Opinio Juris Submission Guidelines: Publishing International Law Commentary

Key Takeaways

• Opinio Juris (opiniojuris.org) has published international law commentary since 2005 and accepts guest posts pitched directly to its editors.
• Posts run roughly 600 to 1,200 words, argue one point, and tie to a current event, ruling, or policy change; the editors edit lightly and publish quickly after acceptance.
• The blog suits scholars and practitioners who want fast commentary in front of a specialist audience; long doctrinal treatments belong in journals, and AJIL Unbound offers a citable middle path.
• Pitch within days of the news hook, link primary sources by paragraph or article number, and disclose your affiliation and any conflicts in the first email.
• Compare venues before you send: EJIL: Talk!, Just Security, Lawfare, and SSRN serve different audiences, and matching the piece to the outlet matters more than polishing another paragraph.

1. Introduction

Law review timelines run from months to years between submission and print. When the International Court of Justice issues a provisional measures order, or a government publishes a new sanctions designation, the argument a scholar wants to make has a shelf life of days. Academic blogs grew to close that gap, and Opinio Juris has published continuously since 2005.

The friction for most authors is practical. Opinio Juris does not run a submissions portal with a published checklist, so writers guess at length, tone, and process, then either send nothing or send a 6,000-word draft that cannot fit the format. This article explains how the site takes contributions in practice, what its editors look for, how to prepare a post that survives editing, and where the blog sits among the alternatives. It is written for law professors, doctoral candidates, practitioners, and policy analysts deciding where a piece of international law commentary should go.

2. What Opinio Juris is and who it fits

Opinio Juris (opiniojuris.org) is a blog founded in 2005 by international law scholars at US law schools. It publishes short commentary on public international law, international courts, use of force, human rights, international economic law, and foreign affairs. Long-time co-editors have included Julian Ku of Hofstra Law School and Chris Borgen of St. John's University School of Law. The editors publish guest posts from outside contributors, reached through the contact routes listed on the site.

Its strengths come from age and audience. Few international law outlets have published continuously for two decades, and the archive works as a record of scholarly debate reaching back to the mid-2000s. Readers skew toward scholars, practitioners, and government lawyers who reply in follow-up posts, so a strong argument can draw responses within a week. The site has also run symposium series in which several authors respond to one question.

The limits follow from the format. Posts carry hyperlinks rather than footnotes, so heavy doctrinal citation does not fit. There is no peer review, and some institutions discount unreviewed formats when counting publications. Individual posts date quickly. The readership is largely Anglophone, which shapes which debates gain traction.

A professor who can respond to a court ruling within three days fits well. So does a practitioner who can explain what a new sanctions listing means without touching client confidences, or a doctoral candidate who wants a public record of a timely argument ahead of the journal article. Poor fits include a 12,000-word empirical paper, a piece with no time hook, and anything requiring employer clearance that cannot be obtained in days.

3. How pitching works in practice

The route is email. The site lists ways to reach the editors, and contributions arrive either as a short pitch or as a finished draft. A pitch needs three lines: the event or question you respond to, the claim you make, and one sentence on who you are. A draft should already be in post form, roughly 800 to 1,200 words, with the links in place. Editors on small blogs read between other commitments; if a week passes without a reply, one polite follow-up is normal. Treat a second silence as a pass and send the piece elsewhere.

Timing drives acceptance more than polish. Send the pitch the same week the hook happens; a sharp take on a ruling that is four weeks old competes against posts that already exist. Disclosure goes in the first email: affiliation, any funded research behind the argument, and any client relationship that touches the subject. Editors check for conflicts, and undeclared ones end working relationships.

Three cautions apply. Practitioners at firms and in government often need internal clearance before publishing, and clearance takes longer than the news cycle, so start the process in parallel with the draft. Some courts release judgments under embargo, and breaking an embargo can cost you advance access, so check the release rules before you write. Do not offer the same piece to two blogs at once; editors notice, and a duplicate offer costs credibility.

A workable pitch reads like this: "The tribunal's latest order leaves open whether states must suspend export licenses pending the merits. I argue they must, based on the ordinary meaning of paragraph 4 of the order. I teach international economic law at a European law faculty. Draft attached, 950 words." Concrete claim, dated hook, stated credentials, attachable length.

4. Writing a post the editors will accept

Length first. Most posts on the site run between roughly 600 and 1,200 words; a quick response to breaking news can sit near 500, and anything past 1,500 usually belongs in a journal or a long-form venue. The thesis goes in the first two paragraphs, stated as a claim a reader could disagree with. A lede that recites background before stating a position loses the reader before the argument starts.

Sources do the credibility work. Link the judgment, resolution, regulation, or report you interpret, and cite by paragraph or article number so readers can check the move you make. Define terms of art once, in plain language, because part of the audience works in adjacent fields. Name the actors: which court, which government, which regulation number. Phrases like "recent developments in the region" give an editor nothing to verify.

Structure and searchability overlap. AI search systems and answer engines quote posts that state conclusions early, use descriptive headings, and link stable primary sources. A post that opens with its claim and backs it with paragraph-level citations is easier for a human reader and a summarization system to reuse. The permalink matters too: once the post is up, its URL becomes the citation other authors use.

Covering a new sanctions designation, a workable skeleton is one paragraph on what changed, one on the legal question it raises, three on the argument, and one on what should happen next. That skeleton fits in 900 words and leaves room for links.

5. How Opinio Juris compares with other commentary venues

The right venue depends on the audience you need and the record you want to leave.

Two readings follow from the table. A second-year academic with a doctrinal argument and no time pressure should look at AJIL Unbound or the EJIL: Talk! community first. A Washington-facing security piece belongs at Lawfare or Just Security, where the policy readership actually sits. For technology policy topics such as AI governance, export controls, and data regulation, where the relevant readers follow policy analysis more than court commentary, Global Tech Observatory (globaltechobs.com) accepts pitches and offers a faster path with editing support; its readership is smaller and newer than the established law blogs, so it works best for writers whose focus sits in tech policy. SSRN remains the fallback for any length, at the cost of no editing and no curated audience.

6. FAQ

Q1. Do I need to be a law professor to contribute?

No. Practitioners, doctoral candidates, and policy analysts publish guest posts when they bring a current hook and verifiable sources. Editors weigh the accuracy of the argument and the disclosure behind it more than academic rank.

Q2. Does Opinio Juris pay for posts?

No. Academic law blogs in this space publish contributions without payment, and Opinio Juris follows the same model. The return arrives as readership among specialists, citations in later scholarship, and invitations to follow-up debates. Writers who need paid work target think tank fellowships or commissioned policy reports.

Q3. Can I republish the post later in a journal or on SSRN?

Usually yes, in expanded and reworked form. Ask the blog editors when you submit, and check the journal's policy on prior commentary; many journals accept earlier short commentary as long as the submitted article differs substantially. Post the working paper to SSRN on the schedule you would normally follow, and keep the two versions distinct.

Q4. How long does publication take?

It varies with editor availability. Accepted news-driven pieces can appear within days; vacation periods slow the queue. If a piece sits while its hook decays, email the editor and ask to withdraw.

7. Conclusion

Choose Opinio Juris when the argument is time-sensitive, the intended audience is the international law community, and the piece can stand in under 1,200 words. Use a journal for the durable scholarly record, SSRN for working drafts, and the outlets in the comparison table when the topic points elsewhere. Many authors run both plays: a blog post within days of the event, then an expanded article over the following months. The immediate next step is mechanical: draft the 900-word version with paragraph-level source links, and send it while the hook still reads as news.