Thursday, 5 April: Legal forms of inter-alterity (A critical study in private international law) by Horatia Muir Watt

Legal Forms of Inter-Alterity (A Critical Study in Private International Law)

By Prof. Horatia Muir Watt

 

We can understand the discipline of private international law as a depository of ideas about the foreign, and metaphorically, the other, formulated as a series of highly elaborate legal concepts, theories, doctrines, definitions and tools. The discipline is supposed to be essentially methodological, meaning that it it is composed exclusively of modes of reasoning that operate at a meta-level (without touching the « substance » of legal issues). These are triggered whenever they detect an exogenous « fact », at which point they proceeed to distribute, allocate and partititon (whether jurisdictions, laws, disputes). The methodological choices involved presuppose various assumptions about legal orders or the societies they govern, their mutual relationships and the geo-political context in which they interact.

It is quite remarkable that despite the quasi-existential link between the discipline and intercultural encounters, ideological confrontations, or conflicts of ideals and values between communities, the discipline remains insulated or aloof from current debates about thinking and managing diversity across the (other) social sciences. This is no doubt because it was constructed historically around a recurring methodological quarrel about the respective virtues of two available formal modalities of distributing laws or allocatig facts; these continue to be debated on the massively technical register of internal critique. In other words, the focus of discussion is the coherence or the efficiency of either mode of reasoning, and very rarely their signification in terms of philosophy, politics, esthetics or epistemology as they translate into the legal field. The attending risk as famously denounced by realist critics is that of a fetichization of technique ; private international law’s tools exert a form of fascination that prevents looking beyond form to substance. Like black holes, the legal mechanics get so dense that they absorb the energy of the observor and blind to the deeper meaning and wider impact of the tlegal forms involved.

It is no doubt today’s need to grasp how law looks and operates beyond the horizon of the state that makes it particularly urgent to attune private international law’s peculiar methods to other, surrounding disciplines and understand its reactions to otherness in political, ethical or aesthetic terms. Nowhere is the study of this interdisciplinary ecology of law more important than as an accompaniment to contemporary efforts to devise and theorize a global law (or map its « intimations ») that would bypass the state’s institutional structure and revisit the moral foundations of authority. Indeed, the « global turn » in law is not limited, as it would sometimes seem, to markets but involves societies, cultures and ideologies. Moreover, it is not because globalization multiplies foreign encounters and smoothes over differences that ethnocentrism has disappeared – on the contrary, it is reproduced and displaced in a form of global-centrism. What follows, therefore, will focus on methods of private international law as expressions, in legal form, of attitudes towards otherness that bear political, ethical and aesthetic meaning in a world of accelerated encounters of a legal kind.

Thursday, April 5th, 2018
12.30 – 14.00

Sciences Po Law School
Meeting room (410T) – 4th floor
13, rue de l’Université – Paris 7ème

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, 23 March – Epistemic Jurisdiction: Science, Expertise and Standardisation as Global Governance – by David Winickoff

Epistemic Jurisdiction: Science, Expertise and Standardisation as Global Governance

David Winickoff

Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

While there is ample scholarly work on regulatory science within the state, or single-sited global institutions, there is less on its operation within complex modes of global governance that are decentered, overlapping, multi-sectorial and multi-leveled. Using a co-productionist framework, Prof. Winickoff will identifie ‘epistemic jurisdiction’ – the power to produce or warrant technical knowledge for a given political community, topical arena or geographical territory – as a central problem for regulatory science in complex governance. We explore these dynamics in the arena of global sustainability standards for biofuels. We select three institutional fora as sites of inquiry: the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials, and the International Organization for Standardization. These cases allow us to analyze how the co-production of sustainability science responds to problems of epistemic jurisdiction in the global regulatory order. First, different problems of epistemic jurisdiction beset different standard-setting bodies, and these problems shape both the content of regulatory science and the procedures designed to make it authoritative. Second, in order to produce global regulatory science, technical bodies must manage an array of conflicting imperatives – including scientific virtue, due process and the need to recruit adoptees to perpetuate the standard. At different levels of governance, standard drafters struggle to balance loyalties to country, to company or constituency and to the larger project of internationalization. Confronted with these sometimes conflicting pressures, actors across the standards system quite self-consciously maneuver to build or retain authority for their forum through a combination of scientific adjustment and political negotiation. Third, the evidentiary demands of regulatory science in global administrative spaces are deeply affected by 1) a market for standards, in which firms and states can choose the cheapest sustainability certification, and 2) the international trade regime, in which the long shadow of WTO law exerts a powerful disciplining function.

 

Friday, 23 March, 2018 / 14.30 – 16.30

École de droit, Sciences Po, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris

Meeting Room (4th floor – room 410T)

 

IMPORTANT:

Due to security measures, access to Sciences Po buildings is restricted.

If you intend to attend the seminar, please send an email to filipe.silva@sciencespo.fr

indicating your full name. Security officers will be provided with the list of participants.

Do not forget to bring a VALID ID.

November 25th – Economic Transplants and Transnational Law: A Dialogue, by Katja Langenbucher and Brooke Adele Marshall

FRIDAY 25th November 2016, Prof. Katja Langenbucher (Sciences Po Ecole de Droit and Goethe-University’s House of Finance) & Brooke Adele Marshall (Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law)

 

Economic transplants as a common language? (Prof. Langenbucher)

Processes of “economization” have been observed and described by anthropologists, economists and sociologists (pars pro toto, see the work of Michel Callon). The presentation will focus on a related phenomenon in the world of legal research, law-making and adjudication which I address as “economic transplants“.

I will try, first, to capture reasons for the receptivity of lawyers and policymakers for “transplanting” findings based on economic methodology, both theoretical and empirical, into the law. Second, I shall ask if such “economic transplants“ live up to what they promise as far as legislative work is concerned. Third, economic transplants and the promises they hold are considered in the judicial context.

The presentation will rely on excerpts of a book forthcoming at CUP on “economic transplants“.

 

The CISG or the PICC as the governing law: normative ambiguities, dépeçage and the purportedly chosen law (Brooke Adele Marshall)

The Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts are “soft” private international law rules. They empower parties to choose either State law or soft “rules of law” to govern their contract, regardless of whether they litigate or arbitrate. This paper investigates the relationship between the Hague Principles and two sets of rules of law which parties may choose: the Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) or the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). It makes three principal claims. First, the nature of the Hague Principles and their relationship with the PICC or the CISG gives rise to several normative ambiguities which need clarification. Second, the Hague Principles do not limit the parties’ ability to divide their contract at a choice of law level (horizontal dépeçage): parties can influence not only which rules of law govern the contract but also their content. This is undesirable as a matter of principle. It may also facilitate results which the PICC and the CISG do not intend. Third, the Hague Principles provide that the law which the parties purportedly chose determines whether the parties agreed on a choice of law. They also provide a mechanism which designates the law which the parties purportedly chose in standard contract terms. Applied to rules of law, the suitability of these provisions is questionable: alternatives should be explored.

 

When? Friday 25 November, 14:30 – 17:30

Where? at Sciences Po Ecole de Droit, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, Meeting Room (4th floor, room 410T)

Friday 18th November – (Foreign) Law as Self-Fashioning, by Pierre Legrand

FRIDAY 18th November 2016, Professor Pierre Legrand (Sciences Po Ecole de Droit)

The argument is that no account of (foreign) law — no matter how purportedly descriptive — can prove immune from autobiographical input on the part of the interpreter. It follows that no account of (foreign) law is in a position to claim neutrality, impartiality, objectivity, or truth. Any account of (foreign) law must therefore stand or fall by virtue of its persuasive strength, which depends in important ways on ascription of value to one’s interpretation/speculation on the part of one’s readership or audience.

  • Discussant: Professor Mathias Siems (Professor at Durham University)

Full article by Prof. Pierre Legrand can be available at request to participants of the seminar who register in advance.

Contact: lucia.bizikova@sciencespo.fr 

Obs.: The seminar and the discussion will be held in English. However, it will be possible to address questions in other languages, such as French, Spanish, Italian and German.

When? Friday 18 November, 16:30 – 19:00

Where? at Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, salle de réunion (4th floor)

 

 

October 19th – Coercion and Autonomy in Transnational Private Law, by Robert Wai

WEDNESDAY 19th October 2016, Prof. Robert Wai (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University)

The turn to transnational law admirably directs analysis of contemporary society towards a realistic sense of the plural, complex normative terrains of transnational relations. This presentation will focus on what the turn to the transnational suggests with respect to equally real questions of power and coercion in transnational private relations. This question will be explored by connecting the transnational law turn of Philip Jessup to the earlier legal realist insights of Robert Hale through a focus on coercion and distribution in transnational private law. The goal is to relate the contemporary emphasis in transnational private law on party autonomy, notably in areas such as arbitration, to older and continuing concerns about “legal and non-legal coercion” in private relations.   Can a turn to transnational private ordering be framed in terms other than party autonomy? In particular, how can transnational private law recognize the role of Hale’s “supposedlly noncoercive state” in constituting various forms of transnational coercive power.

  • Discussant: Horatia Muir Watt

When? Wednesday 19 October, 17:30 – 19:30

Where? at Sciences Po, 27 rue Saint Guillaume, 75007, Paris, room A24 (2nd floor)

October 7th – Rethinking Comparative Law: Mapping Law’s Transformations, by Leone Niglia

FRIDAY 7th October 2016, Prof. Leone Niglia (University CIII of Madrid)

This seminar contributes to comparative scholarly analyses of ‘legal transplants’ and ‘legal change’. Drawing on a combination of legal history, comparative law and legal theory, the seminar introduces a method that is needed towards understanding the current globalisation of law and legal thought including comparing it with past globalisations. On the basis of this new method, the seminar essay sheds light on three unaccounted transformations in transnational law and legal thought in Europe over the last one hundred years that legal comparative thought has contributed to. These transformations need to be taken seriously towards gaining a deeper understanding of the relationships between law, state and post-national governance.

 

  • Discussant: Veronica Corcodel

When? Friday 7 October, at 16:30

Where? at Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, salle de réunion (4th floor)

September 30th – The Institutional Origins of Corporate Social Irresponsibility, by Paddy Ireland

FRIDAY 30th September 2016, Prof. Paddy Ireland (University of Bristol)

There has never been a shortage of instances of corporate irresponsibility. They do, however, seem to have increased in number in recent years. In this seminar, Prof. Ireland will trace the institutional sources of this problem to the way in which the corporate legal form has been constituted. In some contexts the large joint stock corporations which dominate so much of economic life are closely identified with their shareholders, while in others they are regarded as ‘completely separate’.

He will then explore the nature and historical origins of these schizophrenic ideas about the nature of the relationship between corporations and their shareholders, arguing that they underpin contemporary corporate irresponsibility. He suggests that they are attributable to the emergence in the nineteenth century of the perception of corporations as both separate legal persons and objects of property, and to the transformation of the joint stock company share into a Janus-faced, hybrid legal form which enables shareholders to retain some of the key proprietary privileges of ‘insiders’ (owner-members of companies) while they at the same time enjoy the liability- and responsibility-free privileges of ‘outsiders’ (creditors external to companies).

He will go on to suggest that, as commentators as diverse as Marx, Veblen, Hilferding, and Lippmann observed, the hybrid nature of shareholding could have taken corporate governance in very different directions and, historically, has done so, leading at times to highly ‘financialized’ shareholder-focused forms of governance and at other times to much more ‘socialized’ forms. He concludes by exploring the policy implications of the (re)financialized forms of governance that have emerged in recent years.

  • Discussant: Professor Antoine Lyon-Caen

When? Friday 30 September, 14:30 – 17:30

Where? at Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’université, 75007, Paris, salle de réunion (4th floor)

Coming PILAGG Seminars

CANCELLED FRIDAY 13th NOVEMBER 2015: Prof. Neil Walker (Edinburgh Law School)

  • “Global Law and Global Justice: The Gap” (see previous post).
  • Discussant: Prof. David Kinley

 

FRIDAY 4th DECEMBER 2015: Prof. Gunther Teubner (Frankfurt University)

  • The Anonymous Matrix: Human Rights Violations by “Private” Transnational Actors.
  • Do fundamental rights obligate not only States, but also private transnational actors? Since violations of fundamental rights stem from the totalising tendencies of partial rationalities, there is no longer any point in seeing the horizontal effect as if rights of private actors have to be weighed up against each other. On one side of the human rights relation is no longer a private actor as the fundamental-rights violator, but the anonymous matrix of an autonomised communicative medium. On the other side, the fundamental rights are divided into three dimensions: Firstly institutional rights protecting the autonomy of social discourses – art, science, religion – against their subjugation by the totalising tendencies of the communicative matrix; secondly personal rights protecting the autonomy of communication, attributed not to institutions, but to the social artefacts called ‘persons’; and thirdly human rights as negative bounds on societal communication, where the integrity of individuals’ body and mind is endangered.
  • Paper: http://www.fichier-pdf.fr/2015/11/07/globaljustice-engfrz-2015/ (if you can’t download the paper, please send an email to malik.touanssa@sciencespo.fr / the paper will also be sent soon in the email announcing the seminar)
  • Discussant: Prof. Pier-Giuseppe Monateri

 

 

FRIDAY 19th FEBRUARY 2016: Prof. Peer Zumbansen (King’s College)

  • “Unpacking a ‘Not-yet-case’: FIFA as a transnational legal problem: litigation, advocacy and norm-creation”
  • The presentation will, in its first part, explore the promise and challenge of adding “transnational law” to the existing canon of legal doctrinal fields, on the one hand, and legal theories, on the other. In the second part, it will use the current scandal around corruption and labour rights violations by FIFA, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, to discuss practical consequences of understanding law “as transnational”.
  • Discussant: Jacco Bornhoff
  • In preparation of the discussion: What lies before, behind and beneath a case? Five minutes on transnational lawyering and the consequences for Legal Education, Prof. Zumbansen, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2370428

 

FRIDAY 26th FEBRUARY 2016: (date subject to change): Prof. Hans van Loon (Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law)

  • The international protection of migrants and PIL (TBD)

 

FRIDAY 11th MARCH: Prof. David Restrepo Amariles (HEC)

  • Topic TBD

 

FRIDAY 22nd APRIL 2016: Antonio Marzal (Sorbonne Law School)

  • Conflict of Laws as an Analytical Tool

 

FRIDAY 13th MAY 2016: Prof. Katja Langenbucher (Frankfurt University / Sciences Po)

  • On Law Making for Financial Markets

 

FRIDAY 20th MAY 2016: Prof. Joel Bakan (University of British Columbia):

  • The Invisible Hand of Law: Private Regulation and the Rule of Law
  • The early 1980s— when “politics and ideology . . . turned arse-over-tit,” as E.P. Thompson once described it— was, in the less colorful language of David Harvey, a “revolutionary turning point in the world’s social and economic history.” Law was not immune to the sweeping changes taking place. Until the 1980s, and over the previous half century, law had served (albeit unevenly and incompletely) as the main institutional vehicle for policing corporations in aid of public interests, thereby protecting people, communities, and the environment from corporate excess and malfeasance. Over the course of the 1980s and thereafter, however, law’s protective role began to diminish, and privately promulgated voluntary regimes (hereinafter “private regulation”) emerged in its place. Importantly, no such diminishment occurred in relation to law’s parallel and prominent role in protecting corporations and their interests. Here, state legal regimes continued to operate as robustly as ever; incorporate companies; establish their mandates; protect their rights as “persons”; shield their managers, directors, and shareholders from legal liability; compel their officers to prioritize their “best interests” (typically construed as increasing shareholder value); articulate and enforce their contract and property rights; and repress dissidents and protesters who opposed their growing power. Corporations— indeed, corporate capitalism— could not exist without these legal foundations and supports, which taken together represent a massive infusion of state legal power into society. Despite that massive infusion, many private regulation advocates and commentators presume that globalization eviscerates state legal power, and prescribe, on that basis, that private regimes should take law’s place.
  • Paper: http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/ILJ/upload/Bakan-final.pdf

CANCELLED Fourth PILAGG Seminar / November 13th – Global Law and Global Justice: The Gap, by Prof. Neil Walker (Edinburgh Law School)

CANCELLED

‘GLOBAL LAW AND GLOBAL JUSTICE: THE GAP’

Prof. Neil Walker’s aims is to develop some of the normative implications of the argument in his recent book – ‘Intimations of Global Law’ (Cambridge, 2015). In that book, he examines the new and contested category of ‘global law’ . Global law refers to those emergent or ‘imitated’ aspects of legal doctrine that speak in a global register – applicable in all circumstances regardless of territory, citizenship or other limiting general affiliation. He divides global law into convergence-sponsoring categories (the creation of common political organisations or the application of common substantive standards) and divergence-accommodating categories (the cultivation of functionally specialised regimes or the co-ordination of different regimes  through private international law and other plural-sensitive methodologies). He identifies naive triumphalism, structural fatalism and myopic or disengaged compartmentalism as three pathological attitudes on the part of global jurists that MAY arise from the sheer range and diversity of global law types, and which help account for the profound gap between the practice of global law and our ideal conceptions of global justice. He ends by asking how we might begin to close that gap.

Prof. Neil WALKER (Edinburgh Law School)

 When? On Friday 13th November, 2.30 – 5.30 pm

Where? At Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris, Salle de réunion (4th floor).

Discussant : Prof. David Kinley (Syndey Law School)

Third PILAGG Seminar – 16th October – Global Law and Interdisciplinary Inquiry, Alexander Panayotov

JURISDICTIONAL POLITICS AND SOCIAL MECHANISMS: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SYNTHESIS? 

The interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social science has often been hailed as a promising avenue for studying law and globalization. In reality, however, this collaboration has been stymied by diverging disciplinary discourses, conflicting research practices, and incompatible methods for evaluating scholarly findings. I elucidate the possibility conditions for a productive engagement between law and social science. After laying out the obstacles to this engagement, I offer arguments for reconciling the differences.

Specifically, the “Legalization in World Politics” (LWP) framework is used as a starting point to evaluate both the strengths and weaknesses of the social science approaches to law. I contend that both law and social science can engage in a productive cross-fertilization by identifying common unifying themes such as jurisdictional politics. This theme combines social scientists’ strive for generalizations and legal scholars’ fine-grained analysis of complex technical legal issues. The paper defines jurisdictional politics, lays out a generic model for its constitution, and positions it in a transnational context. In this context, I also investigate the promise of deploying social mechanisms to explain both the process of legal change and the emergence of legal order. Four such mechanisms are identified: assertion, diffusion, layering, and conversion. Subsequent examples illustrate their operation. Hopefully, this contribution will stimulate scholars to partake in interdisciplinary work and formulate alternative strategies for exploring their research puzzles.

(Abstract of the paper to be discussed during the seminar)

Alexander PANAYOTOV (NYU)

Discussants : Prof. Véronique CHAMPEIL-DESPLATS (Université Paris X – Méthodologies du droit et des sciences du droit, Dalloz 2014) et Prof. Jérôme SGARD (Sciences Po – CECI, Professeur d’économie politique).

 When? On Friday 16th October, 2.30 – 5.30 pm

Where? At Sciences Po Law School, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris, Salle de réunion (4th floor).