Monday, February 29, 2016

Friday, February 26, 2016

We are still waiting for our country to start a genuine debate about migration

. . . is the name of my column out today in The Journal available HERE. A taste:


"The Government’s immigration strategy can be summed up in one word: less.

That’s it.

Clearly, there is a large public appetite for greater immigration control – where greater control means less immigration.

This is nothing new. Voters view immigration as the number one public issue of concern – and see it as a problem for housing, education and public services.

Public opposition to immigration has largely held court without challenge. No matter how often it is shown that migrants are more likely to work than claim benefits or that they create jobs through new businesses rather than take them in some zero sum trade-off the results are the same: the public wants less of it – and even if the economy including jobs for British citizens suffered as a result.

Immigration is the issue that every party wants to score highly on, but none really do. It is a contest between which has more public support than others where none command majority or universal assent [. . .]."

Home Secretary considers stripping Rotherham abusers of their citizenship - statement


 I've been asked for my views on this news story today so prepared a brief statement:

·         The Home Office is right that the Home Secretary can deprive citizenship of someone where "conducive to the public good". It’s a power that Theresa May has been trying to use with greater frequency in recent years. This power is certainly controversial and to be used with caution - but it is a power she can use.

·         The big question is not whether May can do this, but rather whether someone can be deported.  But let me deal with an important condition first. The Home Secretary can only deprive  someone of their citizenship if this does not render him or her stateless. In practice, this means only dual nationals - individuals who have a non-UK nationality in addition to being British citizens - can be targeted by this measure.

·         So the real issue is not whether the Home Secretary can do this, but what happens next fi she does. After losing citizenship, a person can still could apply for asylum or appeal against deportation on grounds of right to family life or risk of torture in home country. This means that stripping citizenship is a major power not to be underestimated, but ending someone's Britishness does not mean ending someone's remaining in Britain. Oh, and this has nothing to do with being in or out of the EU.

French court approves closure of Calais Jungle - statement


I have been asked a lot about this topic so a few brief thoughts:

* The closure of the Calais Jungle has symbolic importance - this is no minor happening in terms of what the Jungle has come to represent. This is despite the camp being small (no more than 5-6k) than what can be seen elsewhere in the EU. Many in the UK came to associate the Jungle with the migration crisis gripping Europe.

* This is a moment that should have come much earlier. The French court's decision is both unsurprising and long overdue. Conditions in the Jungle have been deplorable and serve the interests of no one. It is welcome news to see it is to be closed. HOWEVER....

* The big question is what to do next. Serious concerns remain about the available accommodation for migrants - and how any claims for asylum will be heard. This can take many months or longer.

* Many of the migrants are believed to be unaccompanied children - some with roots in Britain. These cases may need to be heard in the UK - so Britain not immune from the situation in France.
 

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Call for proposals: Global Justice and Human Rights Book Series

Global Justice and Human Rights Book Series

In launching the Political Studies Association's Global Justice and Human Rights specialist group, I established two new companion book series published by Edinburgh University Press.

The first series is Studies in Global Justice and Human Rights publishing monographs and edited collections publishes ground-breaking work on key topics in this increasingly popular field, such as democracy, gender, legal justice, poverty, human rights, environmental justice and just war theory. It will be essential reading for theorists working in politics, international relations, law, philosophy and beyond. The series has produced 9 books thus far - http://www.euppublishing.com/series/sgjhr

The second series is Textbooks in Global Justice and Human Rights which will launch with its first volumes at the end of this year. The series is aimed at producing research-informed introductions to key ideas and topics in global justice broadly understood - http://www.euppublishing.com/series/tgjhr

Expressions of interest should be sent by email to me

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Why is the UK ramping up costs for potential Australian migrants?

. . . is my latest piece for the Conversation HERE.

Live interview & debate about the Calais Jungle on France 24

. . . for a half hour programme "Calais migrant crisis: is France doing everything it can?".

French courts are set to decide whether police can tear down the Calais migrant camp in the north of France. The government wants to relocate migrants currently living in squalid conditions, but NGOs argue there's no adequate plan B for their relocation. Does France have a responsibility towards the migrants within its borders? Is the eviction from the

WATCH HERE

Many thanks to Jeffrey Howard & UCL Public Policy Department

.....for the kind invitation to speak at last week's fabulous 'Normative Interventions' conference. Our topic was talking about how political philosophy can and should play a greater role in public affairs and public life more generally. I was asked to talk about political philosophy and the media. Other speakers included Baroness Onora O'Neill, Lord Bhikhu Parekh, Laura Valentini, Martin O'Neill, Jonathan Wolff, Gus O''Donnell, David Miller, Albert Weale and many others. A brilliant event and great discussion.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

UK immigration rules on income - partial victory in sight?


·         The Home Office insists that requiring British citizens to earn above an income threshold if they want to live in the UK with their foreign spouse fair and proportionate as it struggles to reduce net migration.

·         Today, a case enters its likely last day in the Supreme Court challenging the government.

·         Opponents say the income rule is arbitrary and excludes couples able to provide for themselves without state support.

·         They are right – the real purpose behind the rules is to exclude migrants and reduce numbers.

·         The big question is whether this legitimate policy aim of reducing numbers is fair and proportionate in light of the income threshold set.

·         I predict a partial victory upholding the Government’s ability to set such targets to help reduce net migration, but changed to account for more circumstances. The result will be a somewhat less restrictive policy.

·         While this is independent of the EU Referendum debate, the Court’s verdict won’t be known for six months – which is welcome because the verdict should not impact on this debate.

PRESS RELEASE: Cameron's EU deal more confusing than convincing


Cameron’s EU deal more confusing than convincing 

For immediate release – Tuesday, 23 February 2016

-With picture-

*TV and radio broadcast facilities available*

Statement by Professor Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government at Durham University’s Law School and leading immigration law and policy specialist:

“Prime Minister David Cameron’s EU deal is more confusing than convincing.

His proposed ‘red card’ for unwanted EU draft legislation is more obscure. There must be 55% ‘of the votes allocated to national Parliaments’ to temporarily halt it. This does not mean 55% of Parliaments, but of ‘the votes allocated’ to them.

This process must be completed in 12 weeks – and requires ‘reasoned opinions’. It is not enough for Parliament to object – it must agree reasons for it.

The EU Council would then consider these reasons is a ‘comprehensive discussion’. If the Council is satisfied these reasons can be accommodated, the draft legislation can become law. Member states represented on the Council do not have a veto.

Cameron’s emergency brake is especially confusing. The preamble justifies restrictions on social security systems of different EU states because they are a potential ‘pull factor’ – but crucially this need not be shown. This is just as well because the UK government confirmed recently it had no such evidence benefits are a pull factor for EU migrants.

If Britain wants to pull an emergency brake, several conditions apply. The brake must be ‘based on objective considerations independent of the nationality of the persons concerned’. This requires the UK to provide evidence - it does not have - about the pressure by EU migrants alone on the wider social security system.

Any brake must be ‘proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued’ for a maximum of four years within a seven year timeframe. This means that benefits can only be restricted for a maximum of four years - if there is a green light from Brussels. The timeframe can be much less if 'proportionate' - but not more.
 
Should a brake be permitted for four years - this would start from the time of employment after the brake is applied. Someone continually in work without interruption would see the brake gradually weaken and begin to receive some share of benefits until the fourth year when he or she would receive 100%. But if during that time this person was out of work the brake would be reapplied when back in work - covering a seven year period.

Finally, Cameron’s new deal will permit ‘an option to index’ child benefit to the conditions of the member state the child resides. This will apply to new EU migrants in the first instance and to existing EU migrant residents by 2020 – note by that time EU migrants might qualify for UK citizenship and so claim full child benefits.

ENDS 

MEDIA INFORMATION

NB – Please note that Professor Brooks is a member of the Labour Party.

Interviews 

Professor Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government, in Durham Law School, Durham University, is available for comment on thom.brooks@durham.ac.uk

Alternatively please contact Durham University Marketing and Communications Office on +44 (0)191 334 6075; media.relations@durham.ac.uk

*TV and radio broadcast facilities available*

Durham University’s academic experts are available for interview via down-the-line broadcast quality TV facilities from our Durham City campus, via broadcast provider Globelynx.

To request and check the availability of interviewees please contact the Durham University Communications Office on +44 (0)191 334 6075 or email media.relations@durham.ac.uk.

You can book the Globelynx fixed camera and circuit direct by logging into www.globelynx.com. The IFB number is +44 (0)191 384 2019.

If you have not booked a Globelynx feed before please call +44 (0)20 7963 7060 for assistance.

A broadcast quality ISDN radio line is also available at Durham University and bookings can be arranged via the Media Relations Team on the contact details above. The ISDN number is +44 (0)191 386 2749 

A landline number is available in our Media Suite which houses the television and radio facilities - +44 (0)191 334 6472.

Photographs

A high resolution headshot of Professor Thom Brooks is available on request from Durham University Marketing and Communications Office on +44 (0)191 334 6075; media.relations@durham.ac.uk.

Further reading


Professor Thom Brooks, Durham University Law School website https://www.dur.ac.uk/law/staff/?id=11140

About Durham University

-          A world top 100 university with a global reputation and performance in research and education
-          A member of the Russell Group of leading research-intensive UK universities
-          Research at Durham shapes local, national and international agendas, and directly informs the teaching of our students
-          Ranked in the world top 25 for the employability of its students by blue-chip companies world-wide (QS World University Rankings 2014/15)
-          In the global top 50 for Arts and Humanities (THE World University Rankings 2013/14)
-          In the 2015 Complete University Guide, Durham was the only UK university to receive a top ten ranking for all of its subjects and 19 of Durham’s 22 subjects were ranked in the top five.
-          Durham was named as The Times and Sunday Times 'Sports University of the Year 2015' in recognition of outstanding performance in both the research and teaching of sport, and student and community participation in sport at all levels. 

END OF MEDIA RELEASE

PETITION: “End the use of forms to reporting ex-partners to the Home Office for deportation"

The link form the UK Government & Parliament Petitions Team with information about this important petition that can be read and signed is HERE:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118794


Friday, February 19, 2016

Cameron's Mission Impossible Catch-22 on EU deal

Some thoughts on the latest developments:

It’s increasingly clear Prime Minister David Cameron needs more time – and the clock is ticking fast. Not all EU leaders share Cameron’s enthusiasm for a deal. Fewer in the UK understand it. Cameron is struggling to get a deal done.

To make matters worse, he has a timetable more fitting to Mission Impossible than Eurocrats. A deal may well fall through the Prime Minister’s fingertips this week. But even if it is kept alive the deal remains in intensive care. Increasingly we look set for a referendum in June about whether to Remain or Leave Cameron’s newly reformed EU. But the deal may die or change beyond recognition anyway when the EU Parliament enters the operating theatre.

And that’s the half of it. Migration is the problem that refuses to go away. The International Rescue Committee predicts more refugees coming to the EU in 2016 than last year. A June referendum is thought to get the vote over with before numbers explode during the warmer summer months.

This week’s labour migration statistics are news Cameron did not want to hear. EU migration continues to reach new record heights. Migration from the original EU states like France, Germany and Spain have grown from 761,000 to 853,000 in the last year. Net migration has almost definitely risen too – despite repeated assurances it would be cut by more than half.

Cameron is caught in a Catch-22 situation. He must move quickly to get his reforms through before likely rises in migration numbers and refugees into EU that may fuel support for Brexit.

But the result is precious little energy to win agreement at the expense of further compromises. The further Cameron gets the EU to agree his reforms, the further he moves away from the public – and the longer this takes, the less likely it will succeed.

The stakes could not be higher.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Interview with BBC Five Live on EU migrant benefits and comments by the Duke of Cambridge

Talking about EU migrant benefits & Prince William's comments in my live interview with BBC Five Live at 5pm yesterday (from 1:06:00) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b070d82y

EU Referendum: my thoughts on latest developments

In response to the BBC report HERE about PM David Cameron's latest talks to win a new deal on EU reforms, my comments:

David Cameron is trying to make this a referendum about him - or rather about the reformed EU he helped create. His problem is that the closer he gets to winning over EU leaders and the EU Parliament, the further away he is to winning over the public - and it's the latter who count most in this complex political drama.
 
Cameron's efforts a clear attempt at forging a political legacy as his time in 10 Downing Street begins to draw to a close. Being Prime Minister during austerity was never going to be easy.

But I suspect it's all much ado about very little that matters. Any EU deal will be complex - as already seen - and likely to confuse voters: if you confuse, you lose. And worse measures agreed may have little effect such as emergency brakes that may never be pulled, operated by another driver and inapplicable to the 34,000 already in Britain anyway.

If Cameron really wants to secure a Remain vote, his best bet is to drop the unnecessary side show that are his reforms and make the case for Remain given existing conditions. This might not win over his backbenchers, but it would help win the public - and the vote. Having already tied his colours to the mast of #UKinEU, he can at least try to claim some responsibility for victory. As things stand, if the UK votes to Remain (far from certain now), it will be in spite of -- and not because of -- Cameron's leadership.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Book reviews that make you say "huh?"

David Enoch published a review of my book Rawls's Political Liberalism co-edited with Martha Nussbaum in the online Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Our book brings together new essays by Nussbaum, Onora O'Neill, Paul Weithman, Jeremy Waldron, Frank Michelman and myself.

In his review, Enoch says:

"Brooks, in "The Capabilities Approach and Political Liberalism", makes two main points. The first is a response to some criticisms of Rawls: once the problem of stability has been fully recognized, the objection runs, the solution -- in terms of an overlapping consensus -- will not work. His response is that while the overlapping consensus is indeed intended to play a major role in the response to the stability problem, it's not as if it's supposed to do the work all by itself. There are more resources Rawls can -- and does -- help himself to, and perhaps the most important among them is the social minimum, that can help achieve stability. Conjoined with these other resources, Rawls's appeal to an overlapping consensus succeeds. The second main point is a suggestion for an improvement -- Brooks sides with Amartya Sen (162) suggesting that Rawls would have been better off endorsing the capability approach, rejecting Rawls's reasons for not doing so. The two points connect -- the social minimum can help in securing stability especially well if it's understood along the lines of the capability approach.

Brooks's discussion is, as we just saw, critical of Rawls at points. But Brooks accepts the general framework, and tries to make progress by improving on the details and responding to objections. This is legitimate, of course, but one is tempted to go more external. Why is it, after all, that stability is so important, perhaps more important, perhaps even lexically so, than anything else? Brooks doesn't discuss this question. More troubling is the fact that Brooks is not clear on what he means by "stability". Rawlsians typically emphasize (in this volume too) the importance of stability for the right reasons, and at times Brooks too pays tribute to this phrase. But most of the time he seems to be talking simply of stability, engaging in entirely instrumental discussions of how best to achieve it. It's just that with stability thus understood, first, it's not clear that Brooks's is a defense of Rawls; second, it becomes even more implausible to think that stability is more important than any other political desiderata; and third, the discussion is methodologically problematic: after all, if we're really interested in finding out what the effects on stability are of social bonds (150) and of reasoned public deliberation (152) we should presumably do empirical sociology, not reflect on this from the armchair."

Enoch's summary is only that - a summary - and omits key points. I argue that there are "more resources Rawls can -- and does -- help himself to" such as the social minimum (noted by Enoch), but also our shared commitment to two principles of justice (which he does not) among others. My point is that scholars like Brian Barry are correct to identify such connections exist, but wrong to argue an overlapping consensus is therefore unnecessary. I also claim that other scholars like Leif Wenar are correct to highlight the fragility of an overlapping consensus securing stability for the right reasons over time. Both sides are right and I offer a way forward.

But here Enoch gets my account badly wrong. He claims I side with Sen and that "Rawls would have been better off endorsing the capability approach, rejecting Rawls's reasons for not doing so". This is not true. Nor do I argue stability can be achieved "along the lines of the capability approach".

Someone so sensitive to philosophical distinctions should be expected to know that Sen's "capability" approach is different in substantive respects from Nussbaum's "capabilities" approach - as I note in my paper. Sen argues that Rawls should include his capability approach in his theory of justice by revising his account of the social minimum - I claim that Sen is right to argue that the social minimum should be reformed, but in line with NUSSBAUM'S multidimensional "capabilities" approach and not Sen's "capability" approach. This is because I argue Rawls was correct to raise objections about SEN'S capability approach as a kind of comprehensive doctrine. But Rawls's objections can be overcome by using NUSSBAUM'S capabilities approach instead. Her approach - with its idea of a threshold to be satisfied across all capabilities without trade-offs - is more consistent with Rawls's social minimum and overcomes most of the concerns he raises about Sen.

Careful readers will see that my acceptance of NUSSBAUM'S approach is different from her own take on how she sees her approach coming together with Rawls's political liberalism. In Frontiers of Justice, Nussbaum claims her approach fits best with Rawls's theory of justice as a kind of overlapping consensus. I disagree with this because there are points where she specifies the content of her capabilities list that seem to run into the objections Rawls makes of Sen's capability approach. My conclusion is that Sen gets right where to amend Rawls's theory of justice, but only Nussbaum gets right which view of capability (namely, her different "capabilities" approach) that should be used. This is not where she argued it should be incorporated - she is concerned with overcoming concerns with social contract theories - and I argue bring political liberalism together with capabilities has a different benefit, namely, of improving Rawls's ability to secure political stability for the "right reasons".

So what Enoch claims and what I argue are actually very different.

The comments in his next paragraph are easier to dissect. He says that I accept Rawls's "general framework" and "tries to make progress by improving on the details and responding to objections. This is legitimate, of course." And, of course, it is. My 14,000 word chapter tries to address a debate among Rawls scholars to show how Rawls's own theory might be acceptably reformed in his own eyes to meet serious criticisms made - by friends and foes - of political liberalism. I am looking to convince Rawls scholars and not a general public or philosophers that reject the background framework of Rawls's theory of justice.

Enoch seems less interested than this project in Rawlsian scholarship than "external" issues, but even here he is mistaken again. After noting that I emphasize "the importance of stability for the right reasons" (but somehow not emphasizing it in ways Enoch enjoys) and falsely claiming that I believe political stability trumps all other such "desiderata" (I didn't and don't), he says 'if we're really interested in finding out what the effects on stability are of social bonds (150) and of reasoned public deliberation (152) we should presumably do empirical sociology, not reflect on this from the armchair'. Yes - and if he read my piece he would know that my defence of NUSSBAUM'S capabilities approach is such an exercise. It is not about reflecting from armchairs independently of the world - (does Enoch not know my work on Hegel and rejection of Kant's philosophy?) - but instead on what individuals have the capability to do or be that counts. The content of our capabilities is not dependent on philosophers, but our lived experiences to secure and exercise our fundamental freedoms. If you don't get this, you don't get capability or capabilities approaches. But there you are.

Enoch seems disappointed as much by Rawls's philosophy as he is by books about it. But in my view this review is even more disappointing than that. It is one thing to be unpersuaded, but another to voice objections based on inaccuracies and mistakes that would be unsatisfactory in what Enoch calls the "old-school advantage of the journal system, namely, its somewhat stricter review process".

Monday, February 15, 2016

Australians to face stricter UK visa requirements - my interview with Beverley O'Connor on ABC News programme 'The Week'




Australians to face stricter UK visa requirements - my interview with Beverley O'Connor on ABC News programme 'The Week' -- WATCH HERE.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Government explains why its "Living Wage" is not enough to live on

Parliamentary written questions can sometimes - sometimes - be highly revealing. My recent favourite is this exchange between the brilliant Lord Beecham from Newcastle to the government:

Lord Beecham Shadow Spokesperson (Housing), Shadow Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government), Shadow Spokesperson (Justice)
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have labelled the national minimum wage of £7.20 an hour as "the national living wage" when it falls below the UK Living Wage and London Living Wage set by the Living Wage Foundation.

Photo of Baroness Neville-Rolfe Baroness Neville-Rolfe The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills                

The National Living Wage will come into force on 1 April 2016. We estimate that a full-time National Minimum Wage worker will earn over £4,400 more by 2020 from the National Living Wage in cash terms.

This Government is committed to improving living standards, particularly for the low paid. Guided by a proportion of median earnings which leading experts recommend, the National Living Wage recognizes the balance needed of an affordable rate for businesses with achieving a significant increase in minimum pay.

The Low Pay Commission will continue to make recommendations on the appropriate rate for the National Living Wage going forward, to make sure that wages rise to reward workers while considering the impact on the economy.


NOTE there is NOTHING here about the "living wage" being a wage that anybody can be expected to live on. It will simply be an "increase" that is "appropriate...going forward".

Read HERE

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

BREAKING NEWS: Government says it is halfway to relocating 20,000 Syrian refugees to Britain


BREAKING NEWS:

Government says it is halfway to relocating 20,000 Syrian refugees to Britain

For immediate release – Wednesday, 10 February 2016
-With picture-
*TV and radio broadcast facilities available*
Prime Minister David Cameron announced last September that his government would relocate 20,000 Syrian refugees to Britain from camps in the region. Only about one thousand had come by Christmas.
In a House of Lords debate yesterday, Lord Bates, the minister for the Home Office in the Lords, confirmed that the government was halfway towards its target.

In reply to Lord Dubs who challenged the government to accept additional unaccompanied children in Europe as refugees, the minister spoke of Cameron’s pledge on Syrian refugees and claimed that ‘so far, 50% of those have now arrived’.
Professor Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government at Durham University and a leading immigration expert, said ‘it is surprising to find such welcome news hidden in a committee debate without some official announcement from the Prime Minister or Home Secretary. I now wonder if this plan originally meant to silence critics has been put under wraps for fear it may benefit groups campaigning for Brexit – and I hope the government takes pride in this achievement’.

ENDS
MEDIA INFORMATION

NB – Please note that Professor Brooks is a member of the Labour Party.
Interviews 

Professor Thom Brooks, Professor of Law and Government, in Durham Law School, Durham University, is available for comment on Wednesday, February 10 and Thursday, February 11, 2015, on thom.brooks@durham.ac.uk
Alternatively please contact Durham University Marketing and Communications Office on +44 (0)191 334 6075; media.relations@durham.ac.uk

*TV and radio broadcast facilities available*
Durham University’s academic experts are available for interview via down-the-line broadcast quality TV facilities from our Durham City campus, via broadcast provider Globelynx.

To request and check the availability of interviewees please contact the Durham University Communications Office on +44 (0)191 334 6075 or email media.relations@durham.ac.uk.
You can book the Globelynx fixed camera and circuit direct by logging into www.globelynx.com. The IFB number is +44 (0)191 384 2019.

If you have not booked a Globelynx feed before please call +44 (0)20 7963 7060 for assistance.
A broadcast quality ISDN radio line is also available at Durham University and bookings can be arranged via the Media Relations Team on the contact details above. The ISDN number is +44 (0)191 386 2749.

A landline number is available in our Media Suite which houses the television and radio facilities - +44 (0)191 334 6472.
Photographs

A high resolution headshot of Professor Thom Brooks is available on request from Durham University Marketing and Communications Office on +44 (0)191 334 6075; media.relations@durham.ac.uk.
Further reading

Professor Thom Brooks, Durham University Law School websites https://www.dur.ac.uk/law/staff/?id=11140 & http://thombrooks.info

About Durham University
-          A world top 100 university with a global reputation and performance in research and education
-          A member of the Russell Group of leading research-intensive UK universities
-          Research at Durham shapes local, national and international agendas, and directly informs the teaching of our students
-          Ranked in the world top 25 for the employability of its students by blue-chip companies world-wide (QS World University Rankings 2014/15)
-          In the global top 50 for Arts and Humanities (THE World University Rankings 2013/14)
-          In the 2015 Complete University Guide, Durham was the only UK university to receive a top ten ranking for all of its subjects and 19 of Durham’s 22 subjects were ranked in the top five.
-          Durham was named as The Times and Sunday Times 'Sports University of the Year 2015' in recognition of outstanding performance in both the research and teaching of sport, and student and community participation in sport at all levels. 
END OF MEDIA RELEASE

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

Live interview on BBC News channel about David Cameron's claims that Brexit would lead Calais Jungle to move to Britain

 

JOB: Lecturer in Law, Durham Law School, Durham University (3x)

THREE POSTS!

Job Title : Lecturer/Senior LecturerCompany : Durham University
Department : Durham Law SchoolPosition Type : Academic

7/8/9 £31,656 – 55,389

Lectureship/Senior Lectureships in Law (x 3 Vacancies)

Please note that this position closes for applications at 23.30pm on Monday 14 March 2016.

Durham Law School is seeking to appoint outstanding legal scholars to up to three Lectureships or Senior Lectureships in Law. We welcome applications from exceptional scholars with research interests in any area of law, and a profile that aligns with the position for which they are applying. An ability to teach in one or more of the following areas will be advantageous: Public Law, Family Law, Intellectual Property Law, and any area of English Private Law.

Durham Law School is one of the UK’s very best law schools with an outstanding reputation for excellence in teaching, research and employability of our students. Ranked 3rd in the UK’s last Research Excellence Framework (REF2014: http://www.ref.ac.uk) in terms of grade point average, the Law School is a vibrant and inclusive academic community of imaginative scholars working at the frontiers of legal knowledge. Durham Law School has research strengths in a wide range of sub-disciplinary specialisms, including Public Law and Human Rights, European and International Law, Commercial/Corporate Law and Legal Theory. The School’s strong research culture is supported by a generous research leave scheme and individual staff research allowance. This is supplemented by a university-wide policy providing for additional leave following maternity, adoption and parental leave (www.dur.ac.uk/hr/policies/leave/researchleave).

Durham Law School is committed to research-led and small group teaching. The Law School achieved a 90% overall satisfaction rating in the 2015 National Student Survey and is consistently rated one of top 5 UK law schools in various league tables. The School is housed in fully-accessible, state of the art purpose-built accommodation with superb views of the UNESCO world heritage site comprising Durham Castle and Cathedral.

Successful applicants will, ideally, be in post by 1 September 2016. Applicants should clearly state in their application for which post or posts they wish to be considered.

All three posts are full time and permanent.

We embrace excellence in all its forms and invite all qualified candidates to apply. Durham Law School particularly welcome applications from women and black and minority ethnic candidates, who are under-represented in the university.

Shortlisted applicants will be informed on or by Monday 25 April and invited for interview on Thursday 5 May 2016.

For further details of this position including person specification and success indicators, please read the full applicant brief situated at the bottom of this page.
Close Date : 14-Mar-2016

JOB: Lecturer or Senior Lecturer in International Law at Durham University

This is one of FIVE posts currently advertised at Durham University's Law School. If you want to be part of a leading law school with fabulous colleagues, do apply! Happy to answer questions anyone has.

Job Specification

001167
Job Title : Lecturer/Senior LecturerCompany : Durham University
Department : Durham Law SchoolPosition Type : Academic
7/8/9 £31,656 – 55,389

Lectureship/Senior Lectureship in International Law

Please note that this position closes for applications at 23.30pm on Monday 14 March 2016.

Durham Law School is seeking to appoint an outstanding legal scholar to a Lectureship or Senior Lectureship in International law.

The person appointed to this post will be an exceptional scholar with research and teaching interests in the field of international law (understood broadly as encompassing both public international law and private international law), and with a profile that aligns with the position for which they are applying. The appointee will join one of the UK’s very best law schools with an outstanding reputation for excellence in teaching, research and employability of our students. Ranked 3rd in the UK’s last Research Excellence Framework (REF2014: http://www.ref.ac.uk) in terms of grade point average, the Law School is a vibrant and inclusive academic community of imaginative scholars working at the frontiers of legal knowledge. The School’s strong research culture is supported by a generous research leave scheme and individual staff research allowance. This is supplemented by a university-wide policy providing for additional leave following maternity, adoption and parental leave (www.dur.ac.uk/hr/policies/leave/researchleave).

Durham Law School is committed to research-led and small group teaching. The Law School achieved a 90% overall satisfaction rating in the 2015 National Student Survey and is consistently rated one of top 5 UK law schools in various league tables. The School is housed in fully-accessible, state of the art purpose-built accommodation with superb views of the UNESCO world heritage site comprising Durham Castle and Cathedral.

Successful applicants will, ideally, be in post by 1 September 2016. Applicants should clearly state in their application for which post or posts they wish to be considered.

We embrace excellence in all its forms and invite all qualified candidates to apply. Durham Law School particularly welcome applications from women and black and minority ethnic candidates, who are under-represented in the university.

This post is full time and permanent.

Shortlisted applicants will be informed on or by Wednesday 6 April and invited for interview on Monday 18 April 2016.

For further details of this position including person specification and success indicators, please read the full applicant brief situated at the bottom of this page.
Close Date : 14-Mar-2016
 

Monday, February 08, 2016

Cameron's 'Jungle' in Britain argument a 'fear card' – Thom Brooks (video)



RT UK news

Live interview with RT International on David Cameron's scaremongering over Brexit leading to Calais Jungle moving to Kent


Unpublished The Times Letter - number 14

. . . continuing my series of unpublished letters submitted to The Times in London --

Sir,
 
Theresa May wants the Prime Minister “to adopt tougher measures” against the abuse of EU migration rules. But is she ready to support identity cards? EU countries with them are more easily deporting Europeans abusing rules because identity cards can help provide evidence of this. I shall wait to see if her rhetoric meets the realities.
 
PROFESSOR THOM BROOKS

Unpublished The Times Letter - number 13

Sir,
 
I’m perplexed by David Cameron’s push for an emergency brake on benefits for EU migrants. Surely his intention is to make this permanent so why pursue a temporary measure? The brake would affect EU migrants, including British citizens returning to the UK – and it’s doubtful inevitable headlines of Brits harmed will be well received. I suspect this proposal will be viewed as another gimmick dressed up as policy.
 
THOM BROOKS
PROFESSOR OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT
DURHAM UNIVERSITY

Friday, February 05, 2016

JOB: Chair or Reader in Criminal Law at Durham University. Come work with us!

Full advert is HERE!

Durham Law School seeks to appoint a Chair/Reader in Criminal Law. We welcome applications from exceptional scholars with research and teaching interests in the broad field of Criminal Law.

Expertise in criminal evidence or gender/feminist perspectives would be advantageous.

Durham Law School is one of the very best UK law schools with an outstanding reputation for excellence in teaching, research and employability of our students. Ranked 3rd in REF2014 in terms of grade point average, the Law School is a vibrant and inclusive academic community of imaginative scholars working at the frontiers of legal knowledge. The appointee would be invited to play a leading role in the Centre for Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (www.dur.ac.uk/cclcj), which seeks to support research collaboration and engagement within and beyond the university. The School’s strong research culture is supported by a generous research leave scheme and individual staff research allowance. This is supplemented by a university-wide policy providing for additional leave following maternity, adoption and parental leave (www.dur.ac.uk/hr/policies/leave/researchleave).

Durham Law School is committed to research-led and small group teaching. The Law School achieved a 90% overall satisfaction rating in the 2015 National Student Survey and is consistently rated one of top 5 UK law schools in various league tables. The School is housed in fully-accessible, state of the art purpose-built accommodation with superb views of the UNESCO world heritage site comprising Durham Castle and Cathedral.

Successful applicants will, ideally, be in post by 1 September 2016. Applicants should clearly state in their application for which post or posts they wish to be considered. Shortlisted applicants will be asked to provide samples of their publications prior to interview.

We embrace excellence in all its forms and invite all qualified candidates to apply. We particularly welcome applications from women and black and minority ethnic candidates, who are under-represented in the university.

Close Date :
13-Mar-2016