The broad rationale for the structure of Approaching Law is that the core object of study (law) is neither neutral nor transparently accessible. How ‘law’ is understood is conditioned by or filtered through the approach that is taken to understand it. In line with the general non-linearity of the project, the broad conceptual organisation of Approaching Law imagines ‘law’ at the centre of a cloud of different approaches, each of which produces or enables different understandings of law itself.

​

In responding to this call, you should propose a entry (or series of entries) on any topic(s) that you think would function well as core or introductory readings in a course in jurisprudence or legal theory.

​

The next section contains a list of indicative topics. As a learning resource, Approaching Law aims to function in a similar way to a core jurisprudence or legal theory textbook, or a sources and materials book, and indicative topics are framed in that spirit. However, the list is knowingly incomplete, and intended merely to give examples that hopefully indicate how the entries will function.

​

The entries are broken down into categories: ‘concepts’, ‘methods’, ‘themes’, and ‘thinkers’, as follows;

• ‘concept’: a very high-level introduction to a broad concept (e.g. ‘Modernity’, ‘Capitalism’, etc) or a more detailed introduction to a specific concept within a particular theory (e.g. ‘Rule of recognition’, ‘Governmentality’, etc)

• ‘method’: an introduction to a particular area of theoretical approach (e.g. ‘Critical race’) or school of thought (e.g. ‘Formalism’)

• ‘theme’: an overview of a particular substantive thematic or enduring debate within legal thought that is not as technical or clearly delineated as a ‘concept’ or ‘method’ (e.g. ‘Law and Morality’, ‘Interpretation’, etc)

• ‘thinker’: an overview of the work or thought of a key individual (e.g. ‘Neil MacCormick’, ‘Karl Marx’, etc)

​

There will likely be overlap and interconnections between these categories. The indicative list of topics below includes various items to give an understanding of the possibilities for how any individual entry might be framed.

​​

Given the complexity of many aspects of jurisprudence and legal theory, it is likely that some topic areas will necessitate a series of entries. For example, a general entry on Hart, an entry on his approach to ‘hard cases’, an entry on the ‘rule of recognition’, etc, that all link to each other. Similarly, a general entry on Marx and law, another on ‘surplus value’, on ‘ideology’, and so on. One author might wish to take on such a series (or part of a series) of papers, or it may build up from the work of multiple contributors.

​

When reflecting on possible contributions, be guided by the core aim and format: short (ideally 3,000, but up to 5,000 word) entries that are introductory or self-contained. Imagine your audience is a first-year undergraduate law student.

​​

While there will be series of entries on a particular topic or thinker that build upon each other, each entry should be accessible on its own—albeit with links to further reading or concepts it builds upon, potentially covered in other entries (e.g. ‘HLA Hart’ might link to an entry on ‘rule of recognition’ and vice versa, or ‘Michel Foucault’ to ‘Governmentality’).

 

It should also be remembered that the goal is not to provide a fully comprehensive engagement and analysis of a topic or thinker, but to render an introductory guide to the core features, importance, and critiques, as a ‘way in’. To facilitate this, each entry will include a short annotated ‘further reading’ section of published academic work, in addition to its own reference list. As an introductory resource for students, the preponderance should be toward shorter texts (i.e. journal articles), but can be supplemented with some extended works (e.g. monographs) or primary theoretical sources (e.g. Concept of Law or Discipline and Punish).

 

For more on structure and content, see the Writing and Editorial Guidelines.​