Skip to main content

Replicating Ruin: Printing Dangerous Objects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Socio-Legal Aspects of the 3D Printing Revolution

Abstract

This chapter will consider the possibilities of using 3D printers to print dangerous or otherwise undesirable objects. Such objects lie along a spectrum of severity, from the printing of firearms and other weapons to the printing of objects which may pose mild product liability or health and safety concerns. The decentralised nature of production via 3D printing thus raises novel problems in this area, since in the previous era of mass production there have been certain ‘gatekeepers’ which regulate the production and circulation of these productions and accordingly can themselves be regulated, such that the products produced and transited adhere to certain standards, and that objects such as weapons are subject to strict controls regarding sale, possession, and use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A. Greenberg (2012) ‘“Wiki Weapon Project” Aims to Create A Gun Anyone Can 3D-Print At Home’, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/08/23/wiki-weapon-project-aims-to-create-a-gun-anyone-can-3d-print-at-home/, accessed 11 September 2015.

  2. 2.

    F. Martinez (2012) ‘Indiegogo shuts down campaign to develop the world’s first printable gun’, Daily Dot, https://www.dailydot.com/news/indiegogo-3d-printed-gun-campaign/accessed 11 September 2015.

  3. 3.

    K. Streams (2012) ‘3D printed gun project halts after Stratasys confiscates rented printer’, The Verge, http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/1/3439496/wiki-weapon-project-defense-distributed-stratasys, accessed 11 September 2015.

  4. 4.

    T. Maly (2012) ‘Thingiverse Remotes (Most) Printable Gun Parts’, Wired, http://www.wired.com/2012/12/thingiverse-removes-gun-parts/, accessed 11 September 2015.

  5. 5.

    C. Farviar (2013) ‘3D-printed gun maker now has federal firearms license to manufacture, deal guns’, Arstechnica, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/3d-printed-gunmaker-now-has-federal-firearms-license-to-manufacture-deal-guns/, accessed 11 September 2015.

  6. 6.

    A. Greenberg (2013a) ‘Meet The ‘Liberator’: Test-Firing The World’s First Fully 3D-Printed Gun’, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/05/meet-the-liberator-test-firing-the-worlds-first-fully-3d-printed-gun/, accessed 11 September 2015.

  7. 7.

    A. Greenberg (2013b) ‘3D-Printed Gun’s Blueprints Downloaded 100,000 Times In Two Days (With Some Help From Kim Dotcom)’, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/08/3d-printed-guns-blueprints-downloaded-100000-times-in-two-days-with-some-help-from-kim-dotcom/, accessed 11 September 2015.

  8. 8.

    See: Greenberg (2013a) ‘Meet The ‘Liberator’.

  9. 9.

    C. Wilson (2013) quoted in S. Paikin ‘3D Printing: A Killer App’, The Agenda, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN_cVRjIrwg, accessed 11 September 2015.

  10. 10.

    I. Record, g. coons, D. Southwick and M. Ratto (2015) ‘Regulating the Liberator: Prospects for the Regulation of 3D Printing’ Journal of Peer Production Issue #6 Disruption and the Law. The authors, based in Canada, built a non-functioning Liberator using their 3D printing lab, and based on their experience remarked that ‘the act of making a Liberator, remained, for the moment, impracticable for most people, for lack of access to equipment and expertise’.

  11. 11.

    See: B. Ashcraft (2014) ‘Japanese Man Arrested for Having Guns Made with a 3D Printer’, Kotaku, http://kotaku.com/japanese-man-arrested-for-having-guns-made-with-a-3d-pr-1573358490, accessed 11 September 2015.

  12. 12.

    B. Krassenstein (2014) ‘Two Year Sentence Handed Down to Yoshitomo Imura in Japanese 3D Printed Gun Case’, 3DPrint.com, http://3dprint.com/20019/sentence-imura-3d-printed-gun/, accessed 11 September 2015.

  13. 13.

    EUROPOL (2014) ‘31 Arrests In Operation Against Bulgarian Organised Crime Network’, https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/31-arrests-operation-against-bulgarian-organised-crime-network, accessed 11 September 2015.

  14. 14.

    R. Fordyce (2015) ‘Manufacturing Imaginaries: Neo-Nazis, Men’s Rights Activists and 3D Printing’ Journal of Peer Production, Issue #6 Disruption and the Law.

  15. 15.

    District of Columbia v Heller (2008) No. 07-290.

  16. 16.

    See: A. Winkler (2013) Gunfight (New York: W. W. Norton).

  17. 17.

    P. Jensen-Haxel (2012) ‘3D Printers, Obsolete Firearm Supply Controls, and the Right to Build Self-Defense Weapons Under Heller’ Golden Gate University Law Review, 42(3), 447–495, 457.

  18. 18.

    A. Greenberg (2013c) ‘State Department Demands Takedown of 3D-Printable Gun Files For Possible Export Control Violations’, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/09/state-department-demands-takedown-of-3d-printable-gun-for-possible-export-control-violation/, accessed 11 September 2015.

  19. 19.

    G. Ferenstein (2013) ‘Offshore 3D Printed Gun Blueprint Protector Kim Dotcom Reportedly Deleting Files’, TechCrunch, http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/11/offshore-3d-printed-gun-blueprint-protector-kim-dotcom-reportedly-deleting-files/, accessed 11 September 2015.

  20. 20.

    Record, coons, Southwick and Ratto (2015) ‘Regulating the Liberator’.

  21. 21.

    Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation v US Department of State Case No 1:15-cv-372. See: A. Greenberg (2015a) ‘3-D Printed Gun Lawsuit Starts the War Between Arms Control and Free Speech’, Wired, http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/, accessed 11 September 2015.

  22. 22.

    International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. § 120.17(a)(4) (1996).

  23. 23.

    Bernstein v. U.S. Dep’t of State (Bernstein I), 922 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Cal. 1996), 1437.

  24. 24.

    Bernstein v. United States Dep’t of State, 945 F. Supp. 1279 (N.D. Cal.1996) at 1287.

  25. 25.

    Bernstein v United States (1999) Case Number: 97-16686 (9th Circuit Court of Appeal), 4234.

  26. 26.

    Junger v. Daley, 8 F. Supp. 2d 708 (N.D. Ohio 1998).

  27. 27.

    Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000).

  28. 28.

    See: A. O. Wertheimer (1994) ‘The First Amendment Distinction Between Conduct and Content: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Fighting Words Jurisprudence’ Fordham Law Review, 63, 793–851.

  29. 29.

    T. Nguyen (1997) ‘Cryptography, Export Controls, and the First Amendment in Bernstein v. United States Department of State’ Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 10(3), 667–682, 675–677.

  30. 30.

    L. Tien (2000) ‘Publishing Software As a Speech Act’ Berkeley Technology Law Journal 15, 629–712, 669.

  31. 31.

    R. Post (2000) ‘Encryption Source Code and the First Amendment’ Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 15, 713–724, 716.

  32. 32.

    Post (2000) ‘Encryption Source Code and the First Amendment’, 720.

  33. 33.

    Reno v American Civil Liberties Union 521 U.S. 844 (1997).

  34. 34.

    Sorrell v IMS Health 131 S.Ct. 2653 (2011).

  35. 35.

    J. Cosans (2014) ‘Between Firearm Regulation and Information Censorship: Analyzing First Amendment Concerns Facing the World’s First 3-D Printed Plastic Gun’ Journal of Gender, Social Policy and Law, 22(4), 915–946.

  36. 36.

    K. Langvardt (2014) ‘The Replicator and the First Amendment’, Fordham Intellectual Property Media Entertainment and Law Journal, 25(1), 59–115, 94.

  37. 37.

    J. Blackman (2014) ‘The 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and 3D Printed Guns’ Tennessee Law Review, 81, 479–538, 501.

  38. 38.

    New York Times v United States, 403 US 713, 730 (Stewart J, joined by White J, concurring).

  39. 39.

    Blackman (2014) ‘The 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and 3D Printed Guns’, 536.

  40. 40.

    Jensen-Haxel (2012) ‘3D Printers, Obsolete Firearm Supply Controls, and the Right to Build Self-Defense Weapons Under Heller’.

  41. 41.

    Jensen-Haxel (2012) ‘3D Printers, Obsolete Firearm Supply Controls, and the Right to Build Self-Defense Weapons Under Heller’, 479.

  42. 42.

    See: U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2015) ‘What is ATF doing in regards to people making their own firearms?’, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what-atf-doing-regards-people-making-their-own-firearms, accessed 11 September 2015.

  43. 43.

    Blackman (2014) ‘The 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and 3D Printed Guns’, 495.

  44. 44.

    See: C. Doctorow (2012) ‘Congressman calls for ban on 3D printed guns’, Boing Boing, http://boingboing.net/2012/12/09/congressman-calls-for-ban-on-3.html, accessed 14 June 2015.

  45. 45.

    D. Roberts (2013) ‘3D-printed guns prompt US House to renew prohibition on plastic firearms’, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/3d-guns-house-renew-prohibition-plastic-firearms, accessed 12 September 2015.

  46. 46.

    S. Israel (2013) ‘Rep. Israel Introduces Bipartisan Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act to Protect Americans from Threat of Plastic Guns’, press release, http://israel.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-israel-introduces-bipartisan-undetectable-firearms-modernization-act, accessed 14 September 2015.

  47. 47.

    A. Greenberg (2015b) ‘Bill to Ban Undetectable 3D Printed Guns Is Coming Back’, Wired, http://www.wired.com/2015/04/bill-ban-undetectable-3-d-printed-guns-coming-back/accessed 12 September 2015.

  48. 48.

    M. Molich-Hou (2015) ‘Rep. Steve Israel Renews Fight for Undetectable Gun Control’, 3D Printing Industry, http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/06/10/rep-steve-israel-renews-fight-for-undetectable-gun-control/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  49. 49.

    I. Volsky (2013) ‘Philadelphia Becomes First City To Ban 3D Guns’, Think Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/23/2987911/philadelphia-city-ban-guns/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  50. 50.

    I. Gridneff (2013) ‘3D-printed gun ‘will kill’, police warn’, Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/3dprinted-gun-will-kill-police-warn-20130524-2k59g.html, accessed 12 September 2015.

  51. 51.

    R. Pearce (2013) ‘NSW Police issues warning on 3D printed guns’, Computer World, http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/462774/nsw_police_issues_warning_3d_printed_guns/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  52. 52.

    R. Varley and M. Eaton (2015) ‘3D printing: Suspected plastic gun parts found in raid on Gold Coast property’, ABC, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-10/3d-printing-police-suspect-plastic-parts-belong-to-homemade-gun/6083938, accessed 12 September 2015.

  53. 53.

    E. Worthington (2014) ‘3D printed guns: PUP introduces Queensland bill to regulate digitally generated firearms’, ABC, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-23/3-d-printed-guns-palmer-party-introduces-qld-bill-3d-firearms/5472566, accessed 12 September 2015.

  54. 54.

    Weapons (Digital 3D and Printed Firearms) Amendment Bill 2014 (QLD).

  55. 55.

    P. Cowan (2015) ‘Qld Govt knocks back 3D-printed guns bill’, IT News, http://www.itnews.com.au/News/403827,qld-govt-knocks-back-3d-printed-guns-bill.aspx, accessed 12 September 2015.

  56. 56.

    Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (2015) Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community, p. xii.

  57. 57.

    Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (2015) Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community, p. 93.

  58. 58.

    Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (2015) Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community, p. 93.

  59. 59.

    Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (2015) Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community, p. 144.

  60. 60.

    Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (2015) Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community, p. 149.

  61. 61.

    Record, coons, Southwick and Ratto (2015) ‘Regulating the Liberator: Prospects for the Regulation of 3D Printing’.

  62. 62.

    G. Greatorex (2015) ‘3D Printing and Consumer Product Safety’, Product Safety Solutions White Paper, p. 13.

  63. 63.

    N. Freeman Engstrom (2013) ‘3-D Printing and Product Liability: Identifying the Obstacles’ University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online, 162 (35) 35–41; N. D. Berkowitz (2015) ‘Strict Liability for Individuals? The Impact of 3-D Printing on Products Liability Law’ Washington University Law Review, 92(4), 1019–1053; H. Nielson (2015) ‘Manufacturing Consumer Protection for 3-D Printed Products’ Arizona Law Review 57(2), 609–622. Product liability is also briefly discussed in: L. Osborn (2014b) ‘Regulating Three-Dimensional Printing: The Converging Worlds of Bits and Atoms’ San Diego Law Review, 51, 553–621.

  64. 64.

    Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability § 2 (1998).

  65. 65.

    Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product Liability § 1 (1998).

  66. 66.

    Berkowitz (2015) ‘Strict Liability for Individuals?’, 1037.

  67. 67.

    Namely: Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products [1985] OJ L210/29; and Council Directive 1999/34/EC of 10 May 1999 amending Council Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products [1999] OJ L141/20.

  68. 68.

    J. Stapleton (2000) ‘Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, an Anglo-Australian Perspective’ Washburn Law Journal, 39, 363–403, 367–368.

  69. 69.

    Directive 85/374/EEC, Article 7 (c).

  70. 70.

    Freeman Engstrom (2013) ‘3-D Printing and Product Liability, 36–37.

  71. 71.

    § 19. Osborn argues that 3D printing design files may qualify as products in certain circumstances such as when they are mass-marketed, as opposed to custom-made files which may be considered to have a greater ‘service’ quality. See Osborn (2014) ‘Regulating Three-Dimensional Printing’, 568.

  72. 72.

    Nielson (2015) ‘Manufacturing Consumer Protection for 3-D Printed Products’, 616.

  73. 73.

    See: ‘Limitation of Liability’ in; Shapeways (2015) ‘Terms and Conditions’, http://www.shapeways.com/terms_and_conditions, accessed 12 September 2015.

  74. 74.

    Berkowitz (2015) ‘Strict Liability for Individuals?’, 1049.

  75. 75.

    Berkowitz (2015) ‘Strict Liability for Individuals?’, 1051.

  76. 76.

    Lemley (2014) ‘IP in a World Without Scarcity’, p. 57.

  77. 77.

    See: Oliphant, K. (2008) ‘Accident Compensation in New Zealand: An Overview’, in G. Schamps (ed.), Evolution des droits du patient, indemnisation sans faute des dommages lies aux soins de sante: le droit medical en movement (Brussels: Editions Bruylant).

  78. 78.

    B. Howell (2004) ‘Medical Misadventure and Accident Compensation in New Zealand: An Incentives-Based Analysis’ Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 35, 857–878.

  79. 79.

    Enoch, D. (2014) ‘Tort Liability and Taking Responsibility’ in J. Oberdiek (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Torts (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

  80. 80.

    See: S. V. Murphy and A. Atala (2014) ‘3D bioprinting of tissues and organs’ Nature Biotechnology, 32, 773–785.

  81. 81.

    J. Leber (2013) ‘A DIY Bioprinter Is Born’, MIT Technology Review, http://www.technologyreview.com/view/511436/a-diy-bioprinter-is-born/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  82. 82.

    See: S. A. Khaled, J. C. Burley, M. R. Alexander and C. J. Roberts (2014) ‘Desktop 3D printing of controlled release pharmaceutical bilayer tablets’ International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 461, 105–111; A. Goyanes, P. Robles Martinez, A. Buanz, A. W. Basit and S. Gaisford (2015) ‘Effect of geometry on drug release from 3D printed tablets’ International Journal of Pharmaceutics, in press.

  83. 83.

    J. L. Tran (2015) ‘To Bioprint or Not to Bioprint’ North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 17, forthcoming; M. H. Park (2015) ‘For a New Heart, Just Click Print: The Effect on Medical and Products Liability From 3-D Printed Organs’ Journal of Law, Technology and Policy, 1, 187–210.

  84. 84.

    See: B. Ouyang (2014) ‘3D Printing Low-Cost Prosthetics Parts in Uganda’, Med Gadget, http://www.medgadget.com/2014/03/3d-printing-low-cost-prosthetics-parts-in-uganda.html, accessed 12 September 2015; D. Sher (2014) ‘Kenya Based 3D Life Print Project Is Offering Mobile 3D Printing of Custom Prosthetics’, 3D Printing Industry, http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/12/08/3d-life-print-3d-printing-prosthetics/, accessed 12 September 2015; A. Leach (2014) ‘3D printed prosthetics: long-term hope for amputees in Sudan’, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/jun/13/3d-printing-south-sudan-limbs, accessed 12 September 2015.

  85. 85.

    Enabling the Future, http://enablingthefuture.org/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  86. 86.

    Enabling the Future, ‘Media FAQ’, http://enablingthefuture.org/faqs/media-faq/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  87. 87.

    Enabling the Future, ‘Upper Limb Prosthetics’, http://enablingthefuture.org/upper-limb-prosthetics/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  88. 88.

    Enabling the Future, ‘FAQs (General)’, http://enablingthefuture.org/faqs-general/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  89. 89.

    Enabling the Future, ‘Safety Guidelines’, http://enablingthefuture.org/build-a-hand/safety-guidelines/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  90. 90.

    Ibid.

  91. 91.

    See: L. Resnik, S. Klinger, V. Krauthamer and K. Barnabe (2010) ‘U.S. Food and Drug Administration Regulation of Prosthetic Research, Development, and Testing’ Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 22(2), 121–126.

  92. 92.

    See: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, ‘General Controls for Medical Devices’ http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/GeneralandSpecialControls/ucm055910.htm#QSR, accessed 12 September 2015.

  93. 93.

    Park (2015) ‘For a New Heart, Just Click Print’, 203.

  94. 94.

    D. Frank-Jackson (2011) ‘The Medical Device Federal Preemption Trilogy: Salvaging Due Process for Injured Plaintiffs’ Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 35, 453–497, 470.

  95. 95.

    Frank-Jackson (2011) ‘The Medical Device Federal Preemption Trilogy’, 480.

  96. 96.

    B. Lobmayr (2010) ‘An Assessment of the EU Approach to Medical Device Regulation Against the Backdrop of the US System’ European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1(2), 137–149. The New Approach for marketing of products was adopted in Council on 23 June 2008 and finally published in the Official Journal on 13 August 2008. It comprises two regulations and a decision by the European Parliament and Council: Council Regulation (EC) 764/2008 of 9 July 2008 laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision No. 3052/95/EC [2008] OJ L218/21; Council Regulation (EC) 765/2008 of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 [2008] OJ L218/30; Council Decision (EC) 768/2008/EC of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC [2008] OJ L218/82.

  97. 97.

    Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices [1993] OJ L169/1 (‘Medical Devices Directive’), Article 3.

  98. 98.

    Medical Devices Directive, Article 14.

  99. 99.

    Medical Devices Directive, Article 1(f) and Article (1) (h).

  100. 100.

    E. Vollebregt (2014) ‘3D printing of custom medical devices under future EU law’, Medical Devices Legal, http://medicaldeviceslegal.com/2014/03/05/3d-printing-of-custom-medical-devices-under-future-eu-law/, accessed 12 September 2015.

  101. 101.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices, and amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009, COM(2012) 542 final, Article 4(5).

  102. 102.

    Vollebregt (2014) ‘3D printing of custom medical devices under future EU law’.

  103. 103.

    Restatement (Third) of the Law of Torts: Products Liability § 6(c).

  104. 104.

    Y. J. Lu (2010) The Change in Knowledge Proposal: Repairing Preemption Doctrine in Medical Products Liability, SSRN Working Paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1957954, accessed 12 September 2015, 37.

  105. 105.

    Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, 617–618, HL, per Lord Bridge.

  106. 106.

    Nolan, D. and Davies, J. (2013) ‘Torts and Equitable Wrongs’ in A. Burrows (ed.), English Private Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 939.

  107. 107.

    Nolan, D. and Davies, J. (2013) ‘Torts and Equitable Wrongs’, p. 944.

  108. 108.

    Park (2015) ‘For a New Heart, Just Click Print’, 206.

  109. 109.

    Hansen v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 764 N.E.2d 35, 42 (Ill. 2002).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Daly, A. (2016). Replicating Ruin: Printing Dangerous Objects. In: Socio-Legal Aspects of the 3D Printing Revolution. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51556-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51556-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-51555-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51556-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics