In keeping with its objective of creating and sustaining a forum for constitutional discussion, and of promoting a diversity of viewpoints, arguments and ideologies, ICLP welcomes guest essays from students, academics, practitioners (and just about everyone else!) on a variety of topics. We stress that we aren’t looking for contributions only from lawyers or legal theorists – ICLP is, among other things, interdisciplinary, and we’d love for non-lawyers to bring their own unique perspective to the debate.
Guidelines:
a) The essay should be roughly between 1500-2000 words in length, but this is for guidance purposes only.
b) The essay should bear a reasonable nexus to an aspect of constitutional law.
c) The essay should be analytical, and not simply a descriptive overview of an area of constitutional law. We are particularly interested in analyses of recent Supreme Court – and even more than that, High Court – cases that have had/potentially will have a significant effect upon our constitutional landscape. The more recent, the better!
d) Submissions on constitutional developments in different jurisdictions, around the world, are welcomed. The Notes from a Foreign Field section features analyses of such developments.
Form: Please follow the general format used for blog posts. In particular, please use hyperlinks for sources, don’t use footnotes, and please do not send in research projects for consideration.
Simultaneous Submissions: We discourage simultaneous submissions, unless you intend to cross-post on more than one forum. In case that is your intention, please specify that at the time of submission.
—
Procedure:
a) If you have a theme or an idea that you’d like to develop in an essay for ICLP, please get in touch at submissions.iclp@gmail.com. We shall informally discuss and explore your ideas over email, in order to arrive at a better understanding of whether they fit with the objectives of ICLP. Alternatively, if you have a fully fleshed out blog post, you could send that in as well.
(Note: In order to avoid inevitable subconscious editorial bias, please do not state your institutional affiliation or job description (student, academic, practitioner etc) at any place in the email.)
b) Because of the volume of submissions, we shall – unfortunately – no longer be able to respond individually. If you haven’t heard back within a week from Gautam (or one of the other editors), it means that we are not in a position to carry your essay. To stress: not accepting an essay for publication on the blog is no comment on its quality, but purely a subjective – and quite likely, flawed – assessment of how well it fits with ICLP’s goals.
We look forward to carrying on the constitutional conversation on the blog!
Constitutional Law and Philosophy 
[…] Guest Post Guidelines […]
very good
http://www.magicwaterdispenser.com.my
Dear Gautam,
You post regarding the irrelevance of constitutional study yesterday leaves out one important point in my opinion. When legal scholars, editors and counsels speak up against constitutional irregularities, it often helps in strengthening the resolve of some who might be inclined to dissent or follow the law. Thus in the long run this pursuit can help in bringing forward a time when the relevance of the spirit of constitutional and rule of law will be followed.
The study helps keep the flame alive as you have pointed out.