Editorial
| Date | 01 July 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2005.9.3.155 |
| Published date | 01 July 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 155
EDITORIAL
EDITORIAL
It is 10 years, almost to the day, since I received an unexpected telephone call from
Mike McConville inviting me to join the editorial board of a new journal he was
about to launch with Blackstone Press. Like all inspired ideas, the wisdom of creating
E & P seems obvious in retrospect. The practical importance of evidence, proof, and
procedure, both in civil and in criminal proceedings, has never been seriously doubted,
notwithstanding the somewhat marginalised status of process and procedure in
British law schools. Since the mid-1980s, moreover, an expanding corpus of ‘New
Evidence Scholarship’ has been exploring the theoretical dimensions of evidence
and proof and promoting the Law of Evidence as a topic of renewed intellectual
excitement and vigorous, interdisciplinary, scholarly debate. Of course, the leading
generalist law journals regularly feature articles on evidence law. But a scholarly
periodical exclusively devoted to exploring the full spectrum of evidentiary issues
was at that time conspicuous by its absence. E & P was launched in order to fill a
patent and longstanding void in English-language legal literature.
Ten years on, E & P’s primary objectives remain substantially unchanged. The
International Journal of Evidence and Proof aims to be a truly international,
interdisciplinary forum for reporting, evaluating and debating the latest
developments in evidence law, proof and procedure and reflecting on the ethical,
epistemological and jurisprudential foundations of the discipline of Evidence, broadly
conceived. As a peer-reviewed academic journal, we aim to publish articles, case
notes and reviews of the highest calibre on any topic of evidentiary significance.
Contributions may address any type of legal process (civil, criminal, administrative,
disciplinary, etc.), and may relate to any legal jurisdiction, whether municipal,
international, regional, or global. Orthodox methodologies and critical perspectives
are equally welcome. It is perhaps inevitable that a UK-based journal will exhibit
something of a bias towards English law. Still, the pages of E & P have regularly
featured contributions relating to developments in other major common law
jurisdictions, seasoned with a smattering of references to less well-documented legal
systems and more faraway places. Fostering an extended, more inclusive international
conversation on evidence and proof, embracing (for example) eastern European, Asian,
African, and Islamic voices that are seldom heard in, broadly speaking, Anglo-
American evidence scholarship, remains a key aspiration.
Remarkably, the composition of E & P’s Editorial Board has hardly changed much
(2005) 9 E&P 155–157
To continue reading
Request your trial