Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1397 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (30 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (65 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (28 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (161 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (161 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (843 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (11 journals)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)

Showing 1 - 32 of 32 Journals sorted alphabetically
Anuario de Derechos Humanos. Nueva Época     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asia Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Berkeley Journal of African-American Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Constitutional Commentary     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Constitutional Forum : Forum constitutionnel     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Constitutional Political Economy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Contemporary Politics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Estudios Constitucionales     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst)     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 49)
Global Constitutionalism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 65)
Humanity : An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
International Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39)
International Journal of Constitutional Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56)
International Journal of Human Rights     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 55)
International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Journal of Human Rights and the Environment     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Journal of Law, Religion and State     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Journal of Legislation     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Law and Humanities     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Pensamiento Constitucional     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Religion and Human Rights     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revus     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Seton Hall Legislative Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Theory and Practice of Legislation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy
Number of Followers: 11  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 1937-9439 - ISSN (Online) 1937-9498
Published by Duke University Press Homepage  [20 journals]
  • Discharging Equity: Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. and the Validity of
           Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases

    • Authors: Andrew Klauber
      Abstract: In September 2019, Purdue Pharma L.P. petitioned for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. Purdue, which the Sackler family had owned and operated for decades, developed and aggressively marketed addictive opioid products, contributing to the modern opioid epidemic. The tsunami of litigation arising from the opioid epidemic gave rise to claims against Purdue and the Sackler family estimated to total more than $40 trillion, causing Purdue to petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.In Purdue’s plan of reorganization, it employed a nonconsensual third-party release to discharge claims against the Sackler family. Nonconsensual third-party releases controversially enjoin parties to a bankruptcy from pursuing actions against third-party nondebtors. The Second Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s power under the Bankruptcy Code to confirm a plan of reorganization containing such a release. In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., the Supreme Court will determine whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve a plan of reorganization which includes a nonconsensual release extinguishing claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties.The Court should affirm the Second Circuit’s decision permitting Purdue’s utilization of nonconsensual third-party releases. Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code forecloses the use of such releases. Rather, sections 105(a) and 1123(b)(6) of the Code authorize their use, which accords with historical exercises of equity. As long as a bankruptcy court considers the factors which the Second Circuit employed and confirms that proper notice was given to creditors before extinguishing their claims against nondebtors, the use of nonconsensual third-party releases will inure to the benefit of creditors and debtors undergoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
      PubDate: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:11:13 PDT
       
  • Disentangling Race and Politics: Racial Gerrymandering in South
           Carolina's First Congressional District

    • Authors: Matthew Poliakoff
      Abstract: After the 2020 Census, South Carolina's Republican-controlled legislature redrew the boundaries for Congressional District 1, historically anchored in Charleston County. After thirty-thousand African American voters were moved out of District 1 and into District 6, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP challenged the new map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge district court panel agreed, finding that race predominated above other factors in the map redraw. On appeal, the question remains not only whether the state legislature used race above other factors in its map design, but also how plaintiffs are expected to prove these claims in an era where gerrymandering for partisan purposes is allowed. Based on the deferential clear error standard of review, the Court should affirm the district court's finding that race was the predominant factor. A reversal could significantly hinder plaintiffs' ability to use statistical evidence to prove racial gerrymandering cases in the future.
      PubDate: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 14:16:13 PDT
       
  • The Adult Rights-Bearing Archetype and How It Stifles Young People's
           Equal Protection

    • Authors: Catherine E. Smith
      PubDate: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 08:28:46 PDT
       
  • Journal Staff

    • PubDate: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 08:28:46 PDT
       
  • Bodies of Evidence: The Criminalization of Abortion and Surveillance of
           Women in a Post-Dobbs World

    • Authors: Jolynn Dellinger et al.
      Abstract: In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, state laws criminalizing abortion raise concerns about the investigation and prosecution of women seeking reproductive health care and about the surveillance such investigations will entail. The criminalization of abortion is not new, and the investigation of abortion crimes has always involved the surveillance of women. However, state statutes criminalizing abortion coupled with surveillance methods and technologies that did not exist pre-Roe present new and complex challenges surrounding the protection of women's privacy and liberty interests—in addition to the interests of those who may provide or help pregnant people obtain reproductive care. Accordingly, surveillance, investigation, and the possibility of prosecution create new and more extensive privacy concerns than those traditionally associated with the right to decide whether to have an abortion.What is also new and disruptive is the existence of medication abortion, which was not available pre-Roe. Medication abortion functionally allows people to self-manage abortions safely in the privacy of their own homes, and its availability undermines the efficacy of bans that target providers, aiders, and abettors. How states apply statutes that criminalize abortion and investigate "abortion crimes" in the context of new opportunities for safe, self-managed abortions will play out over time. This article, taking lessons about the surveillance of women from the pre-Roe era of abortion criminalization, is the first to evaluate new and existing laws criminalizing abortion post-Dobbs and consider how modern technologies directed toward the investigation of individuals self-managing abortions through medication will magnify the pervasiveness, scale, and harm of such surveillance.
      PubDate: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 08:28:45 PDT
       
  • State Public Morality Regulation and the Dorman Commerce Clause

    • Authors: Douglas Kysar
      PubDate: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 08:28:45 PDT
       
  • Full Faith and Credit in the Post-Roe Era

    • Authors: Celia P. Janes
      Abstract: In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, once again leaving the question of whether abortion should be legal to individual state legislatures. This decision allowed the Texas law known as S.B. 8, alternatively known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, to go into effect. The law allows private individuals to sue anyone who has performed or has aided and abetted the performance or inducement of an abortion in Texas. California responded to this law with Assembly Bill 2091, which prevents California state courts from issuing subpoenas arising under S.B. 8 and similar laws in other states. This Note addresses the unique challenges that A.B. 2091 may face under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the United States Constitution, which requires all states to give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judgments of sister-states. If the federal courts view subpoenas as records instead of final judgments, then California would likely be allowed to block the issuance of subpoenas that violate the State's public policy. Regardless of whether courts determine subpoenas are records or judgments, the law will likely still be upheld under the exception for foreign penal civil actions under the standard described in the Supreme Court's opinion in Huntington v. Attrill. Although the California legislature’s decision to single out the Texas law when discussing and drafting A.B. 2091 may pose some additional obstacles, California may still be able to claim that policy considerations should be sufficient to allow the State to block subpoenas arising from S.B. 8.
      PubDate: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:38:44 PST
       
  • Communication with Public Officials in the Modern Age of Social Media:
           Does It Violate the First Amendment When Public Officials Block Private
           Individuals From Their Social Media Pages'

    • Authors: Emily Cohen
      Abstract: In the modern world, social media dominates. It is considered an almost essential function of public officials, ranging from the President of the United States to local politicians, to maintain at least one social media page to keep the public updated on their policies and current events. As public officials shift toward social media to communicate with the public, these social media sites become the new spaces for public discourse, with members of the public often commenting on or responding to public officials' posts. As more public discourse occurs on these sites, and individuals begin to criticize their public officials on them, this criticism of the officials, protected by the First Amendment, must be given the same safeguards as more traditional forms of speech.This Note argues that it violates the First Amendment when public officials block individuals from their public social media pages for criticizing the official. Various courts have analyzed this issue, with some courts finding First Amendment violations due to the public official's blocking of an individual and other courts finding no such violation. The Supreme Court has yet to issue an opinion on this issue but will soon, after recently granting cert. for two cases discussed in this Note: Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliff and Lindke v. Freed. Therefore, this Note argues that the cases where the courts did not find First Amendment violations were decided incorrectly. In a time when social media is the center of public discourse, the law must adopt to fit modern times, leading to a finding of First Amendment violations when public officials prohibit free speech online, in the same way as it does when they prohibit free speech in any other public forum.
      PubDate: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:50:26 PST
       
  • Foreword

    • PubDate: Fri, 26 May 2023 06:18:12 PDT
       
  • Blaine in the Joints: The History of Blaine Amendments and Modern Supreme
           Court Religious Liberty Doctrine in Education

    • Authors: McCarley Elizabeth Maddock
      PubDate: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:38:24 PDT
       
  • Journal Staff

    • Authors: McCarley Elizabeth Maddock
      PubDate: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:38:24 PDT
       
  • Match Up: Increasing Disclosure of Facial Recognition Technology With
           Criminal Discovery Rules

    • Authors: Paget Barranco
      PubDate: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:38:23 PDT
       
  • Protecting Natural Stewardship: Public Trusts, Wildlife Trusts, and the
           Effect of Trophic Cascades

    • Authors: Nicholas Massey
      PubDate: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:38:23 PDT
       
  • The End of Balancing' Text, History & Tradition in First Amendment
           Speech Cases After Bruen

    • Authors: Clay Calvert et al.
      Abstract: This Article examines the potential impact on First Amendment free-speech jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court's increasing reliance on text, history, and tradition in 2022 decisions such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court embraced a new test for examining Second Amendment cases. It concentrates on whether there is a historical tradition of regulating the conduct in question, and it eliminates any use of constitutionally common means-end standards of review such as strict and intermediate scrutiny. Those two scrutiny standards often guide the Court's free-speech decisions. The Bruen majority, however, asserted that its novel Second Amendment test eliminating their usage actually "comports" and "accords with" how the Court protects free-speech rights. This Article initially illustrates how that assertion is partly correct but largely inaccurate. It then explores critical problems that likely would arise were the Court to impose its text, history, and tradition methodology from Bruen on First Amendment speech cases. In doing so, the Article addresses how this originalistic approach might affect the continued viability of the Court's actual malice standard in defamation law adopted nearly sixty years ago in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
      PubDate: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:38:22 PDT
       
  • The Remedies for Constitutional Flaws Have Major Flaws

    • Authors: Richard J. Pierce Jr.
      Abstract: In this essay, Professor Pierce describes the many ways in which the conservative majority of the Supreme Court has attempted to use its unique approach to interpretation of the Constitution to restructure the government and to reallocate power among the branches of government. He then describes the problems that the Court has encountered in its efforts to choose remedies for the constitutional flaws that it detects.Increasingly, the Court must choose between remedies that are ineffective and remedies that make it impossible for the government to function. Pierce predicts that the problems that the Court has experienced to date will increase and will become even more intractable if it continues to apply its present approach to interpretation of the Constitution.Pierce argues that the choice of remedy problems will diminish significantly if the Court adopts an approach to interpretation of the Constitution that is less rigid. The Court should accord Congress the deference it deserves in recognition of the challenges that it faces in its efforts to create a government that is true to our constitutional values and that is capable of performing the critical functions of government.
      PubDate: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:38:22 PDT
       
  • Constitutional Hardball and Nationwide Preliminary Injunctions

    • Authors: Jack Thorlin
      Abstract: Constitutional hardball—the breaking of norms while remaining technically within the bounds of the Constitution—has spread from the executive and legislative branches to the federal judiciary in the form of nationwide preliminary injunctions in politically sensitive cases. Preliminary injunctions evolved in the English judicial system to ensure that plaintiffs clearly in the right were not irrevocably harmed while waiting for torpid courts to rule on their case. Now, preliminary injunctions are a useful tool for delaying and disrupting the adoption of disfavored executive branch policies.While the general problem of nationwide preliminary injunctions is well recognized, it is difficult to find satisfactory solutions. Proposals for reform have largely focused on near-total elimination of nationwide preliminary injunctions by restraining the power of district judges. Opponents of those reforms rightfully argue that because actions by the executive branch have come to dominate the policy arena, the judiciary is the only branch that can meaningfully constrain partisan executive actions. More bluntly put: the executive policies of the last several years have been so bad as to warrant constitutional hardball.In this Article, I review the development of preliminary injunctions and judicial partisanship, dissecting exemplar preliminary injunctions from the past several years in politically sensitive cases. Careful review of the actual decisions in question reveals flaws in judicially created doctrines interpreting the four-prong preliminary injunction test that dates back to English courts of equity. These flaws have turned the preliminary injunction doctrine into a mini-trial with virtually no evidence instead of a pragmatic inquiry. Refining the preliminary injunction test is a promising, targeted reform that could preserve the value of preliminary injunctions while reducing their use as a political tool.
      PubDate: Thu, 25 May 2023 10:38:21 PDT
       
  • Upholding the Domestic Violence Firearm Prohibitors Under Bruen’s
           Second Amendment

    • Authors: Samantha L. Fawcett
      Abstract: Federal law prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence protective order (§ 922(g)(8)) or convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors (§ 922(g)(9)) from possessing firearms. Before New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, these commonsense gun laws had generally been considered uncontroversial, both in terms of their broad popular support and their constitutionality under the Second Amendment. In Bruen, however, the Supreme Court held that when a regulation burdens a Second Amendment right, the regulation must be consistent with American historical tradition, meaning that the regulation must be analogous to a pattern of historical firearm regulation.After Bruen, the domestic violence firearm prohibitors have faced Second Amendment constitutional challenges in courts around the country. The most noteworthy of these cases is a Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Rahimi, which held that the domestic violence misdemeanor firearm ban was unconstitutional because it was not sufficiently analogous to American historical firearm regulation. The Fifth Circuit is the first federal appeals court to examine one of the domestic violence firearm prohibitors after Bruen, and the government swiftly announced its intent to appeal the decision.Because Congress only began regulating domestic violence in the twentieth century, a time period explicitly carved out of the Bruen historical analysis, courts must perform an analysis based in analogy to uphold the constitutionality of the domestic violence firearms prohibitors. Although these complications under the Bruen standard may spark discussion of the decision's logic, this Note meets the law where it is and aims to argue for the constitutionality of these prohibitors within the Bruen framework. Indeed, for Bruen to remain internally consistent and instruct a workable doctrine, domestic violence restrictions on firearm ownership must survive Second Amendment constitutional scrutiny, as they have since their inception.
      PubDate: Mon, 22 May 2023 09:35:35 PDT
       
  • Historic Preservation: Launched From Grand Central Terminal, But Derailing

    • Authors: Kraz Greinetz
      Abstract: In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, the Supreme Court authorized the practice of historic preservation. Ruling that when a city designates a building as "historic" and therefore restricting its development, it is not a "taking" of private property that requires just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Since that time, historic preservation has proliferated in America's cities. But it's time for another look. Since Penn Central was decided, the facts and law of property regulation in the United States have changed. And the decision, which was wrong from an originalist perspective when it was decided, has wreaked havoc on America's housing supply and economy. Thus, under the Court's stated stare decisis factors, Penn Central is a decision that deserves to be overturned, narrowed, or at least revisited.
      PubDate: Thu, 18 May 2023 12:33:32 PDT
       
  • Moore v. Harper: The Independent State Legislature Theory and the Court at
           the Brink

    • Authors: Braden Fain
      Abstract: Moore v. Harper tasks the Supreme Court with considering a fringe legal idea known as the Independent State Legislature Theory (ISLT). Donald Trump gave ISLT new life by invoking the theory during his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Instead of presidential elections, the litigation in Moore concerns congressional elections and partisan gerrymandering. Were the Court to accept ISLT, the theory would render states effectively impotent to curb gerrymandering and would aggrandize the Court's authority in federal elections. Scholars have recognized the theory's threat to American democracy and have accordingly produced a detailed record debunking the ISLT. Despite its unseriousness as a legal theory, the Court appears poised to sincerely consider the ISLT as sound doctrine.Although scholars have forcefully refuted ISLT, its logic is enticingly simple, and at first glance the theory might even seem downright plausible. Thus, it is worth taking a deeper dive into the theory and examining the arguments on either side. This Commentary aims to do that. Moore v. Harper and ISLT also present a substantial threat to free and fair elections in the United States. This Commentary will examine the questions the Court is likely to answer and consider the effects its answers will have on American elections and democracy. The Commentary concludes with a simple suggestion the Court is unlikely to adopt.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Mar 2023 13:24:43 PST
       
  • Redlining Reimagined: "Race-Neutral Alternatives" in the Likely
           Wake of Affirmative Action

    • Authors: Margaret Kruzner
      Abstract: For a decade, Justice Clarence Thomas has sharply criticized the Court's treatment of affirmative action, the race-conscious university admissions processed used to pursue the educational benefits associated with diverse classrooms. Calling affirmative action a "faddish theory" that the "Constitution abhors," Justice Thomas signaled his readiness to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, which endorsed the practice in 2003.Justice Thomas and the Court's originalist Justices have a new opportunity to strike down affirmative action in the Students for Fair Admissions litigation. Students for Fair Admissions, a non-profit organization founded by Edward Blum, is suing Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. It alleges that the universities' affirmative action programs are unconstitutional—chiefly, because they are repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.SFFA claims to represent rejected applicants from the universities, though the litigation has a peculiar focus on the universities' behavior generally, not their treatment of the aggrieved applicants. This Commentary examines the factual records of both suits, highlighting the key differences between Harvard and the University of North Carolina and the parties' positions in briefing and oral argument.In anticipation of Justice Thomas' overrule of Grutter, this Commentary chiefly explores the consequences of declaring affirmative action unconstitutional by explores topics such as standing, the Court's constitutional role, Grutter's bizarre sunset provision, and the efficacy of race-neutral alternatives as a proxy for attaining racial diversity in the classroom.
      PubDate: Tue, 07 Mar 2023 13:16:09 PST
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 44.211.31.134
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-
JournalTOCs
 
 
  Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1397 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (30 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (65 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (28 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (161 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (161 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (843 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (11 journals)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)

Showing 1 - 32 of 32 Journals sorted alphabetically
Anuario de Derechos Humanos. Nueva Época     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Asia Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22)
Berkeley Journal of African-American Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Constitutional Commentary     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Constitutional Forum : Forum constitutionnel     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Constitutional Political Economy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Contemporary Politics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Estudios Constitucionales     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst)     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 49)
Global Constitutionalism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 65)
Humanity : An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
International Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39)
International Journal of Constitutional Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56)
International Journal of Human Rights     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 55)
International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Journal of Human Rights and the Environment     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
Journal of Law, Religion and State     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Journal of Legislation     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Law and Humanities     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Pensamiento Constitucional     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Religion and Human Rights     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Revus     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Seton Hall Legislative Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Theory and Practice of Legislation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Similar Journals
Similar Journals
HOME > Browse the 73 Subjects covered by JournalTOCs  
SubjectTotal Journals
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 44.211.31.134
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-