Flawless Essay Introductions
First impressions matter. In life, in law, in general.
This is why your essay introduction is key.
In my PDF guide, which you can get by inserting your email address at the bottom of the homepage or on the landing page, you will read my advice on how to write a solid introduction to a law essay.
But I think it’s better if I show you two concrete examples of what an almost … flawless essay introduction looks like.
Disclaimer: these were written by one of my first year undergraduate students. All students that have been in the unfortunate position of having been taught by me have heard the advice that you find in my PDF guide over and over again. In other words, I talk to them about essay writing technique (and exams in general) ad nauseam. Their technique did not improve overnight, but through lots of effort and constant feedback from me and their other course leaders.
In any case, I will let the introductions speak for themselves. I hope that by reading them you will come to better understand what I mean when I say that in your essay introduction you need to Paraphrase and Argue, namely paraphrase the essay prompt and state where you stand in relation to it, i.e. what your essay’s thesis will be. Enjoy!
Essay question 1: Describe the relationship between EU law and national law from the perspective of both the ECJ and the UK Supreme Court. Which perspective is preferable and why?
Student answer 1 (essay introduction only, footnotes omitted):
This essay question assumes that, to a certain extent, there exists an active relationship between EU law and the law of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, by referencing the perspectives of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the UK Supreme Court (UKSC), it implies that the dynamic of this relationship has been subject to jurisdictional debate. Most importantly, it predicts that one of these perspectives is more ‘preferable’ than the other. To answer this question effectively, we must assess the current nature of the relationship between these judicatures, exploring concepts such as supremacy, autonomy and legal capacity. Moreover, we ought to define the term ‘preferable,’ and whether it is synonymous with supremacy.
This essay will begin by introducing the supranational and intergovernmental European Union, whose treaties are interpreted and law is ‘observed’ by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. It will claim that Article 267 of the TFEU, acts as an ‘instrument of cooperation’ between the ECJ and UKSC, giving effect to the supremacy of ‘independent' EU law. Taking into account the degree of ‘exceptionalism’ felt by the British, it will conclude that due its democratic legitimacy and supranational ‘dispensation of justice,’the ECJ’s perspective is ‘preferable’.
Essay question 2: Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of judicial review on the grounds of proportionality, drawing examples from UK, EU and ECHR case law.
Student answer 2 (essay introduction only, footnotes omitted):
This essay question implicitly addresses the interrelationship between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU). The advent of the Human Rights Act 1998 not only gave legal effect to certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but brought with it the European standard for judicial review (JR) – the proportionality test. To a certain extent, this question assumes that English courts have welcomed the replacement of the traditional, Wednesbury ‘unreasonableness’ test (WP) with proportionality as the standard for JR – specifically, for cases which, at present, do not concern Community Law or rights infringed under the ECHR. However, the current reality proves slightly different. Although the Courts have acknowledged a ‘degree of assimilation,’ the status of proportionality ‘as an instrument for English judicial review’ of cases outside the scope of the Convention and EU law, ‘is, to say the least, uncertain.’
Thus, this question posits further, underlying questions; has the UK judiciary recognised the arguably, marginal advantages of proportionality? Moreover, will the courts retain the Wednesbury test for non-Convention cases or ‘perform its burial rites’?
This essay will argue that the current judicial scepticism towards proportionality does not ‘exclude the possible future development of the law in this respect.’ It will introduce JR, tracing out the origins of the Wednesbury and proportionality tests, both in the EU and UK common law jurisprudence. It will juxtapose these seemingly ‘interchangeable’ tests, arguing that they are different formulations of the same criteria, both providing a context-specific, intensity review. However, – taking into consideration the prevailing reluctance of the UK judiciary - it will conclude that proportionality is the analytically clearer framework, channelling judicial inquiries in a more transparent and accurate manner.