Hostname: page-component-5ffc9858b4-8b2qz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-24T10:53:21.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rights, Gender and Family Law. Edited by Julie Wallbank, Shazia Choudhry and Jonathan Herring, Abingdon: Routledge, 2010. 292 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-48267-7 £80.00 hardback, £27.99 paperback

Review products

Rights, Gender and Family Law. Edited by Julie Wallbank, Shazia Choudhry and Jonathan Herring, Abingdon: Routledge, 2010. 292 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-48267-7 £80.00 hardback, £27.99 paperback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2012

Rosemary Hunter
Rosemary Hunter*
Affiliation:
Law School, University of Kent
*
r.c.hunter@kent.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book reviews
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 8 , Special Issue 2: Family – An International Affair , June 2012 , pp. 331 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hitchings, Emma (2010) ‘The Impact of Recent Ancillary Relief Jurisprudence in the “Everyday” Ancillary Relief Case’, Child and Family Law Quarterly 22: 93–114.Google Scholar
Leckey, Robert (2008) Contextual Subjects: Family, State and Relational Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, Catriona and Stoljar, Natalie (eds) (2000) Relational Autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer (1989) ‘Reconceiving Autonomy: Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities’, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 1: 7–16.Google Scholar