HOW TO MAKE YOUR ESSAY FLOW FLUENTLY

Signposting

It is exhausting to read big block of text with no breaks. Signposting is when you insert subheadings to make clear to a reader where they are in the text in relation to the essay as a whole. They indicate to the reader that the essay is diving into a related issue, such as a counter-argument, bolstering its points with a complication, or stopping to provide critical historical or legal context.

In the timeline of writing your essay, from start to finish, they are not the first thing you usually should focus on (the main argument(s) and the broader structure of the essay are), nor are they the last thing (which is when you focus on editing sentences, polishing up on grammar etc). Signposting usually happens whilst you are organising your final essay plan into manageable chunks that you can write with.

As a general rule insert a subheading whenever you start a paragraph or section. If your university or word count discourage you from using subheading, these can be removed in the final draft. Subheadings help with keeping a good structure because each paragraph will lead to the next. For example subheadings are used when:

• moving from your introduction to the main body of the essay,

• making a new central argument,

• explaining a new point of law that relates to the new argument (as briefly and concisely as possible, so as not to be too descriptive) to provide context for the rest of the discussion,

• making a substantial counterargument to a point previously made,

• Writing the conclusion to your essay.

Think of subheadings like the layers of a trifle. Each layer represents a different aspect of the final piece (the jelly, custard, and sponge being the distinct but interrelated main arguments that you will make), but they all come together to make one full argument (i.e. the trifle itself).

When in doubt, do not overuse subheadings. For a 3,000-word piece, 4-5 subheadings are about right. Over time, you will start to develop a natural feel for when you should include a subheading to signpost your argument, as ultimately this depends on the type of essay that you are writing. The bullet points above are simply pointers to help you get into the flow of using them.

Nestling

Nestling is when you discuss a point or group of points by using a quote, summary of an article, or legal authority as a starting point. Pause and reread that sentence if you have to. Essentially, your point is ‘nestled’ in the point of another academic or legal authority, in that you take this quote or rule and use it as a springboard from where you launch into your deeper discussion.

For example, say we wanted to use a point from an article to support our own discussion on how human rights are in tension with state sovereignty and are therefore inherently politicised. We then come across an article that links with this argument, as the article makes a similar argument that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a mechanism to enforce capitalist ideals onto other societies under the guise of fundamental human freedoms. We can then use this article to incorporate our own argument in a manner that flows naturally into the point that we will be making. This is how it would look in our notes:

Gary Teeple, The Riddle of Human Rights (Garamond Press 2004).

At p9: UDHR  post-war mechanism “to enhance the legitimacy of capitalism” (Marxist).

At p25: “The rights held by dominant capitalist classes around the world also impinge on or even contradict the rights held by other classes or groups. Because the state embodies the prevailing property relations, moreover, governments are often the most prevalent violators of human rights.”

o B.c. depends on whether States ratify covenants (O’Neill p431).

o Whether it is in State’s interests to uphold + enforce said rights.

o “[T]he banner of human rights has been an important part of US foreign policy.” It has been used to justify breaches of Human Rights where doing so “was needed to guarantee corporate interests” (eg. US invasion of Vietnam) (p27 and 28)

Also Iraq War (“US foreign policy”).

As though the US was trying to justify its hypocrisy

At p24: “Human rights…are continuously alienated in all kinds of ways, both legal and illegal.”

Notice how just by using the quote by Teeple at the beginning, we can use this as a bridge to nestle in our next main argument; that human rights are dependent on state interests in whether they ratify covenants, advancing their own political interests, or even using human rights themselves as a means to legitimize violence, etc.

From this, we can give further examples of ways that human rights have been violated because of state agenda and conflicting interests, thus opening up the discussion further and strengthening our argument:

Paul W Kahn, Sacred Violence: Torture, Terror, and Sovereignty (Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press 2008).

Even after ratification/enforcement of ICCPR, which prohibited torture, it was still practiced (eg. In Latin American dictatorships).

For example Pinochet regime in Chile 70’s  90’s (Military coup, mass murders, systematic elimination of political adversaries, state sanctioned torture, grotesque sexual abuse).

And then from this, if you really want to drive the point home and get extra marks, you can even make reference to the Marxist stance in the original quote we nestled in, by using another set of specific examples, and use that to bring the point around full circle:

Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (3rd edn, Cornell University Press 2013) 29.

At p31 and 32: “Commentators and leaders in all Soviet bloc and most Third World countries regularly disparaged most civil and political rights. Conversely, many Anglo-American conservatives and philosophers—but, among states, significantly, only the government of the United States—disparaged most economic and social rights.” Different rights take priority based on state agenda/ideology (eg. Cold War ideological conflicts).

Undermines cornerstone of HRs being ‘natural’ or ‘all-inclusive.’ Eg. ICESCR and ICCPR differences…

Linking

By linking your research together in this way, not only do you demonstrate a deep understanding of the areas of law and arguments that you are citing, but you are demonstrating how they fit into your own argument (that human rights are not an all-inclusive or infallible body of rights, and that they are often undermined to pursue state interests). Not only should you keep an eye out for how sources support or counter-argue your point, but how sources can be used to transition into your discussion of your arguments. This is the essence of nestling.

Summarising

It is important to write summaries of the main cases, statutes, rules and academic arguments that you come across when you are planning and writing your essay. When you summarise a salient point or points from an article or legal authority, you pull the ideas from another source so that you can cite them and use them in your own essay for discussion. You can keep track of your arguments and points of legal contention by summarising the main sources from where you are basing your arguments.

In this way, it helps you make your analysis of these sources sound more credible. It is based on careful observation and analysis of the facts and arguments that you come across, not blurry or inaccurate recollections of the general principles. During the research and note-taking stages of writing your essay, summarising important sources can be very helpful. It allows you to reflect on your understanding of relevant areas of law, summarize academic arguments relevant to your discussion into easier-to-understand paragraphs and sentences, and ultimately to use them in your discussion.

It is obvious at this point, but keep a record of what you have read and of what you plan to use under their relevant OSCOLA citations. It also helps you separate your ideas from those of your sources. As mentioned before, to keep your own thoughts and arguments separate from sources that you have read and cited, you might want to consider using a different font in your plan for your own arguments vs legal authority citations and other academics’ arguments. It makes it much easier to know which areas in your essay are those that you need to cite, and which parts are your own arguments that you do not need to cite, but instead flow from and amongst the sea of quotes you plan to use.

Summaries are also important to use when you need to explain a point of law in order to provide context for the rest of the discussion that follows. The law can be quite dense and dry, and this can break the flow of your writing when you just copy and paste a statute or quote into your essay without explanation or context (which, as a general rule, you should only do when you are planning to make reference to specific wording in the quote itself). To stay on the safe side, it is far more effective to begin a discussion on a point or argument by explaining briefly the area of law that you are going to be analysing, and then going into the nitty gritty of what it is about the law you’ve explained that is important to analyse for the sake of your argument.

Here is an example of a point being made without summarising the main issues:

“So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.”1

______________________________

1 Human Rights Act 1998, s3(1).

This is problematic for the courts because it clashes with Parliamentary Sovereignty, and has the potential to go against the intent of Parliament when drafting the acts that are later read in to by this provision.

This comes off as a little cumbersome, clunky, and lacking in flow for the reader. Because it has to balance using a quote with the writer’s own voice, it is not clear in terms of the point it makes. In what way is it clashing with parliamentary sovereignty? What part of the quote does the “it” refer to? What part of “it” goes against the intent of parliament? Whilst some of these questions can get answered by further explaining, it comes across in a convoluted and dense manner, whilst really not conveying very much at all.

Once we summarise the main issues in our own words, the main point we are trying to explain makes a lot more sense:

The Human Rights Act allows grants the power to the courts to read into domestic legislation to ensure that it is compatible with convention rights under the ECHR1. This is problematic because the powers under this provision cause tension with Parliamentary Sovereignty, as it affords the courts an ability to read beyond what was intended in a statute when Parliament drafted it.

______________________________

1 Human Rights Act 1998, s3(1).

Not only does this flow better, but the reader can better understand the central tension being highlighted by the use of this statutory provision. By putting the provision in our own words, we can make it clear that the “it” we are referring to is in fact the “power” under this provision, which is echoed in the next sentence to make clear what we are talking about. We would not have been able to do that if it were not for paraphrasing the quote and therefore allowing the explanation to transition smoothly from the summary of the statute.

A little caveat here: Summaries should always be used to build your argument, and should be used sparingly so as not to divulge into too much description rather than analysis. If summarising an area of law or article is important to make the point you need to make, then you should summarise, and then immediately link this to your analysis. Essentially, you want to demonstrate not only what you are talking about, but why the source you are talking about is important in your argument. For added emphasis, where applicable, you can combine a subheading, signposting the part of your argument that you are at, followed immediately by explaining the area of law relevant to the area of discussion you are about to dive into. This would look a little something like this:

Section 3 and the tension with Sovereignty

The Human Rights Act allows grants the power to the courts to read into domestic legislation to ensure that it is compatible with convention rights under the ECHR 1. This is problematic because the powers under this provision cause tension with Parliamentary Sovereignty, as it affords the courts an ability to read beyond what was intended in a statute when Parliament drafted it. This was demonstrated in the case of….

______________________________

1 Human Rights Act 1998, s3(1).

Transitions

Oftentimes, you will not always be in a situation in your essay where you need to make an entirely new subheading, new argument, or bring in another authority or quote to transition onto your next point. If anything, there will be instances where your next point, paragraph or discussion is closely related enough to your previous point or assertion, that your reader might only need a little assistance to bridge the gap between this point and the next. After all, why build a whole bridge when you can step over a small gap?

When writing an essay, this assistance can come in the form of literary devices such as "further to this point" or "in addition" or "following from this" or "therefore." These are transitions. Chances are, you have used these without even realising. These words may look small or even insignificant in the grand scheme of your essay, but they are often exactly what a reader might need to place your arguments in context, or see the similarities and/or divides in your argument. These transitions can:

• Be used to address an important connection (“for example”, “in the same manner”) or an important dissimilarity (“however”, “on the other hand”, “despite”, “in comparison”).

• imply a meaningful sequence, which is frequently temporal (“first,” “second,” “at the same time,” “later,” “eventually”) or causal (“thus,” “therefore,” “because”);

• or, in a longer essay, remind the reader of previous arguments (“in short,” “as has been said,” “as we have seen”).

These are important of course, but it is worth stating, do not overuse these. They are there to help guide a reader to a related, contrasting, or sequential point. They should not be used over and over too closely together in an attempt to try and fool the reader into sounding like you are saying something smart, but in fact you are not saying very much at all. You need to have your core arguments down first and foremost, as well as have a confident grasp on what it is you are trying to connect or contrast in your argument, before you can know which connectives and transitions you can and should use. This will get more natural and easier with each essay you write, but do not fall into the trap of using these words because they sound fancy or cool. Always use them with purpose, to direct your reader to your next substantial argument, and never just to fill a gap in your structure or argument

LLB ESSAY WRITING TUTOR

If you are struggling with writing LLB essays, it may be a good idea to consider getting a tutor. A tutor can not only help you improve your writing skills, but they can also provide valuable feedback on your essays and help you understand the material better. Additionally, a tutor can help you stay organized, manage your time more effectively, and provide guidance on the legal concepts and theories that you need to incorporate into your writing. Ultimately, getting a LLB essay writing tutor can be a smart investment in your future success as a law student and legal professional.