The Assessment in Legal Education book series offers perspectives on assessment in legal education across a range of Common Law jurisdictions. Each volume in the series provides: Information on assessment practices and cultures within a jurisdiction. A sample of innovative assessment practices and designs in a jurisdiction. Insights into how assessment can be used effectively across different areas of law, different stages of legal education and the implications for regulation of legal education assessment. Appreciation of the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research bases that are emerging in the field of legal education assessment generally. Analyses and suggestions of how assessment innovations may be transferred from one jurisdiction to another. The series will be useful for those seeking a summary of the assessment issues facing academics, students, regulators, lawyers and others in the jurisdictions under analysis. The exemplars of assessment contained in each volume may also be valuable in assisting cross-jurisdictional fertilisation of ideas and practices. This first volume focuses on assessment in law schools in England. It begins with an introduction to some recent trends in the culture and practice of legal education assessment. The first chapter focuses on the general regulatory context of assessment and learning in that jurisdiction, while the remainder of the book offers useful exemplars and expert critical discussion of assessment theories and practices. The series is based in the PEARL Centre (Profession, Education and Regulation in Law), in The Australian National University’s College of Law. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22459/CP01.2019

Until the late 20th century, ‘an archive’ generally meant a repository for documents, as well as the generic name for the wide range of documents the repository might hold. An archive could be visited, and then also searched, to discover past actions or lives that had meaning for the present. While historians and historiographers have long understood the contests that archives contain and represent, the very idea of ‘the archive’ has, over the last 40 years, become the subject and object of widening and intensified consideration. This consideration has been intellectual (from scholars in a wide range of disciplines) and public (from communities and individuals whose stories are held captive, or sometimes hidden or excluded from official archives), as well as institutional. It has involved scrutiny and critique of official archives’ limitations and practices, as well as symbolic, affective and theoretical expansion and heightened expectation of what ‘the archive’ is or should be. The very language of ‘the archive’ now carries freight as administrative practice, normative value, metaphor, description and aspiration in different ways than it did in the 20th century. This collection offers a unique contribution to these reinvigorated and sometimes new conversations about what an archive might be, what it can do as a consequence, and to whom it bears custodial responsibilities. In particular, this collection addresses what it means for contemporary Australian superior courts of record to not only have constitutional and procedural duties to documents as a matter of law, but also to acknowledge obligations to care for those materials in a way that understands their public meaning and public value for the Australian people, in the past, in the present and for the future. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22459/CA.2019

This book provides a contemporary overview of developing areas of copyright law in the Asian Pacific region. While noting the tendency towards harmonisation through free trade agreements, the book takes the perspective that there is a significant amount of potential for the nations of the Asian Pacific region to work together, find common ground and shift international bargaining power. Moreover, in so doing, the region can tailor any regional agreements to suit local needs. The book addresses the development of norms in the region and the ways in which this can occur in light of the specific nature of the creator–owner–user paradigm in the region and the common interests of Indigenous peoples. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22459/MCWAP.10.2018