.

You also don't want to wait around for particular texts that have a limited availability. If you realise you need a book that someone else has checked-out of the library, then let the staff know as soon as you know so you have a chance of getting it. Don't forget about online law libraries and resources too, and speak with your academic staff if you are really struggling to access what you need. 

Don't wait until you think you've done all the researching before you start writing up your findings. Writing up an LLM dissertation takes time and thought. Start writing as soon as you start researching and keep planning the chapters of your dissertation as you delve deeper into the research. With a bit of luck and good planning, you will find that the chapters are easy to write. 

Editing and formatting

Find out before you write a single word what format your dissertation needs to be in for printing and submission. Your law school will likely have their own standards, so you should familiarise yourself with this document before you get started. Establish the right format straight away so you are not spending time at the last minute changing formats or the way you have referenced the whole document.

Don't underestimate how long it will take to edit your dissertation – expect to read through each chapter many times as each read through will show you new and interesting mistakes. And if possible, find a willing friend or family member to give it a final read – fresh eyes are likely to pick up small typos or mistakes.  

Printing and submitting

Aim to finish your LLM dissertation with a little time to spare. Towards submission deadlines, university printers are busy places and if you need to print your dissertation at a particular printer then check with them early on to understand how much time they need to get your document ready. You need time for them to print it and time for you to check the printed material as you need to check for formatting errors or any printing mistakes like double pages.  Once you've written your dissertation you can take a calm walk into your submissions office and hand over your dissertation. Obviously, everything went to plan and you've finished your dissertation with time to spare and now it's time to  relax a little .

Related articles

Global LLM Study Bursaries

• Law bursaries
• Open day alerts
• Funding advice
• Application tips
• Law & LLM news

Sign up now!

Take 2 minutes to sign up to PGS student services and reap the benefits…

• The chance to apply for one of our 5 PGS Bursaries worth £2,000 each
• Fantastic scholarship updates
• Latest LLM and PG Law news sent directly to you

Ready for your legal career? Apply now to start your journey at The University of Law this Summer. 

Find out more!

University of Warwick Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research.

• Search WRAP
• Browse by Warwick Author
• Browse WRAP by Year
• Browse WRAP by Subject
• Browse WRAP by Department
• Browse WRAP by Funder
• Browse Theses by Department
• Search Publications Service
• Browse Publications service by Year
• Browse Publications service by Subject
• Browse Publications service by Department
• Browse Publications service by Funder
• Help & Advice

The Library

Law dissertations : a step-by-step guide.

Lammasniemi, Laura (2021) Law dissertations : a step-by-step guide. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780367568771

This is the latest version of this item.

Research output not available from this repository.

Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.

Request Changes to record. --> Request Changes to record.

Law Dissertations: A Step-by-Step Guide provides you with all the guidance and information you need to complete and succeed in your LLB, LLM or law-related dissertation. Written in a simple, clear format and with plenty of tools to help you to put the theory into practice, Laura Lammasniemi will show you how to make writing your law dissertation easy, without compromising intellectual rigour.

As well as explaining the process of research and outlining the various legal methodologies, the book also provides practical, step-by-step guidance on how to formulate a proposal, research plan, and literature review. Unlike other law research skills books, it includes a section on empirical research methodology and ethics for the benefit of students who are studying for a law-related degree.

Packed full of exercises, worked examples and tools for self-evaluation, this book is sure to become your essential guide, supporting you on every step of your journey in writing your law dissertation.

2nd edition

Request changes or add full text files to a record --> Request changes or add full text files to a record

Available Versions of this Item

• Law dissertations : a step-by-step guide. (deposited 17 Dec 2021 14:51) [Currently Displayed]

Repository staff actions (login required)

Email us: [email protected] Contact Details About Us

Support NYU Law

• Graduate Affairs
• Research & Writing

LLM Research and Writing Options

Working as a research assistant for a law school professor.

Faculty members may offer students the opportunity to work as research assistants (RAs) for monetary compensation or, if the professor deems it appropriate based on the nature of the work, for academic credit.  For details, review information on serving as a research assistant for faculty .

Directed Research

 To undertake Directed Research, students contact individual instructors and agree on a research project. To register, a written proposal must be approved and signed by the instructor, and then submitted to the Office of Graduate Affairs. The written proposal should be at least 1000 words and describe the subject matter of the Directed Research and the issues the student intends to explore in the paper.  While any full-time faculty member or visiting faculty member may supervise the research, Adjunct Professors may supervise only with the permission of Vice Dean Hertz.

Directed Research credit may be added through Monday, October 2 for Fall 2023, and Monday, February 5 for Spring 2024.

The usual allocation for Directed Research is two credits. A student may write a one-credit Directed Research.  A two-credit Directed Research project should conform to the r equirements for an Option A paper ; a one-credit Directed Research paper should be at least 5,000 words, exclusive of footnotes. A three-credit Directed Research project is highly unusual and requires the approval of Vice Dean Randy Hertz.  Students considering a 3-credit Directed Research should contact the Office of Graduate Affairs to discuss. 

For non-tax students no more than four of a student's 24 credits may consist of directed research. Tax students may take a maximum of two credits of directed research. Regardless of the type of project involved, students are, of course, expected to submit original, non-duplicative work. When in doubt about proper use of a citation or quotation, discuss the issue with the instructor. Plagiarism is a serious offense that may merit severe discipline. Requests to add Directed Research after the deadline stated above require approval of Vice Dean Hertz. Such requests should be initiated by contacting the Office of Graduate Affairs and will only be considered if your credit load (not including the Directed Research credits) does not drop below minimum requirements after the add/drop period. Students who are granted permission to late-add Directed Research will not be permitted to drop courses if the result is inconsistent with the above; please plan your schedule accordingly. After March 15, the Vice Dean may allow a student to add Directed Research only in exceptional circumstances. No more than two credits can be earned in this manner.

Read further about Requirements for Directed Research

Directed Research During the Summer Semester

Students may register for Directed Research during the summer semester. The summer registration deadlines is July 1, unless there is approval by the Vice Dean to add at a later date. Please note that full-time students will be charged per credit for Directed Research during the summer. All work must be submitted by September 1 or by an earlier deadline established by the supervising faculty member.

Writing Credit

In seminars, colloquia, and courses that offer the option to add an additional writing credit, students may earn one credit for writing a substantial paper (at least 10,000 words in length exclusive of footnotes). To earn the additional credit, students must register for the writing credit section of the course within the same semester the course is offered. The deadline for registering is Monday, October 2 for Fall 2023, and Monday, February 5 for Spring 2024.

LLM Thesis Option

LLM students have the option to write a substantial research paper, in conjunction with a seminar or Directed Research that may be recorded as a "thesis" on their transcript. At the onset of the seminar or Directed Research, the student must obtain approval from the professor that the paper will be completed for a "thesis" designation.

It should be substantial in length (at least 10,000 words exclusive of footnotes) and, like the substantial writing requirement for JD students, must be analytical rather than descriptive in nature, showing original thought and analysis. Please note the thesis designation is for a single research paper agreed upon in advance.

The student is required to submit an outline and at least one FULL PRE-FINAL draft to the faculty member in order to receive the thesis notation. When submitting a final draft of the thesis to the faculty member, the student must give the faculty member an LLM Thesis Certification form . The faculty member is required to return the signed form to the Office of Records and Registration when submitting a grade for the course.

Please note that the student will not receive additional credit for writing the thesis, but will only receive credit for the seminar or Directed Research for which he or she is registered.

International Legal Studies Students should review their program requirements for further information about writing an LLM thesis within their program.

Writing Assistance

© 2024 New York University School of Law. 40 Washington Sq. South, New York, NY 10012.   Tel. (212) 998-6100

Please enable JavaScript in your web browser to get the best experience.

Main navigation

Llm dissertation in law.

Key information

Module overview.

The dissertation is a supervised piece of research on a topic to be agreed between the student and the chosen supervisor. The dissertation provides students with the opportunity to develop an original piece of academic work in an independent, albeit supervised, way.

The topic of the dissertation can relate to any subject-area covered in any of the modules of the LLM programme. Typically, the dissertation aims to tackle a theoretical, doctrinal, jurisprudential or policy issue that is relevant in contemporary legal scholarship and/or legal policy affairs. As such, students are invited to propose a topic for the dissertation that closely matches their study interest, or practical actual or prospective work or professional experience.

Typically, the dissertation is expected to be bibliographic, on the basis of library, internet, and archival research. In exceptional cases it may contain some original empirical evidence, that the student is expected to collect and analyse independently, subject to supervisor's approval and the student's capacity in the relevant research methodology.

The dissertation entails that the student will develop and demonstrate their analytic, argumentative, writing and presentation skills. The length of the dissertation will be maximum 12,000 words.

Objectives and learning outcomes

On successful completion of this module a student will be able to:

• Acquisition of detailed knowledge in a particular topic
• Development of critical understanding of a particular topic
• Development of the capacity to plan and carry out independent research work

Method of assessment

• Dissertation: 100% (12,000 words due in September)

Important notice regarding  changes to programmes and modules .

Dr Catriona Drew

Public International Law; international legal history (particularly self-determination of peoples), and legal theory

In this section

• International

Related content

School of Law, Gender and Media

The School of Law is dedicated to the legal systems and challenges of the developing world, with complementary strengths in human rights, international law and institutions, environmental law, and international trade and commerce.

Careers: At SOAS I felt I didn't have to explain myself

Having graduated from SOAS in 1991, Samantha Mitchell has carved a career as a Technology Lawyer and External Affairs Consultant. But SOAS also brought so much more to her life, including lifelong friends and a sense of belonging.

LLB Single Honours

LLB Single Honours at SOAS University of London

Law LLM Dissertation module (LW50107)

Understand the main rules, aspects, and stages of researching and writing a dissertation

This module will help you conduct work on a master’s dissertation. This covers choosing a topic, defining a title, and using research assistance tools. It will conclude in writing the dissertation.

What you will learn

In this module, you will:

• understand the main rules, aspects, and stages of researching and writing the dissertation
• learn about the rules that apply to the dissertation. You will also learn about the roles of the supervisor and supervisee
• develop the necessary skills to conduct research and write your dissertation
• use your background knowledge and organise initial ideas. This will allow you to defining a topic, research question, and hypothesis
• learn how to use research assistance tools such as Zotero and Endnote
• understand how to write an outline. You will also learn to manage time and resources to complete your dissertation

By the end of this module, you will be able to:

• bring together all skills learned to prepare, research, and write your dissertation
• produce a professional dissertation using correct referencing guidelines and tools

Assignments / assessment

• final dissertation (100%)

This is supported by supervision and guidance. This includes the selection of an initial topic and an extended outline on which oral and written feedback is given.

Your dissertation is expected to be relevant to your named degree award.

This module does not have a final exam.

Teaching methods / timetable

• independent study

This module is supported by classes delivered as part of LW50107 Legal Research Skills. There are also 8 hours in the spring semester dedicated to preparing for the dissertation. This includes one session from Library Services staff.

This module is available on following courses:

HLS Dissertations, Theses, and JD Papers

S.j.d. dissertations, ll.m. papers, ll.m. theses, j.d. papers, submitting your paper to an online collection, other sources for student papers beyond harvard, getting help, introduction.

This is a guide to finding Harvard Law School (“HLS”) student-authored works held by the Library and in online collections. This guide covers HLS S.J.D Dissertations, LL.M. papers, J.D. third-year papers, seminar papers, and prize papers.

There have been changes in the HLS degree requirements for written work. The library’s collection practices and catalog descriptions for these works has varied. Please note that there are gaps in the library’s collection and for J.D. papers, few of these works are being collected any longer.

If we have an S.J.D. dissertation or LL.M. thesis, we have two copies. One is kept in the general collection and one in the Red Set, an archival collection of works authored by HLS affiliates. If we have a J.D. paper, we have only one copy, kept in the Red Set. Red Set copies are last resort copies available only by advance appointment in Historical and Special Collections .

Some papers have not been processed by library staff. If HOLLIS indicates a paper is “ordered-received” please use this form to have library processing completed.

The HLS Doctor of Juridical Science (“S.J.D.”) program began in 1910.  The library collection of these works is not comprehensive. Exceptions are usually due to scholars’ requests to withhold Library deposit. 

• HLS S.J.D. Dissertations in HOLLIS To refine these search results by topic or faculty advisor, or limit by date, click Add a New Line.
• Hein’s Legal Theses and Dissertations Microfiche Mic K556.H45x Drawers 947-949 This microfiche set includes legal theses and dissertations from HLS and other premier law schools. It currently includes about 300 HLS dissertations and theses.
• Hein's Legal Theses and Dissertations Contents List This content list is in order by school only, not by date, subject or author. It references microfiche numbers within the set housed in the Microforms room on the entry level of the library, drawers 947-949. The fiche are a different color for each institution.
• ProQuest Dissertations and Theses @ Harvard University (Harvard login) Copy this search syntax: dg(S.J.D.) You will find about 130 SJD Dissertations dated from 1972 to 2004. They are not available in full text.
• DASH Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard Sponsored by Harvard University’s Office for Scholarly Communication, DASH is an open repository for research papers by members of the Harvard community. There are currently about 600 HLS student papers included. Unfortunately it is not possible to search by type of paper or degree awarded.

The Master of Laws (“LL.M.”) degree has been awarded since 1923. Originally, the degree required completion of a major research paper, akin to a thesis. Since 1993, most students have the option of writing the LL.M. "short paper."  This is a 25-page (or longer) paper advised by a faculty supervisor or completed in conjunction with a seminar.  Fewer LL.M. candidates continue to write the more extensive "long-paper." LL.M. candidates holding J.D.s from the U.S. must write the long paper.

• HLS Written Work Requirements for LL.M. Degree The current explanation of the LL.M. written work requirement for the master of laws.

The library generally holds HLS LL.M. long papers and short papers. In recent years, we require author release in order to do so. In HOLLIS, no distinction is made between types of written work created in satisfaction of the LL.M. degree; all are described as LL.M. thesis. Though we describe them as thesis, the law school refers to them solely as papers or in earlier years, essays. HOLLIS records indicate the number of pages, so at the record level, it is possible to distinguish long papers.

• HLS LL.M. Papers in HOLLIS To refine these search results by topic, faculty advisor, seminar or date, click Add a New Line.

HLS LL.M. Papers are sometimes available in DASH and Hein's Legal Dissertations and Theses. See descriptions above .

The HLS J.D. written work requirement has changed over time. The degree formerly required a substantial research paper comparable in scope to a law review article written under faculty supervision, the "third year paper." Since 2008, J.D. students have the option of using two shorter works instead.

Of all those written, the library holds relatively few third-year papers. They were not actively collected but accepted by submission from faculty advisors who deemed a paper worthy of institutional retention. The papers are described in HOLLIS as third year papers, seminar papers, and student papers. Sometimes this distinction was valid, but not always. The faculty deposit tradition more or less ended in 2006, though the possibility of deposit still exists. 

• J.D. Written Work Requirement
• Faculty Deposit of Student Papers with the Library

HLS Third Year Papers in HOLLIS

To refine these search results by topic, faculty advisor, seminar or date, click Add a New Line.

• HLS Student Papers Some third-year papers and LL.M. papers were described in HOLLIS simply as student papers. To refine these search results, click "Add a New Line" and add topic, faculty advisor, or course title.
• HLS Seminar Papers Note that these include legal research pathfinders produced for the Advanced Legal Research course when taught by Virginia Wise.

Prize Papers

HLS has many endowed prizes for student papers and essays. There are currently 16 different writing prizes. See this complete descriptive list with links to lists of winners from 2009 to present. Note that there is not always a winner each year for each award. Prize winners are announced each year in the commencement pamphlet.

The Library has not specifically collected prize papers over the years but has added copies when possible. The HOLLIS record for the paper will usually indicate its status as a prize paper. The most recent prize paper was added to the collection in 2006.

Addison Brown Prize Animal Law & Policy Program Writing Prize Victor Brudney Prize Davis Polk Legal Profession Paper Prize Roger Fisher and Frank E.A. Sander Prize Yong K. Kim ’95 Memorial Prize Islamic Legal Studies Program Prize on Islamic Law Laylin Prize LGBTQ Writing Prize Mancini Prize Irving Oberman Memorial Awards John M. Olin Prize in Law and Economics Project on the Foundations of Private Law Prize Sidney I. Roberts Prize Fund Klemens von Klemperer Prize Stephen L. Werner Prize

• Harvard Law School Prize Essays (1850-1868) A historical collection of handwritten prize essays covering the range of topics covered at that time. See this finding aid for a collection description.

The following information about online repositories is not a recommendation or endorsement to participate.

• ProQuest Dissertations and Theses HLS is not an institutional participant to this collection. If you are interested in submitting your work, refer to these instructions and note that there is a fee required, which varies depending on the format of submission.
• EBSCO Open Dissertations Relatively new, this is an open repository of metadata for dissertations. It is an outgrowth of the index American Doctoral Dissertations. The aim is to cover 1933 to present and, for modern works, to link to full text available in institutional repositories. Harvard is not one of the institutional participants.
• DASH Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard

Sponsored by Harvard University’s Office for Scholarly Communication, this is an open repository for research papers by members of the Harvard community. See more information about the project. 

Some HLS students have submitted their degree paper to DASH.  If you would like to submit your paper, you may use this authorization form  or contact June Casey , Librarian for Open Access Initiatives and Scholarly Communication at Harvard Law School.

• ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Harvard Login) Covers dissertations and masters' theses from North American graduate schools and many worldwide. Provides full text for many since the 1990s and has descriptive data for older works.
• NDLTD Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations Union Catalog Worldwide in scope, NDLTD contains millions of records of electronic theses and dissertations from the early 1900s to the present.
• Law Commons of the Digital Commons Network The Law Commons has dissertations and theses, as well as many other types of scholarly research such as book chapters and conference proceedings. They aim to collect free, full-text scholarly work from hundreds of academic institutions worldwide.
• EBSCO Open Dissertations Doctoral dissertations from many institutions. Free, open repository.
• Dissertations from Center for Research Libraries Dissertations found in this resource are available to the Harvard University Community through Interlibrary Loan.
• British Library EThOS Dissertation source from the British Library listing doctoral theses awarded in the UK. Some available for immediate download and some others may be requested for scanning.
• BASE from Bielefeld University Library Index of the open repositoris of most academic institutions. Includes many types of documents including doctoral and masters theses.

Contact Us!

  Ask Us!  Submit a question or search our knowledge base.

Chat with us!  Chat   with a librarian (HLS only)

Email: [email protected]

 Contact Historical & Special Collections at [email protected]

  Meet with Us   Schedule an online consult with a Librarian

Hours  Library Hours

Classes  View  Training Calendar  or  Request an Insta-Class

 Text  Ask a Librarian, 617-702-2728

 Call  Reference & Research Services, 617-495-4516

• Last Updated: Sep 12, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/studentpapers

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Dissertation Structure & Layout 101: How to structure your dissertation, thesis or research project.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) Reviewed By: David Phair (PhD) | July 2019

So, you’ve got a decent understanding of what a dissertation is , you’ve chosen your topic and hopefully you’ve received approval for your research proposal . Awesome! Now its time to start the actual dissertation or thesis writing journey.

To craft a high-quality document, the very first thing you need to understand is dissertation structure . In this post, we’ll walk you through the generic dissertation structure and layout, step by step. We’ll start with the big picture, and then zoom into each chapter to briefly discuss the core contents. If you’re just starting out on your research journey, you should start with this post, which covers the big-picture process of how to write a dissertation or thesis .

*The Caveat *

In this post, we’ll be discussing a traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout, which is generally used for social science research across universities, whether in the US, UK, Europe or Australia. However, some universities may have small variations on this structure (extra chapters, merged chapters, slightly different ordering, etc).

So, always check with your university if they have a prescribed structure or layout that they expect you to work with. If not, it’s safe to assume the structure we’ll discuss here is suitable. And even if they do have a prescribed structure, you’ll still get value from this post as we’ll explain the core contents of each section.  

Overview: S tructuring a dissertation or thesis

• Acknowledgements page
• Abstract (or executive summary)
• Table of contents , list of figures and tables
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literature review
• Chapter 3: Methodology
• Chapter 4: Results
• Chapter 5: Discussion
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Reference list

As I mentioned, some universities will have slight variations on this structure. For example, they want an additional “personal reflection chapter”, or they might prefer the results and discussion chapter to be merged into one. Regardless, the overarching flow will always be the same, as this flow reflects the research process , which we discussed here – i.e.:

• The introduction chapter presents the core research question and aims .
• The literature review chapter assesses what the current research says about this question.
• The methodology, results and discussion chapters go about undertaking new research about this question.
• The conclusion chapter (attempts to) answer the core research question .

In other words, the dissertation structure and layout reflect the research process of asking a well-defined question(s), investigating, and then answering the question – see below.

To restate that – the structure and layout of a dissertation reflect the flow of the overall research process . This is essential to understand, as each chapter will make a lot more sense if you “get” this concept. If you’re not familiar with the research process, read this post before going further.

Right. Now that we’ve covered the big picture, let’s dive a little deeper into the details of each section and chapter. Oh and by the way, you can also grab our free dissertation/thesis template here to help speed things up.

The title page of your dissertation is the very first impression the marker will get of your work, so it pays to invest some time thinking about your title. But what makes for a good title? A strong title needs to be 3 things:

• Succinct (not overly lengthy or verbose)
• Specific (not vague or ambiguous)
• Representative of the research you’re undertaking (clearly linked to your research questions)

Typically, a good title includes mention of the following:

• The broader area of the research (i.e. the overarching topic)
• The specific focus of your research (i.e. your specific context)
• Indication of research design (e.g. quantitative , qualitative , or  mixed methods ).

For example:

A quantitative investigation [research design] into the antecedents of organisational trust [broader area] in the UK retail forex trading market [specific context/area of focus].

Again, some universities may have specific requirements regarding the format and structure of the title, so it’s worth double-checking expectations with your institution (if there’s no mention in the brief or study material).

Acknowledgements

This page provides you with an opportunity to say thank you to those who helped you along your research journey. Generally, it’s optional (and won’t count towards your marks), but it is academic best practice to include this.

So, who do you say thanks to? Well, there’s no prescribed requirements, but it’s common to mention the following people:

• Your dissertation supervisor or committee.
• Any professors, lecturers or academics that helped you understand the topic or methodologies.
• Any tutors, mentors or advisors.
• Your family and friends, especially spouse (for adult learners studying part-time).

There’s no need for lengthy rambling. Just state who you’re thankful to and for what (e.g. thank you to my supervisor, John Doe, for his endless patience and attentiveness) – be sincere. In terms of length, you should keep this to a page or less.

Abstract or executive summary

The dissertation abstract (or executive summary for some degrees) serves to provide the first-time reader (and marker or moderator) with a big-picture view of your research project. It should give them an understanding of the key insights and findings from the research, without them needing to read the rest of the report – in other words, it should be able to stand alone .

For it to stand alone, your abstract should cover the following key points (at a minimum):

• Your research questions and aims – what key question(s) did your research aim to answer?
• Your methodology – how did you go about investigating the topic and finding answers to your research question(s)?
• Your findings – following your own research, what did do you discover?
• Your conclusions – based on your findings, what conclusions did you draw? What answers did you find to your research question(s)?

So, in much the same way the dissertation structure mimics the research process, your abstract or executive summary should reflect the research process, from the initial stage of asking the original question to the final stage of answering that question.

In practical terms, it’s a good idea to write this section up last , once all your core chapters are complete. Otherwise, you’ll end up writing and rewriting this section multiple times (just wasting time). For a step by step guide on how to write a strong executive summary, check out this post .

Need a helping hand?

Table of contents

This section is straightforward. You’ll typically present your table of contents (TOC) first, followed by the two lists – figures and tables. I recommend that you use Microsoft Word’s automatic table of contents generator to generate your TOC. If you’re not familiar with this functionality, the video below explains it simply:

If you find that your table of contents is overly lengthy, consider removing one level of depth. Oftentimes, this can be done without detracting from the usefulness of the TOC.

Right, now that the “admin” sections are out of the way, its time to move on to your core chapters. These chapters are the heart of your dissertation and are where you’ll earn the marks. The first chapter is the introduction chapter – as you would expect, this is the time to introduce your research…

It’s important to understand that even though you’ve provided an overview of your research in your abstract, your introduction needs to be written as if the reader has not read that (remember, the abstract is essentially a standalone document). So, your introduction chapter needs to start from the very beginning, and should address the following questions:

• What will you be investigating (in plain-language, big picture-level)?
• Why is that worth investigating? How is it important to academia or business? How is it sufficiently original?
• What are your research aims and research question(s)? Note that the research questions can sometimes be presented at the end of the literature review (next chapter).
• What is the scope of your study? In other words, what will and won’t you cover ?
• How will you approach your research? In other words, what methodology will you adopt?
• How will you structure your dissertation? What are the core chapters and what will you do in each of them?

These are just the bare basic requirements for your intro chapter. Some universities will want additional bells and whistles in the intro chapter, so be sure to carefully read your brief or consult your research supervisor.

If done right, your introduction chapter will set a clear direction for the rest of your dissertation. Specifically, it will make it clear to the reader (and marker) exactly what you’ll be investigating, why that’s important, and how you’ll be going about the investigation. Conversely, if your introduction chapter leaves a first-time reader wondering what exactly you’ll be researching, you’ve still got some work to do.

Now that you’ve set a clear direction with your introduction chapter, the next step is the literature review . In this section, you will analyse the existing research (typically academic journal articles and high-quality industry publications), with a view to understanding the following questions:

• What does the literature currently say about the topic you’re investigating?
• Is the literature lacking or well established? Is it divided or in disagreement?
• How does your research fit into the bigger picture?
• How does your research contribute something original?
• How does the methodology of previous studies help you develop your own?

Depending on the nature of your study, you may also present a conceptual framework towards the end of your literature review, which you will then test in your actual research.

Again, some universities will want you to focus on some of these areas more than others, some will have additional or fewer requirements, and so on. Therefore, as always, its important to review your brief and/or discuss with your supervisor, so that you know exactly what’s expected of your literature review chapter.

Now that you’ve investigated the current state of knowledge in your literature review chapter and are familiar with the existing key theories, models and frameworks, its time to design your own research. Enter the methodology chapter – the most “science-ey” of the chapters…

In this chapter, you need to address two critical questions:

• Exactly HOW will you carry out your research (i.e. what is your intended research design)?
• Exactly WHY have you chosen to do things this way (i.e. how do you justify your design)?

Remember, the dissertation part of your degree is first and foremost about developing and demonstrating research skills . Therefore, the markers want to see that you know which methods to use, can clearly articulate why you’ve chosen then, and know how to deploy them effectively.

Importantly, this chapter requires detail – don’t hold back on the specifics. State exactly what you’ll be doing, with who, when, for how long, etc. Moreover, for every design choice you make, make sure you justify it.

In practice, you will likely end up coming back to this chapter once you’ve undertaken all your data collection and analysis, and revise it based on changes you made during the analysis phase. This is perfectly fine. Its natural for you to add an additional analysis technique, scrap an old one, etc based on where your data lead you. Of course, I’m talking about small changes here – not a fundamental switch from qualitative to quantitative, which will likely send your supervisor in a spin!

You’ve now collected your data and undertaken your analysis, whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. In this chapter, you’ll present the raw results of your analysis . For example, in the case of a quant study, you’ll present the demographic data, descriptive statistics, inferential statistics , etc.

Typically, Chapter 4 is simply a presentation and description of the data, not a discussion of the meaning of the data. In other words, it’s descriptive, rather than analytical – the meaning is discussed in Chapter 5. However, some universities will want you to combine chapters 4 and 5, so that you both present and interpret the meaning of the data at the same time. Check with your institution what their preference is.

Now that you’ve presented the data analysis results, its time to interpret and analyse them. In other words, its time to discuss what they mean, especially in relation to your research question(s).

What you discuss here will depend largely on your chosen methodology. For example, if you’ve gone the quantitative route, you might discuss the relationships between variables . If you’ve gone the qualitative route, you might discuss key themes and the meanings thereof. It all depends on what your research design choices were.

Most importantly, you need to discuss your results in relation to your research questions and aims, as well as the existing literature. What do the results tell you about your research questions? Are they aligned with the existing research or at odds? If so, why might this be? Dig deep into your findings and explain what the findings suggest, in plain English.

The final chapter – you’ve made it! Now that you’ve discussed your interpretation of the results, its time to bring it back to the beginning with the conclusion chapter . In other words, its time to (attempt to) answer your original research question s (from way back in chapter 1). Clearly state what your conclusions are in terms of your research questions. This might feel a bit repetitive, as you would have touched on this in the previous chapter, but its important to bring the discussion full circle and explicitly state your answer(s) to the research question(s).

Next, you’ll typically discuss the implications of your findings? In other words, you’ve answered your research questions – but what does this mean for the real world (or even for academia)? What should now be done differently, given the new insight you’ve generated?

Lastly, you should discuss the limitations of your research, as well as what this means for future research in the area. No study is perfect, especially not a Masters-level. Discuss the shortcomings of your research. Perhaps your methodology was limited, perhaps your sample size was small or not representative, etc, etc. Don’t be afraid to critique your work – the markers want to see that you can identify the limitations of your work. This is a strength, not a weakness. Be brutal!

This marks the end of your core chapters – woohoo! From here on out, it’s pretty smooth sailing.

The reference list is straightforward. It should contain a list of all resources cited in your dissertation, in the required format, e.g. APA , Harvard, etc.

It’s essential that you use reference management software for your dissertation. Do NOT try handle your referencing manually – its far too error prone. On a reference list of multiple pages, you’re going to make mistake. To this end, I suggest considering either Mendeley or Zotero. Both are free and provide a very straightforward interface to ensure that your referencing is 100% on point. I’ve included a simple how-to video for the Mendeley software (my personal favourite) below:

Some universities may ask you to include a bibliography, as opposed to a reference list. These two things are not the same . A bibliography is similar to a reference list, except that it also includes resources which informed your thinking but were not directly cited in your dissertation. So, double-check your brief and make sure you use the right one.

The very last piece of the puzzle is the appendix or set of appendices. This is where you’ll include any supporting data and evidence. Importantly, supporting is the keyword here.

Your appendices should provide additional “nice to know”, depth-adding information, which is not critical to the core analysis. Appendices should not be used as a way to cut down word count (see this post which covers how to reduce word count ). In other words, don’t place content that is critical to the core analysis here, just to save word count. You will not earn marks on any content in the appendices, so don’t try to play the system!

Time to recap…

And there you have it – the traditional dissertation structure and layout, from A-Z. To recap, the core structure for a dissertation or thesis is (typically) as follows:

• Acknowledgments page

Most importantly, the core chapters should reflect the research process (asking, investigating and answering your research question). Moreover, the research question(s) should form the golden thread throughout your dissertation structure. Everything should revolve around the research questions, and as you’ve seen, they should form both the start point (i.e. introduction chapter) and the endpoint (i.e. conclusion chapter).

I hope this post has provided you with clarity about the traditional dissertation/thesis structure and layout. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a comment below, or feel free to get in touch with us. Also, be sure to check out the rest of the  Grad Coach Blog .

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

36 Comments

many thanks i found it very useful

Glad to hear that, Arun. Good luck writing your dissertation.

Such clear practical logical advice. I very much needed to read this to keep me focused in stead of fretting.. Perfect now ready to start my research!

what about scientific fields like computer or engineering thesis what is the difference in the structure? thank you very much

Thanks so much this helped me a lot!

Very helpful and accessible. What I like most is how practical the advice is along with helpful tools/ links.

Thanks Ade!

Thank you so much sir.. It was really helpful..

You’re welcome!

Hi! How many words maximum should contain the abstract?

Thank you so much 😊 Find this at the right moment

You’re most welcome. Good luck with your dissertation.

best ever benefit i got on right time thank you

Many times Clarity and vision of destination of dissertation is what makes the difference between good ,average and great researchers the same way a great automobile driver is fast with clarity of address and Clear weather conditions .

I guess Great researcher = great ideas + knowledge + great and fast data collection and modeling + great writing + high clarity on all these

You have given immense clarity from start to end.

Morning. Where will I write the definitions of what I’m referring to in my report?

Thank you so much Derek, I was almost lost! Thanks a tonnnn! Have a great day!

Thanks ! so concise and valuable

This was very helpful. Clear and concise. I know exactly what to do now.

Thank you for allowing me to go through briefly. I hope to find time to continue.

Really useful to me. Thanks a thousand times

Very interesting! It will definitely set me and many more for success. highly recommended.

Thank you soo much sir, for the opportunity to express my skills

Usefull, thanks a lot. Really clear

Very nice and easy to understand. Thank you .

That was incredibly useful. Thanks Grad Coach Crew!

My stress level just dropped at least 15 points after watching this. Just starting my thesis for my grad program and I feel a lot more capable now! Thanks for such a clear and helpful video, Emma and the GradCoach team!

Do we need to mention the number of words the dissertation contains in the main document?

It depends on your university’s requirements, so it would be best to check with them 🙂

Such a helpful post to help me get started with structuring my masters dissertation, thank you!

Great video; I appreciate that helpful information

It is so necessary or avital course

This blog is very informative for my research. Thank you

Doctoral students are required to fill out the National Research Council’s Survey of Earned Doctorates

wow this is an amazing gain in my life

This is so good

How can i arrange my specific objectives in my dissertation?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is A Literature Review (In A Dissertation Or Thesis) - Grad Coach - […] is to write the actual literature review chapter (this is usually the second chapter in a typical dissertation or…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Cookies on our website

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use our site. And we'd like to serve you some cookies set by other services to show you relevant content.

LLM Dissertation (839M3)

45 credits, Level 7 (Masters)

Spring and summer teaching

You’ll design and carry out a project of research under individual supervision.

You’re encouraged to apply the theoretical and practical principles of research methodology when producing your dissertation.

Contact hours and workload

We regularly review our modules to incorporate student feedback, staff expertise, as well as the latest research and teaching methodology. We’re planning to run these modules in the academic year 2022/23. However, there may be changes to these modules in response to feedback, staff availability, student demand or updates to our curriculum. We’ll make sure to let you know of any material changes to modules at the earliest opportunity.

How to Write a First Class Law Dissertation – Complete Guide

• November 18, 2010

“Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial and Civil Jurisdiction: Permitting Delay, Restricting Access and Recognising Incompatible Judgments”.

Below is my honours law dissertation together with tips and a very special video from an ex-Cambridge professor at the end. Enjoy!

And if you have any legal blog posts you’d like to share (whether after you have submitted your dissertation or before), please get in touch – our goal is to help share great legal information online to improve legal understanding and access to justice around the world.

And see also our lists of The Best Law Schools in the World and  Top 10 Law Schools in the UK that aspiring law students may find of interest.

How to write a first class legal dissertation: Content and Structure

Three tips can be suggested to get you started on the right foot:

First, research the subject in which you are most interested in writing about for your dissertation, then choose a sufficiently narrow angle to approach the subject or choose something that hasn’t been discussed much before.

Second, collect, or print out or photocopy all relevant materials which discuss that narrow subject.

Third, plan rough headings for sub-topics within the main subject. While the contents below were finalised towards the end of the writing process, the rough structure was formulated at an early point in the writing process. This is how many academics write their books: they provide themselves with lots of headings and subheadings, then chip away at the work, bit by bit until complete.

Examples contents for “Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial and Civil Jurisdiction: Permitting Delay, Restricting Access and Recognising Incompatible Judgments” are as follows:-

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ARTICLE 6: THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2.1. Substantive Elements 2.2. Procedural Operation: Direct and Indirect Effect 2.3. The Human Rights Act 1998

3. REASONABLE TIME

3.1. Introduction 3.2. Framework under Article 6 3.3. Conflict with Lis Pendens: Erich Gasser 3.3.1. Delay in the Italian Court 3.3.2. A Clash of Treaties 3.3.3. Future Application 3.4. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens 3.4.1. General Operation 3.4.2. First Limb of Spiliada 3.4.3. Second Limb of Spiliada 3.5. Conclusions

4. ACCESS TO A COURT

4.1. Operation in Article 6 4.2. Anti-Suit Injunctions 4.3. Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and Waiving Convention Rights 4.4. Limitations on Jurisdiction 4.5. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens 4.6. Owusu v Jackson 4.7. Conclusions

5. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

5.1. Recognition of Contracting State Judgments 5.2. Recognition of Non-Contracting State Judgments 5.2.1. European Court of Human Rights 5.2.2. House of Lords 5.4. Conclusions

6. CONCLUSIONS

7. BIBILIOGRAPHY

7.1. Table of Cases 7.2. Table of Legislation 7.3. Table of Conventions 7.4. Textbooks 7.5. Articles

Writing your introduction

Together with the conclusion, the introduction is one of the most significant pieces of a dissertation that you have to get right. A well-written introduction can make all the difference between a first class and an upper second.

If you take just one thing away from this series of posts, it is this. You can develop a better stream of communication with your reader, forming a better relationship, if you tell them what you are going to say (introduction), say it (main body), then tell them what you have said (conclusion).

So, to the introduction, set the scene as fast as possible then tell the reader what you are going to say, but don’t be so amateurish as to write “I am going to discuss X, Y and Z”. Be more indirect. Suggest, for instance, that there are problems with the law that need to be resolved.

1. INTRODUCTION Long since inevitable initial encounters, human rights concerns, particularly regarding the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), have been accelerating in today’s civil jurisdiction and judgments arena in the United Kingdom, a notable consequence of the passing of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. More than six years from the Act’s coming into force, it is now imperative to reach conclusions which reflect the “importance attaching in today’s world and in current international thinking and jurisprudence to the recognition and effective enforcement of individual human rights,” as Mance LJ (as he then was) has noted. This necessity is reflected in the recent extensive consideration of the right to a fair trial in key works of some of the most authoritative conflict lawyers in the United Kingdom, including Sir Lawrence Collins, Professor Adrian Briggs and, most significantly, Professor James Fawcett. Methods of protecting the right to a fair trial and thus of avoiding a breach of Article 6 are irrelevant to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR); the Court is not concerned with reviewing under the Convention in abstracto the law complained of, but rather the application of that law. There is therefore a large amount of discretion afforded to the courts regarding techniques to avoid infringement of the Convention. In the context of civil jurisdiction and judgments, various methods of avoiding infringement, or indeed enabling protection, of the right to a fair trial exist. However, the extent to which these have been used in practice, both by the UK courts and the ECJ, has been limited, a result of various factors, the most striking of which being the wrongful application of the ECHR and even the conscious decision to ignore it. Before analysing specific fair trial concerns in detail, it is necessary to examine the general structure and operation of Article 6 as it applies to civil jurisdiction and judgments.

Chapter 1: Setting the scene

Depending on the nature of your dissertation, you may need to set the scene further. In a legal dissertation, by “scene” is meant the bits of law that are relevant to set up key arguments in the main body of the dissertation. With this example dissertation, the target readership was, for various reasons, international private law experts. Because human rights law was a key part of the debate, the relevant law had to be set out in such detail that the chapters following it could discuss, for instance, the right to a fair trial and the doctrines of direct and indirect effect without any need for constant repetitive explanation.

2. ARTICLE 6: THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 2.1. Substantive Elements Article 6(1) ECHR provides inter alia that “[i]n the determination of his civil rights and obligations…everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….” The ECtHR has reverberated that “the right to a fair administration of justice holds such a prominent place” that Article 6 should not be interpreted restrictively. Instead, the seemingly distinct provisions of Article 6 are not discrete, but are “rights which are distinct but stem from the same basic idea and which, taken together, make up a single right not specifically defined in the narrower sense of the term.” This single right is the title of Article 6: the “right to a fair trial.” This right comprises two particularly significant elements important in the context of civil jurisdiction and judgments. First, the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Expressly stated in Article 6(1), this right may be pertinent where proceedings are stayed in favour of a foreign court. Second, access to a court, an inherent element of Article 6(1). This may have relevance where access is denied to the UK courts through, for example, staying proceedings, or restraining foreign proceedings. 2.2 Procedural Operation: Direct and Indirect Effect Article 6 can operate through a number of mechanisms in the civil jurisdiction and judgments context, which must be distinguished for analytical purposes. First, through direct effect, where there is direct protection of a party’s right to a fair trial in the domestic courts themselves. Such protection is strong and somewhat easier to obtain because there is no test for the seriousness of the breach. Such infringement may occur through a refusal of access to the UK courts, which refusal may emanate from, inter alia, an exclusion of jurisdiction or stay of proceedings. Second, through indirect effect, where a person is transferred to another country where his right to a fair trial may be infringed in that country. In Soering v United Kingdom the ECtHR emphasised that it was for Member States to secure Convention rights of persons within their jurisdiction, but that this obligation did not extend to non-Contracting States, nor should it seek to impose ECHR standards on such States. Thus, for example, in respect of deportation of a person to the United States of America from England, there may be an indirect breach of Article 6, but only where the transfer creates or risks creating a flagrant breach of the claimant’s right to a fair trial in that other country. In presenting an argument for the creation of such risk, it is axiomatic that a strong compilation of evidence is essential, with reference to the circumstances of both the case and proceedings of the court in question. The difficulty with such an argument in the civil jurisdiction sphere is that stays of proceedings concern transfers of actions abroad, not persons. Notwithstanding, arguments for the application of the indirect effect doctrine in this context are still applicable because the situations are “essentially the same.” Indeed, it could be argued that staying proceedings amounts to a transfer of persons through effective compulsion. Nevertheless, no authority exists for this argument and indeed the indirect effect doctrine itself has not been successfully relied upon in an Article 6 context before the (former) Commission or ECtHR. Third, through indirect effect where enforcement in a Contracting State of a judgment from a foreign State, whether Contracting or non-Contracting, would breach Article 6 because that judgment itself breached Article 6 standards. It has been stated that such a breach by the foreign court must also be a flagrant one. However, the reasoning underlying this proposition is unclear and, as with many matters in the civil jurisdiction and judgments sphere, there are concerns as to the extent to which the right to a fair trial can be upheld in this respect. 2.3 The Human Rights Act 1998 The Convention rights, including Article 6, now have the force of law in the United Kingdom under the HRA 1998. The Act places two initial express duties on the UK courts: first, the duty to read and give effect to primary and subordinate legislation in a way compatible with the Convention rights, if possible; second, the duty to take into account inter alia any previous judgment of the ECtHR in determining proceedings which have a Convention right element, insofar as it has relevance to those proceedings. Moreover, under Section 6(1) of the HRA 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority, including a court, to act in a way incompatible with a Convention right. This is a significant duty on the courts, which indeed sparked considerable academic debate as to the Act’s impact on private commercial disputes. Thus, the courts have a duty to interpret and apply the common law or any exercise of discretion compatibly with the right to a fair trial under Article 6. Ultimately, this may amount to a positive duty to develop the common law, extending beyond mere interpretation of the common law to conform to the Convention principles. Notwithstanding this rather stringent theoretical framework for the courts upholding the right to a fair trial, there has been a lack of consistency in its practical impact in the field of civil jurisdiction and judgments. Endnotes *Converting c300 footnotes on a Microsoft Word document to a WordPress post is not feasible for this blawgger. They are, therefore, pasted below as endnotes. The full dissertation is available in the Juridical Review, vol 1 of 2008 pp15-31 Delcourt v Belgium (1979-80) 1 EHRR 355, at [25]; indeed, the principles of due process and the rule of law are fundamental to the protection of human rights (Clayton and Tomlinson: 2000, p550,) just as a fair trial is a fundamental element of the rule of law (Ovey and White: 2002, p139.) Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1, at [28]. Ibid., at [36]. Such cases can be labelled “domestic” ones: Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37, at [15], per Lord Bingham. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] AC 368, at [42]. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439. Ibid., at [113]; this test has been followed subsequently: e.g. Einhorn v France (no.71555/01, 16 October 2001) at [32], Tomic v United Kingdom (no.17837/03, 14 October 2003) at [3]. Fawcett; 2007, p4. Ibid. Montgomery (n12); Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745, p795; cf. Pellegrini v Italy [2001] ECHR 480. HRA 1998, s3(1). Ibid., s2(1)(a); such previous decisions are not binding; notwithstanding, as Lord Slynn observed in R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389 at [26]: “[i]n the absence of some special circumstances it seems to me that the court should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the [ECtHR].” Ibid., s6(3)(a). Wade: 2000; Lester and Pannick: 2000. Such discretion should be “exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings”: R v Jones [2003] AC 1, at [6], per Lord Bingham. HL Deb vol.583, p783 (24 November 1997); Grosz, Beatson and Duffy: 2000, para.4.56; cf.. Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] QB 770. Grosz, Beatson and Duffy: 2000, para.4.59.

Main Body Part 1

Next follows the first main chunk discussing and debating the title of the dissertation. To maintain structure, even this sub-section of the dissertation has its own introduction, some degree of scene-setting with Art 6 in the particular context of the chapter, argument through various levels and conclusions.

3. REASONABLE TIME 3.1. Introduction It has been stated that “excessive delays in the administration of justice constitute an important danger, in particular for the respect of the rule of law” and for the legal certainty of citizens. This importance is reflected in the express protection of the reasonable time requirement in Article 6. There have been recent challenges in the civil jurisdiction context on this ground, the most significant of which being raised in Erich Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl, concerning conflict with lis pendens. A further instance, the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens has been suggested to be so incompatible, which would therefore have implications for the doctrine in its now very limited common law habitat. 3.2. Framework under Article 6 In civil cases, time starts to run when the proceedings are instituted and stops when legal uncertainty has been removed, which normally requires that the final appeal decision has been made or the time for making an appeal has expired. It is generally accepted that the correct approach is to decide whether the overall delay is prima facie “unreasonable” for the type of proceedings concerned and thereafter consider whether the State is able to justify each period of delay. In assessing such justification, the limited guidelines indicate that all the circumstances will be considered, with particular regard to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and judicial authorities in addition to the behaviour of other parties to the case and what is at stake in the litigation for the applicant. Generally, where proceedings are stayed, there are three stages which must be distinguished for determining delay. First, the proceedings before the domestic court. Any unjustifiable delay at this point would amount to a direct breach of Article 6. Second, the transfer of proceedings to the foreign court. Delay at this stage would be less justifiable where, for instance, there was known to be a heavy backlog of cases. Notwithstanding, the “normal lapses of time stemming from the transfer of the cases” are not to be regarded as unjustified. Third, the proceedings before the foreign court. At the second and third stages, although any unreasonable delay by the foreign court will amount to a direct breach by that court, there could also be an indirect breach by the domestic court, but only to the extent that the party suffered, or risked suffering, a flagrant breach. Endnotes Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Resolution DH (97) 336, 11 July 1997. Fabri and Langbroek: 2003, p3. C-116/02 [2005] QB 1. Opinion of AG Léger in Owusu v Jackson C-281/02 [2005] QB 801 at [270]. A sist by the Scottish courts through forum non conveniens can be made where jurisdiction is founded on Art.4 of the Judgments Regulation or Convention: Collins et al: 2006, para.12-023. Moreover, a sist can be made on the ground that the courts of England or Northern Ireland are the forum conveniens, because intra-UK jurisdiction can be so settled: Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd, The Times, 8 June 1995; Collins: 1995. Scopelliti v Italy (1993) 17 EHRR 493, at [18]. Vocaturo v Italy [1991] ECHR 34. E.g. fewer than six years for a reparation action (Huseyin Erturk v Turkey [2005] ECHR 630.) Clayton and Tomlinson: 2000, p654; Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: 1995, p229. Eckle v Germany (1983) 5 EHRR 1, at [80]; an obvious consideration being delay in commencing proceedings. Buchholz v Germany [1981] ECHR 2, at [49]. Foti v Italy (1982) 5 EHRR 313, at [61]. Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 9; Guincho v Portugal [1984] ECHR 9; cf. Buchholz (n36), at [61], where the backlog was not reasonably foreseeable; exceptional circumstances were taken into account in Foti (n37) as a result of troubles in Reggio Calabria, which impacted proceedings in the courts in Potenza, to which cases had been transferred. Foti (n37), at [61]. Soering (n14) at [113].

Having set the scene, it is time to delve straight into comment and opinion, drawing on relevant facts and law where required. Where possible, suggest ways in which events or decisions could have been improved and do not be afraid to say that commentators, judges or even powerful institutions, like the ECJ, got it wrong.

3.3. Conflict with Lis Pendens: Erich Gasser Erich Gasser v MISAT concerned the validity of a choice-of-court agreement in favour of the Austrian courts where one party had first seised the Italian courts by way of negative declaration. Second seised, the Austrian Court sought a reference from the ECJ on, inter alia, whether it must stay its proceedings under lis pendens where the proceedings in the court first seised generally take an unreasonably long time, such that there may be a breach of Article 6. Both the claimant and the intervening UK Government invoked the ECHR, arguing that Article 21 of the Brussels Convention should be interpreted in conformity with Article 6 ECHR to avoid excessively protracted proceedings, given that proceedings in Italy were likely to take an unreasonably long time. Through this interpretation, it was argued that Article 21 should not be applied if the court first seised had not determined its jurisdiction within a reasonable time. In a very short response, the ECJ effectively said that the ECHR did not apply because first, it is not expressly mentioned in the Brussels Convention and second, there is no room for it in a collection of mandatory rules underpinned by mutual trust between Contracting States. 3.3.1. Delay in the Italian Court However, it may be seen that the stay de facto risked at least a standard breach in the Italian court. The Italian courts have been held in breach of Article 6 a staggering number of times because of unreasonable slowness. The existence of these breaches amounted to a practice incompatible with the ECHR and produced the notoriety of the Italian legal system as “the land that time forgot.” Indeed, the practice of seising the Italian courts first by way of negative declaration has become known as instituting an “Italian torpedo,” which may succeed in delaying proceedings substantially even where the Italian courts have no jurisdiction. It has already been noted that evidence is crucial in determining a real risk of a breach of Article 6. Instead, in Gasser, human rights arguments were based upon a general breach of the reasonable time requirement in Italian courts. Moreover, no ECtHR case law was relied upon when so arguing, nor was mention made of previous breaches. Therefore, a very weak argument, if any, was laid before the ECJ in respect of a risk of a breach. In effect, the ECJ was being asked something tantamount to whether there should be an exception to Article 21 in respect of certain Member States, a question justifiably answered in the negative. However, if the arguments had been more focussed, concentrating on the present case, with evidence to show the likelihood of breach in the Tribunale civile e penale di Roma, then the ECJ may have been more persuaded by Article 6 considerations, as Fawcett suggests. Notwithstanding previous delays, efforts have been made to reduce the backlog of cases. This is somewhat owing to Article 13 ECHR, which requires Contracting States to provide persons with an effective national remedy for breach of a Convention right. Such domestic remedies assist in reducing further breaches and ultimately reduce the need for the indirect effect doctrine. Thus, the Italian “Pinto Act” was passed, providing a domestic legal remedy for excessive length-of-proceedings cases. The existence of this remedy may have gone towards justifying application of Article 21, which indeed was one of the questions referred to the ECJ by the Austrian Court, although unanswered. 3.3.2. A Clash of Treaties Nevertheless, given that the ECJ so held that Article 6 considerations were irrelevant, there may be further legal implications, particularly for the Austrian Court which was required to stay its proceedings under the Brussels Convention. If this stay created or risked creating a flagrant breach of the reasonable time requirement in the Italian Court, Austria may itself have breached Article 6 indirectly. Such an indirect breach is clearly not justifiable on the ground that Austria is party to the Brussels Convention or Regulation made under the European Treaties. Hence, the judgment may lead to a clash between the ECHR and Brussels Convention or Regulation. This in turn raises the questions of how and to what extent the Brussels Convention or Regulation could have been interpreted to give effect to Article 6. Formerly Article 57 of the Brussels Convention, Article 71 of the Brussels Regulation provides inter alia that “(1) [t]his Regulation shall not affect any conventions to which the Member States are parties and which in relation to particular matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition of judgments.” Although the ECHR is not prima facie a Convention governing jurisdiction, all Member States are party to it and Article 6 contains the inherent right of access to a court. Thus, as Briggs and Rees argue, this may have application where a court with jurisdiction is prevented from exercising that jurisdiction in a manner compatible with the ECHR. Therefore, in Gasser Article 71 may have been applied to allow Austria to act in accordance with its obligations under the ECHR. This approach is complemented by Article 307 (ex 234) EC such that Article 21 or 27 of the Brussels Convention or Regulation respectively can be overridden by a Convention previously entered into, including the ECHR. Further, this conclusion is even more realistic in light of the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which is peppered with notions of protection for fundamental rights, and the express protection of these rights in Article 6(2) EC. Instead of even contemplating such an outcome, the ECJ showed that it was prepared to ignore a significant international convention. Perhaps, in addition to mutual trust between Contracting States, mutual recognition of international conventions should have been considered, especially due to the express provisions permitting such consideration. Endnotes Those having a duration of over three years: Gasser (n28), at [59]. At [71]-[73]. See Ferrari v Italy [1999] ECHR 64, at [21]. Ferrari (n46), at [21]; Article 6 imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet the requirements of the provision (Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14, at [24].) Briggs and Rees: 2005, Preface to the Fourth Edition, p.v. Messier-Dowty v Sabena [2000] 1 WLR 2040. Franzosi: 1997, p384. Transporti Castelletti v Hugo Trumpy, C-159/97, [1999] ECR I-1597. Supra p4. Opinion of A.G. Léger in Gasser, at [88]. When Gasser came before the ECJ, there was already a delay in Italian proceedings of 3½ years in determining jurisdiction. Fawcett: 2007, p15. Kudla v Poland [2000] ECHR 512. Fawcett: 2007, p4. Law no.89 of 24 March 2001. However, even this has breached Article 6(1): Riccardo Pizzati v Italy [2006] ECHR 275, at [66]; Mance suggests that the Act only partially solved if not repatriated the ECtHR’s overwhelming number of claims in this respect (Mance: 2004b, p357.) Notwithstanding, since 1999, there has been a trend of continuous breach, the ECtHR having adopted more than 1,000 judgments against Italy (Riccardo Pizzati, at [66].) As Briggs and Rees note, the ECHR “might as well have been part of the law of Mars for all the impact it had.” (Briggs and Rees:2005, para.2.198.) Soering (n14), at [113]. Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 12. Hartley: 2005b, p821 n35; the most important example of a conflict of treaties: Hartley: 2001, p26. Briggs and Rees: 2005, para.2.38. An approach recognised by both Mance (Mance: 2004a, paras.6-7) and Hartley (Hartley: 2005a, p383.) ERT v DEP C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925, at [41]; “Bosphorus Airways” v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1,at [73]; particularly for Article 6: Philip Morris International Inc v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-1, at [121].

Tip: Suggest Improvements for the Future

It may be that, in the course of the research for your dissertation, you discover previous decisions and actions that may happen again in the future. You may want to suggest that there is such a risk in the future and that there are ways in which that risk can be guarded against. You may also want to state challenges with implementing such safeguards. For instance, in the below section, there is comment that the ECJ is, sometimes, so myopic that its stance won’t budge.

3.3.3. Future Application The ECtHR has held that a failure by a national court to make a preliminary reference to the ECJ could be a breach of Article 6 ECHR in certain circumstances. Thus, it is arguable that where similar facts to Gasser arise again, the domestic court may have to make a reference to the ECJ, and in doing so, show cogent evidence of the risk of a flagrant breach, unlike that presented to the ECJ in Gasser. In this context, the ECJ will have another chance to take human rights seriously, with the opportunity to apply Article 307 EC complementing Article 71 of the Brussels Regulation and jurisprudence both of the ECJ and ECtHR. Notwithstanding, given the ECJ’s swift dismissal of human rights concerns in Gasser in favour of the inflexible system of lis pendens, it appears unlikely that it would permit exception in the future. For the ECJ legal certainty under the Brussels regime is clearly more significant than legal certainty either through party autonomy under jurisdiction agreements or through the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. As Merrett notes, “[t]he ECJ simply does not see questions of jurisdiction as being concerned with private rights at all,” a stance which will need to change, particularly in light of the pressing atmosphere of today’s human rights culture. Endnotes Soc Divagsa v Spain (1993) 74 DR 274. Legal certainty is perhaps more significant under the Brussels Regulation, particularly illustrated by the addition of Article 30. Cf. A.G. Léger in Gasser, at [70]. Merrett: 2006, p332. Hartley notes that this is perhaps not surprising given that the ECJ is more concerned with public law, and as such, should be expected to give more weight to State interests, rather than the interests of private parties (Hartley: 2005b, pp814-815.)

Take a proposition that has never been discussed and debate it

Another thing that truly separates a first class dissertation from a second class one is discussion of ideas and issues that have never before been discussed. The following is an example of such a proposition and discussion, all of which stemmed from one footnote in an academic article that said a certain proposition “had never been discussed before in the courts of the UK”. Finding this loophole was essential to the dissertation’s success.

3.4. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens An export of Scots law, forum non conveniens was accepted into English law in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, becoming indistinguishable from Scots law. Under the Spiliada test, there are two stages: first, the defendant must show that there is some other available forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, upon which a stay will ordinarily be granted; second, upon the first stage being satisfied, it is for the claimant to show, through cogent evidence, that justice requires that a stay should not be granted. Advocate General Léger has suggested explicitly that the forum non conveniens doctrine, as operating under this Spiliada test, may be incompatible with Article 6, given that the steps involved for the claimant in its application “have a cost and are likely considerably to prolong the time spent in the conduct of proceedings before the claimant finally has his case heard.” Although the UK courts have never discussed this proposition, there is a potential that forum non conveniens is indeed incompatible with the reasonable time requirement in Article 6. 3.4.1. General Operation Since the place of trial is decided through the exercise of judicial discretion, it is axiomatic that additional cost and time will be incurred in the domestic court, which may appear somewhat inappropriate in light of the parties having to “litigate in order to determine where they shall litigate.” Notwithstanding, given that the same forum will rarely be in the best interests of all parties, particularly highlighted by different choice of law rules, choice of forum is of crucial importance and rightfully so contested. In this respect alone, the time and cost involved may be justified. Moreover, it should be noted that it is the defendant who asks for a stay, thus incurring additional expenses, which expenses he might be expected to pay. Application for a stay is usually, and perhaps ought to be, made early. Procedural time-limits are set for such an application, despite the court retaining its discretionary power to stay proceedings. Notwithstanding, the longer an application is left, the greater the threat of the proceedings not being aborted as a matter of judicial reluctance. Moreover, if Lord Templeman’s view that submissions should be measured in hours not days with the rarity of appeals holds true, such time and expense should be contained to a minimum. This can be contrasted with the American experience of the doctrine, where forum non conveniens can produce forum battles that can last for years, such that the doctrine may even be labelled a “delaying tactic.” 3.4.2. First Limb of Spiliada As noted, there are various circumstances which can justify delay under Article 6. In assessing the complexity of a case, consideration is given to the number of witnesses , the need for obtaining expert evidence and the later intervention of other parties. It can be seen that these factors mirror the appropriateness factors considered under the first limb of the Spiliada test. Thus, in Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc the emergence of over 3,000 new claimants gave greater significance to the personal injury issues, the investigation of which would involve a cumbersome factual inquiry and potentially a large body of expert evidence, such that South Africa was rightfully identified as the most appropriate forum under the first limb of Spiliada. Moreover, in Spiliada, similar litigation had already taken place over another vessel, the Cambridgeshire, such that the proceedings would be more appropriate in England. Termed the “Cambridgeshire factor,” it is persuasive where advantages of “efficiency, expedition and economy” would flow naturally from the specialist knowledge gained by the lawyers, experts and judges in the related proceedings. However, successful use of this factor has been extremely rare. Although conveniens means “appropriate”, not “convenient”, considerations of convenience and expense are still relevant. Thus, in both The Lakhta and The Polessk , a stay was granted because the dispute could be resolved more appropriately in the Russian Court at far less expense and far greater convenience for those involved, in light of, inter alia, the availability of witnesses and other evidence. Further, speed of a trial itself may be decisive in balancing appropriateness factors. For example, in Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union, although the courts of both England and Belgium were appropriate, the dispute could be resolved more quickly in the English court given the more complex position of the plaintiff’s title to sue under the governing law in Belgium; therefore a stay of the English proceedings was refused. Moreover, the availability of an early trial date is material in determining the most appropriate forum ; indeed, “speedy justice is usually better justice.” It can therefore be seen that the factors considered in the first limb of the Spiliada test reflect the justifications for delay under the reasonable time requirement of Article 6(1) and indeed consideration of these factors may result in an overall speedier trial. Hence, determining whether or not to apply the forum non conveniens doctrine is more than justifiable. Further, it is worth considering whether delay by the foreign court itself can be avoided. Endnotes Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665. [1987] AC 460. Crawford and Carruthers: 2006, pp157-158. Spiliada (n13), pp474-477. Opinion of A.G. Léger in Owusu (n29), at [270]. Hare perceives that paragraph 42 of Owusu is “strangely reminiscent” of A.G. Léger’s suggestions: Hare: 2006, p172 n.96. Fawcett; 2007, p9. Slater: 1988, p554; Robertson: 1987, p414; Zhenjie: 2001, p157. Cf. Spiliada (n72), p464 per Lord Templeman. Crawford and Carruthers: 2006, p157. Bell: 2002, paras.2.40-2.42, 2.58. Svantesson: 2005, pp411-412. Briggs and Rees: 2002, p220. Despite potential for re-application: Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 433, p474. E.g. in England, CPR Part 11. Ibid., r.3.1(2)(f). Briggs and Rees: 2005, pp324-325. Spiliada (n72), p465. E.g. Lacey v Cessna Aircraft (1991) 932 F.2d 170. Green: 1956, p494. Supra p8. Andreucci v Italy [1992] ECHR 8. Wemhoff v Germany (1968) 1 EHRR 55. Manieri v Italy [1992] ECHR 26. [2000] 1 WLR 1545. [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383, p391; however, a stay was not granted because substantial justice could and would not be done in the South African forum under the second limb of Spiliada, see infra p25. Spiliada (n72), p469. Ibid., p486. Collins et al: 2006, para.12-030 n.34. The Atlantic Star [1974] AC 436, p475; Spiliada (n72), pp474-475. Hill: 2005, para.9.2.23; wastage of cost is an important consideration in granting a stay, whether under forum non conveniens or not (Carel Johannes Steven Bentinck v Lisa Bentinck [2007] EWCA Civ 175.) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 269. [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40. [1991] 2 QB 206. Ibid., p246. Xn Corporation Ltd v Point of Sale Ltd [2001] I.L.Pr. 35. Ibid., at [14]

Develop that new debate and get creative

As noted in the previous post, one of the most important breakthroughs in writing your dissertation can come from spotting a gap where something has not yet been discussed. Once writing to fill that gap, it may be helpful to ask yourself what other angles there are to the debate. Or think about if the matter went to an official debate or, for law dissertations, to court. Think about creative arguments that an advocate might run and try to develop them yourself. Such development can lead to your getting a first rather than a 2:1.

3.4.3. Second Limb of Spiliada Delay in the foreign forum is a fundamental consideration when determining the interests of justice at the second limb of the Spiliada test and may even be decisive if the anticipated delay is excessive. An example pertinent to justification under Article 6(1) is The Jalakrishna, where a delay of five years was anticipated if the case was tried in India, such that the claimant would be prejudiced given his need for financial assistance in light of his critical injuries in an accident. Thus, a stay was not granted, showing respect for both a potential delay itself and what was at stake for the claimant. Notwithstanding, such cases are rare. For example, in Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd, Collins J (as he then was) recognised that the Indian legal system had made attempts to reduce its backlog of cases, such that in the absence of sufficient evidence of an anticipated delay, it would indeed be a “substantial breach of comity to stigmatise the Indian legal system in that way,” somewhat reflecting the principle that the claimant must “take [the appropriate] forum as he finds it.” Indeed, one of the major advantages of the forum non conveniens doctrine is that it offsets the judge’s tendency to grab as many cases as he can and it respects the valuable international private law principle of comity. As Lord Diplock stated in The Abidin Daver, “judicial chauvinism has been replaced by judicial comity.” However, the interests of States cannot always be reconciled with private party rights. When considering whether to stay proceedings, in light of Article 6, the interests of States should yield to the interests of private parties. Thus, if evidence is sufficient to show a real risk of a flagrant breach in the foreign forum, as was not presented in Gasser, a stay should not be permitted. Again mirroring reasonable time justifications under Article 6, additional considerations of what is at stake in the litigation may arise and authorities may have to exercise exceptional diligence in the conduct of certain cases. An ECtHR case, X v France shows that where a person sought compensation following infection with the AIDS virus, what was at stake was of crucial importance in determining the reasonableness of the length of proceedings. What is at stake will be relevant and probably decisive following a stay of proceedings under forum non conveniens, as The Jalakrishna shows. Notably, in Owusu v Jackson, where forum non conveniens was not permitted, what was at stake for Owusu was significant as he was rendered tetraplegic through his accident. It can therefore be seen that forum non conveniens takes a pragmatic approach to preventing foreseeable unreasonable delays under the second limb of Spiliada. Not only does this further justify operation of the doctrine under Article 6(1) through direct effect, it also greatly restricts, if not eliminates, the possibility of an indirect breach by the domestic court, given that the risk of a flagrant breach of the right to a fair trial is a fundamental factor of the interests of justice. Notwithstanding, herein there are still concerns in light of Professor Fawcett’s suggestion that a hybrid human rights/international private law approach should be taken such that Article 6 concerns should be identified first, taking into account ECtHR jurisprudence, and thereafter it should be for the flexible second limb of Spiliada to apply to resolve these issues. Fawcett concedes that the same result will be achieved in most cases, yet suggests that there may be borderline cases where this solution would work better and human rights concerns will have been taken more seriously. However, this need for procedural restructuring of judicial reasoning is arguably not wholly convincing, particularly given that the indirect effect doctrine under Soering requires a flagrant breach of Article 6, not merely a standard breach; it is therefore difficult to imagine the existence of any “borderline” cases as such. Moreover, in the cases of potential flagrant breaches, the interests of justice principle has been shown to be flexible enough to prevent stays which may breach Article 6 indirectly, regardless of the classification of the delay as a breach of human rights or otherwise. In this respect, it is arguable that the international private law case law could be adequately relied upon. Nevertheless, initial consideration of ECtHR jurisprudence may have more importance than in providing a mere procedurally attractive measure; it may guide and influence those who fail to see the pressing importance of human rights today and will at least effect compliance with the Section 2 of the HRA 1998 which demands that such jurisprudence be considered wherever Convention rights are in issue. Endnotes The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 558, p560; Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] 1 Ch 409, pp435-436; cf. The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399,pp413-414, where Hirst J gave “minimal weight to the delay factor” upon direction by the appellate courts. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 628. Hill: 2005, para.9.2.38. [2002] 1 WLR 1269. Ibid., at [177]. Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc [1998] AC 854, p872. [1984] AC 398. Ibid., p411. A and others v Denmark [1996] ECHR 2, at [78]. [1992] ECHR 45. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.628. (n29). Notwithstanding, the ECJ’s taking 2¾ years to produce its judgment did not go towards acknowledging the express request by the English Court of Appeal to provide reasonably quick compensation. Of course, time taken for a required preliminary reference from the ECJ is entirely justified under Article 6 (Pafitis v Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 566, at [95].) Fawcett: 2007, pp36-37. Such that length-of-proceedings cases (see supra pp.7-8) should be consulted in the context of unreasonable delay. (n14).

Put your foot in the icy water: Don’t be afraid to come to powerful conclusions

A dissertation that is written with balanced conclusions is a boring one. Reasoned opinion is important. Nothing would get done in this world if we said “X is right, but Y is equally right, so let’s just leave things the way they are”. Sitting on the fence may well get you a good upper second class award but there is little chance of it getting you a first. A certain English teacher, Sandra MacCallum, at Kyle Academy once taught that, sometimes, “you’ve got to put your foot into the icy water”. Don’t be afraid to come to powerful conclusions. Hopefully the below example, with a reasonable, opinionated attack on the ECJ’s lack of respect for the common law principles of the Scottish export doctrine forum non conveniens, illustrates the significance of this suggestion.

3.5. Conclusions It is perplexing that in Owusu Advocate General Léger, and perhaps indirectly the ECJ, suggested that applying forum non conveniens may be incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1), whereas analysis of its proper operation shows that it is compatible and may even be a useful tool in providing faster and more economic litigation. Although it is at least somewhat refreshing to see ECHR arguments being acknowledged in an international private law context without encouragement, it is nevertheless peculiar that Article 6 concerns have been identified in relation to forum non conveniens, “one of the most civilised of legal principles” as Lord Goff of Chieveley put it, when the ECJ did not properly apply or even consider Article 6 in Gasser, where the need for its recognition was much more significant. The ECHR is not an optional instrument that can be applied to justify a course of reasoning, however misguided, on the one hand and dismissed when apparently greater considerations require it on the other; careful legal analysis is required for its operation, which analysis does not appear to have been applied or even respected by the ECJ.

A fresh perspective

Separating a dissertation into manageable chunks from the initial stages of structural planning gives you freedom to start afresh to write about a different but related topic once concluding another section. Access to a court, for instance, is a separate right from the right for a trial to be heard and decided within a reasonable time. It, thus, merits a separate chapter with its own introduction, subsections and conclusions.

4. ACCESS TO A COURT 4.1. Operation in Article 6 The fair, public and expeditious characteristics of judicial proceedings expressed in Article 6 would be of no value at all if there were no judicial proceedings. Thus, referring to the rule of law and avoidance of arbitrary power, principles which underlie much of the ECHR, the ECtHR has held that the right of access to a court is an element inherent in Article 6(1). Although this right is not absolute, any limitation must not restrict access to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired, provided that a legitimate aim is pursued with proportionality between the limitation and that aim. The potential for this right to arise in the civil jurisdiction context is high, given the intrinsic nature of the operation of jurisdiction rules. 4.2. Anti-Suit Injunctions A denial of access to a foreign court and, therefore, a potential Article 6 violation will occur through the grant of an anti-suit injunction, which seeks to restrain foreign proceedings. This issue arose in The Kribi, where the claimants sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain Belgian proceedings brought in contravention of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Aikens J held that “Article 6…does not provide that a person is to have an unfettered choice of tribunal in which to pursue or defend his civil rights” . Moreover, “Article 6…does not deal at all with where the right to a [fair trial] is to be exercised by a litigant. The crucial point is that civil rights must be determined somewhere by a hearing and before a tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.” Therefore, a court granting an anti-suit injunction, in the very limited circumstances in which it can now do so, would not be in breach of Section 6 of the HRA 1988 where another available forum exists. Contrastingly, Article 6 challenges remain for the “single forum” cases, where there is only one forum of competent jurisdiction to determine the merits of the claim, despite the cases already being treated differently. In such a case, the exemplary approach of Aikens J would easily resolve such human rights issues. Ultimately, in a commercially welcome judgment, human rights arguments were made and received properly. Moreover, Aikens J “logically” dealt with the human rights points first. Hence the case is a working model for Fawcett’s hybrid approach where human rights should be considered first before international private law principles. Contrasting with stays producing concerns of unreasonable delays, in this context of access to a court there is more impetus to follow Fawcett’s model, particularly given that such denial of access can constitute a direct breach of Article 6, thus producing a more realistic threat of contravention of Section 6 of the HRA 1998. 4.3. Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and Waiving Convention Rights Another instance pertinent to Article 6 is where a person has no access to the courts of the UK because of the enforcement of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Convention rights can, in general, be waived, including the right of access to a court under Article 6, which can occur where a jurisdiction agreement or agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable, but not where a person entered into the agreement without voluntary consensus. Generally, rights will be waived under a jurisdiction agreement meeting the requirements of Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation. However, as Briggs and Rees note, there may be instances, somewhat unattractive, where a party is bound by such a jurisdiction agreement without voluntary consensus as such, such that his right of access to a court may not have been waived, reflecting the more prudent stance taken towards compulsory alternative dispute resolution. Notwithstanding, Article 6 will be upheld provided there is another available court. 4.4. Limitations on Jurisdiction It is axiomatic that limitations on jurisdiction may restrict access to a court. The ECtHR has held that limitation periods are generally compatible with Article 6, particularly for reasons of legal certainty, provided that they are not applied inflexibly. This compatibility should encompass a stay under forum non conveniens for a forum barred by limitation, which is granted only where the claimant was at fault by acting unreasonably in failing to commence proceedings in the foreign court within the applicable limitation period. Contrastingly, blanket limitations are a more difficult species. An example of a blanket exclusion on jurisdiction is the English common law Moçambique rule, which provides that title to foreign land should be determined only at the situs of the land. This may conflict with Article 6 because of a denial of access to an English court. Although this proposition may be unfounded, particularly where access to a court is available somewhere, the exclusion on jurisdiction may still be challenged on Article 6 grounds if disproportionate its aim. Such proportionality concerns were considered in Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Following Al-Adsani v United Kingdom , a blanket limitation on jurisdiction was accepted because the grant of sovereign immunity, which restricted access to a court, pursued the legitimate aim of comity through compliance with international law and was proportionate. Notwithstanding, underpinning this reasoning is an inevitable tension between the interests of States and private parties, such that Mance LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal produced his judgment in light of ECHR considerations, taking a more flexible approach supportive of human rights. Mark v Mark also illustrates such inflexibility and proportionality considerations. The limitation in that case prevented access to the English courts, which may have been the only available courts, through a particular rule of public policy. This rule was therefore seen by Thorpe LJ to be incompatible with Article 6 and hence the HRA 1998. Contrastingly, in the House of Lords, Baroness Hale affirmed the decision on different grounds, dismissing ECHR considerations, such that she perhaps did not take human rights concerns entirely seriously. Although access to some court will be available following most limitations, the few cases where access would be denied to the only available court under a limitation warrant special attention in light of protection of the right to a fair trial. Such attention has been properly given on occasion, as demonstrated by both Mance and Thorpe LJJ. However, this approach is not consistently followed, shown by the dangerous approach of Baroness Hale. 4.5. Interaction with Forum non Conveniens In Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc, the defendant asked for a stay of proceedings. After identifying South Africa as the natural forum, the Court was faced with the argument that the stay would breach Article 6 because the complexity of the case and lack of funding were such that the claimant could not sue in that foreign court. After applying the Spiliada principles, which provided that a stay should be refused because the claimant could not obtain justice in the foreign court, Lord Bingham then turned to the Article 6 arguments and noted simply that “I do not think article 6 supports any conclusion which is not already reached on application of Spiliada principles.” Although the right to a fair trial was acknowledged and indeed protected under the refusal to grant a stay, the procedure in reasoning lowered the importance of human rights as the Spiliada principles took precedence to application of Article 6. Thus, if the Lubbe approach was followed in the future and a stay was granted to a foreign court in which there was a risk of a flagrant breach, the court may indirectly breach Article 6 in addition to Sections 2 and 6 of the HRA 1998. Similar techniques to that employed by Lord Bingham have been used in other forum non conveniens cases. For example, in The Polessk, the extent to which evidence showed the right to a fair trial in the St. Petersberg Court was considered under the second limb of the Spiliada test. Moreover, as discussed, reasonable delay has been considered consistently, although somewhat effectively, within this second stage of Spiliada. As noted, these latter instances show a sufficient degree of reconciliation with at least the indirect effect of Article 6, regardless of the characterisation of the breach as one of Article 6 or otherwise, particularly because it is difficult to imagine “borderline” cases amounting to flagrant breaches of Article 6, as Fawcett suggests. This analysis can be applied equally to the facts of Lubbe where access to the foreign court clearly did not exist, such that a stay would unequivocally produce a flagrant breach. It may be suggested that other cases are not so easy to evaluate, such as in determining whether access to a court exists through lack of legal aid, as Santambrogio v Italy illustrates. Nevertheless, surely if the decision is a difficult one to make, then the breach cannot be flagrant and, as such, there cannot be an indirect breach of Article 6. However, as noted, a procedural shift in judicial reasoning will have undoubted procedural benefits, if at the very least it effects compliance with Section 2 of the HRA 1998. Endnotes Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1, at [35]. Ibid., at [34]-[35]. Ibid., at [36]; this includes the right to a determination of proceedings on the merits (Gorbachev v Russia, No. 3354/02, 15 February 2007.) Ibid., at [38]. Winterwerp v The Netherlands [1979] ECHR 4, at [60], [75]. Ashingdane v United Kingdom [1985] ECHR 8, at [57]. OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep 76; now overruled on the specific point for decision (Turner v Grovit and Others [2005] AC 101). The Kribi (n131), at [42]. Ibid., at [42]. Following Turner v Grovit (n131), a court cannot grant an anti-suit injunction against a party who has commenced an action in a Brussels Convention State. British Airways v Laker Airways [1983] AC 58,at [80]. The Kribi, (n131),at [41]. Fawcett: 2007, pp36-37. Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692; cf. Loucaides: 2003, pp48-50. Deweer v Belgium (1979-80) 2 EHRR 439; indeed, this is a “natural consequence of [the parties’] right to regulate their mutual relations as they see fit.” (Axelsson v. Sweden, no.11960/86, 13 July 1990.) Malmstrom v Sweden (1983) 38 DR 18. Cf. under the common law (The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324); Briggs and Rees: 2005, p19. E.g. a person not party to a bill of lading bound by a jurisdiction agreement between shipper and carrier. Briggs and Rees: 2005, pp18-19. See generally Schiavetta: 2004, paras.4.2-4.21. Stubbings v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 44, at [51]. Briggs and Rees: 2005, p20 n.101. Spiliada (n72), pp483-484. British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602; for Scotland, Hewit’s Trs v Lawson (1891) 18 R 793. Briggs and Rees: 2005, para.4.06. [2006] UKHL 26. 34 EHRR 273. Cf. Markovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 1141, which held that although there was no blanket limitation on jurisdiction through sovereign immunity and that access to a court had been afforded, access was nevertheless limited in scope, such that the applicants could not receive a decision on the merits. [2005] QB 699. [2004] EWCA Civ 168, at [40]. [2006] AC 98. Fawcett: 2007, p34. [2000] 1 WLR 1545. (n72). Lubbe (n157), p1561. Further, no relevant decisions of the ECtHR were relied upon in the judgment e.g. Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3 where representation costs were “very high” and the procedure was too complex and would evoke emotions too great for the applicant to present her case. Cf. Santambrogio v Italy [2004] ECHR 430 (post-Lubbe), where legal aid was deemed unnecessary in the circumstances. Fawcett: 2007, p.11. (n102), p51. Supra pp.17-19. Supra p.19. (n160).

Get creative!

Creative argument is essential if you’re going to get a first. Perhaps only unless your tutor or professor doesn’t know the topic well can you get away rehashing old argument and ideas that have been discussed thousands of times before. Having worked with academia in trying to commercialise intellectual property rights (IP), through, for instance, spin-off companies, it is clear that innovation is crucial for the business models of universities. It goes something like this: University teaches its students; Students produce research in which they and/or the university have IP, such as copyrights or patents; Student and/or university commercialises that IP by selling or licensing it to journals or other entities, such as companies. Money, then, gets reinvested into the system or society, which gets to work with the new innovation or improvement. The below argument is example of how such creativity can light up your dissertation, add value to your University and get you a better mark overall.

4.6. Owusu v Jackson Further relevance of Article 6 can be seen in the context of the ECJ’s analysis of forum non conveniens in Owusu v Jackson. Fundamentally wrong, the ECJ believed that a defendant “would not be able…reasonably to foresee before which other court he may be sued.” However, it is the defendant who asks for a stay and thus his foreseeability of a stay in this respect is secured. Article 6 is underpinned by the principle of legal certainty. Although legal certainty has specific provision in some articles of the ECHR, it is not confined to those articles; the specific provisions require domestic law “to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the articles of the Convention.” Legal certainty comprises the particularly significant aspect of foreseeability. In this regard, the ECtHR has noted that: “a norm cannot be regarded as a ‘law’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct: he must be able…to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail.” It is at least arguable that this would encompass procedural certainty emanating from rules of jurisdiction. If the forum non conveniens doctrine permitted stays without the defendant’s asking, the defendant would have such little legal certainty that there may even be an arguable infringement of his right to a fair trial under Article 6, not only incompatible with the higher test of legal certainty of jurisdictional rules under the Brussels regime. This would result from the defendant’s lack of foreseeability as to where proceedings against him would take place. Contrastingly, cogent arguments can be made against forum non conveniens, inter alia, because of the uncertainty for the claimant. Notwithstanding, it could be said that his rights under Article 6(1) are upheld through his right of access to a court somewhere else. Moreover, he would have much more legal certainty than that of the defendant under the ECJ’s interpretation of forum non conveniens because stays under proper operation of forum non conveniens are granted, to some extent, within the confines of regulated and foreseeable discretion. It can therefore be seen that the ECJ had analysed something which would be incompatible not only with Scottish and English law, but also with the ECHR and HRA 1998. Although a proper analysis of forum non conveniens would probably not have altered the outcome of Owusu, it would have been much more respectable to the common law, already set to be dismantled through an inevitable course of Europeanization, not to knock down, to some extent, a “straw man.” 4.7. Conclusions It is clear that there are disparate approaches to the right of access to a court, perhaps emanating in part from varying attitudes to the importance of human rights. Most civil jurisdiction cases will involve access being denied to one court, while access to another is still available. These will generally not breach Article 6 since there is no right of preference of court under Article 6 as Aikens J held in The Kribi, a judgment fully respectable of human rights. Contrastingly, in the limited number of cases which do yield Article 6 concerns, respect for human rights has been inconsistent, a worrying position particularly in light of the recognition of new, potential Article 6 challenges, such as in the areas of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and limitations on jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, such concerns may be unfounded, given the flexibility of international private law rules, such as the demands of justice under the second limb of Spiliada, which can effectively prevent indirect breaches of Article 6. Endnotes Except in exceptional circumstances: Collins et al: 2006, para.12-006 n.20. E.g. Articles 5 and 7. Reed and Murdoch: 2001, para.3.33. Amuur v France [1996] ECHR 20, at [50]. Reed and Murdoch: 2001, para.3.36. Sunday Times (No1) v United Kingdom [1979] ECHR 1, at [49]. Harris: 2005, p939; despite a lack of express mention by the ECJ in Owusu (n29); cf. Opinion of AG Leger in Owusu, at [160]. Hartley: 2005b, pp824-828; cf. Mance: 2007. (n72).

Add Another New Topic

The following is a different slant on the fundamental theme of the dissertation.

5. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 5.1. Recognition of Contracting State Judgments An indirect breach of Article 6 may occur where a court recognises and thus enforces a judgment obtained in foreign proceedings contrary to the requirements of Article 6. Little challenge is presented where that judgment is obtained in a court of a State party to the ECHR; in such a case, recognition can be refused through Article 6 which is a facet of public policy under Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention. Notably, Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation provides that the recognition must be “manifestly” contrary to public policy, implying a higher threshold than in Article 27(1). The difference in wording is uncertain, but it is hoped that it will not be used to “sweep mere procedural defects under the rug.” Indeed, the importance of the right to a fair trial to the rule of law cannot be underestimated and thus it is arguable that any breach of Article 6 will be manifestly contrary to public policy. Notwithstanding, if the phrases “manifestly contrary to public policy” and a “flagrant breach of the ECHR” were to be compared, it may be just as arguable that a manifest breach of Article 6, not a standard one, is required for the operation of Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation. However, this may not be unwarranted in the context of judgments of Contracting States, as noted. Through Krombach v Bamberski , the housing of Article 6 under public policy effectively creates a hierarchical system, whereby EC rules have precedence over human rights rules, particularly because of the ignorance of the indirect effect doctrine. However, this may not be wholly unwelcome in light of the potential existence of a common EC public policy, somewhat emanating from the harmonisation through the ECHR in 1950. Moreover, as Meidanis suggests, the ECJ appears to see the protection of human rights as the common core of the European public policy and is prepared to sacrifice the basic principle of the free movement of judgments of the Brussels Convention to ensure protection of human rights. Notwithstanding, as noted, in other contexts, the ECJ does not so respect human rights, particularly highlighted by its emphatic rejection of Article 6 in Gasser. Although the flexibility through the public policy exception does not extend to the rules relating to jurisdiction, there are other mechanisms for protecting human rights within the Brussels Convention and, especially, the Brussels Regulation. 5.2. Recognition of Non-Contracting State Judgments More difficulty arises with recognition of a judgment obtained in a non-Contracting State. 5.2.1. European Court of Human Rights Such recognition was permitted without reference to Article 6 in Drozd and Janousek. However, in Pellegrini v Italy, the ECtHR held that the Italian court could not recognise a judgment obtained in a Vatican City court in contravention of Article 6 standards. This was so despite a Concordat between Italy and the Vatican requiring such recognition. Pellegrini can be considerably demarcated from the Soering/Drozd line of cases, which requires a flagrant breach to have occurred in the non-Contracting State, the underpinning theory being the “reduced effect of public policy.” Instead, Pellegrini requires full compliance with Article 6 standards as if the foreign court were party to the ECHR, such that failure to review a judgment against which standards is a risky practice. Notwithstanding, the actual breach of Article 6 standards in Pellegrini was flagrant, despite the court’s omission of this, and therefore the judgment may not represent such a large departure from Drozd. Moreover, the “reduced effect of public policy” approach of Drozd was followed eight days prior to Pellegrini in Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany. However, it is difficult to distinguish Hans-Adam II on its facts particularly given the sweeping reasoning in Pellegrini. Thus, as it stands, Pellegrini is the leading authority, prescribing the need for a review of foreign judgments against full Article 6 standards, ensuring full protection for the right to a fair trial. It is nevertheless hoped by some that the case will be revisited, perhaps with the preference of a variable standard. Further, a dictum in Pellegrini may have the effect of requiring such review only where the judgment emanates from the courts of a State not party to the Convention. Hence, as Kinsch submits, an a contrario reading may be imputed, such that review of Article 6 standards is optional where the judgment emanates from a Contracting State. However, this may not be wholly unwelcome given that the Member States of the EU are party to the ECHR in addition to the Brussels Convention and Regulation, which seek to limit the power of public policy from preventing recognition of judgments. 5.2.2. House of Lords In stark contrast to Pellegrini, the House of Lords in Montgomery required a “flagrant” breach in the United States, a non-Contracting State, for the judgment not to be recognised. Such a flagrant breach was not created in the United States and hence recognition of a judgment breaching regular Article 6 standards was permitted. In its judgment, the House of Lords attempted to distinguish Pellegrini through the existence of the Concordat between Italy and the Vatican City, which required Italy to ensure that the Vatican court’s procedure complied with the fundamental principles of Italian legal system, one being Article 6. However, this is hard, if not impossible, to understand, particularly since it assumes that the Concordat of 1929, as amended, could incorporate ECHR standards, when the Vatican City deliberately refused to subscribe to the ECHR. Further, the ECtHR in Pellegrini did not suggest in its judgment that the relationship between Italy and the Vatican was material to its decision. Therefore, Montgomery is seen to be wrong in so distinguishing Pellegrini. Briggs and Rees further suggest that the House of Lords applied the wrong test in Montgomery because of the analysis of deportation cases, such as Soering. In such a case, a prediction is required, whereas in Montgomery, or indeed in any case concerning recognition, there was no need for such a prediction as the foreign judgment could already be seen to have breached Article 6. However, Soering requires that the person “has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial (emphasis added.)” If he has already suffered a breach, there is no need for a prediction to be made; instead, the reason for the standard of flagrancy is based on the “reduced effect of public policy” theory, an approach followed in Drozd, as noted. The reasoning of Briggs and Rees in this respect is akin to that of the Court of Appeal in Montgomery where Lord Woolf CJ stated that “the reference in [Soering at [113]] to a future flagrant breach of Article 6 was no more than a dicta which should not be applied to the enforcement of a court order of a non-Contracting State.” However, Drozd, which was not cited to, or considered by, the Court of Appeal, expressly requires such a flagrant breach of Article 6 if enforcement of a court order of a non-Contracting State is to be denied, which clearly has nothing to do with making predictions. Instead, as Briggs and Rees indeed note, the reason why the House of Lords applied the wrong test in Montgomery is that Pellegrini, the leading ECtHR authority which overrides Drozd, was wrongly distinguished and therefore permitted recognition of a judgment in contravention of ECHR jurisprudence. It may be argued that this was not a case of human rights not being taken seriously, but was merely a case of wrongful interpretation of human rights law, yet this could only be accepted upon an assumption of the incompetence of the House of Lords. 5.3. Conclusions The leading authority of the ECtHR on operation of the indirect effect doctrine with respect to recognising foreign judgments, Pellegrini demands a review of full compliance with Article 6 standards of foreign judgments, perhaps limited to those emanating from non-Contracting State courts. Through this, the right to a fair trial can be fully upheld in national courts and, in the UK, breach of Section 6 of the HRA 1998 can be avoided. Notwithstanding, the House of Lords effectively got human rights wrong, thus paving the way forward for reduced protection of Article 6 in the UK. However, this area is not devoid of hope; to effect compliance with this framework, Montgomery must be overturned, which does not appear too remote a possibility given the extensive criticism of the case.

How to conclude a first class law dissertation

The conclusion to your dissertation is, arguably, the most important part and is, therefore, potentially a major differentiator between a first class dissertation and a second class one.

There are three things which you should bear in mind:-

1. A well-written dissertation, thesis, essay or, indeed, any story should have three main parts to it: an introduction; a main body; and a conclusion. It reflects any good piece of oratory: say what you’re going to say, say it, then say what you’ve said. In your conclusion, you are, thus, trying to tell the audience what you’ve said throughout your dissertation. If the word limit is 10,000 words, 800-1000 words should, ideally, be used on your conclusion;

2. Don’t be afraid to put your foot into the icy water. As stated in an earlier section you should not be afraid to come to powerful conclusions even if they challenge the views of other academics, practitioners or even the general public, provided that your views can be fairly and reasonably supported. Which brings us to the third and most important aspect of any conclusion;

3. A well drafted conclusion should refer back to your analysis throughout your dissertation to support your suggested conclusions; it should not allow you to raise new arguments or thoughts which you haven’t already considered. Think about it like a civil proof in court: you conduct an examination-in-chief in which you ask open questions to get evidence from your witness; your opponent then cross-examines your witness to test their evidence; you then get a chance to re-examine the witness but you do NOT get a chance to raise anything new that was not covered in cross.

The conclusion to my dissertation, different from my Juridical Review version, is as below. Given the recent Supreme Court criminal law decision of Cadder v HMA, for which see the ScotsLawBlog Cadder article , the final words on getting human rights right attract even greater significance.

6. CONCLUSIONS The right to a fair trial has produced much concern in the conflict of laws arena today, a particular result of the evolution of a more stringent human rights culture in the United Kingdom. In the field of civil jurisdiction, the right to a trial within reasonable time and the right of access to a court, two of the most fundamental substantive rights of Article 6 ECHR, have emerged; in the sphere of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the indirect effect doctrine, a key procedural element of the ECHR, which protects the right to a fair trial indirectly but nevertheless just as significantly, has arisen. International private law mechanisms exist for the reconciliation of Article 6 with the sphere of civil jurisdiction and judgments. The extent to which these can be utilised to protect the right to a fair trial is undoubtedly immense. At the most extreme end of protection, Fawcett’s hybrid model could provide great procedural legal certainty, such that human rights concerns will be identified first, using ECtHR jurisprudence, following which international private law mechanisms can resolve these concerns with their inherent flexibility. This strict approach is not unwarranted, particularly where judges fail to see the function or even importance of human rights. Pertinent examples include the misapplication of human rights by the House of Lords in Montgomery , which indeed must be rectified, and other approaches not confined to the courts of the United Kingdom; for instance, the embarrassingly misguided approach of the ECJ in Gasser , where it refused to recognise human rights concerns in its myopic pursuit of the objectives of the Brussels regime, unyielding with respect for concerns of private parties, when there were measures available for reconciliation. This appears even more inadequate in light of Advocate General Léger’s later suggestions that forum non conveniens may actually be incompatible with Article 6, when the doctrine is more than justifiable as it seeks to produce faster and more economic litigation, through both the first and second limbs of Spiliada. Notwithstanding, the need for Fawcett’s model is more questionable in other situations; for instance, in those cases involving potential indirect breaches of Article 6 when transferring actions abroad, flexible international private law mechanisms appear to have been applied in a manner sufficiently compliant with the ECHR, regardless of the characterisation of the breach as one of Article 6 or simply of the demands of justice. For example, the second limb of Spiliada has effectively prevented stays where there is a real risk of a flagrant breach abroad, as is the Soering threshold for such an indirect breach, whether regarding unreasonable delay or lack of access to a court. Fawcett concedes that the overall result of many cases will remain unchanged but suggests that “borderline” cases may exist which pose as pitfalls for the courts. However, the requirement of flagrancy, as he correctly applied at the beginning of his analysis, makes the existence of such cases difficult, if not impossible, to imagine in practice. In this respect, Fawcett appears to be advocating an approach extending beyond avoiding breaching Article 6; instead, he is actively aiming at protection of a fair trial beyond the Article 6 threshold. However, this is not unwelcome; the importance of Article 6 is so great that it is worth adopting the strict approach. The consistent use of ECHR jurisprudence at the outset will, at the very least, prevent a breach of Section 2 of the HRA 1998; further, it may assist those judges who are misguided or fail to see the importance of human rights today. Ultimately, a strict approach may provide for considerable legal certainty in a fast and growing area of law which demands firm, human rights orientated answers.

New: we have published guides to some of the best personal injury lawyers , settlement agreement solicitors and best employment lawyers in the UK , in addition to helpful guidance on a range of other legal issues which may be useful if you or a friend need to point someone in the right direction.

How to write a bibliography to conclude your first-class dissertation

There are three stages for completing an abundant and competent bibliography. First, go into the footnotes on your document, select all, copy and paste to the foot of your article, then separate into different categories. Then, second, go back through the materials which you have read and add them. Finally, third, sort alphabetically using Word or Excel.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 7.1. TABLE OF CASES A and others v Denmark [1996] ECHR 2 AG of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai [2005] EWHC 2102 (Ch), appeals dismissed [2006] EWCA Civ 390 Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119 Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3 Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam [2004] EWCA Civ 857 Amuur v France (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 533 Andreucci v Italy [1992] ECHR 8 Ashingdane v United Kingdom [1985] ECHR 8 Att. Gen. v Arthur Anderson & Co [1989] ECC 224 Axelsson v. Sweden, no.11960/86, 13 July 1990 Bensaid v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 10 Berghofer v. ASA SA Case 221/84 [1985] ECR 2699 Berisford Plc v New Hampshire Insurance [1990] 2 QB 631 Bock v. Germany [1989] ECHR 3 Boddaert v Belgium (1993) 16 EHRR 242 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi(“Bosphorus Airways“) v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1 Bottazzi v. Italy [1999] ECHR 62 Brazilian Loans (PCIJ Publications, Series A, Nos. 20-21, p.122) Bristow Heliocopters v Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation [2004] 2 Ll Rep 150 British Airways v Laker Airways [1983] AC 58 British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602 Buchholz v Germany [1981] ECHR 2 Carel Johannes Steven Bentinck v Lisa Bentinck [2007] EWCA Civ 175 Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Nomura International Plc [2003] IL Pr 20 Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] 1 Ch 409 Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc [1998] AC 854 Credit Agricole Indosuez v Unicof Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd.s Rep 196 Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd, The Times June 8, 1995 Darnell v United Kingdom (1993) 18 EHRR 205 Delcourt v Belgium (1979-80) 1 EHRR 355 Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] QB 770 Deweer v Belgium (1979-80) 2 EHRR 439 Di Mauro v. Italy ECHR 1999-V Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745 Eckle v Germany (1983) 5 EHRR 1 Elderslie Steamship Company v Burrell (1895) 22 R 389 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Jacqmain (Case 150/80) [1981] ECR 1671 Erich Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl, C-116/02 [2005] QB 1 ERT v DEP C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925 F v Switzerland [1987] ECHR 32 Ferrari v Italy [1999] ECHR 64 Foti v Italy (1982) EHRR 313 Fritz and Nana v France, 75 DR 39 Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1 Gorbachev v Russia, No. 3354/02, Judgment of 15 February 2007. Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37 Guincho v Portugal (1984) 7 EHRR 223 H v France (1990) 12 EHRR 74 Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Aegan Turkish Holidays Ltd [1979] AC 508 Hewit’s Trs v Lawson (1891) 18 R 793. Huseyin Erturk v Turkey [2005] ECHR 630. Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union [1991] 2 QB 206. Iveco Fiat v Van Hool Case 313/85 [1986] ECR 3337 Jones v Saudi Arabia [2004] EWCA Civ 1394 JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom [2005] EWHC 508 Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy (1994) 19 EHRR 368 Klockner Holdings GmbH v Klockner Beteiligungs GmbH [2005] EWHC 1453 Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269 Konig v Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 170 Krombach v Bamberski Case C-7/98 [2001] QB 709 Kudla v Poland [2000] ECHR 512 Lacey v Cessna Aircraft (1991) 932 F.2d 170 Ledra Fisheries Ltd v Turner [2003] EWHC 1049 Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 Malone v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 1 Malstrom v Sweden (1983) 38 Decisions and Reports 18 Manieri v Italy [1992] ECHR 26 Margareta and Roger Andersson v Sweden (1992) 14 EHRR 615. Markovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 1141 Maronier v Larmer [2003] QB 620 Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 12. Messier-Dowty v Sabena [2000] 1 WLR 2040 Netherlands 6202/73 1975 1 DR 66 OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep 76 Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 433 Owners of the Atlantic Star v Owners of the Bona Spes (The Atlantic Star and The Bona Spes) [1974] AC 436 Owusu v Jackson and Others C-281/02 [2005] QB 801 Pafitis v Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 566 Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692 Philip Morris International Inc v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-1 Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany ECHR 2001-VIII. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 1 AC 368 R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 R. (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389 R. (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26 Riccardo Pizzati v Italy [2006] ECHR 275 Robins v United Kingdom (1998) 26 EHRR 527 Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14 Salotti v RUWA Case 23/76 [1976] ECR 1831 Santambrogio v Italy [2004] ECHR 430 Scopelliti v Italy (1993) 17 EHRR 493 Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665 Soc Divagsa v Spain (1993) 74 DR 274. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Lid [1987] 1 AC 460 Standard Steamship Owners Protection and Indemnity Association v Gann [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 528 Stogmuller v Austria (1979) 2 EHRR 155 Stubbings v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 44 Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 245 The Al Battani [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 219 The Benarty [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244 The Fehmarn [1958] 1 WLR 159 The Jalakrishna [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 628 The Lakhta [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 269 The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399 The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324 The Polessk [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40 The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 558 Toepfer International G.M.B.H. v. Molino Boschi Srl [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 510 Trendex v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679 Turner v Grovit and Others [2005] 1 AC 101 Union Alimentaria SA v Spain (1990) 12 EHRR 24 Vocaturo v Italy [1991] ECHR 34. Wemhoff v Germany (1968) 1 EHRR 55 Winterwerp v The Netherlands [1979] ECHR 4 X v France [1992] ECHR 45 Xn Corporation Ltd v Point of Sale Ltd [2001] I.L.Pr. 35 Z and Others v. United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 3 Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 9 7.2. TABLE OF LEGISLATION European Union EC Treaty Art 6(2) Art 307 Council Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels Regulation) Art 2 Art 4 Art 27 Art 28 Art 30 Art 34(1) Art 34(2) Art 35(3) Art 71 Italy Law no.89 of 24 March 2001 (the “Pinto Act”). United Kingdom Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 11 r 3.1(2)(f) Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) s1(1)(a) s2(1)(a) s3(1) s6(3)(a) 7.3. TABLE OF CONVENTIONS Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels Convention) Art 21 Art 22 Art 57 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Art 5 Art 6 Art 7 Art 13 7.4. TEXTBOOKS Anton, A.E., and Beaumont, P., 1995. Anton & Beaumont’s Civil Jurisdiction in Scotland: Brussels and Lugano Conventions. 2nd ed ., Edinburgh: Greens Bell, A., 2003. Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation. Oxford: OUP Briggs, A., 2002. The Conflict of Laws, Oxford: OUP. Briggs, A., and Rees, P., 2002. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. 3rd ed., London: LLP Briggs, A., and Rees, P., 2005. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. 4rd ed., London: LLP Clarkson, C.M.V., and Hill, J., 2002. Jaffey on the Conflict of Laws. 2nd ed., Oxford: OUP Clarkson, C.M.V., and Hill, J., 2006. The Conflict of Laws. New York: OUP Clayton, R. and Tomlinson, H., 2000. The Law of Human Rights. Oxford: OUP Collier, J.C., 2001. Conflict of Laws. 3rd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collins, L., et al (eds), 2006. Dicey Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws. 14th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell Crawford, E.B., and Carruthers, J.M., 2006. International Private Law in Scotland. 2nd ed, Edinburgh: Greens Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh. The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press. Fawcett, J.J., 1995. Declining jurisdiction in private international law: reports to the XIVth congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, Athens, August 1994. Oxford: Clarendon Press Fawcett, J.J., Harris, J. and Bridge, M., 2005. International Sale of Goods in the Conflict of Laws. Oxford: OUP Grosz, S., Beatson, J. and Duffy, P., 2000. Human Rights: The 1998 Act and the European Convention,.London: Sweet and Maxwell Harris, D.J., O’Boyle, M., Warbrick, C., 1995. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Butterworth Hill, J., 2005. International Commercial Disputes in English Courts. 3rd ed Portland: Hart Publishing McClean, D. and Beevers, K., 2005. Morris on the Conflict of Laws. 6th ed., London: Sweet and Maxwell North, P.M. and Fawcett, J.J., 2004. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law. 13th ed. Oxford: OUP Ovey, C. and White, R., 2002. The European Convention on Human Rights. New York: OUP Raitio, J., 2003. The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Reed, R. and Murdoch, J., 2001. A Guide to Human Rights Law in Scotland. Edinburgh: Butterworths Scotland Starmer, K., 1999. European Human Rights Law. London: Legal Action Group 7.5. ARTICLES Baldwin, J., and Cunnington, R., 2004. “The Crisis in Enforcement of Civil Judgments in England and Wales.” 2004 PL (SUM) 305-328 Briggs, A., 2005a. “Foreign Judgments and Human Rights.” 121(APR) L.Q.R. 185-189 Briggs, A., 2005b. “The Death of Harrods: Forum non Conveniens and the European Court.” 121(OCT) L.Q.R. 535-540 Clarke, A., 2007. “The Differing Approach to Commercial Litigation in the European Court of Justice and the Courts of England and Wales” 18 E.B.L.Rev. 101-129 Collins, L., 1995. “The Brussels Convention Within the United Kingdom”, 111 LQR 541 Costa, J-P., 2002, Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, 435, cited in Kinsch, P., 2004. “The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments – A Survey of the Cases Decided by the European Human Rights Institutions,” in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp197-228, p228 n100 Crawford, E.B., 2005. “The Uses of Putativity and Negativity in the Conflict of Laws.” 54 ICLQ 829-854 Crifo, C., 2005. “First Steps Towards the Harmonisation of Civil procedure: The Regulation Creating a European Enforcement Order for Uncontested Claims.” C.J.Q. 2005, 24(APR), 200-223 Eardley, A., 2006. “Libel Tourism in England: Now the Welcome is Even Warmer.” 17(1) Ent. L.R. 35-38 Fabri, M., and Langbroek, P.M., 2003. “Preliminary draft report: Delay in Judicial Proceedings: A preliminary Inquiry into the Relation Between the Demands of the Reasonable Time Requirements of Article 6(1) ECHR and Their Consequences for Judges and Judicial Administration in the Civil, Criminal and Administrative Justice Chains”, CEPEJ (2003) 20 Rev Farran, S., 2007. “Conflicts of Laws in Human Rights: Consequences for Colonies”, (2007) 1 EdinLR 121 Fawcett, J.J., 2007. “The Impact of Article 6(1) of the ECHR on Private International Law.” 56 ICLQ 1-48 Fentiman, R., 2005. “English Domicile and the Staying of Actions” [2005] 64 CLJ 303 Flannery, L., 2004. “The End of Anti-Suit Injunctions?” New Law Journal, 28 May 2004, 798 Franzosi, M., 2002. “Torpedoes are here to stay” [2002] 2 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 154 Franzosi, M., 1997. “Worldwide Patent Litigation and the Italian Torpedo” 19 (7) EIPR 382 Green, L., 1956. “Jury Trial and Mr. Justice Black,” 65 Yale LJ 482 Halkerston, G., 2005. “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.” 155 NLJ 436 Hare, C., “Forum non Conveniens in Europe: Game Over or Time for ‘Reflexion’” JBL 2006, Mar, 157-179 Harris, J., 2001. “The Brussels Regulation.” 20 Civil Justice Quarterly 218 Harris, J., 2005. “Stays of Proceedings and the Brussels Convention.,” 54 ICLQ 933 Hartley, T.C., 1994. “Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention: Agreement and Lis Alibi Pendens.” 19(5) E.L.Rev 549-552 Hartley, T.C., 2001. “International Law and the Law of the European Union – A Reassessment”, 72 BYBIL 1 Hartley, T.C., 2005a. “Choice-of-court agreements, lis pendens, human rights and the realities of international business: reflection on the Gasser case” in Le droit international privé: mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde, (Dalloz, Paris, 2005), pp383-391 Hartley, T.C., 2005b. “The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law Conflict of Laws”, 54 ICLQ 813 Higgins, R., 2006. “A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations From the Bench.” 55 ICLQ 791-804. Hogan, G., 1995. “The Brussels Convention, Forum non Conveniens and the Connecting Factors Problem.” 20(5) E.L. Rev. 471-493 Hood, K.J., 2006. “Drawing Inspiration? Reconsidering the Procedural Treatment of Foreign Law.” 2(1) JPrIL 181-193. Hunt, M., 1998. “The “Horizontal Effect” of the Human Rights Act”. 1998 Public Law 423-443 Hunter-Henin, M., 2006. “Droit des personnes et droits de l’homme: combinaison ou confrontation? (Family Law and Human Rights: Can They Go Along or Do They Exclude Each Other?),” 95(4) Revue critique de droit international privé pp743-775. Kennett, W., 1998. “Service of Documents in Europe.” 17(JUL) C.J.Q. 284-307 Kennett, W., 2001. “The Brussels I Regulation.” 50 ICLQ 725 -737 Kennett, W., 2001. “The Enforcement Review: A Progress Report.” 20(Jan) CJQ 36-57 Kennett, W., and McEleavy, P., 2002. “(Current Development): Civil and Commercial Litigation” 51 ICLQ 463 Kinsch, P., 2004. “The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments – A Survey of the Cases Decided by the European Human Rights Institutions,” in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp197-228. Lester, A., and Pannick, D., 2000. “The Impact of the Human Rights Act on Private Law: The Knight’s Move.” 116 LQR 380-385 Loucaides, L.G., 2003. “Questions of a Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights.” (2003) HRLR 3(1), pp27-51. Lowenfield, A.F., 2004. “Jurisdiction, Enforcement, Public Policy and Res Judicata: The Krombach Case,” in in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp229-248 Mance, J., 2004a. “Civil Jurisdiction in Europe – Choice of Court Clauses, Competing Litigation and Anti-Suit Injunctions – Erich Gasser v. Misat and Turner v. Grovit: Address to Second Conference of European Commercial Judges, (“Problems of enforcement of european law”)” Paris – 14th October 2004; http://www.courdecassation.fr/formation_br_4/2004_2034/jonathan_mance_8239.html, (Accessed 10 March 2007) Mance, J., 2004b. “Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and European Ideals.” 120 LQR 357 Mance, J., 2005. “The Future of Private International Law.” 1(2) JPrIL 185-195 Mance, J., 2007. “Is Europe Aiming to Civilise the Common Law?” 18 EBLRev 77-99 McLachlan, C., 2004. “International Litigation and the Reworking of the Conflict of Laws” 120(OCT) LQR 580-616 Meidanis, H.P., 2005. “Public Policy and Ordre Public in the Private International Law of the EU: Traditional Positions and Moderns Trends.” 30(1), ELRev, 95-110 Merrett, L., 2006. “The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements within the Brussels Regime,” 55 ICLQ 315 Muir Watt, H., 2001. “Evidence of an Emergent European Legal Culture: Public Policy Requirements of Procedural Fairness Under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions.” 36 Tex. ILJ, p. 539. North, P., 2001. “Private International Law: Change or Decay?” 50 ICLQ 477-508 Orakhelashvili, A., 2006. “The Idea of European International Law.” 17 Eur. J. Int’l L. 315 Peel, E., 2001. “Forum non Conveniens Revisited.” 117(APR) L.Q.R. 187-194 Robertson, D.W., 1987. “Forum Non Conveniens in America and England: ‘A rather fantastic fiction’.” 103 LQR 398 Robert-Tissot, S., and Smith, D., 2005. “The Battle for Forum”, New Law Journal, 7 October 2005, p1496 Robert-Tissot, S., 2005. “The Battle for Forum.” 155 NLJ 1496 Rodger, B.J., 2006. “Forum non Conveniens: Post Owusu.” 2(1) JPrIL 71 Schiavetta, S., 2004. “The Relationship Between e-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights pursuant to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.” 2004 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2004_1/schiavetta/ (Accessed 28 February 2007) Sinopoli, L., 2000. Le droit au procès équitable dans les rapports privés internationaux (doctoral dissertation, University of Paris-I, 2000) Slater, A.G., 1988. “Forum Non Conveniens: A View From the Shop Floor.” 104 LQR 554 Svantesson, D.J.B., 2005. “In Defence of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens.” (2005) HKLJ 395 Van Hoek: 2001. “Case note on Krombach v Bamberski” (2001) 38 CMLR 1011. Wade, H.W.R., 2000. “Horizons of Horizontality.” 116 LQR 217-224 Williams, J.M., 2001. “Forum non Conveniens, Lubbe v Cape and Group Josi v Universal General Insurance.” J.P.I. Law 2001, 1, 72-77 Zhenjie, H., 2001. “Forum Non Conveniens: An Unjustified Doctrine.” 48 NILR 143

All the best with your dissertation and career!

Related Posts

Linkedin: the new blogging platform for lawyers.

Or should you publish mainly on your own website or blog? In today’s digital age, LinkedIn isn’t just a professional

Exciting News: Our Guide to AI for Law Firms Just Got Better!

Hello legal professionals and legal tech enthusiasts! Alongside an exciting upcoming podcast episode on AI for law firm efficiency and

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

How to Write a Dissertation | A Guide to Structure & Content

A dissertation or thesis is a long piece of academic writing based on original research, submitted as part of an undergraduate or postgraduate degree.

The structure of a dissertation depends on your field, but it is usually divided into at least four or five chapters (including an introduction and conclusion chapter).

The most common dissertation structure in the sciences and social sciences includes:

• An introduction to your topic
• A literature review that surveys relevant sources
• An explanation of your methodology
• An overview of the results of your research
• A discussion of the results and their implications
• A conclusion that shows what your research has contributed

Dissertations in the humanities are often structured more like a long essay , building an argument by analysing primary and secondary sources . Instead of the standard structure outlined here, you might organise your chapters around different themes or case studies.

Other important elements of the dissertation include the title page , abstract , and reference list . If in doubt about how your dissertation should be structured, always check your department’s guidelines and consult with your supervisor.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

Acknowledgements, table of contents, list of figures and tables, list of abbreviations, introduction, literature review / theoretical framework, methodology, reference list.

The very first page of your document contains your dissertation’s title, your name, department, institution, degree program, and submission date. Sometimes it also includes your student number, your supervisor’s name, and the university’s logo. Many programs have strict requirements for formatting the dissertation title page .

The title page is often used as cover when printing and binding your dissertation .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

The acknowledgements section is usually optional, and gives space for you to thank everyone who helped you in writing your dissertation. This might include your supervisors, participants in your research, and friends or family who supported you.

The abstract is a short summary of your dissertation, usually about 150-300 words long. You should write it at the very end, when you’ve completed the rest of the dissertation. In the abstract, make sure to:

• State the main topic and aims of your research
• Describe the methods you used
• Summarise the main results
• State your conclusions

Although the abstract is very short, it’s the first part (and sometimes the only part) of your dissertation that people will read, so it’s important that you get it right. If you’re struggling to write a strong abstract, read our guide on how to write an abstract .

In the table of contents, list all of your chapters and subheadings and their page numbers. The dissertation contents page gives the reader an overview of your structure and helps easily navigate the document.

All parts of your dissertation should be included in the table of contents, including the appendices. You can generate a table of contents automatically in Word.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

If you have used a lot of tables and figures in your dissertation, you should itemise them in a numbered list . You can automatically generate this list using the Insert Caption feature in Word.

If you have used a lot of abbreviations in your dissertation, you can include them in an alphabetised list of abbreviations so that the reader can easily look up their meanings.

If you have used a lot of highly specialised terms that will not be familiar to your reader, it might be a good idea to include a glossary . List the terms alphabetically and explain each term with a brief description or definition.

In the introduction, you set up your dissertation’s topic, purpose, and relevance, and tell the reader what to expect in the rest of the dissertation. The introduction should:

• Establish your research topic , giving necessary background information to contextualise your work
• Narrow down the focus and define the scope of the research
• Discuss the state of existing research on the topic, showing your work’s relevance to a broader problem or debate
• Clearly state your objectives and research questions , and indicate how you will answer them
• Give an overview of your dissertation’s structure

Everything in the introduction should be clear, engaging, and relevant to your research. By the end, the reader should understand the what , why and how of your research. Not sure how? Read our guide on how to write a dissertation introduction .

Before you start on your research, you should have conducted a literature review to gain a thorough understanding of the academic work that already exists on your topic. This means:

• Collecting sources (e.g. books and journal articles) and selecting the most relevant ones
• Critically evaluating and analysing each source
• Drawing connections between them (e.g. themes, patterns, conflicts, gaps) to make an overall point

In the dissertation literature review chapter or section, you shouldn’t just summarise existing studies, but develop a coherent structure and argument that leads to a clear basis or justification for your own research. For example, it might aim to show how your research:

• Addresses a gap in the literature
• Takes a new theoretical or methodological approach to the topic
• Proposes a solution to an unresolved problem
• Advances a theoretical debate
• Builds on and strengthens existing knowledge with new data

The literature review often becomes the basis for a theoretical framework , in which you define and analyse the key theories, concepts and models that frame your research. In this section you can answer descriptive research questions about the relationship between concepts or variables.

The methodology chapter or section describes how you conducted your research, allowing your reader to assess its validity. You should generally include:

• The overall approach and type of research (e.g. qualitative, quantitative, experimental, ethnographic)
• Your methods of collecting data (e.g. interviews, surveys, archives)
• Details of where, when, and with whom the research took place
• Your methods of analysing data (e.g. statistical analysis, discourse analysis)
• Tools and materials you used (e.g. computer programs, lab equipment)
• A discussion of any obstacles you faced in conducting the research and how you overcame them
• An evaluation or justification of your methods

Your aim in the methodology is to accurately report what you did, as well as convincing the reader that this was the best approach to answering your research questions or objectives.

Next, you report the results of your research . You can structure this section around sub-questions, hypotheses, or topics. Only report results that are relevant to your objectives and research questions. In some disciplines, the results section is strictly separated from the discussion, while in others the two are combined.

For example, for qualitative methods like in-depth interviews, the presentation of the data will often be woven together with discussion and analysis, while in quantitative and experimental research, the results should be presented separately before you discuss their meaning. If you’re unsure, consult with your supervisor and look at sample dissertations to find out the best structure for your research.

In the results section it can often be helpful to include tables, graphs and charts. Think carefully about how best to present your data, and don’t include tables or figures that just repeat what you have written  –  they should provide extra information or usefully visualise the results in a way that adds value to your text.

Full versions of your data (such as interview transcripts) can be included as an appendix .

The discussion  is where you explore the meaning and implications of your results in relation to your research questions. Here you should interpret the results in detail, discussing whether they met your expectations and how well they fit with the framework that you built in earlier chapters. If any of the results were unexpected, offer explanations for why this might be. It’s a good idea to consider alternative interpretations of your data and discuss any limitations that might have influenced the results.

The discussion should reference other scholarly work to show how your results fit with existing knowledge. You can also make recommendations for future research or practical action.

The dissertation conclusion should concisely answer the main research question, leaving the reader with a clear understanding of your central argument. Wrap up your dissertation with a final reflection on what you did and how you did it. The conclusion often also includes recommendations for research or practice.

In this section, it’s important to show how your findings contribute to knowledge in the field and why your research matters. What have you added to what was already known?

You must include full details of all sources that you have cited in a reference list (sometimes also called a works cited list or bibliography). It’s important to follow a consistent reference style . Each style has strict and specific requirements for how to format your sources in the reference list.

The most common styles used in UK universities are Harvard referencing and Vancouver referencing . Your department will often specify which referencing style you should use – for example, psychology students tend to use APA style , humanities students often use MHRA , and law students always use OSCOLA . M ake sure to check the requirements, and ask your supervisor if you’re unsure.

To save time creating the reference list and make sure your citations are correctly and consistently formatted, you can use our free APA Citation Generator .

Your dissertation itself should contain only essential information that directly contributes to answering your research question. Documents you have used that do not fit into the main body of your dissertation (such as interview transcripts, survey questions or tables with full figures) can be added as appendices .

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

• What Is a Dissertation? | 5 Essential Questions to Get Started
• What is a Literature Review? | Guide, Template, & Examples
• How to Write a Dissertation Proposal | A Step-by-Step Guide

More interesting articles

• Checklist: Writing a dissertation
• Dissertation & Thesis Outline | Example & Free Templates
• Dissertation binding and printing
• Dissertation Table of Contents in Word | Instructions & Examples
• Dissertation title page
• Example Theoretical Framework of a Dissertation or Thesis
• Figure & Table Lists | Word Instructions, Template & Examples
• How to Choose a Dissertation Topic | 8 Steps to Follow
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write a Results Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Conclusion
• How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Introduction
• How to Write an Abstract | Steps & Examples
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
• List of Abbreviations | Example, Template & Best Practices
• Operationalisation | A Guide with Examples, Pros & Cons
• Prize-Winning Thesis and Dissertation Examples
• Relevance of Your Dissertation Topic | Criteria & Tips
• Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
• Thesis & Dissertation Acknowledgements | Tips & Examples
• Thesis & Dissertation Database Examples
• What is a Dissertation Preface? | Definition & Examples
• What is a Glossary? | Definition, Templates, & Examples
• What Is a Research Methodology? | Steps & Tips
• What is a Theoretical Framework? | A Step-by-Step Guide
• What Is a Thesis? | Ultimate Guide & Examples

AllAboutLaw

What are you looking for? Submit

• Speak to an expert Ask about postgrad courses CHAT NOW
• SQE: Need to prep? Find out all about the SQE LEARN NOW
• Selection & Assessment Week Tues 6th - Thurs 9th Feb Reserve your Spot

Sep 20, 2019

Written By Billy Sexton

LLB Law Dissertation

So, you've picked your final modules, consolidated your favourite library seat, and are finally feeling like a big fish in the university pond. But you've got one more challenge on the horizon—the dissertation... 

The final year of your LLB is here, which means it’s time to put together a lovely 10,000 or so word law dissertation.

Gone are the days of first year where a casual 2,000-word essay would be enough to secure 50% of your module marks. Even the tougher second-year essays, where word counts were raised up to 3,500 words, now seem like a walk in the park when faced with the mammoth dissertation.

Many law students before you have faced this, so don’t worry. If they do it, you can too!

A dissertation is a marathon, not a sprint (so no last minute late nights) and working on your dissertation should be treated like eating salami (bear with us on this). You wouldn’t eat a whole salami at once as it’s much tastier in thinner slices.

Therefore, you shouldn’t do your whole dissertation at once. Put it together bit-by-bit, and it will be a much stronger piece of work!

Law dissertation ideas

What you base your law dissertation on is entirely your choice… to a certain extent. You will need to find a supervisor for your dissertation so you won’t be able to do a dissertation on a specific issue if there’s no lecturer at your university who specialises in that topic!

However, presuming there is a lecturer to guide you along the long and bumpy dissertation path, you have free choice over what you’d like to study. Usually, first class dissertations carry originality and research depth.

If you’re stuck for ideas or broad topic areas, let us help you out. We can’t cover every individual area of law  but here are ideas for some of the core areas:

Contract Law – The influence of the EU on contract law, including anti-discrimination directives, a comparison of contract law in different jurisdictions or penalty clauses in contracts.

Criminal Law – Philosophical issues surrounding criminal law, human rights in criminal procedure or social dimensions of crime.

EU Law – Immigration and the law, the law of the European Convention for Human Rights and how this affects human rights within national borders or the impact of the EU on environmental legislation.

Public Law – Public understanding or law and education, state responsibility or historical developments in public law.

These are just a handful of suggestion and may or may not tickle your fancy. It’s best to talk to a range of potential supervisors to get a feel for how they could help you. Start looking early though, as supervisors get snapped up pretty quickly!

Law dissertation structure

Your university should tell you how to structure your dissertation, but usually an introduction highlighting the objectives of the dissertation should also put forward any issues or knowledge the reader will need to be aware of in order when they progress.

Next up is your methodology and literature review. This basically means pointing out what you’re going to research and how and summarising the key arguments already out there.

Then comes the juicy bit—the evidence. This should be what you discovered from your research and a detailed analysis of this.

Finally, the conclusion should outline what you discovered and your conclusion of this.

Writing a law dissertation can be stressful and it’s highly likely you might lose a bit of sleep over it. But at the same time it’s a great opportunity to stick your teeth into a subject you’re really passionate about and gain some good marks that will contribute significantly toward your overall degree mark. 

Next article:  Post LLB: applying for the LPC vs a training contract

If you're currently on the hunt for a  Training Contract  or  Vacation Scheme , head over to our  Law Jobs section.

Advertisement

LLB Final Years

• Commercial awareness in final year
• Coping with stress in the final year
• LLB final year: what you should be doing
• Overcoming problem areas in academic qualifications
• Post-LLB: applying for the LPC vs a training contract