About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


33 Eur. J. Int'l L. 1 (2022)

handle is hein.journals/eurint33 and id is 1 raw text is: The European Journal of International Law Vol. 33 no. 1 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of EJIL Ltd. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com Letters to the Editors Gender in International Law Syllabi Dear Editors, '[T]here are things each of us can do, even if small, and opportunities that we have to act when we encounter the barriers confronting women in academia', declare Grainne de Bdrca, Michaela Hailbronner and Marcela Prieto Rudolphy in 2020 in EJIL (volume 31:2). One opportunity to act is: (1) to examine to what extent law syllabi ex- clude female-authored materials (works with at least one female author to include female-only and female/male teams) as mandatory readings, (2) to explore rea- sons why and (3) to propose solutions. My findings, after analysing academic year 2021/2022 online publicly avail- able syllabi of one randomly selected and typical European institution pro- viding education in international law, indicate that law syllabi must be exam- ined. In reviewing the 460 authored- identified mandatory readings on the institution's 11 online publicly available syllabi, I found that over 80 per cent of the syllabi limit female-only authored readings to single digits (and no syllabus limiting male-only authored papers to single digits). And, indeed, one syllabus completely excludes female-authored materials. Dear Reader, do my findings reflect the norm in your institution? Why might such practices of exclud- ing female-authored materials from syllabi occur? EJIL (2022), Vol. 33 No. 1, 1-2 - Is it because no or few women write (and are published) in the international legal arena? Is it because the quality of male- authored materials is higher than female-authored materials? Is it because mandatory readings in syllabi are limited to materials authored during the years that law schools excluded (or sub- stantially excluded) women as students? Is it because mandatory readings in syllabi are limited to materials authored during the years that law schools exclude or excluded (or substantially exclude or ex- cluded) women as law professors? If the answers to all four of these ques- tions are 'no', then what other explan- ations might there be? What about the elephant-in-the-room question? Might the explanation for the gender gap' in syllabi be as simple as whether the professor is female or male? When researching syllabi in a different arena (civil-military relations), I found male professors exist who include more female-authored materials in their syl- labi than do female professors ['The State of Civil-Military Relations Education: Falling Short?', 6 Hemisferio, 2020]. Yet for the institution whose inter- national law syllabi I analysed, the an- swer appears to be 'yes'. All syllabi are https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chacOl 1