Research Outputs

Navigating “Structured Ambivalence” Amid Global Crises A TWAIL Conference Report

by Jake Effoduh. Osgoode Hall Law School of York University buzzed with critical energy on September 5–6, 2025, as it hosted a landmark international conference titled:

 “A Structured Ambivalence? A Multidisciplinary International Conference on Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and Governance in a Time of Global Crises.”

The gathering convened renowned TWAIL pioneers alongside emerging scholars from around the world to interrogate how international law responds to today’s intertwined global emergencies. Over two intense days of dialogue, participants grappled with issues ranging from war and racial injustice to climate change, migration, and the governance of artificial intelligence, all through the critical lens of TWAIL’s commitment to amplifying Third World perspectives.

Confronting Crises Through a TWAIL Lens

Opening remarks by conference conveners, Professors Obiora Okafor (Johns Hopkins SAIS/Osgoode Hall Law School) and Sylvia Bawa (York University), set the tone. They reminded the audience that international law has long been a “discipline of crisis,” historically shaped by events like world wars, 9/11, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet these crises are rarely wholly unprecedented, “history hardly ever ruptures… the ‘new’ is almost always just ‘seemingly new’”. The conference’s central theme of “structured ambivalence” directly engaged this idea, inviting debate on how current global upheavals are embedded in enduring patterns of inequality.

Structured ambivalence, as discussed at the conference, refers to contradictions that are “built into roles and institutions” of global governance, not mere indecision or inconsistency, but “patterned, institutionalized double-binds” that force actors to pursue incompatible goals simultaneously. A guiding question was whether this concept helps explain the puzzling responses of many Global South states to crises like the Ukraine and Gaza wars or the climate emergency. Why, for example, have a significant number of Global South governments appeared ambivalent (or even resistant) toward certain Western-led international legal responses? What does this ambivalence reveal about longstanding power structures, and could it paradoxically be harnessed as a tool of resistance? Throughout the conference, scholars endeavoured to answer these questions, examining “what insights the concept of ‘structured ambivalence’ offers (or fails to offer) about the international legal order today.”

York’s Dean Trevor Farrow, in a welcome address, highlighted the timeliness of this gathering in a world beset by “intensifying global crises”. Those crises were on full display in panel discussions: from hot wars and refugee crises to climate disasters and economic exploitation. A crucial insight framing the conversations was that today’s emergencies (whether the devastating conflict in Palestine, the mass displacement of peoples, or the existential threat of climate change) are not isolated events but symptoms of an international system historically structured by inequities.

Read the complete report here

Bridging Disability Accommodations from Law School to Legal Practice

In May 2025, Roxanne Mykitiuk and Janet Mosher hosted a one-day symposium that brought together students, lawyers, educators, and administrators to examine a pressing issue in legal education and the profession: how to ensure meaningful disability accommodations from the classroom to clinical placements, through articling, and into early practice. Titled “Access to and within Clinical Legal Education: Bridging Disability Accommodations from Clinical Education Programs to Practice,” the event created space for candid conversation and collective problem-solving.

Funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Connections Grant, and supported by the Nathanson Centre and several York University partners, the symposium had four main goals:

1. Share emerging research findings on the accommodation experiences of law students with disabilities in Ontario.
2. Build a diverse community committed to disability inclusion in legal education and practice.
3. Identify systemic gaps and barriers in existing accommodation frameworks.
4. Reimagine how institutions and the profession can embed accessibility and equity as core values.

Research findings: barriers and opportunities

The keynote presentation highlighted qualitative research with 23 law students from two Ontario law schools. Most participants identified as having invisible disabilities, and while many were registered with campus accessibility offices, only about one-third formally requested accommodations in their clinical placements.

Why the gap? Students pointed to stigma, confusing processes, and the emotional burden of disclosure. Many worried about being perceived as a burden or less capable. As a result, they often relied on informal supports such as peer networks or self-management strategies rather than official channels.

Despite these challenges, students recognized the value of clinical programs. When supervisors offered empathy, flexibility, and practical support, students felt more confident in their professional capacities. Some even identified their disabilities as assets, giving them unique perspectives, problem-solving approaches, and stronger client rapport. The research concluded with recommendations to normalize accommodations, streamline processes, encourage open communication, and recognize the professional contributions of disabled students.

Clinical education: navigating systemic challenges

The first panel featured law students and recent graduates who reflected on their experiences in clinical programs. They emphasized the stark differences between classroom-based and practice-based settings. While courses follow predictable schedules and established accommodation policies, clinics involve real clients, unpredictable workloads, and supervisors with varying levels of understanding about accessibility.

Students described the difficulty of navigating unclear processes and the reluctance to request accommodations for fear of “creating problems.” They called for clearer articulation of bona fide academic requirements, destigmatization of accommodations, and stronger communication between students and supervisors.

A working session built on these reflections by identifying five key areas: awareness, ableism, supports, roles, and structural barriers. Participants stressed the need for proactive communication, inclusive orientation practices, peer and professional mentorship networks, and streamlined pathways to request accommodations. They also urged law schools to take greater responsibility for vetting placement sites and ensuring accessibility by design.

Transition to practice: articling and beyond

The second panel examined the transition from law school to articling and early career practice. Here, barriers became even more pronounced. Students reported a lack of information about accommodation processes, structural inequities in the articling system, and an often-hostile licensing process.

The Law Society of Ontario’s bar exams drew particularly sharp criticism: they were described as high-stakes, rigid, and financially burdensome. Students with disabilities often avoided seeking accommodations due to stigma or bureaucratic hurdles, with some abandoning legal careers altogether as a result.

In professional environments, ableist norms equating productivity with long hours and billable targets created further obstacles. By contrast, clinical education—focused on teamwork and client needs—was seen as a model of inclusive practice. Panelists called for a reimagining of legal professionalism, one that values diverse contributions and lived experience rather than narrow metrics of performance.

Building best practices and a vision for the future

In subsequent working sessions, participants developed best practices for supporting lawyers with disabilities after graduation. They pointed to the persistence of institutional ableism in recruitment, licensing, and workplace culture, and called for regulatory reform. Ideas included alternative licensing pathways, flexible assessment methods, and universal design approaches to work structures like billing. Mentorship from lawyers with disabilities was consistently identified as a key tool for building belonging and modeling inclusive practices.

The final session turned toward the future, emphasizing enhanced communication, clarification of bona fide requirements, embedding universal design, and the need for more research. Participants envisioned national networks of law schools to share best practices, greater transparency around accommodation processes, and active leadership from regulators like the Law Society of Ontario.

Moving forward

The symposium made clear that bridging disability accommodations across the continuum of legal education and practice requires systemic change. This includes:

• Normalizing accommodations as a routine part of professional life.
• Clarifying essential requirements while questioning outdated traditions.
• Building peer and professional mentorship networks.
• Embedding universal design into policies, recruitment, and workplace culture.
• Strengthening communication between students, schools, placement sites, regulators, and employers.
• Expanding research to capture diverse experiences and track outcomes over time.

The day ended with a shared recognition: dialogue is important, but action is essential. Law schools, regulators, and employers must commit to translating insights into concrete reforms that make accessibility a foundational principle of legal education and practice. Only then can the profession truly reflect the diversity of those it serves.

The final report from the event can be found here

BIG CRIME, BIG POLICING: ALL ABOUT BIG MONEY?

Following money over national borders, banking systems, casinos, and free trade zones, as well as the world of the corrupt elites, Big Crime and Big Policing brings new scholarly and practical insights into our understanding of the interplay of money, crime, and policing on the grand scale.

In this wide-ranging volume, a mixed group of scholars and practitioners aims to show how money dictates the scope and nature of financial and corporate crimes, and the impact of these crimes on national economies, social institutions, and communal well-being. The book examines how the combined efforts of governments and international organizations fail to stop financial crime at its source and, despite apparently generous human and financial resources, the efforts of police and other law enforcement actors ultimately fall short of defeating big crime and of meeting public safety needs. International in scope, Big Crime and Big Policing provides fresh reflection on significant problems of our age that demand greater attention from governments and the public.

This invited volume pays tribute to Dr Margaret E. Beare, founding Director of the Nathanson Centre and professor at Osgoode and in the Sociology Department of York University for many years.

Book editors are: Tonita Murray, independent researcher and police reform consultant; Dr Elizabeth Kirley, professor at Osgoode’s Professional Development LLM  program and called to the Ontario bar; and Dr Stephen Schneider, professor in the Department of Criminology at Saint Mary’s University.

Multinational Joint Task Force: Lessons for Comprehensive Regional Approaches to Cross-Border Conflict in Africa

The recent proliferation of cross-border conflicts in Africa has led to the establishment of multiple Ad Hoc Security Initiatives (ASIs) on the continent. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives has varied considerably. As such, there is now increased academic and policy interest in the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF), which has seen substantial operational success over the course of its mandate. This paper seeks to contribute to the debate on the strengths and weaknesses of the MNJTF model and the effectiveness of the Force in the Lake Chad region through an exploration of the MNJTF from an internal perspective. The authors of this paper have both worked closely with the MNJTF in recent years and the paper is based upon interviews with current and former MNJTF personnel, staff of the Lake Chad Basin Commission (which oversees the MNJTF) as well as donor and UN partners. In exploring this internal perspective, the article undertakes an in-depth examination of the MNJTF, including the relationship between the headquarters and the sectors, and assesses the impact the MNJTF has had upon the Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs). It identifies areas where the MNJTF has become a regional hub of best practice, challenges that have compromised its effectiveness, and the impact of military diplomacy on the security of the region. Finally, it concludes by drawing lessons from this experience for other conflicts requiring a comprehensive regional and international response.

Read More

Addressing the Sustainability Impacts of Corporations – Summaries of Panels

Osgoode professor to study expert evidence and trial delays in criminal courts

Palma Paciocco hopes to offer guidance to lawyers and jurists on best practices.