In this chapter, we look at the basics of referencing and citation: the conventional ways of identifying our sources and for showing where we have applied them in our work. Referencing conventions are catalogued in a relatively small number of documentation styles that are common across different academic disciplines – for example, APA 7, Chicago 17 and MLA 9 styles, which are outlined in this chapter. The chapter is organised in seven different parts. First, we explore the reasons for referencing in academic writing and we look at the different documentation styles used to format references and citations. Next, we survey the essential features that make up a reference and offer some ways of dealing with sources that may not conform to standard referencing templates. We provide detailed instructions on presenting references and citations in the APA 7, Chicago 17 and MLA 9 styles, including using in-text citations and discursive footnotes. The final part of the chapter looks at composing and formatting reference lists.

This chapter takes a step closer to legal writing on Article 2(4) and cyberattacks, and considers the use of consensus claims: specifically, claims that there is 'general acceptance' of, 'unanimity' on, or 'a majority view' with regard to the meaning of the prohibition as armed force. It asks what is invoked when these kinds of claims are made, and seeks to account for what consensus claims signify in legal writing. The chapter then proceeds by looking at the footnotes following these claims. The ‘sources’ these footnotes list seemingly function to substantiate the consensus claim. However, as shown in the chapter appendix, in order to support their consensus claims scholars largely refer to the same publicists. Using the notion of “concept symbols” as coined by Henry Small, the chapter seeks to account for the function of these references to the most-cited scholars, and how they turn into the bearers of majority opinion. The chapter concludes that even though one single reference can appear to be quite innocuous, when considered as a more widespread practice it seriously impacts who gets a say – and thus, ultimately, what we know – in international law.

By mid-century, novel readers began to expect a printed framework for reading prose narrative consisting of cues such as page numbers, catchwords, chapter divisions and notes. This chapter tells the backstory of this navigational framework of the eighteenth-century novel that Sterne disrupts, before analysing his experimentation with mise en page. This study of Sterne’s manipulation of seemingly untouchable conventions of the printed page, such as pagination and catchwords, complements an approach to his more widely recognised interference with footnotes and chapters, and reveals the full extent of Sterne’s pioneering disruption of the format of the eighteenth-century book. I argue that Sterne’s innovations with footnotes, catchwords, chapters and pagination combine aspects of Scriblerian satire with more recent but perhaps lesser-known interventions in the codex by Thomas Amory in John Buncle (1756). Unlike Swift and Pope, however, and like Amory, Sterne deploys footnotes in the first edition of Tristram Shandy, encouraging the reader to approach at once all sections of the page in search of meaning and raising questions about literary authority from the outset.