English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Australian scholars of law and history have duties to the places and institutions in which we practice our activities, to show adequately the conduct of the encounters between laws, and the histories of lives that have experienced those laws. This includes being conscious of the diverse range of records and sources that are needed to tell these law stories (the institutional to the unofficial; film to interview; diary to case law; legislation to memoir). It also means being conscious of the diversity of styles and genres of writing (reports, chronicle and fragments as much as articles, reviews and scholarly monographs) that are required to shape those records into narrations and dissertations that make visible the traditions and innovations of ‘an Australian jurisprudence’.1 For Australian historians of law of the 20th century, the matter of records is something we have perhaps experienced in unique ways to our colleagues

A Matter of Records: The Federal Court, The National Archives and ‘The National Estate’ in the 1970s