how to write a first class dissertation

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Ten things I wish I'd known before starting my dissertation

The sun is shining but many students won't see the daylight. Because it's that time of year again – dissertation time.

Luckily for me, my D-Day (dissertation hand-in day) has already been and gone. But I remember it well.

The 10,000-word spiral-bound paper squatted on my desk in various forms of completion was my Allied forces; the history department in-tray was my Normandy. And when Eisenhower talked about a "great crusade toward which we have striven these many months", he was bang on.

I remember first encountering the Undergraduate Dissertation Handbook, feeling my heart sink at how long the massive file took to download, and began to think about possible (but in hindsight, wildly over-ambitious) topics. Here's what I've learned since, and wish I'd known back then…

1 ) If your dissertation supervisor isn't right, change. Mine was brilliant. If you don't feel like they're giving you the right advice, request to swap to someone else – providing it's early on and your reason is valid, your department shouldn't have a problem with it. In my experience, it doesn't matter too much whether they're an expert on your topic. What counts is whether they're approachable, reliable, reassuring, give detailed feedback and don't mind the odd panicked email. They are your lifeline and your best chance of success.

2 ) If you mention working on your dissertation to family, friends or near-strangers, they will ask you what it's about, and they will be expecting a more impressive answer than you can give. So prepare for looks of confusion and disappointment. People anticipate grandeur in history dissertation topics – war, genocide, the formation of modern society. They don't think much of researching an obscure piece of 1970s disability legislation. But they're not the ones marking it.

3 ) If they ask follow-up questions, they're probably just being polite.

4 ) Do not ask friends how much work they've done. You'll end up paranoid – or they will. Either way, you don't have time for it.

5 ) There will be one day during the process when you will freak out, doubt your entire thesis and decide to start again from scratch. You might even come up with a new question and start working on it, depending on how long the breakdown lasts. You will at some point run out of steam and collapse in an exhausted, tear-stained heap. But unless there are serious flaws in your work (unlikely) and your supervisor recommends starting again (highly unlikely), don't do it. It's just panic, it'll pass.

6 ) A lot of the work you do will not make it into your dissertation. The first few days in archives, I felt like everything I was unearthing was a gem, and when I sat down to write, it seemed as if it was all gold. But a brutal editing down to the word count has left much of that early material at the wayside.

7 ) You will print like you have never printed before. If you're using a university or library printer, it will start to affect your weekly budget in a big way. If you're printing from your room, "paper jam" will come to be the most dreaded two words in the English language.

8 ) Your dissertation will interfere with whatever else you have going on – a social life, sporting commitments, societies, other essay demands. Don't even try and give up biscuits for Lent, they'll basically become their own food group when you're too busy to cook and desperate for sugar.

9 ) Your time is not your own. Even if you're super-organised, plan your time down to the last hour and don't have a single moment of deadline panic, you'll still find that thoughts of your dissertation will creep up on you when you least expect it. You'll fall asleep thinking about it, dream about it and wake up thinking about. You'll feel guilty when you're not working on it, and mired in self-doubt when you are.

10 ) Finishing it will be one of the best things you've ever done. It's worth the hard work to know you've completed what's likely to be your biggest, most important, single piece of work. Be proud of it.

• Blogging students
• Higher education
• Advice for students

Most viewed

How to Improve Your Dissertation From a 2:1 (B) to a 1st (A) Grade

Achieving a First Class mark on a dissertation is slightly more difficult than it is for shorter assignments. This is simply due to the complexity of the dissertation compared to most types of coursework. However, the greater length of time that students have to complete a dissertation means that a First Class is definitely achievable. With some attention to the following details, you can increase your chances of moving from a 2:1 to a First.

First Class Dissertation

Be innovative.

You can set yourself up for earning a first by developing an original and innovative research plan from the start. The best dissertations demonstrate creative, independent thinking. Remember that the dissertation is often viewed as a starting point to a more advanced research career, so proving your ability for original thinking is a great way to show your potential to examiners.

Be Critical

The difference between a 2:1 dissertation and a first class dissertation is often the degree of critical thinking that it demonstrates. You should show an ability to think beyond common knowledge and deduce conclusions through insightful and analytical applications of theory. Although this may seem challenging, it is a skill that you will naturally develop from a wide reading of journal articles in your field. You can also enhance your ability for critical writing by discussing your ideas in seminars and conferences.

Create a Complex Argument – One of the best ways to convey your critical thinking abilities is by creating a complex but coherent argument. This involves combining multiple strands of established ideas to develop a highly specific analytical framework. You should be able to clearly define your overarching philosophy and methodology, and consider how this relates to various theoretical trends in your field. You should avoid convoluted arguments that include too many different ideas; instead, choose two or three complementary approaches and combine them to create a unique viewpoint on your subject.

Use Obscure Source Material

A good way to impress examiners and move from a 2:1 to a first class dissertation is to locate and make use of relatively unknown source material. This can take the form of primary sources obtained from historical archives and research laboratories or lesser-used secondary sources that you might secure through interlibrary loans. Using these materials will demonstrate your dedication to your research and your ability to judge the value of comparatively obscure sources.

Include Tables, Figures and Appendices

A First Class dissertation will include relevant tables, figures and data sets. These can provide essential information to support your overall argument. It is usually best to include these in an appendix at the end of your dissertation so that you can refer to the data multiple times throughout the work.

Write several drafts of your first class dissertation

Finally, be sure to write several drafts of your dissertation so that you can refine it to the level necessary to achieve a First. Often students will receive a 2:1 simply because they overlooked small typographical errors or clumsily written expression. By rewriting the dissertation several times you will be able to eliminate unnecessary phrases and increase its overall clarity. It will also give you more chances to receive feedback from tutors, which is essential if you want to move from a 2:1 to a first class dissertation!

Further Reading:

• Thinking Critically
• Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process.

First class dissertation is not easy to complete – it required skill, time and determination. If you need a first class dissertation, but struggle to complete it – our dissertation editing and improvement service can be a solution for you.

You may also like

How to Write a First Class Dissertation

How to get a first in your dissertation.

A dissertation paper has two main goals: to prove that the student has acquired extensive knowledge about a selected topic and to demonstrate the student's ability of using pertinent research methods. Knowing how to write a first class dissertation implies a level of knowledge and training fit for future academic endeavours, as well as for achieving professional or personal goals.

A first class dissertation is a research paper of the utmost quality, with a final grade of at least 70 percent. This implies that the paper will show signs of excellence when it comes to clarity, presentation, originality and understanding of the key issues; furthermore, a first class dissertation gives evidence for the student's independent manner of thinking and judgement. Furthermore, when learning how to write a first class dissertation, students need to acknowledge the importance of constant communication with their supervisors. The steady feedback offered this way would assure that any problems encountered during their research would be dealt with immediately. Avoiding one's supervisor is thus a costly mistake, often resulting in the student receiving a second or third class grade for his or her dissertation.

Writing the Dissertation Paper

A student who knows how to write a first class dissertation is able to understand and apply the knowledge offered by his bibliographical sources in a creative manner that demonstrates critical thinking and originality. Furthermore, a first class dissertation requires an excellent use of writing skills when constructing the arguments and bringing the evidence for a certain point of view. The chosen bibliographic materials need to be of the utmost relevance and recency, regardless of the where the student has acquired them from (Internet websites, libraries, etc.).

Generally, a dissertation consists of several separate sections:

• The introduction should provide a background of the chosen study. A well-written thesis needs to be introduced within this section. A student who knows how to write a first class dissertation needs to be able to attract and prepare his readers for the content of the paper. By emphasising on the goals and objectives the dissertation aims to achieve, the author makes the audience more perceptive to the arguments brought within the paper. A good hint would be to edit your introduction once the paper is finished, as this is one of the most difficult parts to write of an academic paper.
• The literature review is the second part of the paper; in it, the author underlines the problems that are going to be discussed, presenting every relevant piece of evidence. By analysing the theories presented by the specialised literature, you will prepare the grounds for the next section of the dissertation, the methodology.
• The methodology enlarges on every specific method of data analysis used in the thesis. Knowing how to write a first class dissertation implies using qualitative research methods, rather than quantitative ones. Furthermore, a research design needs to be specified, along with a timetable that identifies the number of days and weeks spent studying every aspect of the discussion. The methods of analysing the data also need to be specified. Overall, the better the author explains the methods and processes he used for bringing evidence to his thesis, the more credible his paper will be.

A good academic impression is built by offering arguments for all the pros and cons related to the subject of the thesis. Someone who knows how to write a first class dissertation will bring evidence both for and against the subject he aims to prove, and will not refrain from admitting the limitations of his study. Furthermore, every table, statistic, figure or chart needs to be thoroughly explained; failure to do so will result in losing valuable marks.

• The conclusion provides a recap of the whole discussion and brings it to a satisfactory end. Every current issue related to the chosen research topic is to be presented in this section, without adding any new information that asks for additional explanations. A student who knows how to write a first class dissertation will also present the limitations he or she has encountered during the research, and direct the reader to other recommended studies that can provide additional information about the subject. A good conclusion offers a sense of closure to the paper and reinforces the author's credibility at the same time; like the introduction, the conclusion is a section students find quite difficult to construct.
• Lastly, the works cited page and the appendix are added at the end of the dissertation. Pay attention to the formatting style you have chosen; any inadvertencies will automatically lead to the loss of valuable marks.

Use of Language, Style and Formatting

Aiming for a top mark requires paying proper attention to language and style. A first-class academic paper should be written in a formal style, using the appropriate terminology.

A student who knows how to write a first class dissertation will avoid colloquial and informal expressions; however, an excessive use of scientific terminology or technical language is undesirable. Clear, concise sentences are the most appropriate for making oneself understood. A pompous style employing lengthy sentences will probably diminish the interest of the reader.

Furthermore, avoid using the first person in your text; “the researcher/author” is commonly used in academic papers when referring to the person who has devised the thesis. Furthermore, words that express qualitative judgments (such as “bad”, “good”, “perfect”, etc) should be avoided, “correct” or “incorrect” being more fit for presenting your arguments or opinions.

The specifications of the formatting style needs to be respected at all times. Usually, academic papers employ the Harvard or APA style, but instructors may specify the use of other referencing standards.

Lastly, proofread and spell-check the text. If you can show the paper to a native English speaker, do so, asking him or her to tell you where you might improve on your use of language. If you know how to write a first class dissertation, then you know that incorrect use of language and grammar will lower your marks. For the best results, consider using our proofreading and editing section ; furthermore, the dissertation writing section can help you by offering well-written dissertation you can use as models during future academic endeavours.

[button url="http://www.academicsciences.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/How-to-Write-a-First-Class-Dissertation.pdf" ]To download this guide for free, click here![/button]

Are you struggling with the perfect dissertation? Academic Sciences provide custom essays and model answers which can help you manage your dissertation writing and help get you the grade you want. We have a variety of solutions available to you to suit your academic level, time frame and budget. Have a look through our academic guides and if you are still struggling, consider giving us a call or placing an order for your dissertation on-line.

• How it works

A Step-By-Step Guide to Write the Perfect Dissertation

“A dissertation or a thesis is a long piece of academic writing based on comprehensive research.”

The significance of dissertation writing in the world of academia is unparalleled. A good dissertation paper needs months of research and marks the end of your respected academic journey. It is considered the most effective form of writing in academia and perhaps the longest piece of academic writing you will ever have to complete.

This thorough step-by-step guide on how to write a dissertation will serve as a tool to help you with the task at hand, whether you are an undergraduate student or a Masters or PhD student working on your dissertation project. This guide provides detailed information about how to write the different chapters of a dissertation, such as a problem statement , conceptual framework , introduction , literature review, methodology , discussion , findings , conclusion , title page , acknowledgements , etc.

What is a Dissertation? – Definition

Before we list the stages of writing a dissertation, we should look at what a dissertation is.

The Cambridge dictionary states that a dissertation is a long piece of writing on a particular subject, especially one that is done to receive a degree at college or university, but that is just the tip of the iceberg because a dissertation project has a lot more meaning and context.

To understand a dissertation’s definition, one must have the capability to understand what an essay is. A dissertation is like an extended essay that includes research and information at a much deeper level. Despite the few similarities, there are many differences between an essay and a dissertation.

Another term that people confuse with a dissertation is a thesis. Let's look at the differences between the two terms.

What is the Difference Between a Dissertation and a Thesis?

Dissertation and thesis are used interchangeably worldwide (and may vary between universities and regions), but the key difference is when they are completed. The thesis is a project that marks the end of a degree program, whereas the dissertation project can occur during the degree. Hanno Krieger (Researchgate, 2014) explained the difference between a dissertation and a thesis as follows:

“Thesis is the written form of research work to claim an academic degree, like PhD thesis, postgraduate thesis, and undergraduate thesis. On the other hand, a dissertation is only another expression of the written research work, similar to an essay. So the thesis is the more general expression.

In the end, it does not matter whether it is a bachelor's, master or PhD dissertation one is working on because the structure and the steps of conducting research are pretty much identical. However, doctoral-level dissertation papers are much more complicated and detailed.

Problems Students Face When Writing a Dissertation

You can expect to encounter some troubles if you don’t yet know the steps to write a dissertation. Even the smartest students are overwhelmed by the complexity of writing a dissertation.

A dissertation project is different from any essay paper you have ever committed to because of the details of planning, research and writing it involves. One can expect rewarding results at the end of the process if the correct guidelines are followed. Still, as indicated previously, there will be multiple challenges to deal with before reaching that milestone.

The three most significant problems students face when working on a dissertation project are the following.

Poor Project Planning

Delaying to start working on the dissertation project is the most common problem. Students think they have sufficient time to complete the paper and are finding ways to write a dissertation in a week, delaying the start to the point where they start stressing out about the looming deadline. When the planning is poor, students are always looking for ways to write their dissertations in the last few days. Although it is possible, it does have effects on the quality of the paper.

Inadequate Research Skills

The writing process becomes a huge problem if one has the required academic research experience. Professional dissertation writing goes well beyond collecting a few relevant reference resources.

You need to do both primary and secondary research for your paper. Depending on the dissertation’s topic and the academic qualification you are a candidate for, you may be required to base your dissertation paper on primary research.

In addition to secondary data, you will also need to collect data from the specified participants and test the hypothesis . The practice of primary collection is time-consuming since all the data must be analysed in detail before results can be withdrawn.

Failure to Meet the Strict Academic Writing Standards

Research is a crucial business everywhere. Failure to follow the language, style, structure, and formatting guidelines provided by your department or institution when writing the dissertation paper can worsen matters. It is recommended to read the dissertation handbook before starting the write-up thoroughly.

Steps of Writing a Dissertation

For those stressing out about developing an extensive paper capable of filling a gap in research whilst adding value to the existing academic literature—conducting exhaustive research and analysis—and professionally using the knowledge gained throughout their degree program, there is still good news in all the chaos.

We have put together a guide that will show you how to start your dissertation and complete it carefully from one stage to the next.

Find an Interesting and Manageable Dissertation Topic

A clearly defined topic is a prerequisite for any successful independent research project. An engaging yet manageable research topic can produce an original piece of research that results in a higher academic score.

Unlike essays or assignments, when working on their thesis or dissertation project, students get to choose their topic of research.

You should follow the tips to choose the correct topic for your research to avoid problems later. Your chosen dissertation topic should be narrow enough, allowing you to collect the required secondary and primary data relatively quickly.

Understandably, many people take a lot of time to search for the topic, and a significant amount of research time is spent on it. You should talk to your supervisor or check out the intriguing database of ResearchProspect’s free topics for your dissertation.

Alternatively, consider reading newspapers, academic journals, articles, course materials, and other media to identify relevant issues to your study area and find some inspiration to get going.

You should work closely with your supervisor to agree to a narrowed but clear research plan.Here is what Michelle Schneider, learning adviser at the University of Leeds, had to say about picking the research topics,

“Picking something you’re genuinely interested in will keep you motivated. Consider why it’s important to tackle your chosen topic," Michelle added.

Develop a First-Class Dissertation Proposal.

Once the research topic has been selected, you can develop a solid dissertation proposal . The research proposal allows you to convince your supervisor or the committee members of the significance of your dissertation.

Through the proposal, you will be expected to prove that your work will significantly value the academic and scientific communities by addressing complex and provocative research questions .

Dissertation proposals are much shorter but follow a similar structure to an extensive dissertation paper. If the proposal is optional in your university, you should still create one outline of the critical points that the actual dissertation paper will cover. To get a better understanding of dissertation proposals, you can also check the publicly available samples of dissertation proposals .

Typical contents of the dissertation paper are as follows;

• A brief rationale for the problem your dissertation paper will investigate.
• The hypothesis you will be testing.
• Research objectives you wish to address.
• How will you contribute to the knowledge of the scientific and academic community?
• How will you find answers to the critical research question(s)?
• What research approach will you adopt?
• What kind of population of interest would you like to generalise your result(s) to (especially in the case of quantitative research)?
• What sampling technique(s) would you employ, and why would you not use other methods?
• What ethical considerations have you taken to gather data?
• Who are the stakeholders in your research are/might be?
• What are the future implications and limitations you see in your research?

Let’s review the structure of the dissertation. Keep the format of your proposal simple. Keeping it simple keeps your readers will remain engaged. The following are the fundamental focal points that must be included:

Title of your dissertation: Dissertation titles should be 12 words in length. The focus of your research should be identifiable from your research topic.

Research aim: The overall purpose of your study should be clearly stated in terms of the broad statements of the desired outcomes in the Research aim. Try and paint the picture of your research, emphasising what you wish to achieve as a researcher.

Research objectives: The key research questions you wish to address as part of the project should be listed. Narrow down the focus of your research and aim for at most four objectives. Your research objectives should be linked with the aim of the study or a hypothesis.

Literature review: Consult with your supervisor to check if you are required to use any specific academic sources as part of the literature review process. If that is not the case, find out the most relevant theories, journals, books, schools of thought, and publications that will be used to construct arguments in your literature research.Remember that the literature review is all about giving credit to other authors’ works on a similar topic

Research methods and techniques: Depending on your dissertation topic, you might be required to conduct empirical research to satisfy the study’s objectives. Empirical research uses primary data such as questionnaires, interview data, and surveys to collect.

On the other hand, if your dissertation is based on secondary (non-empirical) data, you can stick to the existing literature in your area of study. Clearly state the merits of your chosen research methods under the methodology section.

Expected results: As you explore the research topic and analyse the data in the previously published papers, you will begin to build your expectations around the study’s potential outcomes. List those expectations here.

Project timeline: Let the readers know exactly how you plan to complete all the dissertation project parts within the timeframe allowed. You should learn more about Microsoft Project and Gantt Charts to create easy-to-follow and high-level project timelines and schedules.

References: The academic sources used to gather information for the proposed paper will be listed under this section using the appropriate referencing style. Ask your supervisor which referencing style you are supposed to follow.

The proposals we write have:

• Precision and Clarity
• Zero Plagiarism
• High-level Encryption
• Authentic Sources

Investigation, Research and Data Collection

This is the most critical stage of the dissertation writing process. One should use up-to-date and relevant academic sources that are likely to jeopardise hard work.

Finding relevant and highly authentic reference resources is the key to succeeding in the dissertation project, so it is advised to take your time with this process. Here are some of the things that should be considered when conducting research.

dissertation project, so it is advised to take your time with this process. Here are some of the things that should be considered when conducting research.

You cannot read everything related to your topic. Although the practice of reading as much material as possible during this stage is rewarding, it is also imperative to understand that it is impossible to read everything that concerns your research.

This is true, especially for undergraduate and master’s level dissertations that must be delivered within a specific timeframe. So, it is important to know when to stop! Once the previous research and the associated limitations are well understood, it is time to move on.

However, review at least the salient research and work done in your area. By salient, we mean research done by pioneers of your field. For instance, if your topic relates to linguistics and you haven’t familiarised yourself with relevant research conducted by, say, Chomsky (the father of linguistics), your readers may find your lack of knowledge disconcerting.

So, to come off as genuinely knowledgeable in your own field, at least don’t forget to read essential works in the field/topic!

Use an Authentic Research database to Find References.

Most students start the reference material-finding process with desk-based research. However, this research method has its own limitation because it is a well-known fact that the internet is full of bogus information and fake information spreads fasters on the internet than truth does .

So, it is important to pick your reference material from reliable resources such as Google Scholar , Researchgate, Ibibio and Bartleby . Wikipedia is not considered a reliable academic source in the academic world, so it is recommended to refrain from citing Wikipedia content.Never underrate the importance of the actual library. The supporting staff at a university library can be of great help when it comes to finding exciting and reliable publications.

Record as you learn

All information and impressions should be recorded as notes using online tools such as Evernote to make sure everything is clear. You want to retain an important piece of information you had planned to present as an argument in the dissertation paper.

Write a Flawless Dissertation

Start to write a fantastic dissertation immediately once your proposal has been accepted and all the necessary desk-based research has been conducted. Now we will look at the different chapters of a dissertation in detail. You can also check out the samples of dissertation chapters to fully understand the format and structures of the various chapters.

Dissertation Introduction Chapter

The introduction chapter of the dissertation paper provides the background, problem statement and research questions. Here, you will inform the readers why it was important for this research to be conducted and which key research question(s) you expect to answer at the end of the study.

Definitions of all the terms and phrases in the project are provided in this first chapter of the dissertation paper. The research aim and objectives remain unchanged from the proposal paper and are expected to be listed under this section.

Dissertation Literature Review Chapter

This chapter allows you to demonstrate to your readers that you have done sufficient research on the chosen topic and understand previous similar studies’ findings. Any research limitations that your research incorporates are expected to be discussed in this section.

And make sure to summarise the viewpoints and findings of other researchers in the dissertation literature review chapter. Show the readers that there is a research gap in the existing work and your job is relevant to it to justify your research value.

Dissertation Methodology

The methodology chapter of the dissertation provides insight into the methods employed to collect data from various resources and flows naturally from the literature review chapter.Simply put, you will be expected to explain what you did and how you did it, helping the readers understand that your research is valid and reliable. When writing the methodology chapter for the dissertation, make sure to emphasise the following points:

• The type of research performed by the researcher
• Methods employed to gather and filter information
• Techniques that were chosen for analysis
• Materials, tools and resources used to conduct research (typically for empirical research dissertations)
• Limitations of your chosen methods
• Reliability and validity of your measuring tools and instruments (e.g. a survey questionnaire) are also typically mentioned within the mythology section. If you used a pre-existing data collection tool, cite its reliability/validity estimates here, too.Make use of the past tense when writing the methodology chapter.

Dissertation Findings

The key results of your research are presented in the dissertation findings chapter . It gives authors the ability to validate their own intellectual and analytical skills

Dissertation Conclusion

Cap off your dissertation paper with a study summary and a brief report of the findings. In the concluding chapter , you will be expected to demonstrate how your research will provide value to other academics in your area of study and its implications.It is recommended to include a short ‘recommendations’ section that will elaborate on the purpose and need for future research to elucidate the topic further.

Follow the referencing style following the requirements of your academic degree or field of study. Make sure to list every academic source used with a proper in-text citation. It is important to give credit to other authors’ ideas and concepts.

Note: Keep in mind whether you are creating a reference list or a bibliography. The former includes information about all the various sources you referred to, read from or took inspiration from for your own study. However, the latter contains things you used and those you only read but didn’t cite in your dissertation.

Proofread, Edit and Improve – Don’t Risk Months of Hard Work.

Experts recommend completing the total dissertation before starting to proofread and edit your work. You need to refresh your focus and reboot your creative brain before returning to another critical stage.

Leave space of at least a few days between the writing and the editing steps so when you get back to the desk, you can recognise your grammar, spelling and factual errors when you get back to the desk.

It is crucial to consider this period to ensure the final work is polished, coherent, well-structured and free of any structural or factual flaws. Daniel Higginbotham from Prospects UK states that:

“Leave yourself sufficient time to engage with your writing at several levels – from reassessing the logic of the whole piece to proofreading to checking you’ve paid attention to aspects such as the correct spelling of names and theories and the required referencing format.”

What is the Difference Between Editing and Proofreading?

Editing means that you are focusing on the essence of your dissertation paper. In contrast, proofreading is the process of reviewing the final draft piece to ensure accuracy and consistency in formatting, spelling, facts, punctuation, and grammar.

Editing: Prepare your work for submission by condensing, correcting and modifying (where necessary). When reviewing the paper, make sure that there are coherence and consistency between the arguments you presented.

If an information gap has been identified, fill that with an appropriate piece of information gathered during the research process. It is easy to lose sight of the original purpose if you become over-involved when writing.

Cut out the unwanted text and refine it, so your paper’s content is to the point and concise.Proofreading: Start proofreading your paper to identify formatting, structural, grammar, punctuation and referencing flaws. Read every single sentence of the paper no matter how tired you are because a few puerile mistakes can compromise your months of hard work.

Many students struggle with the editing and proofreading stages due to their lack of attention to detail. Consult a skilled dissertation editor if you are unable to find your flaws. You may want to invest in a professional dissertation editing and proofreading service to improve the piece’s quality to First Class.

Tips for Writing a Dissertation

Communication with supervisor – get feedback.

Communicate regularly with your supervisor to produce a first-class dissertation paper. Request them to comprehensively review the contents of your dissertation paper before final submission.

Their constructive criticism and feedback concerning different study areas will help you improve your piece’s overall quality. Keep your supervisor updated about your research progress and discuss any problems that you come up against.

Organising your Time

A dissertation is a lengthy project spanning over a period of months to years, and therefore it is important to avoid procrastination. Stay focused, and manage your time efficiently. Here are some time management tips for writing your dissertation to help you make the most of your time as you research and write.

• Don’t be discouraged by the inherently slow nature of dissertation work, particularly in the initial stages.
• Set clear goals and work out your research and write up a plan accordingly.
• Allow sufficient time to incorporate feedback from your supervisor.
• Leave enough time for editing, improving, proofreading, and formatting the paper according to your school’s guidelines. This is where you break or make your grade.
• Work a certain number of hours on your paper daily.
• Create a worksheet for your week.
• Work on your dissertation for time periods as brief as 45 minutes or less.
• Stick to the strategic dissertation timeline, so you don’t have to do the catchup work.
• Meet your goals by prioritising your dissertation work.
• Strike a balance between being overly organised and needing to be more organised.
• Limit activities other than dissertation writing and your most necessary obligations.
• Keep ‘tangent’ and ‘for the book’ files.
• Create lists to help you manage your tasks.
• Have ‘filler’ tasks to do when you feel burned out or in need of intellectual rest.
• Keep a dissertation journal.
• Pretend that you are working in a more structured work world.
• Limit your usage of email and personal electronic devices.
• Utilise and build on your past work when you write your dissertation.
• Break large tasks into small manageable ones.
• Seek advice from others, and do not be afraid to ask for help.

Dissertation Examples

Here are some samples of a dissertation to inspire you to write mind-blowing dissertations and to help bring all the above-mentioned guidelines home.

DE MONTFORT University Leicester – Examples of recent dissertations

Dissertation Research in Education: Dissertations (Examples)

How Long is a Dissertation?

The entire dissertation writing process is complicated and spans over a period of months to years, depending on whether you are an undergraduate, master’s, or PhD candidate. Marcus Beck, a PhD candidate, conducted fundamental research a few years ago, research that didn’t have much to do with his research but returned answers to some niggling questions every student has about the average length of a dissertation.

A software program specifically designed for this purpose helped Beck to access the university’s electronic database to uncover facts on dissertation length.

The above illustration shows how the results of his small study were a little unsurprising. Social sciences and humanities disciplines such as anthropology, politics, and literature had the longest dissertations, with some PhD dissertations comprising 150,000 words or more.Engineering and scientific disciplines, on the other hand, were considerably shorter. PhD-level dissertations generally don’t have a predefined length as they will vary with your research topic. Ask your school about this requirement if you are unsure about it from the start.

Focus more on the quality of content rather than the number of pages.

Hire an Expert Writer

Orders completed by our expert writers are

• Formally drafted in an academic style
• Free Amendments and 100% Plagiarism Free – or your money back!
• 100% Confidential and Timely Delivery!
• Free anti-plagiarism report
• Appreciated by thousands of clients. Check client reviews

Phrases to Avoid

No matter the style or structure you follow, it is best to keep your language simple. Avoid the use of buzzwords and jargon.

A Word on Stealing Content (Plagiarism)

Very straightforward advice to all students, DO NOT PLAGIARISE. Plagiarism is a serious offence. You will be penalised heavily if you are caught plagiarising. Don’t risk years of hard work, as many students in the past have lost their degrees for plagiarising. Here are some tips to help you make sure you don’t get caught.

• Copying and pasting from an academic source is an unforgivable sin. Rephrasing text retrieved from another source also falls under plagiarism; it’s called paraphrasing. Summarising another’s idea(s) word-to-word, paraphrasing, and copy-pasting are the three primary forms plagiarism can take.
• If you must directly copy full sentences from another source because they fill the bill, always enclose them inside quotation marks and acknowledge the writer’s work with in-text citations.

Are you struggling to find inspiration to get going? Still, trying to figure out where to begin? Is the deadline getting closer? Don’t be overwhelmed! ResearchProspect dissertation writing services have helped thousands of students achieve desired outcomes. Click here to get help from writers holding either a master's or PhD degree from a reputed UK university.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does a dissertation include.

A dissertation has main chapters and parts that support them. The main parts are:

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Research Methodology
• Your conclusion

Other parts are the abstract, references, appendices etc. We can supply a full dissertation or specific parts of one.

What is the difference between research and a dissertation?

A research paper is a sort of academic writing that consists of the study, source assessment, critical thinking, organisation, and composition, as opposed to a thesis or dissertation, which is a lengthy academic document that often serves as the final project for a university degree.

Can I edit and proofread my dissertation myself?

Of course, you can do proofreading and editing of your dissertation. There are certain rules to follow that have been discussed above. However, finding mistakes in something that you have written yourself can be complicated for some people. It is advisable to take professional help in the matter.

What If I only have difficulty writing a specific chapter of the dissertation?

ResearchProspect ensures customer satisfaction by addressing all relevant issues. We provide dissertation chapter-writing services to students if they need help completing a specific chapter. It could be any chapter from the introduction, literature review, and methodology to the discussion and conclusion.

You May Also Like

Are you looking for intriguing and trending dissertation topics? Get inspired by our list of free dissertation topics on all subjects.

Looking for an easy guide to follow to write your essay? Here is our detailed essay guide explaining how to write an essay and examples and types of an essay.

Learn about the steps required to successfully complete their research project. Make sure to follow these steps in their respective order.

More Interesting Articles

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Writing a First-Class Dissertation: An Introduction to the Series 

The Future Lawyer Weekly Update – w/c 4th November

Who is the new UKSC president

• News & Articles
• Tips for Students
• choosing a dissertation topic
• dissertation
• Law Student
• tips for students

As part of the Law degree at university, some schools may require law students to complete a supervised or completely independent research project in your final year, often termed a dissertation. This is to test your research, problem solving ,  critical thinking and analysis skills. This also further tests your soft skills such as your ability to prioritise, plan effectively and manage time whilst working on a time-taking project.  I have created this five-part series as a guide  to writing and presenting a very high-quality dissertation.  Throughout this series, I intend to discuss various tips and strategies that worked for me whilst writing both my undergraduate and  masters  dissertation and getting a first. To this aim, I have classified all my strategies under four major headings: the planning stage, the research stage, the writing stage and the final stage. In this article, I discuss what a dissertation is, how it is structured and the process of choosing a topic.   

  As stated  before, a dissertation is usually a research project, a topic either chosen by you or chosen from a range of topics,  which usually lasts between 4 to 6 months, depending on the program (LLB or LLM). Depending on the institution, the length of a general dissertation or research project may vary between 5 000  words to 15 000 words. An undergraduate law dissertation usually varies between 10 000 to 12 000 words, while the masters dissertation ranges between 10 000 to 15 000 words.   This  expected  length is enough evidence of  the type of coverage you should be aiming for on your dissertation, as well as the nature of  your  dissertation’s content .  If done properly, apart from attaining a  first-class  mark, the dissertation is an entire experience which allows you really delve into a law topic or area in more depth and analysis.   

  C hoosing a Topic   

In my experience, this was perhaps the hardest and most exhausting part of my dissertation , especially from my undergraduate dissertation.  There’s a wealth of areas of law that you would have studied right from your first year to the final year. For me, it was quite challenging  trying to sift through all these areas, particularly the area I’d enjoyed and  choosing a topic or even an idea that I’d wanted to build up from and actually write a dissertation on.   

    Choose an area of law  that interests you.  This is most likely something you’d hear quite a lot during the early stages of your dissertation or even before you dive into your first ‘dissertation’ lecture. It is very important to choose an area that you’re interested in or that you find very fascinating as this would determine the pace  and effort you put into researching and writing. You do not want to find yourself stuck with a topic you have zero interest in as there may be no motivation to  properly delve into the topic with as much depth as it requires.  Doing this requires a lot of reading and researching. This could range from researching current legal news or developments, a new area of law or an a rea that is newly developing, or any changes or development to case law.  I’d recommend creating a list of the  areas of law you’d enjoyed throughout from your first to second year. Additionally, you could also just create a general list of areas of law you’re interested in, regardless of whether you’d studied it at university or not.  From here, you can now write out topics you’ve covered that you find interesting  or topics under these areas that you may consider writing your dissertation.  This would give you an idea on  the particular issue or problem you’d want to uncover within the topic you’ve chosen.   

  Research . One key tip whilst researching is opening up your mind and thinking outside the box. While thinking about my dissertation topic, I’d done a module in my second year called ‘Law and Society’, this introduced me to the idea of the liberal legal subject in Law. This was my starting point for my dissertation as I’d connected this with ‘reasonableness’ in law  and drawn this to certain  principles in jurisprudence. I’d also carried out research on this possible line of thought and realised it was possible to  discuss the ‘loss of control defence’  from criminal law  and ‘gender’ all under the heading of reasonableness ( t he short story of how I’d chosen my topic). My realisation here was that I was able to  merge different areas of law whilst researching for my dissertation topic.   

  Ask Questions.  Don’t be afraid to  meet your tutor or lecturers and ask questions about the idea you have for your dissertation.  Be intentional in who you approach and the manner you ask questions relating to your potential topics.  Ask open questions that allow the person you’re asking form an opinion or to allow you see the approach with which they analyse and think about the question.  No question is too ‘silly’ or ‘irrelevant’ as you never know, some of your dying questions may end up forming a part of your research objectives.  And  who knows , the p rofessor  you’ve met may end up becoming your supervisor!   

  Understand  what is expected and required from you  when writing  a dissertation.  This is  also highly  important when choosing a topic .  This would allow you determine the approach you want to take with the various possible topic options. You can decide to discuss broadly on the area with a  real-life  situation as your case study.  Alternatively,  you could decide to use a piece of legislation  or case law to draw out reasons and arguments why your chosen topic is relevant enough to be researched on. The approach you take is highly dependent on your level of understanding of the dissertation expectations  and what you personally want to achieve. Think about who your audience is. Who are your target readers? What do you want them to take out of reading your dissertation?   

  In the next part of this series, I  will  discuss the ‘planning stage’, what to expect and know from this stage and my approach to this stage of my dissertation.   

Article by Oluwabunmi Adaramola. 

Oluwabunmi Adaramola

Related posts.

The Conveyancing Protocol as outlined by The Law Society

Bridging the Gaps in Mental Health Care

Self care strategies for law students

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Log in
• Site search

7 steps to writing a dissertation

While you may be experienced in revising and writing essays, your dissertation requires careful planning, extensive research, and time management to succeed

Your dissertation is a key part of your degree course and a testament to your ability to conduct research, analyse data, and write a clear argument. Dissertations can be challenging, but they are also rewarding experiences that allow you to explore a topic in-depth and make a significant contribution to your field of study.

To achieve your academic goals, it is important to act on feedback, use your supervision time to your advantage, and demonstrate a strong knowledge of your subject. Whether you're writing an undergraduate, Masters , or PhD dissertation, these seven steps can help you stay on track.

1. Choose your topic wisely

Selecting the right topic is the foundation of a successful dissertation. It is important to choose a topic that is:

• Relevant to your academic discipline and interests. This will ensure that you are passionate about your topic and have the necessary background knowledge to conduct meaningful research.
• Intriguing and thought-provoking . A well-chosen topic will inspire you to ask interesting questions and develop original insights.
• Specific enough to allow for in-depth analysis, yet broad enough to provide enough research material. A topic that is too narrow may be difficult to research or produce meaningful findings, while a topic that is too broad may be difficult to cover in the allowed time and word count.

Consider your career goals and what topics are relevant to the field you hope to work in after graduation. It's also important to be open to change, as it's common for students to modify their dissertation topic as they explore the subject more.

Once you have identified a potential topic, seek guidance from your supervisor. They can help you to refine your choice, identify relevant sources, and develop a research plan.

2. Check what's required of you

Read your marking criteria carefully. It is also important to consult the module guidelines and follow the instructions on any additional parts to your main assignment, such as a project plan, literature review or a critical reflection.

Neal Bamford, associate lecturer at London Metropolitan University, reports that his marking process always begins by 'distilling criteria to what students need to provide and how many marks this is worth.'

'Several dissertations I mark don't include a project plan in their submission. This is worth 20% of the overall mark, so students lose out on a significant portion of their grade'.

Before you begin to plan, make sure you understand what's expected of you. Find out:

• what academic writing looks like in your discipline
• the word count
• when and where you must submit your dissertation.

3. Conduct in-depth research

Research at this stage in the process is often referred to as a literature review. This is where you are expected to gather relevant sources, articles, and studies from libraries, and online academic resources to identify the existing research on your topic and to develop your own research questions.

'Form your own opinion and argue for it using research. A history of the topic is always helpful, as it shows that you understand how things got to this point in time,' says Neal.

Be sure to take careful notes on each source and organise them for easy reference. You need to critically evaluate and analyse the sources to ensure their credibility and relevance to your research. This will be helpful when citing your sources in the writing stage.

Don't forget to seek guidance from your advisor throughout the research process. They can provide you with valuable feedback, relevant sources, and support.

4. Develop a strong thesis statement

A well-defined thesis statement is a roadmap for your dissertation. It should concisely state your main argument or research question and provide a clear direction for your paper. Your thesis statement will guide your entire writing process, so take the time to fully understand it before you begin to write.

When writing a thesis statement:

• Be specific and focused - avoid broad or vague statements.
• Remember that your thesis needs to be arguable - it should be a statement that can be supported or proved false with evidence.
• Make sure your thesis is realistic - you need to be able to research and write about it in the allotted time and space.

Once you have a draft of your thesis statement, share it with your supervisor and other trusted peers. They can provide you with feedback and help you to refine your statement.

If your research disproves your original statement, it can be a disappointing experience. However, it is important to remember that this is a normal part of the research process.

'Many of my students believe that if they don't find the answer they're expecting, then their work is worthless,' says Neal.

'This is not the case. You don't have to find the answer to produce valuable research. Documenting your process and conclusions, even if they are inconclusive, can help others to avoid repeating your work and may lead to new approaches.'

5. Proofread and edit

After working on your dissertation for such a long time, it can be tempting to end the process once you have finished writing, but proofreading is an essential step in ensuring that it is polished and error-free.

To help with the proofreading process:

• Read your dissertation aloud . This can help you to catch errors that you might miss when reading silently.
• Change your environment to see your work with fresh eyes.
• Focus on one thing at a time such as grammar, spelling, or punctuation to avoid getting overwhelmed.

To edit your dissertation, begin by reviewing its overall structure and flow. Make sure that your arguments are well-organised and that your ideas are presented in a logical order.

Next, check your grammar, spelling, and punctuation carefully. You can use a grammar checker, but it is important to proofread your work yourself to identify stylistic or subject-specific errors.

'Make sure you understand the reference style your university prefers. Formatting and labelling of images, tables etc. is vitally important and will be marked,' says Neal.

You should also ensure that your dissertation is formatted using the correct font, font size, margins, and line spacing.

6. Seek feedback and finalise

Once you have made your final revisions, seek feedback from your advisor or board members.

To get the most out of your feedback, be specific about what you are looking for. For example, you might ask for feedback on the overall structure and flow of your dissertation, the strength of your arguments, or the clarity of your writing.

Be open to feedback, even if it's negative. Remember that your advisor is there to help you improve your work, so it's important to take the time to understand and implement the feedback you receive.

Once you have addressed all the feedback, you can prepare your final submission. It's important to follow the guidelines carefully before submitting. Be sure to hand in your dissertation on time, as late submissions may be penalised or even rejected.

Online hand in is the most common method of dissertation submission, and you will typically need to upload a PDF file to an online portal. Follow the instructions carefully - you may need to provide additional information, such as your student ID number or the title of your dissertation.

Some institutions still require dissertations to be submitted in hard copy. If this is the case, you will need to submit a bound copy of your dissertation to your department office. You may also need to pay the binding fee.

Be sure to check with your advisor or department office for specific instructions on how to submit your dissertation in hard copy. You may have to submit multiple copies of your dissertation, and you be required to to include a title page, abstract, and table of contents.

Find out more

• Read our 5 ways to manage student stress .
• Discover how to write an essay .
• Consider our 7 time management tips for students .

How would you rate this page?

On a scale where 1 is dislike and 5 is like

• Dislike 1 unhappy-very
• Like 5 happy-very

Thank you for rating the page

Essay and dissertation writing skills

Planning your essay

Writing your introduction

Structuring your essay

• Writing essays in science subjects
• Brief video guides to support essay planning and writing
• Writing extended essays and dissertations
• Planning your dissertation writing time

Structuring your dissertation

• Top tips for writing longer pieces of work

Advice on planning and writing essays and dissertations

University essays differ from school essays in that they are less concerned with what you know and more concerned with how you construct an argument to answer the question. This means that the starting point for writing a strong essay is to first unpick the question and to then use this to plan your essay before you start putting pen to paper (or finger to keyboard).

A really good starting point for you are these short, downloadable Tips for Successful Essay Writing and Answering the Question resources. Both resources will help you to plan your essay, as well as giving you guidance on how to distinguish between different sorts of essay questions. 

You may find it helpful to watch this seven-minute video on six tips for essay writing which outlines how to interpret essay questions, as well as giving advice on planning and structuring your writing:

Different disciplines will have different expectations for essay structure and you should always refer to your Faculty or Department student handbook or course Canvas site for more specific guidance.

However, broadly speaking, all essays share the following features:

Essays need an introduction to establish and focus the parameters of the discussion that will follow. You may find it helpful to divide the introduction into areas to demonstrate your breadth and engagement with the essay question. You might define specific terms in the introduction to show your engagement with the essay question; for example, ‘This is a large topic which has been variously discussed by many scientists and commentators. The principle tension is between the views of X and Y who define the main issues as…’ Breadth might be demonstrated by showing the range of viewpoints from which the essay question could be considered; for example, ‘A variety of factors including economic, social and political, influence A and B. This essay will focus on the social and economic aspects, with particular emphasis on…..’

Watch this two-minute video to learn more about how to plan and structure an introduction:

The main body of the essay should elaborate on the issues raised in the introduction and develop an argument(s) that answers the question. It should consist of a number of self-contained paragraphs each of which makes a specific point and provides some form of evidence to support the argument being made. Remember that a clear argument requires that each paragraph explicitly relates back to the essay question or the developing argument.

• Conclusion: An essay should end with a conclusion that reiterates the argument in light of the evidence you have provided; you shouldn’t use the conclusion to introduce new information.
• References: You need to include references to the materials you’ve used to write your essay. These might be in the form of footnotes, in-text citations, or a bibliography at the end. Different systems exist for citing references and different disciplines will use various approaches to citation. Ask your tutor which method(s) you should be using for your essay and also consult your Department or Faculty webpages for specific guidance in your discipline. 

Essay writing in science subjects

If you are writing an essay for a science subject you may need to consider additional areas, such as how to present data or diagrams. This five-minute video gives you some advice on how to approach your reading list, planning which information to include in your answer and how to write for your scientific audience – the video is available here:

A PDF providing further guidance on writing science essays for tutorials is available to download.

Short videos to support your essay writing skills

There are many other resources at Oxford that can help support your essay writing skills and if you are short on time, the Oxford Study Skills Centre has produced a number of short (2-minute) videos covering different aspects of essay writing, including:

• Approaching different types of essay questions  
• Structuring your essay  
• Writing an introduction  
• Making use of evidence in your essay writing  
• Writing your conclusion

Extended essays and dissertations

Longer pieces of writing like extended essays and dissertations may seem like quite a challenge from your regular essay writing. The important point is to start with a plan and to focus on what the question is asking. A PDF providing further guidance on planning Humanities and Social Science dissertations is available to download.

Planning your time effectively

Try not to leave the writing until close to your deadline, instead start as soon as you have some ideas to put down onto paper. Your early drafts may never end up in the final work, but the work of committing your ideas to paper helps to formulate not only your ideas, but the method of structuring your writing to read well and conclude firmly.

Although many students and tutors will say that the introduction is often written last, it is a good idea to begin to think about what will go into it early on. For example, the first draft of your introduction should set out your argument, the information you have, and your methods, and it should give a structure to the chapters and sections you will write. Your introduction will probably change as time goes on but it will stand as a guide to your entire extended essay or dissertation and it will help you to keep focused.

The structure of  extended essays or dissertations will vary depending on the question and discipline, but may include some or all of the following:

• The background information to - and context for - your research. This often takes the form of a literature review.
• Explanation of the focus of your work.
• Explanation of the value of this work to scholarship on the topic.
• List of the aims and objectives of the work and also the issues which will not be covered because they are outside its scope.

The main body of your extended essay or dissertation will probably include your methodology, the results of research, and your argument(s) based on your findings.

The conclusion is to summarise the value your research has added to the topic, and any further lines of research you would undertake given more time or resources. 

Tips on writing longer pieces of work

Approaching each chapter of a dissertation as a shorter essay can make the task of writing a dissertation seem less overwhelming. Each chapter will have an introduction, a main body where the argument is developed and substantiated with evidence, and a conclusion to tie things together. Unlike in a regular essay, chapter conclusions may also introduce the chapter that will follow, indicating how the chapters are connected to one another and how the argument will develop through your dissertation.

For further guidance, watch this two-minute video on writing longer pieces of work . 

Systems & Services

Access Student Self Service

• Student Self Service
• Self Service guide
• Registration guide
• Libraries search
• OXCORT - see TMS
• GSS - see Student Self Service
• The Careers Service
• Oxford University Sport
• Online store
• Gardens, Libraries and Museums
• Researchers Skills Toolkit
• LinkedIn Learning (formerly Lynda.com)
• Access Guide
• Lecture Lists
• Exam Papers (OXAM)
• Oxford Talks

Latest student news

CAN'T FIND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR?

Try our extensive database of FAQs or submit your own question...

Ask a question

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Published on 21 August 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 25 October 2022.

The discussion section is where you delve into the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results .

It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review , and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion . It should not be a second results section .

There are different ways to write this section, but you can focus your writing around these key elements:

• Summary: A brief recap of your key results
• Interpretations: What do your results mean?
• Implications: Why do your results matter?
• Limitations: What can’t your results tell us?
• Recommendations: Avenues for further studies or analyses

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarise your key findings, step 2: give your interpretations, step 3: discuss the implications, step 4: acknowledge the limitations, step 5: share your recommendations, discussion section example.

There are a few common mistakes to avoid when writing the discussion section of your paper.

• Don’t introduce new results: You should only discuss the data that you have already reported in your results section .
• Don’t make inflated claims: Avoid overinterpretation and speculation that isn’t directly supported by your data.
• Don’t undermine your research: The discussion of limitations should aim to strengthen your credibility, not emphasise weaknesses or failures.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Start this section by reiterating your research problem  and concisely summarising your major findings. Don’t just repeat all the data you have already reported – aim for a clear statement of the overall result that directly answers your main  research question . This should be no more than one paragraph.

Many students struggle with the differences between a discussion section and a results section . The crux of the matter is that your results sections should present your results, and your discussion section should subjectively evaluate them. Try not to blend elements of these two sections, in order to keep your paper sharp.

• The results indicate that …
• The study demonstrates a correlation between …
• This analysis supports the theory that …
• The data suggest  that …

The meaning of your results may seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for your reader, showing exactly how they answer your research question.

The form of your interpretations will depend on the type of research, but some typical approaches to interpreting the data include:

• Identifying correlations , patterns, and relationships among the data
• Discussing whether the results met your expectations or supported your hypotheses
• Contextualising your findings within previous research and theory
• Explaining unexpected results and evaluating their significance
• Considering possible alternative explanations and making an argument for your position

You can organise your discussion around key themes, hypotheses, or research questions, following the same structure as your results section. Alternatively, you can also begin by highlighting the most significant or unexpected results.

• In line with the hypothesis …
• Contrary to the hypothesised association …
• The results contradict the claims of Smith (2007) that …
• The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is x .

As well as giving your own interpretations, make sure to relate your results back to the scholarly work that you surveyed in the literature review . The discussion should show how your findings fit with existing knowledge, what new insights they contribute, and what consequences they have for theory or practice.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support existing theories, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge existing theories, why do you think that is?
• Are there any practical implications?

Your overall aim is to show the reader exactly what your research has contributed, and why they should care.

• These results build on existing evidence of …
• The results do not fit with the theory that …
• The experiment provides a new insight into the relationship between …
• These results should be taken into account when considering how to …
• The data contribute a clearer understanding of …
• While previous research has focused on  x , these results demonstrate that y .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Even the best research has its limitations. Acknowledging these is important to demonstrate your credibility. Limitations aren’t about listing your errors, but about providing an accurate picture of what can and cannot be concluded from your study.

Limitations might be due to your overall research design, specific methodological choices , or unanticipated obstacles that emerged during your research process.

Here are a few common possibilities:

• If your sample size was small or limited to a specific group of people, explain how generalisability is limited.
• If you encountered problems when gathering or analysing data, explain how these influenced the results.
• If there are potential confounding variables that you were unable to control, acknowledge the effect these may have had.

After noting the limitations, you can reiterate why the results are nonetheless valid for the purpose of answering your research question.

• The generalisability of the results is limited by …
• The reliability of these data is impacted by …
• Due to the lack of data on x , the results cannot confirm …
• The methodological choices were constrained by …
• It is beyond the scope of this study to …

Based on the discussion of your results, you can make recommendations for practical implementation or further research. Sometimes, the recommendations are saved for the conclusion .

Suggestions for further research can lead directly from the limitations. Don’t just state that more studies should be done – give concrete ideas for how future work can build on areas that your own research was unable to address.

• Further research is needed to establish …
• Future studies should take into account …
• Avenues for future research include …

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 25). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a results section | tips & examples, research paper appendix | example & templates, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction.

How to Write a First Class Law Dissertation – Complete Guide

• November 18, 2010

“Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial and Civil Jurisdiction: Permitting Delay, Restricting Access and Recognising Incompatible Judgments”.

Below is my honours law dissertation together with tips and a very special video from an ex-Cambridge professor at the end. Enjoy!

And if you have any legal blog posts you’d like to share (whether after you have submitted your dissertation or before), please get in touch – our goal is to help share great legal information online to improve legal understanding and access to justice around the world.

And see also our lists of The Best Law Schools in the World and  Top 10 Law Schools in the UK that aspiring law students may find of interest.

How to write a first class legal dissertation: Content and Structure

Three tips can be suggested to get you started on the right foot:

First, research the subject in which you are most interested in writing about for your dissertation, then choose a sufficiently narrow angle to approach the subject or choose something that hasn’t been discussed much before.

Second, collect, or print out or photocopy all relevant materials which discuss that narrow subject.

Third, plan rough headings for sub-topics within the main subject. While the contents below were finalised towards the end of the writing process, the rough structure was formulated at an early point in the writing process. This is how many academics write their books: they provide themselves with lots of headings and subheadings, then chip away at the work, bit by bit until complete.

Examples contents for “Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial and Civil Jurisdiction: Permitting Delay, Restricting Access and Recognising Incompatible Judgments” are as follows:-

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ARTICLE 6: THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2.1. Substantive Elements 2.2. Procedural Operation: Direct and Indirect Effect 2.3. The Human Rights Act 1998

3. REASONABLE TIME

3.1. Introduction 3.2. Framework under Article 6 3.3. Conflict with Lis Pendens: Erich Gasser 3.3.1. Delay in the Italian Court 3.3.2. A Clash of Treaties 3.3.3. Future Application 3.4. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens 3.4.1. General Operation 3.4.2. First Limb of Spiliada 3.4.3. Second Limb of Spiliada 3.5. Conclusions

4. ACCESS TO A COURT

4.1. Operation in Article 6 4.2. Anti-Suit Injunctions 4.3. Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and Waiving Convention Rights 4.4. Limitations on Jurisdiction 4.5. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens 4.6. Owusu v Jackson 4.7. Conclusions

5. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

5.1. Recognition of Contracting State Judgments 5.2. Recognition of Non-Contracting State Judgments 5.2.1. European Court of Human Rights 5.2.2. House of Lords 5.4. Conclusions

6. CONCLUSIONS

7. BIBILIOGRAPHY

7.1. Table of Cases 7.2. Table of Legislation 7.3. Table of Conventions 7.4. Textbooks 7.5. Articles

Writing your introduction

Together with the conclusion, the introduction is one of the most significant pieces of a dissertation that you have to get right. A well-written introduction can make all the difference between a first class and an upper second.

If you take just one thing away from this series of posts, it is this. You can develop a better stream of communication with your reader, forming a better relationship, if you tell them what you are going to say (introduction), say it (main body), then tell them what you have said (conclusion).

So, to the introduction, set the scene as fast as possible then tell the reader what you are going to say, but don’t be so amateurish as to write “I am going to discuss X, Y and Z”. Be more indirect. Suggest, for instance, that there are problems with the law that need to be resolved.

1. INTRODUCTION Long since inevitable initial encounters, human rights concerns, particularly regarding the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), have been accelerating in today’s civil jurisdiction and judgments arena in the United Kingdom, a notable consequence of the passing of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. More than six years from the Act’s coming into force, it is now imperative to reach conclusions which reflect the “importance attaching in today’s world and in current international thinking and jurisprudence to the recognition and effective enforcement of individual human rights,” as Mance LJ (as he then was) has noted. This necessity is reflected in the recent extensive consideration of the right to a fair trial in key works of some of the most authoritative conflict lawyers in the United Kingdom, including Sir Lawrence Collins, Professor Adrian Briggs and, most significantly, Professor James Fawcett. Methods of protecting the right to a fair trial and thus of avoiding a breach of Article 6 are irrelevant to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR); the Court is not concerned with reviewing under the Convention in abstracto the law complained of, but rather the application of that law. There is therefore a large amount of discretion afforded to the courts regarding techniques to avoid infringement of the Convention. In the context of civil jurisdiction and judgments, various methods of avoiding infringement, or indeed enabling protection, of the right to a fair trial exist. However, the extent to which these have been used in practice, both by the UK courts and the ECJ, has been limited, a result of various factors, the most striking of which being the wrongful application of the ECHR and even the conscious decision to ignore it. Before analysing specific fair trial concerns in detail, it is necessary to examine the general structure and operation of Article 6 as it applies to civil jurisdiction and judgments.

Chapter 1: Setting the scene

Depending on the nature of your dissertation, you may need to set the scene further. In a legal dissertation, by “scene” is meant the bits of law that are relevant to set up key arguments in the main body of the dissertation. With this example dissertation, the target readership was, for various reasons, international private law experts. Because human rights law was a key part of the debate, the relevant law had to be set out in such detail that the chapters following it could discuss, for instance, the right to a fair trial and the doctrines of direct and indirect effect without any need for constant repetitive explanation.

2. ARTICLE 6: THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 2.1. Substantive Elements Article 6(1) ECHR provides inter alia that “[i]n the determination of his civil rights and obligations…everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law….” The ECtHR has reverberated that “the right to a fair administration of justice holds such a prominent place” that Article 6 should not be interpreted restrictively. Instead, the seemingly distinct provisions of Article 6 are not discrete, but are “rights which are distinct but stem from the same basic idea and which, taken together, make up a single right not specifically defined in the narrower sense of the term.” This single right is the title of Article 6: the “right to a fair trial.” This right comprises two particularly significant elements important in the context of civil jurisdiction and judgments. First, the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Expressly stated in Article 6(1), this right may be pertinent where proceedings are stayed in favour of a foreign court. Second, access to a court, an inherent element of Article 6(1). This may have relevance where access is denied to the UK courts through, for example, staying proceedings, or restraining foreign proceedings. 2.2 Procedural Operation: Direct and Indirect Effect Article 6 can operate through a number of mechanisms in the civil jurisdiction and judgments context, which must be distinguished for analytical purposes. First, through direct effect, where there is direct protection of a party’s right to a fair trial in the domestic courts themselves. Such protection is strong and somewhat easier to obtain because there is no test for the seriousness of the breach. Such infringement may occur through a refusal of access to the UK courts, which refusal may emanate from, inter alia, an exclusion of jurisdiction or stay of proceedings. Second, through indirect effect, where a person is transferred to another country where his right to a fair trial may be infringed in that country. In Soering v United Kingdom the ECtHR emphasised that it was for Member States to secure Convention rights of persons within their jurisdiction, but that this obligation did not extend to non-Contracting States, nor should it seek to impose ECHR standards on such States. Thus, for example, in respect of deportation of a person to the United States of America from England, there may be an indirect breach of Article 6, but only where the transfer creates or risks creating a flagrant breach of the claimant’s right to a fair trial in that other country. In presenting an argument for the creation of such risk, it is axiomatic that a strong compilation of evidence is essential, with reference to the circumstances of both the case and proceedings of the court in question. The difficulty with such an argument in the civil jurisdiction sphere is that stays of proceedings concern transfers of actions abroad, not persons. Notwithstanding, arguments for the application of the indirect effect doctrine in this context are still applicable because the situations are “essentially the same.” Indeed, it could be argued that staying proceedings amounts to a transfer of persons through effective compulsion. Nevertheless, no authority exists for this argument and indeed the indirect effect doctrine itself has not been successfully relied upon in an Article 6 context before the (former) Commission or ECtHR. Third, through indirect effect where enforcement in a Contracting State of a judgment from a foreign State, whether Contracting or non-Contracting, would breach Article 6 because that judgment itself breached Article 6 standards. It has been stated that such a breach by the foreign court must also be a flagrant one. However, the reasoning underlying this proposition is unclear and, as with many matters in the civil jurisdiction and judgments sphere, there are concerns as to the extent to which the right to a fair trial can be upheld in this respect. 2.3 The Human Rights Act 1998 The Convention rights, including Article 6, now have the force of law in the United Kingdom under the HRA 1998. The Act places two initial express duties on the UK courts: first, the duty to read and give effect to primary and subordinate legislation in a way compatible with the Convention rights, if possible; second, the duty to take into account inter alia any previous judgment of the ECtHR in determining proceedings which have a Convention right element, insofar as it has relevance to those proceedings. Moreover, under Section 6(1) of the HRA 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority, including a court, to act in a way incompatible with a Convention right. This is a significant duty on the courts, which indeed sparked considerable academic debate as to the Act’s impact on private commercial disputes. Thus, the courts have a duty to interpret and apply the common law or any exercise of discretion compatibly with the right to a fair trial under Article 6. Ultimately, this may amount to a positive duty to develop the common law, extending beyond mere interpretation of the common law to conform to the Convention principles. Notwithstanding this rather stringent theoretical framework for the courts upholding the right to a fair trial, there has been a lack of consistency in its practical impact in the field of civil jurisdiction and judgments. Endnotes *Converting c300 footnotes on a Microsoft Word document to a WordPress post is not feasible for this blawgger. They are, therefore, pasted below as endnotes. The full dissertation is available in the Juridical Review, vol 1 of 2008 pp15-31 Delcourt v Belgium (1979-80) 1 EHRR 355, at [25]; indeed, the principles of due process and the rule of law are fundamental to the protection of human rights (Clayton and Tomlinson: 2000, p550,) just as a fair trial is a fundamental element of the rule of law (Ovey and White: 2002, p139.) Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1, at [28]. Ibid., at [36]. Such cases can be labelled “domestic” ones: Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37, at [15], per Lord Bingham. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] AC 368, at [42]. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439. Ibid., at [113]; this test has been followed subsequently: e.g. Einhorn v France (no.71555/01, 16 October 2001) at [32], Tomic v United Kingdom (no.17837/03, 14 October 2003) at [3]. Fawcett; 2007, p4. Ibid. Montgomery (n12); Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745, p795; cf. Pellegrini v Italy [2001] ECHR 480. HRA 1998, s3(1). Ibid., s2(1)(a); such previous decisions are not binding; notwithstanding, as Lord Slynn observed in R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389 at [26]: “[i]n the absence of some special circumstances it seems to me that the court should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the [ECtHR].” Ibid., s6(3)(a). Wade: 2000; Lester and Pannick: 2000. Such discretion should be “exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings”: R v Jones [2003] AC 1, at [6], per Lord Bingham. HL Deb vol.583, p783 (24 November 1997); Grosz, Beatson and Duffy: 2000, para.4.56; cf.. Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] QB 770. Grosz, Beatson and Duffy: 2000, para.4.59.

Main Body Part 1

Next follows the first main chunk discussing and debating the title of the dissertation. To maintain structure, even this sub-section of the dissertation has its own introduction, some degree of scene-setting with Art 6 in the particular context of the chapter, argument through various levels and conclusions.

3. REASONABLE TIME 3.1. Introduction It has been stated that “excessive delays in the administration of justice constitute an important danger, in particular for the respect of the rule of law” and for the legal certainty of citizens. This importance is reflected in the express protection of the reasonable time requirement in Article 6. There have been recent challenges in the civil jurisdiction context on this ground, the most significant of which being raised in Erich Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl, concerning conflict with lis pendens. A further instance, the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens has been suggested to be so incompatible, which would therefore have implications for the doctrine in its now very limited common law habitat. 3.2. Framework under Article 6 In civil cases, time starts to run when the proceedings are instituted and stops when legal uncertainty has been removed, which normally requires that the final appeal decision has been made or the time for making an appeal has expired. It is generally accepted that the correct approach is to decide whether the overall delay is prima facie “unreasonable” for the type of proceedings concerned and thereafter consider whether the State is able to justify each period of delay. In assessing such justification, the limited guidelines indicate that all the circumstances will be considered, with particular regard to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and judicial authorities in addition to the behaviour of other parties to the case and what is at stake in the litigation for the applicant. Generally, where proceedings are stayed, there are three stages which must be distinguished for determining delay. First, the proceedings before the domestic court. Any unjustifiable delay at this point would amount to a direct breach of Article 6. Second, the transfer of proceedings to the foreign court. Delay at this stage would be less justifiable where, for instance, there was known to be a heavy backlog of cases. Notwithstanding, the “normal lapses of time stemming from the transfer of the cases” are not to be regarded as unjustified. Third, the proceedings before the foreign court. At the second and third stages, although any unreasonable delay by the foreign court will amount to a direct breach by that court, there could also be an indirect breach by the domestic court, but only to the extent that the party suffered, or risked suffering, a flagrant breach. Endnotes Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Resolution DH (97) 336, 11 July 1997. Fabri and Langbroek: 2003, p3. C-116/02 [2005] QB 1. Opinion of AG Léger in Owusu v Jackson C-281/02 [2005] QB 801 at [270]. A sist by the Scottish courts through forum non conveniens can be made where jurisdiction is founded on Art.4 of the Judgments Regulation or Convention: Collins et al: 2006, para.12-023. Moreover, a sist can be made on the ground that the courts of England or Northern Ireland are the forum conveniens, because intra-UK jurisdiction can be so settled: Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd, The Times, 8 June 1995; Collins: 1995. Scopelliti v Italy (1993) 17 EHRR 493, at [18]. Vocaturo v Italy [1991] ECHR 34. E.g. fewer than six years for a reparation action (Huseyin Erturk v Turkey [2005] ECHR 630.) Clayton and Tomlinson: 2000, p654; Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: 1995, p229. Eckle v Germany (1983) 5 EHRR 1, at [80]; an obvious consideration being delay in commencing proceedings. Buchholz v Germany [1981] ECHR 2, at [49]. Foti v Italy (1982) 5 EHRR 313, at [61]. Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 9; Guincho v Portugal [1984] ECHR 9; cf. Buchholz (n36), at [61], where the backlog was not reasonably foreseeable; exceptional circumstances were taken into account in Foti (n37) as a result of troubles in Reggio Calabria, which impacted proceedings in the courts in Potenza, to which cases had been transferred. Foti (n37), at [61]. Soering (n14) at [113].

Having set the scene, it is time to delve straight into comment and opinion, drawing on relevant facts and law where required. Where possible, suggest ways in which events or decisions could have been improved and do not be afraid to say that commentators, judges or even powerful institutions, like the ECJ, got it wrong.

3.3. Conflict with Lis Pendens: Erich Gasser Erich Gasser v MISAT concerned the validity of a choice-of-court agreement in favour of the Austrian courts where one party had first seised the Italian courts by way of negative declaration. Second seised, the Austrian Court sought a reference from the ECJ on, inter alia, whether it must stay its proceedings under lis pendens where the proceedings in the court first seised generally take an unreasonably long time, such that there may be a breach of Article 6. Both the claimant and the intervening UK Government invoked the ECHR, arguing that Article 21 of the Brussels Convention should be interpreted in conformity with Article 6 ECHR to avoid excessively protracted proceedings, given that proceedings in Italy were likely to take an unreasonably long time. Through this interpretation, it was argued that Article 21 should not be applied if the court first seised had not determined its jurisdiction within a reasonable time. In a very short response, the ECJ effectively said that the ECHR did not apply because first, it is not expressly mentioned in the Brussels Convention and second, there is no room for it in a collection of mandatory rules underpinned by mutual trust between Contracting States. 3.3.1. Delay in the Italian Court However, it may be seen that the stay de facto risked at least a standard breach in the Italian court. The Italian courts have been held in breach of Article 6 a staggering number of times because of unreasonable slowness. The existence of these breaches amounted to a practice incompatible with the ECHR and produced the notoriety of the Italian legal system as “the land that time forgot.” Indeed, the practice of seising the Italian courts first by way of negative declaration has become known as instituting an “Italian torpedo,” which may succeed in delaying proceedings substantially even where the Italian courts have no jurisdiction. It has already been noted that evidence is crucial in determining a real risk of a breach of Article 6. Instead, in Gasser, human rights arguments were based upon a general breach of the reasonable time requirement in Italian courts. Moreover, no ECtHR case law was relied upon when so arguing, nor was mention made of previous breaches. Therefore, a very weak argument, if any, was laid before the ECJ in respect of a risk of a breach. In effect, the ECJ was being asked something tantamount to whether there should be an exception to Article 21 in respect of certain Member States, a question justifiably answered in the negative. However, if the arguments had been more focussed, concentrating on the present case, with evidence to show the likelihood of breach in the Tribunale civile e penale di Roma, then the ECJ may have been more persuaded by Article 6 considerations, as Fawcett suggests. Notwithstanding previous delays, efforts have been made to reduce the backlog of cases. This is somewhat owing to Article 13 ECHR, which requires Contracting States to provide persons with an effective national remedy for breach of a Convention right. Such domestic remedies assist in reducing further breaches and ultimately reduce the need for the indirect effect doctrine. Thus, the Italian “Pinto Act” was passed, providing a domestic legal remedy for excessive length-of-proceedings cases. The existence of this remedy may have gone towards justifying application of Article 21, which indeed was one of the questions referred to the ECJ by the Austrian Court, although unanswered. 3.3.2. A Clash of Treaties Nevertheless, given that the ECJ so held that Article 6 considerations were irrelevant, there may be further legal implications, particularly for the Austrian Court which was required to stay its proceedings under the Brussels Convention. If this stay created or risked creating a flagrant breach of the reasonable time requirement in the Italian Court, Austria may itself have breached Article 6 indirectly. Such an indirect breach is clearly not justifiable on the ground that Austria is party to the Brussels Convention or Regulation made under the European Treaties. Hence, the judgment may lead to a clash between the ECHR and Brussels Convention or Regulation. This in turn raises the questions of how and to what extent the Brussels Convention or Regulation could have been interpreted to give effect to Article 6. Formerly Article 57 of the Brussels Convention, Article 71 of the Brussels Regulation provides inter alia that “(1) [t]his Regulation shall not affect any conventions to which the Member States are parties and which in relation to particular matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition of judgments.” Although the ECHR is not prima facie a Convention governing jurisdiction, all Member States are party to it and Article 6 contains the inherent right of access to a court. Thus, as Briggs and Rees argue, this may have application where a court with jurisdiction is prevented from exercising that jurisdiction in a manner compatible with the ECHR. Therefore, in Gasser Article 71 may have been applied to allow Austria to act in accordance with its obligations under the ECHR. This approach is complemented by Article 307 (ex 234) EC such that Article 21 or 27 of the Brussels Convention or Regulation respectively can be overridden by a Convention previously entered into, including the ECHR. Further, this conclusion is even more realistic in light of the jurisprudence of the ECJ, which is peppered with notions of protection for fundamental rights, and the express protection of these rights in Article 6(2) EC. Instead of even contemplating such an outcome, the ECJ showed that it was prepared to ignore a significant international convention. Perhaps, in addition to mutual trust between Contracting States, mutual recognition of international conventions should have been considered, especially due to the express provisions permitting such consideration. Endnotes Those having a duration of over three years: Gasser (n28), at [59]. At [71]-[73]. See Ferrari v Italy [1999] ECHR 64, at [21]. Ferrari (n46), at [21]; Article 6 imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet the requirements of the provision (Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14, at [24].) Briggs and Rees: 2005, Preface to the Fourth Edition, p.v. Messier-Dowty v Sabena [2000] 1 WLR 2040. Franzosi: 1997, p384. Transporti Castelletti v Hugo Trumpy, C-159/97, [1999] ECR I-1597. Supra p4. Opinion of A.G. Léger in Gasser, at [88]. When Gasser came before the ECJ, there was already a delay in Italian proceedings of 3½ years in determining jurisdiction. Fawcett: 2007, p15. Kudla v Poland [2000] ECHR 512. Fawcett: 2007, p4. Law no.89 of 24 March 2001. However, even this has breached Article 6(1): Riccardo Pizzati v Italy [2006] ECHR 275, at [66]; Mance suggests that the Act only partially solved if not repatriated the ECtHR’s overwhelming number of claims in this respect (Mance: 2004b, p357.) Notwithstanding, since 1999, there has been a trend of continuous breach, the ECtHR having adopted more than 1,000 judgments against Italy (Riccardo Pizzati, at [66].) As Briggs and Rees note, the ECHR “might as well have been part of the law of Mars for all the impact it had.” (Briggs and Rees:2005, para.2.198.) Soering (n14), at [113]. Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 12. Hartley: 2005b, p821 n35; the most important example of a conflict of treaties: Hartley: 2001, p26. Briggs and Rees: 2005, para.2.38. An approach recognised by both Mance (Mance: 2004a, paras.6-7) and Hartley (Hartley: 2005a, p383.) ERT v DEP C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925, at [41]; “Bosphorus Airways” v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1,at [73]; particularly for Article 6: Philip Morris International Inc v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-1, at [121].

Tip: Suggest Improvements for the Future

It may be that, in the course of the research for your dissertation, you discover previous decisions and actions that may happen again in the future. You may want to suggest that there is such a risk in the future and that there are ways in which that risk can be guarded against. You may also want to state challenges with implementing such safeguards. For instance, in the below section, there is comment that the ECJ is, sometimes, so myopic that its stance won’t budge.

3.3.3. Future Application The ECtHR has held that a failure by a national court to make a preliminary reference to the ECJ could be a breach of Article 6 ECHR in certain circumstances. Thus, it is arguable that where similar facts to Gasser arise again, the domestic court may have to make a reference to the ECJ, and in doing so, show cogent evidence of the risk of a flagrant breach, unlike that presented to the ECJ in Gasser. In this context, the ECJ will have another chance to take human rights seriously, with the opportunity to apply Article 307 EC complementing Article 71 of the Brussels Regulation and jurisprudence both of the ECJ and ECtHR. Notwithstanding, given the ECJ’s swift dismissal of human rights concerns in Gasser in favour of the inflexible system of lis pendens, it appears unlikely that it would permit exception in the future. For the ECJ legal certainty under the Brussels regime is clearly more significant than legal certainty either through party autonomy under jurisdiction agreements or through the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. As Merrett notes, “[t]he ECJ simply does not see questions of jurisdiction as being concerned with private rights at all,” a stance which will need to change, particularly in light of the pressing atmosphere of today’s human rights culture. Endnotes Soc Divagsa v Spain (1993) 74 DR 274. Legal certainty is perhaps more significant under the Brussels Regulation, particularly illustrated by the addition of Article 30. Cf. A.G. Léger in Gasser, at [70]. Merrett: 2006, p332. Hartley notes that this is perhaps not surprising given that the ECJ is more concerned with public law, and as such, should be expected to give more weight to State interests, rather than the interests of private parties (Hartley: 2005b, pp814-815.)

Take a proposition that has never been discussed and debate it

Another thing that truly separates a first class dissertation from a second class one is discussion of ideas and issues that have never before been discussed. The following is an example of such a proposition and discussion, all of which stemmed from one footnote in an academic article that said a certain proposition “had never been discussed before in the courts of the UK”. Finding this loophole was essential to the dissertation’s success.

3.4. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens An export of Scots law, forum non conveniens was accepted into English law in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, becoming indistinguishable from Scots law. Under the Spiliada test, there are two stages: first, the defendant must show that there is some other available forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, upon which a stay will ordinarily be granted; second, upon the first stage being satisfied, it is for the claimant to show, through cogent evidence, that justice requires that a stay should not be granted. Advocate General Léger has suggested explicitly that the forum non conveniens doctrine, as operating under this Spiliada test, may be incompatible with Article 6, given that the steps involved for the claimant in its application “have a cost and are likely considerably to prolong the time spent in the conduct of proceedings before the claimant finally has his case heard.” Although the UK courts have never discussed this proposition, there is a potential that forum non conveniens is indeed incompatible with the reasonable time requirement in Article 6. 3.4.1. General Operation Since the place of trial is decided through the exercise of judicial discretion, it is axiomatic that additional cost and time will be incurred in the domestic court, which may appear somewhat inappropriate in light of the parties having to “litigate in order to determine where they shall litigate.” Notwithstanding, given that the same forum will rarely be in the best interests of all parties, particularly highlighted by different choice of law rules, choice of forum is of crucial importance and rightfully so contested. In this respect alone, the time and cost involved may be justified. Moreover, it should be noted that it is the defendant who asks for a stay, thus incurring additional expenses, which expenses he might be expected to pay. Application for a stay is usually, and perhaps ought to be, made early. Procedural time-limits are set for such an application, despite the court retaining its discretionary power to stay proceedings. Notwithstanding, the longer an application is left, the greater the threat of the proceedings not being aborted as a matter of judicial reluctance. Moreover, if Lord Templeman’s view that submissions should be measured in hours not days with the rarity of appeals holds true, such time and expense should be contained to a minimum. This can be contrasted with the American experience of the doctrine, where forum non conveniens can produce forum battles that can last for years, such that the doctrine may even be labelled a “delaying tactic.” 3.4.2. First Limb of Spiliada As noted, there are various circumstances which can justify delay under Article 6. In assessing the complexity of a case, consideration is given to the number of witnesses , the need for obtaining expert evidence and the later intervention of other parties. It can be seen that these factors mirror the appropriateness factors considered under the first limb of the Spiliada test. Thus, in Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc the emergence of over 3,000 new claimants gave greater significance to the personal injury issues, the investigation of which would involve a cumbersome factual inquiry and potentially a large body of expert evidence, such that South Africa was rightfully identified as the most appropriate forum under the first limb of Spiliada. Moreover, in Spiliada, similar litigation had already taken place over another vessel, the Cambridgeshire, such that the proceedings would be more appropriate in England. Termed the “Cambridgeshire factor,” it is persuasive where advantages of “efficiency, expedition and economy” would flow naturally from the specialist knowledge gained by the lawyers, experts and judges in the related proceedings. However, successful use of this factor has been extremely rare. Although conveniens means “appropriate”, not “convenient”, considerations of convenience and expense are still relevant. Thus, in both The Lakhta and The Polessk , a stay was granted because the dispute could be resolved more appropriately in the Russian Court at far less expense and far greater convenience for those involved, in light of, inter alia, the availability of witnesses and other evidence. Further, speed of a trial itself may be decisive in balancing appropriateness factors. For example, in Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union, although the courts of both England and Belgium were appropriate, the dispute could be resolved more quickly in the English court given the more complex position of the plaintiff’s title to sue under the governing law in Belgium; therefore a stay of the English proceedings was refused. Moreover, the availability of an early trial date is material in determining the most appropriate forum ; indeed, “speedy justice is usually better justice.” It can therefore be seen that the factors considered in the first limb of the Spiliada test reflect the justifications for delay under the reasonable time requirement of Article 6(1) and indeed consideration of these factors may result in an overall speedier trial. Hence, determining whether or not to apply the forum non conveniens doctrine is more than justifiable. Further, it is worth considering whether delay by the foreign court itself can be avoided. Endnotes Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665. [1987] AC 460. Crawford and Carruthers: 2006, pp157-158. Spiliada (n13), pp474-477. Opinion of A.G. Léger in Owusu (n29), at [270]. Hare perceives that paragraph 42 of Owusu is “strangely reminiscent” of A.G. Léger’s suggestions: Hare: 2006, p172 n.96. Fawcett; 2007, p9. Slater: 1988, p554; Robertson: 1987, p414; Zhenjie: 2001, p157. Cf. Spiliada (n72), p464 per Lord Templeman. Crawford and Carruthers: 2006, p157. Bell: 2002, paras.2.40-2.42, 2.58. Svantesson: 2005, pp411-412. Briggs and Rees: 2002, p220. Despite potential for re-application: Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 433, p474. E.g. in England, CPR Part 11. Ibid., r.3.1(2)(f). Briggs and Rees: 2005, pp324-325. Spiliada (n72), p465. E.g. Lacey v Cessna Aircraft (1991) 932 F.2d 170. Green: 1956, p494. Supra p8. Andreucci v Italy [1992] ECHR 8. Wemhoff v Germany (1968) 1 EHRR 55. Manieri v Italy [1992] ECHR 26. [2000] 1 WLR 1545. [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383, p391; however, a stay was not granted because substantial justice could and would not be done in the South African forum under the second limb of Spiliada, see infra p25. Spiliada (n72), p469. Ibid., p486. Collins et al: 2006, para.12-030 n.34. The Atlantic Star [1974] AC 436, p475; Spiliada (n72), pp474-475. Hill: 2005, para.9.2.23; wastage of cost is an important consideration in granting a stay, whether under forum non conveniens or not (Carel Johannes Steven Bentinck v Lisa Bentinck [2007] EWCA Civ 175.) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 269. [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40. [1991] 2 QB 206. Ibid., p246. Xn Corporation Ltd v Point of Sale Ltd [2001] I.L.Pr. 35. Ibid., at [14]

Develop that new debate and get creative

As noted in the previous post, one of the most important breakthroughs in writing your dissertation can come from spotting a gap where something has not yet been discussed. Once writing to fill that gap, it may be helpful to ask yourself what other angles there are to the debate. Or think about if the matter went to an official debate or, for law dissertations, to court. Think about creative arguments that an advocate might run and try to develop them yourself. Such development can lead to your getting a first rather than a 2:1.

3.4.3. Second Limb of Spiliada Delay in the foreign forum is a fundamental consideration when determining the interests of justice at the second limb of the Spiliada test and may even be decisive if the anticipated delay is excessive. An example pertinent to justification under Article 6(1) is The Jalakrishna, where a delay of five years was anticipated if the case was tried in India, such that the claimant would be prejudiced given his need for financial assistance in light of his critical injuries in an accident. Thus, a stay was not granted, showing respect for both a potential delay itself and what was at stake for the claimant. Notwithstanding, such cases are rare. For example, in Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd, Collins J (as he then was) recognised that the Indian legal system had made attempts to reduce its backlog of cases, such that in the absence of sufficient evidence of an anticipated delay, it would indeed be a “substantial breach of comity to stigmatise the Indian legal system in that way,” somewhat reflecting the principle that the claimant must “take [the appropriate] forum as he finds it.” Indeed, one of the major advantages of the forum non conveniens doctrine is that it offsets the judge’s tendency to grab as many cases as he can and it respects the valuable international private law principle of comity. As Lord Diplock stated in The Abidin Daver, “judicial chauvinism has been replaced by judicial comity.” However, the interests of States cannot always be reconciled with private party rights. When considering whether to stay proceedings, in light of Article 6, the interests of States should yield to the interests of private parties. Thus, if evidence is sufficient to show a real risk of a flagrant breach in the foreign forum, as was not presented in Gasser, a stay should not be permitted. Again mirroring reasonable time justifications under Article 6, additional considerations of what is at stake in the litigation may arise and authorities may have to exercise exceptional diligence in the conduct of certain cases. An ECtHR case, X v France shows that where a person sought compensation following infection with the AIDS virus, what was at stake was of crucial importance in determining the reasonableness of the length of proceedings. What is at stake will be relevant and probably decisive following a stay of proceedings under forum non conveniens, as The Jalakrishna shows. Notably, in Owusu v Jackson, where forum non conveniens was not permitted, what was at stake for Owusu was significant as he was rendered tetraplegic through his accident. It can therefore be seen that forum non conveniens takes a pragmatic approach to preventing foreseeable unreasonable delays under the second limb of Spiliada. Not only does this further justify operation of the doctrine under Article 6(1) through direct effect, it also greatly restricts, if not eliminates, the possibility of an indirect breach by the domestic court, given that the risk of a flagrant breach of the right to a fair trial is a fundamental factor of the interests of justice. Notwithstanding, herein there are still concerns in light of Professor Fawcett’s suggestion that a hybrid human rights/international private law approach should be taken such that Article 6 concerns should be identified first, taking into account ECtHR jurisprudence, and thereafter it should be for the flexible second limb of Spiliada to apply to resolve these issues. Fawcett concedes that the same result will be achieved in most cases, yet suggests that there may be borderline cases where this solution would work better and human rights concerns will have been taken more seriously. However, this need for procedural restructuring of judicial reasoning is arguably not wholly convincing, particularly given that the indirect effect doctrine under Soering requires a flagrant breach of Article 6, not merely a standard breach; it is therefore difficult to imagine the existence of any “borderline” cases as such. Moreover, in the cases of potential flagrant breaches, the interests of justice principle has been shown to be flexible enough to prevent stays which may breach Article 6 indirectly, regardless of the classification of the delay as a breach of human rights or otherwise. In this respect, it is arguable that the international private law case law could be adequately relied upon. Nevertheless, initial consideration of ECtHR jurisprudence may have more importance than in providing a mere procedurally attractive measure; it may guide and influence those who fail to see the pressing importance of human rights today and will at least effect compliance with the Section 2 of the HRA 1998 which demands that such jurisprudence be considered wherever Convention rights are in issue. Endnotes The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 558, p560; Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] 1 Ch 409, pp435-436; cf. The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399,pp413-414, where Hirst J gave “minimal weight to the delay factor” upon direction by the appellate courts. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 628. Hill: 2005, para.9.2.38. [2002] 1 WLR 1269. Ibid., at [177]. Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc [1998] AC 854, p872. [1984] AC 398. Ibid., p411. A and others v Denmark [1996] ECHR 2, at [78]. [1992] ECHR 45. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.628. (n29). Notwithstanding, the ECJ’s taking 2¾ years to produce its judgment did not go towards acknowledging the express request by the English Court of Appeal to provide reasonably quick compensation. Of course, time taken for a required preliminary reference from the ECJ is entirely justified under Article 6 (Pafitis v Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 566, at [95].) Fawcett: 2007, pp36-37. Such that length-of-proceedings cases (see supra pp.7-8) should be consulted in the context of unreasonable delay. (n14).

Put your foot in the icy water: Don’t be afraid to come to powerful conclusions

A dissertation that is written with balanced conclusions is a boring one. Reasoned opinion is important. Nothing would get done in this world if we said “X is right, but Y is equally right, so let’s just leave things the way they are”. Sitting on the fence may well get you a good upper second class award but there is little chance of it getting you a first. A certain English teacher, Sandra MacCallum, at Kyle Academy once taught that, sometimes, “you’ve got to put your foot into the icy water”. Don’t be afraid to come to powerful conclusions. Hopefully the below example, with a reasonable, opinionated attack on the ECJ’s lack of respect for the common law principles of the Scottish export doctrine forum non conveniens, illustrates the significance of this suggestion.

3.5. Conclusions It is perplexing that in Owusu Advocate General Léger, and perhaps indirectly the ECJ, suggested that applying forum non conveniens may be incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1), whereas analysis of its proper operation shows that it is compatible and may even be a useful tool in providing faster and more economic litigation. Although it is at least somewhat refreshing to see ECHR arguments being acknowledged in an international private law context without encouragement, it is nevertheless peculiar that Article 6 concerns have been identified in relation to forum non conveniens, “one of the most civilised of legal principles” as Lord Goff of Chieveley put it, when the ECJ did not properly apply or even consider Article 6 in Gasser, where the need for its recognition was much more significant. The ECHR is not an optional instrument that can be applied to justify a course of reasoning, however misguided, on the one hand and dismissed when apparently greater considerations require it on the other; careful legal analysis is required for its operation, which analysis does not appear to have been applied or even respected by the ECJ.

A fresh perspective

Separating a dissertation into manageable chunks from the initial stages of structural planning gives you freedom to start afresh to write about a different but related topic once concluding another section. Access to a court, for instance, is a separate right from the right for a trial to be heard and decided within a reasonable time. It, thus, merits a separate chapter with its own introduction, subsections and conclusions.

4. ACCESS TO A COURT 4.1. Operation in Article 6 The fair, public and expeditious characteristics of judicial proceedings expressed in Article 6 would be of no value at all if there were no judicial proceedings. Thus, referring to the rule of law and avoidance of arbitrary power, principles which underlie much of the ECHR, the ECtHR has held that the right of access to a court is an element inherent in Article 6(1). Although this right is not absolute, any limitation must not restrict access to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired, provided that a legitimate aim is pursued with proportionality between the limitation and that aim. The potential for this right to arise in the civil jurisdiction context is high, given the intrinsic nature of the operation of jurisdiction rules. 4.2. Anti-Suit Injunctions A denial of access to a foreign court and, therefore, a potential Article 6 violation will occur through the grant of an anti-suit injunction, which seeks to restrain foreign proceedings. This issue arose in The Kribi, where the claimants sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain Belgian proceedings brought in contravention of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Aikens J held that “Article 6…does not provide that a person is to have an unfettered choice of tribunal in which to pursue or defend his civil rights” . Moreover, “Article 6…does not deal at all with where the right to a [fair trial] is to be exercised by a litigant. The crucial point is that civil rights must be determined somewhere by a hearing and before a tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.” Therefore, a court granting an anti-suit injunction, in the very limited circumstances in which it can now do so, would not be in breach of Section 6 of the HRA 1988 where another available forum exists. Contrastingly, Article 6 challenges remain for the “single forum” cases, where there is only one forum of competent jurisdiction to determine the merits of the claim, despite the cases already being treated differently. In such a case, the exemplary approach of Aikens J would easily resolve such human rights issues. Ultimately, in a commercially welcome judgment, human rights arguments were made and received properly. Moreover, Aikens J “logically” dealt with the human rights points first. Hence the case is a working model for Fawcett’s hybrid approach where human rights should be considered first before international private law principles. Contrasting with stays producing concerns of unreasonable delays, in this context of access to a court there is more impetus to follow Fawcett’s model, particularly given that such denial of access can constitute a direct breach of Article 6, thus producing a more realistic threat of contravention of Section 6 of the HRA 1998. 4.3. Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and Waiving Convention Rights Another instance pertinent to Article 6 is where a person has no access to the courts of the UK because of the enforcement of an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. Convention rights can, in general, be waived, including the right of access to a court under Article 6, which can occur where a jurisdiction agreement or agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable, but not where a person entered into the agreement without voluntary consensus. Generally, rights will be waived under a jurisdiction agreement meeting the requirements of Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation. However, as Briggs and Rees note, there may be instances, somewhat unattractive, where a party is bound by such a jurisdiction agreement without voluntary consensus as such, such that his right of access to a court may not have been waived, reflecting the more prudent stance taken towards compulsory alternative dispute resolution. Notwithstanding, Article 6 will be upheld provided there is another available court. 4.4. Limitations on Jurisdiction It is axiomatic that limitations on jurisdiction may restrict access to a court. The ECtHR has held that limitation periods are generally compatible with Article 6, particularly for reasons of legal certainty, provided that they are not applied inflexibly. This compatibility should encompass a stay under forum non conveniens for a forum barred by limitation, which is granted only where the claimant was at fault by acting unreasonably in failing to commence proceedings in the foreign court within the applicable limitation period. Contrastingly, blanket limitations are a more difficult species. An example of a blanket exclusion on jurisdiction is the English common law Moçambique rule, which provides that title to foreign land should be determined only at the situs of the land. This may conflict with Article 6 because of a denial of access to an English court. Although this proposition may be unfounded, particularly where access to a court is available somewhere, the exclusion on jurisdiction may still be challenged on Article 6 grounds if disproportionate its aim. Such proportionality concerns were considered in Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Following Al-Adsani v United Kingdom , a blanket limitation on jurisdiction was accepted because the grant of sovereign immunity, which restricted access to a court, pursued the legitimate aim of comity through compliance with international law and was proportionate. Notwithstanding, underpinning this reasoning is an inevitable tension between the interests of States and private parties, such that Mance LJ (as he then was) in the Court of Appeal produced his judgment in light of ECHR considerations, taking a more flexible approach supportive of human rights. Mark v Mark also illustrates such inflexibility and proportionality considerations. The limitation in that case prevented access to the English courts, which may have been the only available courts, through a particular rule of public policy. This rule was therefore seen by Thorpe LJ to be incompatible with Article 6 and hence the HRA 1998. Contrastingly, in the House of Lords, Baroness Hale affirmed the decision on different grounds, dismissing ECHR considerations, such that she perhaps did not take human rights concerns entirely seriously. Although access to some court will be available following most limitations, the few cases where access would be denied to the only available court under a limitation warrant special attention in light of protection of the right to a fair trial. Such attention has been properly given on occasion, as demonstrated by both Mance and Thorpe LJJ. However, this approach is not consistently followed, shown by the dangerous approach of Baroness Hale. 4.5. Interaction with Forum non Conveniens In Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc, the defendant asked for a stay of proceedings. After identifying South Africa as the natural forum, the Court was faced with the argument that the stay would breach Article 6 because the complexity of the case and lack of funding were such that the claimant could not sue in that foreign court. After applying the Spiliada principles, which provided that a stay should be refused because the claimant could not obtain justice in the foreign court, Lord Bingham then turned to the Article 6 arguments and noted simply that “I do not think article 6 supports any conclusion which is not already reached on application of Spiliada principles.” Although the right to a fair trial was acknowledged and indeed protected under the refusal to grant a stay, the procedure in reasoning lowered the importance of human rights as the Spiliada principles took precedence to application of Article 6. Thus, if the Lubbe approach was followed in the future and a stay was granted to a foreign court in which there was a risk of a flagrant breach, the court may indirectly breach Article 6 in addition to Sections 2 and 6 of the HRA 1998. Similar techniques to that employed by Lord Bingham have been used in other forum non conveniens cases. For example, in The Polessk, the extent to which evidence showed the right to a fair trial in the St. Petersberg Court was considered under the second limb of the Spiliada test. Moreover, as discussed, reasonable delay has been considered consistently, although somewhat effectively, within this second stage of Spiliada. As noted, these latter instances show a sufficient degree of reconciliation with at least the indirect effect of Article 6, regardless of the characterisation of the breach as one of Article 6 or otherwise, particularly because it is difficult to imagine “borderline” cases amounting to flagrant breaches of Article 6, as Fawcett suggests. This analysis can be applied equally to the facts of Lubbe where access to the foreign court clearly did not exist, such that a stay would unequivocally produce a flagrant breach. It may be suggested that other cases are not so easy to evaluate, such as in determining whether access to a court exists through lack of legal aid, as Santambrogio v Italy illustrates. Nevertheless, surely if the decision is a difficult one to make, then the breach cannot be flagrant and, as such, there cannot be an indirect breach of Article 6. However, as noted, a procedural shift in judicial reasoning will have undoubted procedural benefits, if at the very least it effects compliance with Section 2 of the HRA 1998. Endnotes Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1, at [35]. Ibid., at [34]-[35]. Ibid., at [36]; this includes the right to a determination of proceedings on the merits (Gorbachev v Russia, No. 3354/02, 15 February 2007.) Ibid., at [38]. Winterwerp v The Netherlands [1979] ECHR 4, at [60], [75]. Ashingdane v United Kingdom [1985] ECHR 8, at [57]. OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep 76; now overruled on the specific point for decision (Turner v Grovit and Others [2005] AC 101). The Kribi (n131), at [42]. Ibid., at [42]. Following Turner v Grovit (n131), a court cannot grant an anti-suit injunction against a party who has commenced an action in a Brussels Convention State. British Airways v Laker Airways [1983] AC 58,at [80]. The Kribi, (n131),at [41]. Fawcett: 2007, pp36-37. Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692; cf. Loucaides: 2003, pp48-50. Deweer v Belgium (1979-80) 2 EHRR 439; indeed, this is a “natural consequence of [the parties’] right to regulate their mutual relations as they see fit.” (Axelsson v. Sweden, no.11960/86, 13 July 1990.) Malmstrom v Sweden (1983) 38 DR 18. Cf. under the common law (The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324); Briggs and Rees: 2005, p19. E.g. a person not party to a bill of lading bound by a jurisdiction agreement between shipper and carrier. Briggs and Rees: 2005, pp18-19. See generally Schiavetta: 2004, paras.4.2-4.21. Stubbings v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 44, at [51]. Briggs and Rees: 2005, p20 n.101. Spiliada (n72), pp483-484. British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602; for Scotland, Hewit’s Trs v Lawson (1891) 18 R 793. Briggs and Rees: 2005, para.4.06. [2006] UKHL 26. 34 EHRR 273. Cf. Markovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 1141, which held that although there was no blanket limitation on jurisdiction through sovereign immunity and that access to a court had been afforded, access was nevertheless limited in scope, such that the applicants could not receive a decision on the merits. [2005] QB 699. [2004] EWCA Civ 168, at [40]. [2006] AC 98. Fawcett: 2007, p34. [2000] 1 WLR 1545. (n72). Lubbe (n157), p1561. Further, no relevant decisions of the ECtHR were relied upon in the judgment e.g. Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3 where representation costs were “very high” and the procedure was too complex and would evoke emotions too great for the applicant to present her case. Cf. Santambrogio v Italy [2004] ECHR 430 (post-Lubbe), where legal aid was deemed unnecessary in the circumstances. Fawcett: 2007, p.11. (n102), p51. Supra pp.17-19. Supra p.19. (n160).

Get creative!

Creative argument is essential if you’re going to get a first. Perhaps only unless your tutor or professor doesn’t know the topic well can you get away rehashing old argument and ideas that have been discussed thousands of times before. Having worked with academia in trying to commercialise intellectual property rights (IP), through, for instance, spin-off companies, it is clear that innovation is crucial for the business models of universities. It goes something like this: University teaches its students; Students produce research in which they and/or the university have IP, such as copyrights or patents; Student and/or university commercialises that IP by selling or licensing it to journals or other entities, such as companies. Money, then, gets reinvested into the system or society, which gets to work with the new innovation or improvement. The below argument is example of how such creativity can light up your dissertation, add value to your University and get you a better mark overall.

4.6. Owusu v Jackson Further relevance of Article 6 can be seen in the context of the ECJ’s analysis of forum non conveniens in Owusu v Jackson. Fundamentally wrong, the ECJ believed that a defendant “would not be able…reasonably to foresee before which other court he may be sued.” However, it is the defendant who asks for a stay and thus his foreseeability of a stay in this respect is secured. Article 6 is underpinned by the principle of legal certainty. Although legal certainty has specific provision in some articles of the ECHR, it is not confined to those articles; the specific provisions require domestic law “to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the articles of the Convention.” Legal certainty comprises the particularly significant aspect of foreseeability. In this regard, the ECtHR has noted that: “a norm cannot be regarded as a ‘law’ unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct: he must be able…to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail.” It is at least arguable that this would encompass procedural certainty emanating from rules of jurisdiction. If the forum non conveniens doctrine permitted stays without the defendant’s asking, the defendant would have such little legal certainty that there may even be an arguable infringement of his right to a fair trial under Article 6, not only incompatible with the higher test of legal certainty of jurisdictional rules under the Brussels regime. This would result from the defendant’s lack of foreseeability as to where proceedings against him would take place. Contrastingly, cogent arguments can be made against forum non conveniens, inter alia, because of the uncertainty for the claimant. Notwithstanding, it could be said that his rights under Article 6(1) are upheld through his right of access to a court somewhere else. Moreover, he would have much more legal certainty than that of the defendant under the ECJ’s interpretation of forum non conveniens because stays under proper operation of forum non conveniens are granted, to some extent, within the confines of regulated and foreseeable discretion. It can therefore be seen that the ECJ had analysed something which would be incompatible not only with Scottish and English law, but also with the ECHR and HRA 1998. Although a proper analysis of forum non conveniens would probably not have altered the outcome of Owusu, it would have been much more respectable to the common law, already set to be dismantled through an inevitable course of Europeanization, not to knock down, to some extent, a “straw man.” 4.7. Conclusions It is clear that there are disparate approaches to the right of access to a court, perhaps emanating in part from varying attitudes to the importance of human rights. Most civil jurisdiction cases will involve access being denied to one court, while access to another is still available. These will generally not breach Article 6 since there is no right of preference of court under Article 6 as Aikens J held in The Kribi, a judgment fully respectable of human rights. Contrastingly, in the limited number of cases which do yield Article 6 concerns, respect for human rights has been inconsistent, a worrying position particularly in light of the recognition of new, potential Article 6 challenges, such as in the areas of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and limitations on jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, such concerns may be unfounded, given the flexibility of international private law rules, such as the demands of justice under the second limb of Spiliada, which can effectively prevent indirect breaches of Article 6. Endnotes Except in exceptional circumstances: Collins et al: 2006, para.12-006 n.20. E.g. Articles 5 and 7. Reed and Murdoch: 2001, para.3.33. Amuur v France [1996] ECHR 20, at [50]. Reed and Murdoch: 2001, para.3.36. Sunday Times (No1) v United Kingdom [1979] ECHR 1, at [49]. Harris: 2005, p939; despite a lack of express mention by the ECJ in Owusu (n29); cf. Opinion of AG Leger in Owusu, at [160]. Hartley: 2005b, pp824-828; cf. Mance: 2007. (n72).

Add Another New Topic

The following is a different slant on the fundamental theme of the dissertation.

5. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 5.1. Recognition of Contracting State Judgments An indirect breach of Article 6 may occur where a court recognises and thus enforces a judgment obtained in foreign proceedings contrary to the requirements of Article 6. Little challenge is presented where that judgment is obtained in a court of a State party to the ECHR; in such a case, recognition can be refused through Article 6 which is a facet of public policy under Article 27(1) of the Brussels Convention. Notably, Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation provides that the recognition must be “manifestly” contrary to public policy, implying a higher threshold than in Article 27(1). The difference in wording is uncertain, but it is hoped that it will not be used to “sweep mere procedural defects under the rug.” Indeed, the importance of the right to a fair trial to the rule of law cannot be underestimated and thus it is arguable that any breach of Article 6 will be manifestly contrary to public policy. Notwithstanding, if the phrases “manifestly contrary to public policy” and a “flagrant breach of the ECHR” were to be compared, it may be just as arguable that a manifest breach of Article 6, not a standard one, is required for the operation of Article 34(1) of the Brussels Regulation. However, this may not be unwarranted in the context of judgments of Contracting States, as noted. Through Krombach v Bamberski , the housing of Article 6 under public policy effectively creates a hierarchical system, whereby EC rules have precedence over human rights rules, particularly because of the ignorance of the indirect effect doctrine. However, this may not be wholly unwelcome in light of the potential existence of a common EC public policy, somewhat emanating from the harmonisation through the ECHR in 1950. Moreover, as Meidanis suggests, the ECJ appears to see the protection of human rights as the common core of the European public policy and is prepared to sacrifice the basic principle of the free movement of judgments of the Brussels Convention to ensure protection of human rights. Notwithstanding, as noted, in other contexts, the ECJ does not so respect human rights, particularly highlighted by its emphatic rejection of Article 6 in Gasser. Although the flexibility through the public policy exception does not extend to the rules relating to jurisdiction, there are other mechanisms for protecting human rights within the Brussels Convention and, especially, the Brussels Regulation. 5.2. Recognition of Non-Contracting State Judgments More difficulty arises with recognition of a judgment obtained in a non-Contracting State. 5.2.1. European Court of Human Rights Such recognition was permitted without reference to Article 6 in Drozd and Janousek. However, in Pellegrini v Italy, the ECtHR held that the Italian court could not recognise a judgment obtained in a Vatican City court in contravention of Article 6 standards. This was so despite a Concordat between Italy and the Vatican requiring such recognition. Pellegrini can be considerably demarcated from the Soering/Drozd line of cases, which requires a flagrant breach to have occurred in the non-Contracting State, the underpinning theory being the “reduced effect of public policy.” Instead, Pellegrini requires full compliance with Article 6 standards as if the foreign court were party to the ECHR, such that failure to review a judgment against which standards is a risky practice. Notwithstanding, the actual breach of Article 6 standards in Pellegrini was flagrant, despite the court’s omission of this, and therefore the judgment may not represent such a large departure from Drozd. Moreover, the “reduced effect of public policy” approach of Drozd was followed eight days prior to Pellegrini in Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany. However, it is difficult to distinguish Hans-Adam II on its facts particularly given the sweeping reasoning in Pellegrini. Thus, as it stands, Pellegrini is the leading authority, prescribing the need for a review of foreign judgments against full Article 6 standards, ensuring full protection for the right to a fair trial. It is nevertheless hoped by some that the case will be revisited, perhaps with the preference of a variable standard. Further, a dictum in Pellegrini may have the effect of requiring such review only where the judgment emanates from the courts of a State not party to the Convention. Hence, as Kinsch submits, an a contrario reading may be imputed, such that review of Article 6 standards is optional where the judgment emanates from a Contracting State. However, this may not be wholly unwelcome given that the Member States of the EU are party to the ECHR in addition to the Brussels Convention and Regulation, which seek to limit the power of public policy from preventing recognition of judgments. 5.2.2. House of Lords In stark contrast to Pellegrini, the House of Lords in Montgomery required a “flagrant” breach in the United States, a non-Contracting State, for the judgment not to be recognised. Such a flagrant breach was not created in the United States and hence recognition of a judgment breaching regular Article 6 standards was permitted. In its judgment, the House of Lords attempted to distinguish Pellegrini through the existence of the Concordat between Italy and the Vatican City, which required Italy to ensure that the Vatican court’s procedure complied with the fundamental principles of Italian legal system, one being Article 6. However, this is hard, if not impossible, to understand, particularly since it assumes that the Concordat of 1929, as amended, could incorporate ECHR standards, when the Vatican City deliberately refused to subscribe to the ECHR. Further, the ECtHR in Pellegrini did not suggest in its judgment that the relationship between Italy and the Vatican was material to its decision. Therefore, Montgomery is seen to be wrong in so distinguishing Pellegrini. Briggs and Rees further suggest that the House of Lords applied the wrong test in Montgomery because of the analysis of deportation cases, such as Soering. In such a case, a prediction is required, whereas in Montgomery, or indeed in any case concerning recognition, there was no need for such a prediction as the foreign judgment could already be seen to have breached Article 6. However, Soering requires that the person “has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial (emphasis added.)” If he has already suffered a breach, there is no need for a prediction to be made; instead, the reason for the standard of flagrancy is based on the “reduced effect of public policy” theory, an approach followed in Drozd, as noted. The reasoning of Briggs and Rees in this respect is akin to that of the Court of Appeal in Montgomery where Lord Woolf CJ stated that “the reference in [Soering at [113]] to a future flagrant breach of Article 6 was no more than a dicta which should not be applied to the enforcement of a court order of a non-Contracting State.” However, Drozd, which was not cited to, or considered by, the Court of Appeal, expressly requires such a flagrant breach of Article 6 if enforcement of a court order of a non-Contracting State is to be denied, which clearly has nothing to do with making predictions. Instead, as Briggs and Rees indeed note, the reason why the House of Lords applied the wrong test in Montgomery is that Pellegrini, the leading ECtHR authority which overrides Drozd, was wrongly distinguished and therefore permitted recognition of a judgment in contravention of ECHR jurisprudence. It may be argued that this was not a case of human rights not being taken seriously, but was merely a case of wrongful interpretation of human rights law, yet this could only be accepted upon an assumption of the incompetence of the House of Lords. 5.3. Conclusions The leading authority of the ECtHR on operation of the indirect effect doctrine with respect to recognising foreign judgments, Pellegrini demands a review of full compliance with Article 6 standards of foreign judgments, perhaps limited to those emanating from non-Contracting State courts. Through this, the right to a fair trial can be fully upheld in national courts and, in the UK, breach of Section 6 of the HRA 1998 can be avoided. Notwithstanding, the House of Lords effectively got human rights wrong, thus paving the way forward for reduced protection of Article 6 in the UK. However, this area is not devoid of hope; to effect compliance with this framework, Montgomery must be overturned, which does not appear too remote a possibility given the extensive criticism of the case.

How to conclude a first class law dissertation

The conclusion to your dissertation is, arguably, the most important part and is, therefore, potentially a major differentiator between a first class dissertation and a second class one.

There are three things which you should bear in mind:-

1. A well-written dissertation, thesis, essay or, indeed, any story should have three main parts to it: an introduction; a main body; and a conclusion. It reflects any good piece of oratory: say what you’re going to say, say it, then say what you’ve said. In your conclusion, you are, thus, trying to tell the audience what you’ve said throughout your dissertation. If the word limit is 10,000 words, 800-1000 words should, ideally, be used on your conclusion;

2. Don’t be afraid to put your foot into the icy water. As stated in an earlier section you should not be afraid to come to powerful conclusions even if they challenge the views of other academics, practitioners or even the general public, provided that your views can be fairly and reasonably supported. Which brings us to the third and most important aspect of any conclusion;

3. A well drafted conclusion should refer back to your analysis throughout your dissertation to support your suggested conclusions; it should not allow you to raise new arguments or thoughts which you haven’t already considered. Think about it like a civil proof in court: you conduct an examination-in-chief in which you ask open questions to get evidence from your witness; your opponent then cross-examines your witness to test their evidence; you then get a chance to re-examine the witness but you do NOT get a chance to raise anything new that was not covered in cross.

The conclusion to my dissertation, different from my Juridical Review version, is as below. Given the recent Supreme Court criminal law decision of Cadder v HMA, for which see the ScotsLawBlog Cadder article , the final words on getting human rights right attract even greater significance.

6. CONCLUSIONS The right to a fair trial has produced much concern in the conflict of laws arena today, a particular result of the evolution of a more stringent human rights culture in the United Kingdom. In the field of civil jurisdiction, the right to a trial within reasonable time and the right of access to a court, two of the most fundamental substantive rights of Article 6 ECHR, have emerged; in the sphere of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the indirect effect doctrine, a key procedural element of the ECHR, which protects the right to a fair trial indirectly but nevertheless just as significantly, has arisen. International private law mechanisms exist for the reconciliation of Article 6 with the sphere of civil jurisdiction and judgments. The extent to which these can be utilised to protect the right to a fair trial is undoubtedly immense. At the most extreme end of protection, Fawcett’s hybrid model could provide great procedural legal certainty, such that human rights concerns will be identified first, using ECtHR jurisprudence, following which international private law mechanisms can resolve these concerns with their inherent flexibility. This strict approach is not unwarranted, particularly where judges fail to see the function or even importance of human rights. Pertinent examples include the misapplication of human rights by the House of Lords in Montgomery , which indeed must be rectified, and other approaches not confined to the courts of the United Kingdom; for instance, the embarrassingly misguided approach of the ECJ in Gasser , where it refused to recognise human rights concerns in its myopic pursuit of the objectives of the Brussels regime, unyielding with respect for concerns of private parties, when there were measures available for reconciliation. This appears even more inadequate in light of Advocate General Léger’s later suggestions that forum non conveniens may actually be incompatible with Article 6, when the doctrine is more than justifiable as it seeks to produce faster and more economic litigation, through both the first and second limbs of Spiliada. Notwithstanding, the need for Fawcett’s model is more questionable in other situations; for instance, in those cases involving potential indirect breaches of Article 6 when transferring actions abroad, flexible international private law mechanisms appear to have been applied in a manner sufficiently compliant with the ECHR, regardless of the characterisation of the breach as one of Article 6 or simply of the demands of justice. For example, the second limb of Spiliada has effectively prevented stays where there is a real risk of a flagrant breach abroad, as is the Soering threshold for such an indirect breach, whether regarding unreasonable delay or lack of access to a court. Fawcett concedes that the overall result of many cases will remain unchanged but suggests that “borderline” cases may exist which pose as pitfalls for the courts. However, the requirement of flagrancy, as he correctly applied at the beginning of his analysis, makes the existence of such cases difficult, if not impossible, to imagine in practice. In this respect, Fawcett appears to be advocating an approach extending beyond avoiding breaching Article 6; instead, he is actively aiming at protection of a fair trial beyond the Article 6 threshold. However, this is not unwelcome; the importance of Article 6 is so great that it is worth adopting the strict approach. The consistent use of ECHR jurisprudence at the outset will, at the very least, prevent a breach of Section 2 of the HRA 1998; further, it may assist those judges who are misguided or fail to see the importance of human rights today. Ultimately, a strict approach may provide for considerable legal certainty in a fast and growing area of law which demands firm, human rights orientated answers.

New: we have published guides to some of the best personal injury lawyers , settlement agreement solicitors and best employment lawyers in the UK , in addition to helpful guidance on a range of other legal issues which may be useful if you or a friend need to point someone in the right direction.

How to write a bibliography to conclude your first-class dissertation

There are three stages for completing an abundant and competent bibliography. First, go into the footnotes on your document, select all, copy and paste to the foot of your article, then separate into different categories. Then, second, go back through the materials which you have read and add them. Finally, third, sort alphabetically using Word or Excel.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 7.1. TABLE OF CASES A and others v Denmark [1996] ECHR 2 AG of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai [2005] EWHC 2102 (Ch), appeals dismissed [2006] EWCA Civ 390 Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119 Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3 Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam [2004] EWCA Civ 857 Amuur v France (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 533 Andreucci v Italy [1992] ECHR 8 Ashingdane v United Kingdom [1985] ECHR 8 Att. Gen. v Arthur Anderson & Co [1989] ECC 224 Axelsson v. Sweden, no.11960/86, 13 July 1990 Bensaid v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 10 Berghofer v. ASA SA Case 221/84 [1985] ECR 2699 Berisford Plc v New Hampshire Insurance [1990] 2 QB 631 Bock v. Germany [1989] ECHR 3 Boddaert v Belgium (1993) 16 EHRR 242 Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi(“Bosphorus Airways“) v Ireland (2006) 42 EHRR 1 Bottazzi v. Italy [1999] ECHR 62 Brazilian Loans (PCIJ Publications, Series A, Nos. 20-21, p.122) Bristow Heliocopters v Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation [2004] 2 Ll Rep 150 British Airways v Laker Airways [1983] AC 58 British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602 Buchholz v Germany [1981] ECHR 2 Carel Johannes Steven Bentinck v Lisa Bentinck [2007] EWCA Civ 175 Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Nomura International Plc [2003] IL Pr 20 Chellaram v Chellaram [1985] 1 Ch 409 Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc [1998] AC 854 Credit Agricole Indosuez v Unicof Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd.s Rep 196 Cumming v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd, The Times June 8, 1995 Darnell v United Kingdom (1993) 18 EHRR 205 Delcourt v Belgium (1979-80) 1 EHRR 355 Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] QB 770 Deweer v Belgium (1979-80) 2 EHRR 439 Di Mauro v. Italy ECHR 1999-V Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745 Eckle v Germany (1983) 5 EHRR 1 Elderslie Steamship Company v Burrell (1895) 22 R 389 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Jacqmain (Case 150/80) [1981] ECR 1671 Erich Gasser GmbH v Misat Srl, C-116/02 [2005] QB 1 ERT v DEP C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925 F v Switzerland [1987] ECHR 32 Ferrari v Italy [1999] ECHR 64 Foti v Italy (1982) EHRR 313 Fritz and Nana v France, 75 DR 39 Golder v. United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1 Gorbachev v Russia, No. 3354/02, Judgment of 15 February 2007. Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37 Guincho v Portugal (1984) 7 EHRR 223 H v France (1990) 12 EHRR 74 Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Aegan Turkish Holidays Ltd [1979] AC 508 Hewit’s Trs v Lawson (1891) 18 R 793. Huseyin Erturk v Turkey [2005] ECHR 630. Irish Shipping Ltd v Commercial Union [1991] 2 QB 206. Iveco Fiat v Van Hool Case 313/85 [1986] ECR 3337 Jones v Saudi Arabia [2004] EWCA Civ 1394 JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom [2005] EWHC 508 Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy (1994) 19 EHRR 368 Klockner Holdings GmbH v Klockner Beteiligungs GmbH [2005] EWHC 1453 Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269 Konig v Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 170 Krombach v Bamberski Case C-7/98 [2001] QB 709 Kudla v Poland [2000] ECHR 512 Lacey v Cessna Aircraft (1991) 932 F.2d 170 Ledra Fisheries Ltd v Turner [2003] EWHC 1049 Lubbe v Cape Industries Plc [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 Malone v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 1 Malstrom v Sweden (1983) 38 Decisions and Reports 18 Manieri v Italy [1992] ECHR 26 Margareta and Roger Andersson v Sweden (1992) 14 EHRR 615. Markovic v Italy [2006] ECHR 1141 Maronier v Larmer [2003] QB 620 Matthews v United Kingdom [1999] ECHR 12. Messier-Dowty v Sabena [2000] 1 WLR 2040 Netherlands 6202/73 1975 1 DR 66 OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy (The Kribi) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep 76 Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco [1992] 2 AC 433 Owners of the Atlantic Star v Owners of the Bona Spes (The Atlantic Star and The Bona Spes) [1974] AC 436 Owusu v Jackson and Others C-281/02 [2005] QB 801 Pafitis v Greece (1999) 27 EHRR 566 Pfeiffer and Plankl v Austria (1992) 14 EHRR 692 Philip Morris International Inc v Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-1 Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v Germany ECHR 2001-VIII. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 1 AC 368 R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 R. (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389 R. (on the application of Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26 Riccardo Pizzati v Italy [2006] ECHR 275 Robins v United Kingdom (1998) 26 EHRR 527 Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14 Salotti v RUWA Case 23/76 [1976] ECR 1831 Santambrogio v Italy [2004] ECHR 430 Scopelliti v Italy (1993) 17 EHRR 493 Sim v Robinow (1892) 19 R 665 Soc Divagsa v Spain (1993) 74 DR 274. Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Lid [1987] 1 AC 460 Standard Steamship Owners Protection and Indemnity Association v Gann [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 528 Stogmuller v Austria (1979) 2 EHRR 155 Stubbings v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 44 Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 245 The Al Battani [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 219 The Benarty [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244 The Fehmarn [1958] 1 WLR 159 The Jalakrishna [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 628 The Lakhta [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 269 The Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399 The Pioneer Container [1994] 2 AC 324 The Polessk [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40 The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 558 Toepfer International G.M.B.H. v. Molino Boschi Srl [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 510 Trendex v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679 Turner v Grovit and Others [2005] 1 AC 101 Union Alimentaria SA v Spain (1990) 12 EHRR 24 Vocaturo v Italy [1991] ECHR 34. Wemhoff v Germany (1968) 1 EHRR 55 Winterwerp v The Netherlands [1979] ECHR 4 X v France [1992] ECHR 45 Xn Corporation Ltd v Point of Sale Ltd [2001] I.L.Pr. 35 Z and Others v. United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 3 Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 9 7.2. TABLE OF LEGISLATION European Union EC Treaty Art 6(2) Art 307 Council Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels Regulation) Art 2 Art 4 Art 27 Art 28 Art 30 Art 34(1) Art 34(2) Art 35(3) Art 71 Italy Law no.89 of 24 March 2001 (the “Pinto Act”). United Kingdom Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 11 r 3.1(2)(f) Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) s1(1)(a) s2(1)(a) s3(1) s6(3)(a) 7.3. TABLE OF CONVENTIONS Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels Convention) Art 21 Art 22 Art 57 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Art 5 Art 6 Art 7 Art 13 7.4. TEXTBOOKS Anton, A.E., and Beaumont, P., 1995. Anton & Beaumont’s Civil Jurisdiction in Scotland: Brussels and Lugano Conventions. 2nd ed ., Edinburgh: Greens Bell, A., 2003. Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation. Oxford: OUP Briggs, A., 2002. The Conflict of Laws, Oxford: OUP. Briggs, A., and Rees, P., 2002. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. 3rd ed., London: LLP Briggs, A., and Rees, P., 2005. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. 4rd ed., London: LLP Clarkson, C.M.V., and Hill, J., 2002. Jaffey on the Conflict of Laws. 2nd ed., Oxford: OUP Clarkson, C.M.V., and Hill, J., 2006. The Conflict of Laws. New York: OUP Clayton, R. and Tomlinson, H., 2000. The Law of Human Rights. Oxford: OUP Collier, J.C., 2001. Conflict of Laws. 3rd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collins, L., et al (eds), 2006. Dicey Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws. 14th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell Crawford, E.B., and Carruthers, J.M., 2006. International Private Law in Scotland. 2nd ed, Edinburgh: Greens Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh. The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press. Fawcett, J.J., 1995. Declining jurisdiction in private international law: reports to the XIVth congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, Athens, August 1994. Oxford: Clarendon Press Fawcett, J.J., Harris, J. and Bridge, M., 2005. International Sale of Goods in the Conflict of Laws. Oxford: OUP Grosz, S., Beatson, J. and Duffy, P., 2000. Human Rights: The 1998 Act and the European Convention,.London: Sweet and Maxwell Harris, D.J., O’Boyle, M., Warbrick, C., 1995. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. London: Butterworth Hill, J., 2005. International Commercial Disputes in English Courts. 3rd ed Portland: Hart Publishing McClean, D. and Beevers, K., 2005. Morris on the Conflict of Laws. 6th ed., London: Sweet and Maxwell North, P.M. and Fawcett, J.J., 2004. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law. 13th ed. Oxford: OUP Ovey, C. and White, R., 2002. The European Convention on Human Rights. New York: OUP Raitio, J., 2003. The Principle of Legal Certainty in EC Law. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Reed, R. and Murdoch, J., 2001. A Guide to Human Rights Law in Scotland. Edinburgh: Butterworths Scotland Starmer, K., 1999. European Human Rights Law. London: Legal Action Group 7.5. ARTICLES Baldwin, J., and Cunnington, R., 2004. “The Crisis in Enforcement of Civil Judgments in England and Wales.” 2004 PL (SUM) 305-328 Briggs, A., 2005a. “Foreign Judgments and Human Rights.” 121(APR) L.Q.R. 185-189 Briggs, A., 2005b. “The Death of Harrods: Forum non Conveniens and the European Court.” 121(OCT) L.Q.R. 535-540 Clarke, A., 2007. “The Differing Approach to Commercial Litigation in the European Court of Justice and the Courts of England and Wales” 18 E.B.L.Rev. 101-129 Collins, L., 1995. “The Brussels Convention Within the United Kingdom”, 111 LQR 541 Costa, J-P., 2002, Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, 435, cited in Kinsch, P., 2004. “The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments – A Survey of the Cases Decided by the European Human Rights Institutions,” in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp197-228, p228 n100 Crawford, E.B., 2005. “The Uses of Putativity and Negativity in the Conflict of Laws.” 54 ICLQ 829-854 Crifo, C., 2005. “First Steps Towards the Harmonisation of Civil procedure: The Regulation Creating a European Enforcement Order for Uncontested Claims.” C.J.Q. 2005, 24(APR), 200-223 Eardley, A., 2006. “Libel Tourism in England: Now the Welcome is Even Warmer.” 17(1) Ent. L.R. 35-38 Fabri, M., and Langbroek, P.M., 2003. “Preliminary draft report: Delay in Judicial Proceedings: A preliminary Inquiry into the Relation Between the Demands of the Reasonable Time Requirements of Article 6(1) ECHR and Their Consequences for Judges and Judicial Administration in the Civil, Criminal and Administrative Justice Chains”, CEPEJ (2003) 20 Rev Farran, S., 2007. “Conflicts of Laws in Human Rights: Consequences for Colonies”, (2007) 1 EdinLR 121 Fawcett, J.J., 2007. “The Impact of Article 6(1) of the ECHR on Private International Law.” 56 ICLQ 1-48 Fentiman, R., 2005. “English Domicile and the Staying of Actions” [2005] 64 CLJ 303 Flannery, L., 2004. “The End of Anti-Suit Injunctions?” New Law Journal, 28 May 2004, 798 Franzosi, M., 2002. “Torpedoes are here to stay” [2002] 2 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 154 Franzosi, M., 1997. “Worldwide Patent Litigation and the Italian Torpedo” 19 (7) EIPR 382 Green, L., 1956. “Jury Trial and Mr. Justice Black,” 65 Yale LJ 482 Halkerston, G., 2005. “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.” 155 NLJ 436 Hare, C., “Forum non Conveniens in Europe: Game Over or Time for ‘Reflexion’” JBL 2006, Mar, 157-179 Harris, J., 2001. “The Brussels Regulation.” 20 Civil Justice Quarterly 218 Harris, J., 2005. “Stays of Proceedings and the Brussels Convention.,” 54 ICLQ 933 Hartley, T.C., 1994. “Brussels Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention: Agreement and Lis Alibi Pendens.” 19(5) E.L.Rev 549-552 Hartley, T.C., 2001. “International Law and the Law of the European Union – A Reassessment”, 72 BYBIL 1 Hartley, T.C., 2005a. “Choice-of-court agreements, lis pendens, human rights and the realities of international business: reflection on the Gasser case” in Le droit international privé: mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde, (Dalloz, Paris, 2005), pp383-391 Hartley, T.C., 2005b. “The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law Conflict of Laws”, 54 ICLQ 813 Higgins, R., 2006. “A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations From the Bench.” 55 ICLQ 791-804. Hogan, G., 1995. “The Brussels Convention, Forum non Conveniens and the Connecting Factors Problem.” 20(5) E.L. Rev. 471-493 Hood, K.J., 2006. “Drawing Inspiration? Reconsidering the Procedural Treatment of Foreign Law.” 2(1) JPrIL 181-193. Hunt, M., 1998. “The “Horizontal Effect” of the Human Rights Act”. 1998 Public Law 423-443 Hunter-Henin, M., 2006. “Droit des personnes et droits de l’homme: combinaison ou confrontation? (Family Law and Human Rights: Can They Go Along or Do They Exclude Each Other?),” 95(4) Revue critique de droit international privé pp743-775. Kennett, W., 1998. “Service of Documents in Europe.” 17(JUL) C.J.Q. 284-307 Kennett, W., 2001. “The Brussels I Regulation.” 50 ICLQ 725 -737 Kennett, W., 2001. “The Enforcement Review: A Progress Report.” 20(Jan) CJQ 36-57 Kennett, W., and McEleavy, P., 2002. “(Current Development): Civil and Commercial Litigation” 51 ICLQ 463 Kinsch, P., 2004. “The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreign Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments – A Survey of the Cases Decided by the European Human Rights Institutions,” in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp197-228. Lester, A., and Pannick, D., 2000. “The Impact of the Human Rights Act on Private Law: The Knight’s Move.” 116 LQR 380-385 Loucaides, L.G., 2003. “Questions of a Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights.” (2003) HRLR 3(1), pp27-51. Lowenfield, A.F., 2004. “Jurisdiction, Enforcement, Public Policy and Res Judicata: The Krombach Case,” in in Einhorn, T. and Siehr, K., 2004. Intercontinental Cooperation Through Private International Law – Essays in Memory of Peter E. Nygh, The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, pp229-248 Mance, J., 2004a. “Civil Jurisdiction in Europe – Choice of Court Clauses, Competing Litigation and Anti-Suit Injunctions – Erich Gasser v. Misat and Turner v. Grovit: Address to Second Conference of European Commercial Judges, (“Problems of enforcement of european law”)” Paris – 14th October 2004; http://www.courdecassation.fr/formation_br_4/2004_2034/jonathan_mance_8239.html, (Accessed 10 March 2007) Mance, J., 2004b. “Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreements and European Ideals.” 120 LQR 357 Mance, J., 2005. “The Future of Private International Law.” 1(2) JPrIL 185-195 Mance, J., 2007. “Is Europe Aiming to Civilise the Common Law?” 18 EBLRev 77-99 McLachlan, C., 2004. “International Litigation and the Reworking of the Conflict of Laws” 120(OCT) LQR 580-616 Meidanis, H.P., 2005. “Public Policy and Ordre Public in the Private International Law of the EU: Traditional Positions and Moderns Trends.” 30(1), ELRev, 95-110 Merrett, L., 2006. “The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements within the Brussels Regime,” 55 ICLQ 315 Muir Watt, H., 2001. “Evidence of an Emergent European Legal Culture: Public Policy Requirements of Procedural Fairness Under the Brussels and Lugano Conventions.” 36 Tex. ILJ, p. 539. North, P., 2001. “Private International Law: Change or Decay?” 50 ICLQ 477-508 Orakhelashvili, A., 2006. “The Idea of European International Law.” 17 Eur. J. Int’l L. 315 Peel, E., 2001. “Forum non Conveniens Revisited.” 117(APR) L.Q.R. 187-194 Robertson, D.W., 1987. “Forum Non Conveniens in America and England: ‘A rather fantastic fiction’.” 103 LQR 398 Robert-Tissot, S., and Smith, D., 2005. “The Battle for Forum”, New Law Journal, 7 October 2005, p1496 Robert-Tissot, S., 2005. “The Battle for Forum.” 155 NLJ 1496 Rodger, B.J., 2006. “Forum non Conveniens: Post Owusu.” 2(1) JPrIL 71 Schiavetta, S., 2004. “The Relationship Between e-ADR and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights pursuant to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights.” 2004 (1) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT). http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2004_1/schiavetta/ (Accessed 28 February 2007) Sinopoli, L., 2000. Le droit au procès équitable dans les rapports privés internationaux (doctoral dissertation, University of Paris-I, 2000) Slater, A.G., 1988. “Forum Non Conveniens: A View From the Shop Floor.” 104 LQR 554 Svantesson, D.J.B., 2005. “In Defence of the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens.” (2005) HKLJ 395 Van Hoek: 2001. “Case note on Krombach v Bamberski” (2001) 38 CMLR 1011. Wade, H.W.R., 2000. “Horizons of Horizontality.” 116 LQR 217-224 Williams, J.M., 2001. “Forum non Conveniens, Lubbe v Cape and Group Josi v Universal General Insurance.” J.P.I. Law 2001, 1, 72-77 Zhenjie, H., 2001. “Forum Non Conveniens: An Unjustified Doctrine.” 48 NILR 143

All the best with your dissertation and career!

Related Posts

Linkedin: the new blogging platform for lawyers.

Or should you publish mainly on your own website or blog? In today’s digital age, LinkedIn isn’t just a professional

Exciting News: Our Guide to AI for Law Firms Just Got Better!

Hello legal professionals and legal tech enthusiasts! Alongside an exciting upcoming podcast episode on AI for law firm efficiency and

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

The Dissertation Abstract: 101

How to write a clear & concise abstract (with examples).

By:   Madeline Fink (MSc) Reviewed By: Derek Jansen (MBA)   | June 2020

So, you’ve (finally) finished your thesis or dissertation or thesis. Now it’s time to write up your abstract (sometimes also called the executive summary). If you’re here, chances are you’re not quite sure what you need to cover in this section, or how to go about writing it. Fear not – we’ll explain it all in plain language , step by step , with clear examples .

Overview: The Dissertation/Thesis Abstract

• What exactly is a dissertation (or thesis) abstract
• What’s the purpose and function of the abstract
• Why is the abstract so important
• How to write a high-quality dissertation abstract
• Example/sample of a quality abstract
• Quick tips to write a high-quality dissertation abstract

What is an abstract?

Simply put, the abstract in a dissertation or thesis is a short (but well structured) summary that outlines the most important points of your research (i.e. the key takeaways). The abstract is usually 1 paragraph or about 300-500 words long (about one page), but but this can vary between universities.

A quick note regarding terminology – strictly speaking, an abstract and an executive summary are two different things when it comes to academic publications. Typically, an abstract only states what the research will be about, but doesn’t explore the findings – whereas an executive summary covers both . However, in the context of a dissertation or thesis, the abstract usually covers both, providing a summary of the full project.

In terms of content, a good dissertation abstract usually covers the following points:

• The purpose of the research (what’s it about and why’s that important)
• The methodology (how you carried out the research)
• The key research findings (what answers you found)
• The implications of these findings (what these answers mean)

We’ll explain each of these in more detail a little later in this post. Buckle up.

What’s the purpose of the abstract?

A dissertation abstract has two main functions:

The first purpose is to  inform potential readers  of the main idea of your research without them having to read your entire piece of work. Specifically, it needs to communicate what your research is about (what were you trying to find out) and what your findings were . When readers are deciding whether to read your dissertation or thesis, the abstract is the first part they’ll consider. 

The second purpose of the abstract is to  inform search engines and dissertation databases  as they index your dissertation or thesis. The keywords and phrases in your abstract (as well as your keyword list) will often be used by these search engines to categorize your work and make it accessible to users. 

Simply put, your abstract is your shopfront display window – it’s what passers-by (both human and digital) will look at before deciding to step inside. 

Why’s it so important?

The short answer – because most people don’t have time to read your full dissertation or thesis! Time is money, after all…

If you think back to when you undertook your literature review , you’ll quickly realise just how important abstracts are! Researchers reviewing the literature on any given topic face a mountain of reading, so they need to optimise their approach. A good dissertation abstract gives the reader a “TLDR” version of your work – it helps them decide whether to continue to read it in its entirety. So, your abstract, as your shopfront display window, needs to “sell” your research to time-poor readers.

You might be thinking, “but I don’t plan to publish my dissertation”. Even so, you still need to provide an impactful abstract for your markers. Your ability to concisely summarise your work is one of the things they’re assessing, so it’s vital to invest time and effort into crafting an enticing shop window.  

A good abstract also has an added purpose for grad students . As a freshly minted graduate, your dissertation or thesis is often your most significant professional accomplishment and highlights where your unique expertise lies. Potential employers who want to know about this expertise are likely to only read the abstract (as opposed to reading your entire document) – so it needs to be good!

Think about it this way – if your thesis or dissertation were a book, then the abstract would be the blurb on the back cover. For better or worse, readers will absolutely judge your book by its cover .

How to write your abstract

As we touched on earlier, your abstract should cover four important aspects of your research: the purpose , methodology , findings , and implications . Therefore, the structure of your dissertation or thesis abstract needs to reflect these four essentials, in the same order.  Let’s take a closer look at each of them, step by step:

Step 1: Describe the purpose and value of your research

Here you need to concisely explain the purpose and value of your research. In other words, you need to explain what your research set out to discover and why that’s important. When stating the purpose of research, you need to clearly discuss the following:

• What were your research aims and research questions ?
• Why were these aims and questions important?

It’s essential to make this section extremely clear, concise and convincing . As the opening section, this is where you’ll “hook” your reader (marker) in and get them interested in your project. If you don’t put in the effort here, you’ll likely lose their interest.

Step 2: Briefly outline your study’s methodology

In this part of your abstract, you need to very briefly explain how you went about answering your research questions . In other words, what research design and methodology you adopted in your research. Some important questions to address here include:

• Did you take a qualitative or quantitative approach ?
• Who/what did your sample consist of?
• How did you collect your data?
• How did you analyse your data?

Simply put, this section needs to address the “ how ” of your research. It doesn’t need to be lengthy (this is just a summary, after all), but it should clearly address the four questions above.

Need a helping hand?

Step 3: Present your key findings

Next, you need to briefly highlight the key findings . Your research likely produced a wealth of data and findings, so there may be a temptation to ramble here. However, this section is just about the key findings – in other words, the answers to the original questions that you set out to address.

Again, brevity and clarity are important here. You need to concisely present the most important findings for your reader.

Step 4: Describe the implications of your research

Have you ever found yourself reading through a large report, struggling to figure out what all the findings mean in terms of the bigger picture? Well, that’s the purpose of the implications section – to highlight the “so what?” of your research. 

In this part of your abstract, you should address the following questions:

• What is the impact of your research findings on the industry /field investigated? In other words, what’s the impact on the “real world”. 
• What is the impact of your findings on the existing body of knowledge ? For example, do they support the existing research?
• What might your findings mean for future research conducted on your topic?

If you include these four essential ingredients in your dissertation abstract, you’ll be on headed in a good direction.

Example: Dissertation/thesis abstract

Here is an example of an abstract from a master’s thesis, with the purpose , methods , findings , and implications colour coded.

The U.S. citizenship application process is a legal and symbolic journey shaped by many cultural processes. This research project aims to bring to light the experiences of immigrants and citizenship applicants living in Dallas, Texas, to promote a better understanding of Dallas’ increasingly diverse population. Additionally, the purpose of this project is to provide insights to a specific client, the office of Dallas Welcoming Communities and Immigrant Affairs, about Dallas’ lawful permanent residents who are eligible for citizenship and their reasons for pursuing citizenship status . The data for this project was collected through observation at various citizenship workshops and community events, as well as through semi-structured interviews with 14 U.S. citizenship applicants . Reasons for applying for U.S. citizenship discussed in this project include a desire for membership in U.S. society, access to better educational and economic opportunities, improved ease of travel and the desire to vote. Barriers to the citizenship process discussed in this project include the amount of time one must dedicate to the application, lack of clear knowledge about the process and the financial cost of the application. Other themes include the effects of capital on applicant’s experience with the citizenship process, symbolic meanings of citizenship, transnationalism and ideas of deserving and undeserving surrounding the issues of residency and U.S. citizenship. These findings indicate the need for educational resources and mentorship for Dallas-area residents applying for U.S. citizenship, as well as a need for local government programs that foster a sense of community among citizenship applicants and their neighbours.

Practical tips for writing your abstract

When crafting the abstract for your dissertation or thesis, the most powerful technique you can use is to try and put yourself in the shoes of a potential reader. Assume the reader is not an expert in the field, but is interested in the research area. In other words, write for the intelligent layman, not for the seasoned topic expert. 

Start by trying to answer the question “why should I read this dissertation?”

Remember the WWHS.

Make sure you include the  what , why ,  how , and  so what  of your research in your abstract:

• What you studied (who and where are included in this part)
• Why the topic was important
• How you designed your study (i.e. your research methodology)
• So what were the big findings and implications of your research

Keep it simple.

Use terminology appropriate to your field of study, but don’t overload your abstract with big words and jargon that cloud the meaning and make your writing difficult to digest. A good abstract should appeal to all levels of potential readers and should be a (relatively) easy read. Remember, you need to write for the intelligent layman.

Be specific.

When writing your abstract, clearly outline your most important findings and insights and don’t worry about “giving away” too much about your research – there’s no need to withhold information. This is the one way your abstract is not like a blurb on the back of a book – the reader should be able to clearly understand the key takeaways of your thesis or dissertation after reading the abstract. Of course, if they then want more detail, they need to step into the restaurant and try out the menu.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

17 Comments

This was so very useful, thank you Caroline.

Much appreciated.

This information on Abstract for writing a Dissertation was very helpful to me!

This was so useful. Thank you very much.

This was really useful in writing the abstract for my dissertation. Thank you Caroline.

Very clear and helpful information. Thanks so much!

Fabulous information – succinct, simple information which made my life easier after the most stressful and rewarding 21 months of completing this Masters Degree.

Very clear, specific and to the point guidance. Thanks a lot. Keep helping people 🙂

This was very helpful

Thanks for this nice and helping document.

Waw!!, this is a master piece to say the least.

Very helpful and enjoyable

Thank you for sharing the very important and usful information. Best Bahar

Very clear and more understandable way of writing. I am so interested in it. God bless you dearly!!!!

Really, I found the explanation given of great help. The way the information is presented is easy to follow and capture.

Wow! Thank you so much for opening my eyes. This was so helpful to me.

Thanks for this! Very concise and helpful for my ADHD brain.

I am so grateful for the tips. I am very optimistic in coming up with a winning abstract for my dessertation, thanks to you.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Study and research support
• Academic skills

Dissertation examples

Listed below are some of the best examples of research projects and dissertations from undergraduate and taught postgraduate students at the University of Leeds We have not been able to gather examples from all schools. The module requirements for research projects may have changed since these examples were written. Refer to your module guidelines to make sure that you address all of the current assessment criteria. Some of the examples below are only available to access on campus.

• Undergraduate examples
• Taught Masters examples