header-logo header-logo

04 April 2017
Categories: Movers & Shakers
printer mail-detail

Murray Hunt—Bingham Centre

murray_hunt_high_res

Centre for the Rule of Law appoints new director

The British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) has announced the appointment of Murray Hunt as the director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. Murray will take up his new post on 26 June 2017.

Murray Hunt is the legal adviser to the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights and a visiting professor at the University of Oxford. He is also a practising barrister and was one of the founders of Matrix in London, to which he will be returning as an associate member. He brings extensive practical knowledge and research experience in dealing with rule of law issues both nationally and internationally, especially in the context of the role of parliaments.

Professor Robert McCorquodale, director of BIICL, commented: "We are delighted by this appointment. Murray’s experience of how to apply the rule of law principles will build on the impressive work of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. He brings a thoughtful and dedicated approach to these issues, with a wonderful determination to ensure that the Centre enhances its impact on law and policy worldwide for the protection of the rule of law."

Murray Hunt says: “The Bingham Centre has helped to establish a new global consensus about the importance of the rule of law at both the national and the international level, and an emerging consensus about the meaning of the rule of law as a practical concept. Yet these are dangerous times for the rule of law. The resurgence of authoritarian nationalism across the world, including in mature democracies, is placing ever-growing strain on the institutional machinery on which the rule of law has traditionally depended. However, historical moments of crisis and challenge provide opportunities. I am delighted to have the chance to help the Centre lead the global rule of law project into a new phase in which it not only defends the rule of law against growing threats, but proactively seeks opportunities to advance it. I look forward in particular to working with the Centre’s staff, and its many partners and supporters to enhance the practical implementation of the rule of law, by giving it stronger institutional expression, at the same time as democratising it by building a wider and deeper understanding, amongst politicians, policy makers, businesses, the media and the public, of what a commitment to the rule of law entails.”

Categories: Movers & Shakers
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll