Just Security Submission Guidelines

Key takeaways

• Just Security publishes short, argument-driven analysis of national security law and policy, usually tied to a live legal development.
• A working pitch states one claim, names the news peg and its date, lists the primary sources behind it, and runs under 300 words.
• Editors expect hyperlinked primary sources, disclosed conflicts, and a draft that answers the strongest counterargument.
• Speed matters at this length. Authors who can turn revisions around within 48 hours place more pieces.
• Just Security is one of several outlets in this field. Lawfare, War on the Rocks, Foreign Affairs, and the academic law blogs suit different arguments, lengths, and career stages.

1. Introduction

A court ruling lands on a Friday afternoon. Within hours, several analyses appear on what it means for executive power, surveillance, or the law of armed conflict. Just Security is one of the places where those pieces run, and it has become a standard citation for journalists and policy staff who need a legal read on a fast-moving story.

Editors there turn down well-credentialed authors for predictable reasons. A draft summarizes a report without arguing about it. A piece arrives two weeks after the decision it responds to. The first 500 words explain a statute to readers who already know it. The site's submissions page tells you where to send a pitch. It does not tell you which arguments the editors want, how long a Just Security submission should run, how fast revisions happen, or when a different outlet is the better home.

This guide covers what the publication looks for, how to structure a pitch, what the editing process involves, and how the outlet compares with its neighbors, so you can put a piece where it will land. A note on specifics: submission details change as editorial staff change, so the current page on the site remains the authority on where and how to send material.

2. What Just Security publishes, and what it turns down

A successful piece makes one claim and supports it with law, documents, or direct experience. The audience is lawyers, government officials, journalists, and academics who follow national security policy closely enough to want the legal reasoning, not a summary of the news.

Topic range:

• National security law and executive power
• Surveillance, privacy, and data policy
• Law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law
• Cybersecurity, sanctions, and export controls
• Democracy, elections, and the rule of law
• Human rights, military justice, and accountability
• Technology governance when a statute, case, or regulation is involved

Format expectations that follow from the house style:

• Length. A practical target is 1,200 to 1,800 words. Rapid responses to a ruling or an executive order can run 800 to 1,000. Drafts past 2,500 words usually come back with a request to cut.
• Citations. Hyperlinks to primary sources replace footnotes. Court filings, statutes, official reports, and transcripts carry more weight than news coverage.
• Structure. Short paragraphs, plain language, few or no subheadings. Many published pieces run without any.
• Voice. First person works when the author took part in the events being described. Otherwise the argument should carry the piece.

What gets rejected tends to fall into four groups: a summary of a report with no claim attached; an argument whose conclusion is that something is concerning; a law review article with footnotes left in place; and a piece pegged to an event that stopped being news a week ago.

One boundary condition is worth stating plainly. If the argument needs 6,000 words of doctrinal groundwork before it makes sense, the piece belongs in a law review or an academic blog. Just Security trades on speed and reach, and both shrink as length grows.

A test to run before you write: state the claim in one sentence, then state why a well-informed reader would disagree with it. If you cannot produce the second sentence, you have a topic rather than an argument.

3. Writing a pitch that gets a yes

Editors decide on the claim rather than the topic. "I would like to write about the new sanctions package" gives them nothing to evaluate. "The new sanctions package gives Treasury authority it cannot legally use against secondary banks" gives them something to accept or reject.

A pitch that works carries five elements:

Keep the pitch between 150 and 300 words. Paste links inline. Skip attachments unless an editor asks for the draft.

Timing decides more outcomes than prose quality does. When a decision drops, editors need legal context within a day, so pitch the same afternoon and offer to file within 24 hours. For an issue that has been building for months, such as a statute approaching renewal or a case heading to argument, pitch a week or two ahead and name the date you are aiming at.

First-time authors face a tradeoff. A complete draft can win a slot on a breaking story. Sending 2,000 unsolicited words to a small editorial team wastes everyone's time if the angle is wrong. Pitch first, and mention that a draft is ready to send within the hour.

Three habits get pitches ignored: describing a topic instead of a claim, sending the same pitch to two editors at the same outlet, and opening with a paragraph about what you intend to argue.

4. The editorial process, from acceptance to publication

Expect substantive editing. Editors cut for readers who know the basics of the law but not your specialty, and the cuts often start in the first two paragraphs.

The path from acceptance to publication:

1. An editor reviews the pitch and confirms length, angle, and deadline.
2. You file a draft. The editor may restructure the opening, cut background, or ask you to sharpen the claim earlier in the piece.
3. Fact-checking begins. Editors ask for links to every factual assertion. Keep a running source list as you write; assembling one afterward takes longer than the draft did.
4. Legal and conflict review. If you are involved in related litigation, represent a party, or hold a government or consulting role connected to the topic, say so when you pitch.
5. Headline and framing. Editors write or revise headlines and may add a note that the views belong to the author.
6. Publication. The outlet handles distribution, and authors share the piece through their own networks.

Response times vary with the news cycle. A pitch pegged to a same-day event often gets an answer within hours. An evergreen idea can sit for a week or more, and silence is a decision. After a week, send one short follow-up and then move on.

Two rounds of revision is normal. Block the 48 hours after you file. Authors who go quiet for three days during a live story usually lose the slot, whatever the quality of the draft.

On exclusivity, these outlets generally want original material. If a version of the piece ran elsewhere, or if you plan to run it elsewhere afterward, raise that before publication rather than after. Editors can handle it with a note, and most agree when asked in advance.

5. How Just Security compares with other outlets

Choosing between outlets comes down to the peg, the length the argument needs, and the reader you want to reach.

A few distinctions that matter in practice:

Career stage. Early-career lawyers, graduate students, and postdocs place pieces at Just Security and Lawfare when they have a genuine legal insight and a live peg. Foreign Affairs usually expects a public profile built over years. War on the Rocks favors authors with operational or policy experience.

Region. The outlets above are US-centric in readership and in the pegs they chase. Authors writing on international humanitarian law or treaty interpretation from outside the United States often get more traction at EJIL:Talk! or Opinio Juris, where readers work on the same doctrinal questions, then use Just Security for the policy angle once a vote or a decision makes the topic timely.

Timeliness. Just Security and Lawfare compete on speed. Foreign Affairs competes on durability. A piece that will still matter in six months fits Foreign Affairs; a piece explaining a decision issued this morning does not.

Technology policy sits awkwardly across these categories, since legal outlets cover it only when a case or a statute is involved, and general policy outlets cover it without the legal detail. Global Tech Observatory (globaltechobs.com) publishes commentary aimed at that gap. Its readership is smaller than the law-and-security publications, and it carries less weight with lawyers looking for doctrinal authority, so it works best alongside a submission to a legal outlet rather than instead of one when the piece has a legal core.

6. FAQ

Q1. Does Just Security accept pitches from authors without academic affiliations?

Yes. Editors work with practitioners, government lawyers, journalists, and independent researchers alongside professors. What gets evaluated is whether the piece makes a supportable claim about a current legal question. The submissions page on the site lists where to send a pitch and any requirements that have changed.

Q2. How long should a Just Security submission be?

Aim for 1,200 to 1,800 words. Rapid responses to a ruling can run shorter. If a draft passes 2,500 words, find the passages that restate background the reader already has, since those are the first cuts an editor will make.

Q3. Can I publish the same piece somewhere else?

Most outlets in this field want original material and ask for exclusivity at publication. Cross-posting after the fact is often acceptable if you ask first, and editors will usually add a line noting where the piece first appeared. Sending the same draft to two outlets at once without saying so risks losing both.

Q4. How long does the process take?

For a piece tied to a breaking development, a pitch can be accepted and published within a day or two. For a topic with a scheduled date attached, such as a court argument or a legislative vote, expect one to two weeks from pitch to publication. Plan the timeline from the event you are pegging to, not from the day you finish writing.

7. Conclusion

Just Security rewards a narrow claim, a live peg, and an author who can revise quickly. The mechanics matter less than the fit: one sentence of argument, primary sources linked, conflicts disclosed, and a draft that arrives while the story is still moving. When an argument needs more room or more doctrine than 1,800 words allows, Lawfare and the academic law blogs are stronger homes, and technology governance arguments without a legal hook fit better at a policy-focused outlet. Write the claim first, gather sources while you draft, and keep two days clear after you file. The editorial calendar moves with the news, and the pieces that publish are usually the ones that reached an editor while the legal question was still open.