Nafiz Ahmed
PhD Student
LLM (Cambridge), LLB (North South University Bangladesh)
- Email: nafiz538@student.ubc.ca
Profile
Nafiz Ahmed is a doctoral student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law and a senior lecturer (on leave) at North South University, Bangladesh. He reads and writes about legal philosophy and public law theory. His work has been published in reputed academic outlets, including Public Law, Routledge, and Washington University Jurisprudence Review. Nafiz completed his Master of Law (LL.M.) degree from the University of Cambridge and his Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from North South University. He also advises national and international organisations on matters relating to access to justice, labour rights, and administrative law.
Supervisor: Julen Etxabe
Publications
- 'Rhetorical Invocation of Constitutional Guardianship as a Justificatory Tool: The Case of Bangladesh' (2025) Verfassung und Recht in Übersee/ World Comparative Law (forthcoming).
- 'Academic Responsibility, Selectivity, and Crime of Aggression' (2024) 33(1) Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 39 (with Md. Rizwanul Islam)
- 'Emergence of Bangladesh's Legal System: Revolutionary Legality and a New Rule of Recognition' in Ridwanul Hoque and Rokeya Chowdhury (eds), A History of the Constitution of Bangladesh: The Founding, Development and Way Ahead (London, Routledge, 2024) [invited contribution]
- 'The Co-operative Societies Law in Bangladesh: From Hope of Autonomy to Dependence' (2022) 33 Dhaka University Law Journal 1 (with Md. Rizwanul Islam)
- 'The Intrinsically Uncertain Doctrine of Basic Structure' (2022) 14(2) Washington University Jurisprudence Review 309.
- 'The Scope of Claiming Monetary Compensation under Public Law by Victims of Police Brutality' [2020] Public Law 210.
Organization Affiliations
- Allard School of Law
Research Interests
- Administrative law and regulatory governance
- Courts, litigation and access to justice
- Jurisprudence, legal theory, and critical studies
Is the judiciary's use of constitutional guardianship rhetoric compatible with fundamental constitutional principles, such as constitutional supremacy and separation of powers?