Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1613 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (37 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (92 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (28 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (24 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (196 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (981 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (11 journals)

JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)

Showing 1 - 21 of 21 Journals sorted alphabetically
American Business Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Berkeley Journal of Middle Eastern & Islamic Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Court Review : The Journal of the American Judges Association     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Das Juristische Büro     Hybrid Journal  
De Jure: Jurnal Hukum dan Syar'iah     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
GesundheitsRecht     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Industrial Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
International Comparative Jurisprudence     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Issues in Legal Scholarship     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Jahrbuch der juristischen Zeitgeschichte     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Journal of Tort Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
JURA - Juristische Ausbildung     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Justice System Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6)
Justicia Islamica     Open Access  
Medical Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Owen Dixon Society eJournal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Washington University Jurisprudence Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Industrial Law Journal
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.249
Citation Impact (citeScore): 1
Number of Followers: 30  
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 0305-9332 - ISSN (Online) 1464-3669
Published by Oxford University Press Homepage  [416 journals]
  • Belief vs. Action in Ladele, Ngole and Forstater
    • Authors: Wintemute R.
      Pages: 104 - 117
      PubDate: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwaa030
      Issue No: Vol. 50, No. 1 (2021)
  • Response to Bogg and Ewing, ‘Collective Bargaining and Individual
           Contracts in Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley A Wilson and Palmer for the
           Twenty-First Century’
    • Authors: Bowers QC J.
      Pages: 118 - 124
      PubDate: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwab002
      Issue No: Vol. 50, No. 1 (2021)
  • Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley: A Reply to John Bowers QC
    • Authors: Bogg A; Ewing K.
      Pages: 125 - 129
      PubDate: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwab001
      Issue No: Vol. 50, No. 1 (2021)
  • Leaving a Legacy: Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court on Transfer
           of Undertakings
    • Authors: McMullen J.
      Pages: 130 - 157
      PubDate: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwab004
      Issue No: Vol. 50, No. 1 (2021)
  • An Emerging Human Right to Protection against Unjustified Dismissal
    • Authors: Collins H.
      Pages: 36 - 69
      Abstract: Although a right to protection against unjustified dismissal is not widely recognised in human rights law, the European Court of Human Rights has begun to use Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights to develop a general right based on the adverse consequences to ordinary private life caused by an unjustified dismissal. Instead of requiring the employer’s reason for the dismissal to be connected to an aspect of an employee’s private and family life in order to engage Article 8, the Court’s new, broader approach focuses on major adverse effects or consequences caused by dismissals to an employee’s family life, personal and professional relationships, to self-respect, and to their chosen way of life and career. The consequence-based approach permits the application of Article 8 whatever reason the employer puts forward for the dismissal. The article assesses the extent and limits of the protection against unjustified dismissal under the Convention as a result primarily of this extension from a reason-based approach to a consequence-based approach to Article 8, an approach that was confirmed by the Grand Chamber in Denisov v Ukraine.
      PubDate: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwaa003
      Issue No: Vol. 50, No. 1 (2020)
  • A Solution to Fissuring' Revisiting the Concept of the Joint Employer
    • Authors: Wynn-Evans C.
      Pages: 70 - 103
      Abstract: Among other matters, the Taylor Review addressed the issues of employee and worker status for statutory purposes and how the current law might be updated to reflect the realities of the modern workplace and developing models of the engagement of workers. It did not, however, propose reform in relation to the important and intimately connected question of the identity of the employer for the purposes of employment protection legislation. In particular, no consideration was given to or proposals made in its report in respect of the issue of whether a ‘functional’ employer approach to ascribing responsibility for compliance with employment law requirements—such as a ‘joint employment’ model—might be appropriate to deal with issues of perceived inadequate coverage of employment protection standards consequent upon certain employment legislation being limited in its application to the ‘contractual’ employer. While there are cogent objections to adopting a functional employer approach, the most recent domestic caselaw and the ongoing debate concerning the operation of the joint employer concept in the USA offer a valuable perspective on the scope and design of a functional employment model which can contribute to any debate which might ensue about the justification for, and feasibility of, such an approach.
      PubDate: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwaa004
      Issue No: Vol. 50, No. 1 (2020)
  • Freedom of Religious Association: Towards a Purposive Interpretation of
           the Employment Equality Exceptions
    • Authors: Cannon C.
      Pages: 1 - 35
      Abstract: The exceptions to the principle of equality in employment for employers in Britain with a religious or belief ethos (or who employ personnel for the purposes of organised religion) are ambiguous in scope and lack any clear foundational principle to guide judicial interpretation. In view of the consequent risk of inconsistency in decision-making, this article addresses the question of how best to understand and interpret the exceptions. While the exceptions should be regarded as limited derogations from the equality principle, it is nonetheless important that recognition is afforded to their underlying rationale which, I argue, derives from the fundamental human rights of religious association. Though the concept of associative rights and related ideas have not featured heavily in appellate judgments on the exceptions to date, I argue that such a purposive approach to interpretation of the exceptions could assist the judiciary to reach fair, balanced and consistent decisions in this highly contested area of the law by inviting consideration of the relationships among an employer’s ethos, its employees and the religious group it serves, and by encouraging engagement with the discriminatory impacts which an exercise of these rights may entail.
      PubDate: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwz025
      Issue No: Vol. 50, No. 1 (2019)
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

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

JournalTOCs © 2009-