Columbia Law Review
academic journal
The Columbia Law Review is a law review edited and published by students at Columbia Law School. The journal publishes scholarly articles, essays, and student notes.
It was established in 1901 by Joseph E. Corrigan, who served as the review's first editor-in-chief, and John M. Woolsey, who served as its first secretary. The Columbia Law Review is one of four law reviews that publishes the Bluebook.
History
The Columbia Law Review represents the school's third attempt at a student-run law periodical. In 1885, the Columbia Jurist was founded by a group of six students but ceased publication in 1887. Despite its short run, the Jurist is credited with partially inspiring the creation of the Harvard Law Review, which began publication a short time later.
The second journal, the Columbia Law Times was founded in 1887 and closed down in 1893 due to lack of revenue.
Publication of the current Columbia Law Review began in 1901, making it the fifth oldest surviving law review in the US. Dean William Keener took an active involvement during its founding to help ensure its longevity.
Nakba article
In June 2024, the journal published an article by Rabea Eghbariah, a Palestinian human rights lawyer, titled "Toward Nakba as a Legal Concept", which criticizes the "brutally sophisticated regime of oppression" of Palestinians "[a]cross Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem, and refugee camps" by the Israeli government.
“Columbia Law Review” enters the record as academic journal. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Columbia, Review and academic can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Columbia Law Review” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Columbia, Review and academic provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 26, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5149752. VIAF identifies the subject as 142616972. 6 of 7 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1901, 1885, 1887 and 1893.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Columbia Law Review”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Columbia Law Review primary sources, Columbia Law Review archive and Columbia research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Columbia Law Review”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Columbia Law Review” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.