When founded in 1952, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) was unique. It was the only journal which offered the reader coverage of comparative law as well as public and private international law. It has maintained its pre-eminence as one of the most important journals of its kind encompassing Human Rights and European Law. It continues to offer practitioners and academics wide topical coverage without compromising rigorous editorial standards.

Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org) is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the world’s leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org.

Note: This article is a review of another work, such as a book, film, musical composition, etc. The original work is not included in the purchase of this review.

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
The International and Comparative Law Quarterly © 2009 Cambridge University Press
Request Permissions