Editorial Board
Oxford Law Review is an international, double-blind peer-reviewed academic journal established to provide a rigorous and independent platform for scholarship across law and related disciplines. The journal commenced its publication as an online academic journal, reflecting its commitment to the efficient and accessible dissemination of legal scholarship to an international readership.
From its inception, Oxford Law Review has been developed as an internationally oriented scholarly platform, with its editorial and peer-review processes drawing upon academic expertise from different jurisdictions and regions of the world. The journal's editors and peer reviewers include established scholars, researchers, and legal experts with expertise across diverse areas of law and related disciplines.
The journal seeks to bring together leading scholars and subject-matter experts from different parts of the world, enabling manuscripts to be evaluated within a broad international and interdisciplinary scholarly context. Its editorial and peer-review network encompasses expertise across different legal systems, jurisdictions, academic traditions, and fields of research.
This international composition is intended to support rigorous and impartial peer review while encouraging comparative, transnational, and interdisciplinary approaches to legal scholarship. The journal welcomes engagement from scholars and researchers irrespective of jurisdiction or institutional location and seeks to foster sustained academic exchange across geographical and disciplinary boundaries.
Oxford Law Review maintains a transparent record of its editorial leadership and will identify its editors by their full names, institutional or professional affiliations, editorial positions, and periods of service. The journal will update this record as its editorial structure develops.
Editorial and Peer-Review Network
The editorial and peer-review network of Oxford Law Review comprises scholars, researchers, and legal professionals based in different parts of the world, with expertise spanning diverse fields of law, jurisprudence, legal history, humanities, and social sciences.
Editors and reviewers are selected with regard to their relevant scholarly or professional expertise and the subject matter of individual submissions. Their international and interdisciplinary backgrounds enable the journal to draw upon a broad range of perspectives in the evaluation of scholarly work.
Oxford Law Review is committed to maintaining a high standard of editorial independence, academic integrity, and rigorous peer review as its international scholarly network continues to develop.
Editorial Board and Independent Peer-Review Network
The Oxford Law Review maintains an international and interdisciplinary editorial structure comprising scholars and researchers whose areas of expertise correspond to the broad scope of the Journal. The Editorial Board and peer-review network encompass fields including public and private law, international and comparative law, legal history, jurisprudence, human rights, criminal justice, law and society, political science, economics, philosophy, anthropology, international relations, and related areas of the humanities and social sciences.
Editor-in-Chief
Dr. J. Hopkins
Editor-in-Chief, Oxford Law Review
The Editor-in-Chief provides overall editorial leadership and oversees the Journal's academic policies, editorial standards, peer-review framework and publication process.
Treasurer & Editor
Abhinav Singh
Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
Treasurer & Editor
International Editorial Board
The Editorial Board provides academic guidance and contributes to the continuing development of the Journal's scholarly programme. Board members may advise on matters falling within their respective areas of expertise and may participate in the assessment of manuscripts where their specialist knowledge is relevant.
Prof. Dapo Akande — University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Public International Law
Prof. Freya Baetens — University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Public International Law and Human Rights
Prof. Nehal Bhuta — University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
International Law and Legal Theory
Prof. Jean d'Aspremont — Sciences Po, France
International Law and Legal Theory
Prof. Roger O'Keefe — Bocconi University, Italy
International Law and Cultural Heritage Law
Prof. Phoebe Okowa — Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
Public International Law and Constitutional Law
Prof. Iain Scobbie — University of Manchester, United Kingdom
International Law and Legal Theory
Prof. Paul J. du Plessis — University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Roman Law and Legal History
Prof. Joshua Getzler — University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Legal History and Private Law
Prof. Michael Lobban — University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Legal History and Jurisprudence
Prof. Matthew Dyson — University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Criminal Law, Tort Law and Comparative Law
Prof. Lawrence M. Friedman — Stanford University, United States
Law and Society and Legal History
Prof. Lauren Benton — Yale University, United States
Legal History and International Law
Prof. Joseph William Singer — Harvard Law School, United States
Property Law and Legal Theory
Prof. Oona A. Hathaway — Yale University, United States
International Law and Human Rights
Prof. Scott J. Shapiro — Yale University, United States
Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy
Prof. Paul W. Kahn — Yale University, United States
Law and Humanities and Constitutional Theory
Prof. James Q. Whitman — Yale University, United States
Comparative Law, Criminal Law and Legal History
Prof. Julian Arato — University of Michigan, United States
International Law and Legal Theory
Prof. Richard L. Abel — UCLA, United States
Law and Society and Socio-Legal Studies
Prof. Hugh Corder — University of Cape Town, South Africa
Constitutional and Administrative Law
Prof. Vanja Hamzić — SOAS University of London, United Kingdom
Law, History and Anthropology
Prof. Roberto Tallarita — Harvard Law School, United States
Corporate Law and Law & Economics
International Peer-Review Network
The Oxford Law Review maintains a broader international network of scholars who may be approached for independent peer review according to the subject matter of individual submissions.
Peer reviewers are selected on the basis of the relevance of their scholarly expertise to a particular manuscript. The Journal may therefore contact members of its academic network independently when a manuscript falls within their respective fields.
Prof. Antonios Tzanakopoulos — University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Public International Law
Prof. Boudewijn Sirks — University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Roman Law and Legal History
Prof. Dan Sarooshi — University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Public International Law and International Arbitration
Prof. David Kennedy — Harvard University, United States
International Law and Legal Theory
Prof. Intisar A. Rabb — Harvard Law School, United States
Islamic Law and Legal History
Prof. Aslı Ü. Bâli — Yale Law School, United States
International Human Rights Law and Comparative Constitutional Law
Prof. Lea Brilmayer — Yale Law School, United States
International Law and Conflict of Laws
Prof. R. H. Helmholz — University of Chicago, United States
Legal History and Comparative Law
Prof. Roger Cotterrell — Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom
Jurisprudence and Sociology of Law
Prof. William Twining — University College London, United Kingdom
Jurisprudence and Comparative Law
Prof. Martin Krygier — University of New South Wales, Australia
Legal Theory and Rule of Law
Prof. Hilary Charlesworth — Australian National University, Australia
International Law and Human Rights
Prof. Anne Orford — University of Melbourne, Australia
International Law and Legal Theory
Prof. Sundhya Pahuja — University of Melbourne, Australia
International Law and Globalisation
Independent and Confidential Peer Review
The Oxford Law Review operates an independent double-blind peer-review process. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal are initially subject to editorial assessment and, where appropriate, are sent for independent scholarly review.
For manuscripts proceeding to external review, the identity of the author is concealed from the reviewer and the identity of the reviewer is likewise not disclosed to the author, subject to the practical limitations of anonymous review.
Members of the Editorial Board and the Journal's wider peer-review network are contacted independently and selectively according to the subject matter of each manuscript. An anonymised manuscript may be presented to a scholar whose academic expertise corresponds closely to the subject, methodology, jurisdiction, historical period, or interdisciplinary character of the research.
Accordingly, membership of the Editorial Board or peer-review network does not mean that every member reviews every manuscript. Individual members may not be approached for particular submissions because the manuscript falls outside their field of expertise, because another specialist is more appropriate, because of a potential conflict of interest, or because of their academic, professional, institutional, or other commitments at the relevant time.
The Journal may therefore draw upon different members of its international academic network for different manuscripts. The composition of reviewers for an individual article is confidential and is not ordinarily disclosed.
Editorial Independence
The Oxford Law Review is an independent academic journal. It is not owned, operated, governed, or academically controlled by the University of Oxford or by any other university or higher-education institution.
The use of the name Oxford Law Review does not indicate or imply an institutional affiliation, endorsement, sponsorship, or academic relationship with the University of Oxford or any other university.
No university, academic institution, governmental body, commercial organisation, sponsor, donor, or other external entity controls the Journal's editorial decisions.
Editorial decisions concerning the consideration, peer review, revision, acceptance, or rejection of manuscripts are made through the Journal's established editorial procedures and are based on scholarly considerations, including originality, academic quality, relevance, methodological soundness, and contribution to the field.
Financial, administrative, or other non-academic considerations do not determine whether a manuscript is accepted for publication.
The Journal's editorial independence also means that the institutional affiliation of an Editor, Editorial Board member, or peer reviewer does not confer any institutional control over the Journal. Scholars participate in their individual academic capacity, subject to their respective appointments and any applicable institutional requirements.
Confidentiality of Review
The identities of reviewers participating in the double-blind review of a particular manuscript are treated as confidential. Similarly, reviewers receive anonymised manuscripts and are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the material provided to them and to declare any actual or potential conflict of interest.
This structure enables the Oxford Law Review to draw upon an international body of academic expertise while preserving the independence, confidentiality, and integrity of its editorial decision-making process.
