Queen's University
Faculty of Law
Faculty of Law

Visiting Speakers and Lecturers 2015-2016

Past speakers - Winter 2015

Monday January 12, 2015
1 p.m., Room 201, Macdonald Hall
Dr. Mark Dockstator, President, First Nations University of Canada
Introductory remarks by David Sharpe, Law’95, Queen's Law Alumni Ambassador for Aboriginal Student Recruitment
Contemporary State of Aboriginal Issues in Canada

Thursday, January 15, 2015
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Nicholas Aroney, University of Queensland, Australia
Comparative Federalism​

Friday, January 16, 2015
1 p.m., Room 211, Macdonald Hall
Professor Wanjiru Njoya, Queen's University
The Dean's Lecture: A Lecture Series to Welcome New Faculty Members
Corporate Governance and Income Inequality in Canada and the U.K.

Friday, January 16, 2015
1 p.m., Room 202, Macdonald Hall
Dr. Anna Dolidze
Assistant Professor, The University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Law; former President, Georgian Young Lawyers' Association, the largest legal advocacy organization in the Republic of Georgia
Feminist Legal Studies Queen's

Talk to Her: Feminist Civil Society Organizations and Gender-related Discourse in International Criminal Tribunals Much has been written about civil society’s role in creating and strengthening the international criminal tribunals and fostering a greater recognition of women under international criminal law. However, little is known about the specific nature of feminist legal strategies aimed at international law-making. Aiming at advancing the scholarship on feminism and international lawmaking, this paper examines the nature of feminist interventions as amici curiae in international criminal tribunals based on the first comprehensive empirical study of feminist amici curiae interventions in the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Court. What are the issues in relation to which feminist groups request to be heard by the Tribunals and what is the proportion of feminist interventions relative to the overall number of amicus curiae briefs? How do we interpret the fact that the Coalition for Women's Human Rights in Conflict Situations has requested an amicus curiae intervention in the ICTR in three cases and was denied the opportunity by the Tribunal in all three instances? Or what is the role of women academics in fostering a particular view of gender related issues, considering the fact that women academics are often heard in the capacity of amicus curiae by the international tribunals? The ICTY case of Furundžija (IT-95-17/1) ''Lašva Valley'', where eleven women academics, including Dr. Annie Bunting and Dr. Valerie Oosterveld took part is a pertinent example. This paper will answer these and related questions with the aim to enrich our knowledge about the relationship between feminism and the formation of international law. Readings: The Jurisprudence of the Inter American Court of Human Rights The Arctic Sunrise and NGOs in International Judicial Proceedings

Monday January 19, 2015
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Jean Leclair
University of Montréal
"Tell me how you see the world, and I will tell you what you intend to prescribe": Nationalism, Holism and Federalism as epistemologies

Monday January 26, 2015
1 p.m., Room 001, Macdonald Hall
The Honourable Stephen T. Goudge
Inaugural McCarthy-Tétrault LLP Lecture
Legal Ethics and Professionalism

The inaugural speaker for the McCarthy Tétrault LLP Annual Lecture in Legal Ethics and Professionalism at Queen’s University’s Faculty of Law, Justice Goudge will address the relation between legal education and legal ethics and professionalism and will include consideration of the role of law schools, Law Societies and the Judiciary to maintain the high ethical and professional standards expected of the legal community. Justice Goudge will also reflect on recent events and developments in the area.

Monday February 2, 2015
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Mitu Gulati
Duke Law School
Law’80 Lecture in Business Law
A Market for Sovereign Control?

Across the world, many regions are located in the wrong nations—wrong in the sense that the people of these regions believe they would be safer, happier, and wealthier if surrounded by different borders and governed by different leaders. These people might be able to improve their lot by voting out their current government or by emigrating, but these are imperfect solutions and are often unavailable to those who need them most. We ask whether the addition of a new tool—a market for sovereign control—could help ameliorate the bad government problem by facilitating welfare-enhancing border changes.

Monday February 23, 2015
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Luc Tremblay
University of Montréal
An Egalitarian Defense of Proportionality-Based Balancing

Friday February 27, 2015
1 p.m., Room 202, Macdonald Hall
Sudabeh Mashkuri
Arbitrator, Financial Services Commission of Ontario; previously Adjudicator, Immigration and Refugee Board
of Canada; Senior Staff Lawyer, Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic; Counsel, Equity Initiatives, Law
Society of Upper Canada
Feminist Legal Studies Queen's
Practice, Power, and Intersections of Oppressions in Adjudication and Advocacy: A Practitioner's View Point

What does it mean to practice either in advocacy or adjudication through an anti-oppression lens? What are the systemic and individual barriers in attempting to move through the intersection of various oppressions? Anti-oppression framework is a concept which is mostly used in social work theory. This presentation will be based on an experiential framework - advocacy and adjudication. However, background reading provided to those attending provides background on the analysis of intersectionality and oppression from positions of privilege.


To those attending my Feb. 27 session --

In advance of this session, I ask that you set aside some time to think about how perspectives and perceptions are shaped by experiences of racialization, immigration, privilege, and gender. Some references that address these issues are provided here:

In 1988 Peggy McIntosh wrote an essay called ‘White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,’ which has been used in the last 25 years in anti-oppression training (in shorter format). It should be noted that the article was written in a US context and reality and many years ago.

Kimberle Crenshaw has written extensively on the intersectionality of race and gender and critical race theory as it relates to the practice of law.  I have included a link to an interview she conducted last year in commemoration of the 20th year of Anita Hill and Clarance Thomas hearings. Crenshaw was on the team representing Anita Hill. http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/04/kimberl-crenshaw-intersectionality-i-wanted-come-everyday-metaphor-anyone-could

Other references that might be useful to you include a paper written by Carole Aylward in the Journal of Critical Race Inquiry entitled ‘Intersectionality: Crossing the Theoretical and Praxis Divide’ in 2010. It gives a background to how intersectionality has been interpreted in Canadian court cases, and Patricia Williams groundbreaking work on  intersectionality in law, The Alchemy of Race and Rights: a diary of a law professor.

Monday March 2, 2015
1 p.m., Room 211, Macdonald Hall
Adam MacLeod
Faulkner University
Property and Charity

Friday March 6, 2015
7 p.m., Room 202, Sutherland Hall
Dr. Attiya Waris
University of Nairobi
Feminist Legal Studies Queen's
International Human Rights Law and Tax Justice

Friday March 6 - Saturday 7, 2015
Robert Sutherland Hall
Feminist Legal Studies Queen's Conference
Women and Tax Justice at Beijing+20: Taxing and Budgeting for Sex Equality

Monday March 9, 2015
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
David Plunkett
Dartmouth College
The Metalinguistic Dimension of the Dispute over Legal Positivism
Monday March 23, 2015
4 p.m., Room 201, Macdonald Hall
Martin Loughlin 
JA Corry Lecture
The Politics of Abstraction


This lecture addresses a persistent question in the study of law and politics: how are we to explain the role that law performs in establishing and maintaining an orderly and well-functioning political regime? Answers to this question are invariably couched in abstract terms, generally by presenting some vision of a state that is ruled by law. And the problem is that answers at this level of generality mark a retreat into metaphor, thereby signalling the avoidance of all the most difficult – and most interesting - aspects of the question. In order to advance this inquiry, it is suggested, we might begin by unpacking the idea of law. The term has come to stand for a variety of phenomena and unless we fix its meaning the relationship between law and politics will remain forever at the level of the polemical. It is proposed, then, to extract three varying conceptions of law, which will be called law, legality and super-legality. These three conceptions express different degrees of abstraction, and each of these stages in degree of abstraction leads to significant variation in our understanding of the relationship between the legal and the political.

Friday March 27, 2015
11:30 a.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
John Goldberg
Harvard University
The Fault in Strict Liability

It is common for U.S. lawyers and law professors to treat the phrases “strict liability” and “liability without wrongdoing” as equivalents. On this basis, the existence of strict tort liability is taken as evidence that tort law is not fundamentally about wrongs and accountability for wrongs. Rather, it is about imposing liability for regulatory purposes such as deterrence and compensation. The equation of strict liability and liability without wrongdoing ignores a fault-line within the concept of strict liability. Strict liability in fact comes in two variants, and only one refers to liability without wrongdoing. Strict liability without wrongdoing—which we dub “licensing-based” strict liability—can be thought of in terms of a conditional permission: an actor is permitted to engage in certain injury-producing activity but only on condition that he or she cover the costs of those injuries. By contrast, strict liability predicated on wrongdoing—which we dub “objectivity-based” strict liability—involves a failure to live up to an unforgiving (i.e., strict) norm of conduct, one that can be violated even by conduct that is diligent and prudent. Overwhelmingly, strict liability in tort is objectivity-based not licensing-based. To say the same thing, tort law commonly recognizes strict liability wrongs but almost never imposes liability without wrongdoing. Thus, it is erroneous to infer from the presence of strict tort liability to the appropriateness of treating tort law as regulatory law rather than a law of wrongs. Having demonstrated that strict tort liability overwhelmingly involves objectivity-based strict liability, we concede that U.S. tort law contains a small pocket of licensing-based strict liability, namely, the abnormally dangerous activities doctrine derived from Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). We explain why this doctrine involves a distinct form of liability, why it is appropriate for courts and commentators to house this form of liability within tort law, and why their having done so does not support an argument for recognizing additional forms of licensing-based strict tort liability.


Upcoming speakers

Monday October 5, 2015
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Jerry DeMarco
Associate Chair of the Environmental Review Tribunal
Topic TBA​

Monday October 19, 2015
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Gerry McNeilly
Director & Chief Operations Officer, Office of the Independent Police Review for Ontario
Topic TBA

Monday October 26, 2015
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Dr. David S. Berry
Dean of Law, University of the West Indies
Caribbean Integration Law

Friday October 30, 2015
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Sarah Nouwen
Cambridge University
Topic TBA

Monday November 16, 2015
12 p.m., Room TBA, Macdonald Hall
Book Symposium on Abraham Drassinower
Featuring Abraham Drassinower (Toronto), Margaret Jane Radin (Michigan), Laura Murray (Queen’s English), Bita Amani, Chris Essert
What’s Wrong with Copying?

Monday January 25, 2016
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Ben Berger
Osgoode Hall Law School
Topic TBA
Friday February 26, 2016
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Arden Rowell
Harvard Law School
Topic TBA

Monday March 7, 2016
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Zoe Sinel
Western Law School
Topic TBA

Monday March 14, 2016
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Steve Smith
Mcgill Law School
Topic TBA

Monday March 21, 2016
1 p.m., Room 515, Macdonald Hall
Japa Pallikkathayil
University of Pittsburgh Philosophy Department
Topic TBA