This third year of PILAGG seminars is going to be conducted according to a slightly different format, as we’ll be co-running a series with the LSE. You can sign up for the first London session on Thursday November 21st (program on PIL and legal theory forthcoming). The following events will be on the political economy of the law of investment arbitration and on the interface of PIL and civil procedure (new issues).
In the meantime, we are beginning the year with an informal round-table in Paris, as usual, on methodological shifts in the conflict of laws. This discussion is designed to link up with last year’s reflections on the changing paradigms in (private international) legal thought.
We have already discussed proportionality, the constitution for the conflict of laws, post-critical legal thought, human rights, many aspects of the privatization of international adjudication, private law-making, and the linkages between private international law and the investment regime. Many of the papers will be posted in the PILAGG e-series, newly and progressively available on line as a tab on this blog. Some will be published in the forthcoming OUP volume.
This time round, the guests have been working on proportionality, the impact of collective redress in individualist schemes of intelligibility; the renewal of characterization; the articulation of the conflict of laws and public policies on immigration; the access to justice paradigm; and how conceptualizing networks might be helpful in transnational settings.
They are asked to focus specifically on the ways in which their area of expertise may (or not) bring methodological renewal.
Participants are: Catherine Kessedjian, Samuel Lemaire, Toni Marzal, Hélène van Lith, Sabine Corneloup, Karine Parrot, Ferderico Lenzi, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo and Horatia Muir Watt.
The round-table will take place 17 October from 13h to 17h 13 rue de l’Université 75007 salle de réunion Ecole de droit 4th floor. The language for presentation and debate is either French or English.
The United States has policed the multinational effects of multinational corporations more aggressively than any other country, but recent decisions under the Alien Tort Statute indicate that it is now backtracking. Europe, paradoxically, is moving in the other direction. Why do some countries retract extraterritorial jurisdiction while others step forward? The article traces the opposing trends through corporate human rights cases and suggests that the answer may lie in attitudes towards national sovereignty. The developments raise important questions regarding the position of the United States in a globalizing world and its role in upholding international norms.