Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:15:13.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: LJIL in the Age of Cyberspace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2012

LARISSA VAN DEN HERIK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 2012, the Leiden Journal of International Law (LJIL) celebrates its silver jubilee. Such a milestone calls for a brief sketch of LJIL's life and development over the past quarter of a century. This editorial accordingly narrates how LJIL grew from a modest student-run journal to establishing itself as a respected participant in the international academic arena. It is premised on the idea that LJIL's professionalization process and the gradual formation of a distinct identity in the field may be of interest to our entire epistemic community and those interested in the dynamics of the dissemination of scholarly ideas. Eventually, this editorial engages with some of the greatest challenges with which LJIL – as well as other actors in scholarly publishing – will most likely be confronted in the years to come.

Type
Introduction
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Editorial, (1988) 1 LJIL 1, at 1.

2 Editorial, (1990) 3 LJIL 2, at 115.

3 Editorial, (1992) 5 LJIL 2, at 169.

4 Editorial, (1994) 7 LJIL 1, at 1.

5 Editorial, (1994) 7 LJIL 2, at 1.

6 Editorial, (1995) 8 LJIL 1, at 4.

7 See, e.g., Higgins, R., ‘Fleischauer Leaves the Court’, (2003) 16 LJIL 1, at 55–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brus, M., ‘Judge Peter Kooijmans Retires from the International Court of Justice’, (2006) 19 LJIL 3, at 699–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Punzhin, S. and Wiles, N., ‘Judge Vereshchetin: A Russian Scholar at the International Court of Justice’, (2006) 19 LJIL 3, at 719–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buergenthal, T., ‘Rosalyn Higgins: Judge and President of the International Court of Justice (1995–2009)’, (2009) 22 LJIL 4, at 703–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keith, K., ‘Thomas Buergenthal: Judge of the International Court of Justice (2000–10)’, (2011) 24 LJIL 1, at 163–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 See, e.g., van den Herik, L. J. and van Sliedregt, E., ‘Ten Years Later: The Rwanda Tribunal Still Faces Legal Complexities: Some Comments on the Vagueness of the Indictment, Complicity in Genocide and the Nexus Requirement for War Crimes’, (2004) 17 LJIL 3, at 537–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as cited by Judge ad hoc M. Mahiou to the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the case on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, [2007] ICJ Rep. 43, footnote 61; Stahn, C., ‘Constitution without a State? Kosovo under the United Nations Constitutional Framework for Self-Government’, (2001) 14 LJIL 531CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cited in Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 141 (Judge Cançado Trindade, Separate Opinion), para. 187 and footnotes 206, 207; J. d'Aspremont, ‘Regulating Statehood: The Kosovo Status Settlement’, (2007) 20 LJIL 649, as cited during the public sitting held on Friday 4 December 2009 in the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion Submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations), [2010] ICJ Rep. 141, footnote 23; O. Triffterer, ‘Causality, a Separate Element of the Doctrine of Superior Responsibility as Expressed in Article 28 Rome Statute?’, (2002) 15 LJIL 1, at 179–205, as cited in ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision Pursuant to Art. 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Case No. ICC-01/05–01/08, T.Ch. II, 15 June 2009, footnote 551.

9 LJIL's Law Review Partnership with OJ will feature at http://opiniojuris.org/category/special-content/law-review-partnerships.

10 Hibbitts, B. J., ‘Last Writes? Re-Assessing the Law Review in the Age of Cyberspace’, (1996) 71 New York University Law Review 615Google Scholar, as also published at www.law.pitt.edu/hibbitts/acrlw.htm and available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1546765. For earlier queries regarding the usefulness of law reviews dating back even to the interbellum period, see Rodell, F., ‘Goodbye to Law Reviews’, (1936) 23 VLR 38Google Scholar, available online at www.houseofrussell.com/legalhistory/alh/docs/rodell.html.

11 See, e.g., J. d'Aspremont, ‘In Defense of the Hazardous Tool of Legal Blogging’, EJIL:Talk, 6 January 2011, available online at www.ejiltalk.org/author/jdaspremont; Leiter, B., ‘Why Blogs Are Bad for Legal Scholarship’, (2006) 116 Yale Law Journal Pocket Part 53Google Scholar, available online at www.yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/61.pdf.

12 Weiler, J., ‘Editorial: Copyright, Law Journals and a Romantic View of EJIL’, (2011) 21 EJIL 3Google Scholar, at 501.

13 For more on these law journals’ meetings, see www.esil-sedi.eu/english/international_law_journals.html.

14 P. Cohen, ‘Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review’, New York Times, 24 August 2010, A1.

15 This was argued by d'Aspremont, supra note 11.