Welcome to Kings Student Law Review.
King’s Student Law Review (KSLR) is a peer-reviewed academic publication run by researchers and post-graduate students based at the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London. We seek to publish the very best of legal scholarship written by students at King’s and other leading law schools. The KSLR is listed in the international database HeinOnline.
We expect to publish our delayed Spring 2021 edition, Volume XI Issue II, in July 2021, although we have published two Advance Articles relating to Covid-19 vaccination.
We expect to issue the call for papers for Volume XII Issue I (Autumn 2021) in late September 2021.
Please refer to the submissions page for guidance on what we publish before submitting.
Meanwhile, please find our two Advance Articles relating to Covid-19, below.
Volume XI, Issue II : Advance Articles
We have taken the unusual step of publishing two Advance Articles, written by two members of our Editorial Team, because of their topicality.
Emily Ottley writes on the topical and contentious subject of mandatory vaccination for Covid-19:
The focus of her paper is on compliance with human rights obligations, and whether mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations for adults in England and Wales would be a justified interference with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She suggests that the interference could be justified for the protection of health and the economic wellbeing of the country. This supposes that the necessary legislation will be passed by Parliament. It is also contingent on both the way in which the scheme is set up and the effectiveness of education/awareness campaigns.
Mary Lowth writes on the ethics of mandatory Covid-19 vaccination.
We don’t normally publish articles on ethics, but sometimes medical law seems to demand it! In this case, we felt that any discussion on whether mandatory vaccination constitutes a justified interference with Article 8 ECHR inevitably strays into the question of when (if at all) it is morally right to compel individuals to act against their own preferences, for the sake of others. We therefore decided to publish an ethical companion piece to Emily’s article. This considers recent publications by ethicists who suggest that mandatory vaccination is justified on consequentialist grounds, then asks whether a case for mandatory vaccination can also be made from a deontological perspective.
We hope you find these articles interesting, and look forward to publishing the rest of Volume XII Issue II in July.