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).

9th October – Global Legal Pluralism and Private International Law (Prof. Paul Schiff Berman)

 

SECOND PILAGG SEMINAR of 2015/2016 : GLOBAL LEGAL PLURALISM AND PIL 

Global Legal Pluralism is now recognized as an entrenched reality of the international and transnational legal order. Indeed, wherever one looks, there is conflict among multiple legal regimes. Some of these regimes are state-based, some are built and maintained by non-state actors, some fall within the purview of local authorities and jurisdictional entities, and some involve international courts, tribunals, arbitral bodies, and regulatory organizations. 

It has been approximately 20 years since scholars first began pushing the insights of legal pluralism into the transnational and international arena. During those two decades, a rich body of work has established pluralism as a useful descriptive and normative framework for understanding a world of overlapping jurisdictional assertions, both state and non-state. Indeed, there has been a veritable explosion of scholarly work on legal pluralism, soft law, global constitutionalism, the relationships among relative authorities, and the fragmentation and reinforcement of territorial boundaries. 

Thus, the time has come for a survey and analysis of this literature in order to understand the evolution of global legal pluralism as a scholarly trope.  In this essay, I seek to begin such a task by separating out some of the descriptive and normative strands in the scholarly discourse. In addition, I tackle challenges and criticisms of global legal pluralism and aim to refine the field based on recent research. The result, I hope, will be to re-energize and engage global legal pluralism scholarship and push its trajectory forward into another two decades of innovation.

Prof. Paul SCHIFF BERMAN (George Washington University Law School)

Discussant : Jean-Philippe ROBE (Sciences Po, Ecole de droit)

 When? On Friday 9th October, 2.30 – 5.30 pm

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

First PILAGG meeting of 2015-2016 seasson!!! (UPDATE)

The new seasson of PILAGG is going to be launched. We will discuss on Horatia Muir Watt’s framing paper.HMW-Framing paper PILAGG 2015-2016

Discussant: Loïc Azoulai (SPLS)

What are the specific insights of the discipline of the conflict of laws in respect of some of the most significant issues which challenge contemporary legal theory, in its attempts to integrate the radical changes wrought by globalisation in the normative landscape beyond (framed outside, or reaching over) the nation-state. Indeed, remarkably, these changes have brought complex interactions of conflicting norms and social systems to the center-stage of jurisprudence. This means that the conflict of laws has a plausible vocation to contribute significantly to a “global legal paradigm” (Michaels 2014), that is, a conceptual structure adapted to unfamiliar practices, forms and “modes of legal consciousness” (Kennedy 2006). Conversely, however, private international legal thinking has all to gain from attention to the other legal disciplines that have preceded it in the effort to “go global”. Thus, it needs to undergo a general conceptual overhauling in order to capture law’s novel foundations and features. In this respect, it calls for an adjustment of its epistemological and methodological tools to its transformed environment. It must revisit the terms of the debate about legitimacy of political authority and reconsider the values that constitute its normative horizon. From this perspective, the ambition of this paper is to further the efforts already undertaken by various strands of legal pluralism, as an alternative form of “lateral coordination” in global law (Walker 2015), towards the crafting of a “jurisprudence across borders” (Berman 2012). Societal constitutionalism (Teubner 2011), which has explicitly made the connection between transnational regime-collison and the conflict of laws, provides a particularly promising avenue for unbounding the latter, which might then emerge as a form of de-centered, reflexive coordination of global legal interactions.

 When? On Friday 25 September at 2.30pm

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

PILAGG FALL 2015 – La rentrée

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OCTOBER 2015: (IV) GLOBAL LAW AND INTERDISCIPLINARY INQUIRY

Law’s status as (empirical)  social science, repeatedly mooted then rejected in the name of its “internal” or dogmatic perspective, is arguably the most significant methodological debate in its modern history. But what is it about globalization which makes the need for interdisciplinarity resurface today in view of rethinking legal method? Is global law a relevant object of inquiry for the social sciences? Can the methods of private international law help frame a common problematic?

Alexander Panayatov attempts an exercise in an inter-disciplinary conceptual clarification.  Discussing the impediments to, and conditions for, inter-disciplinary collaboration based on exploring law and political science research cultures, he evaluates “The Legalization and World Politics” (LWP) project that offers a framework for deploying political science methodology to law. He also offers a supplementary framework for studying jurisdictional politics. This framework will specify four distinct mechanisms accounting for the creation of transnational jurisdictional regimes.

  • Transnational jurisdictional regimes and interdisciplinarityAlexander Panayatov (NYU): FRIDAY 16 OCTOBER 2015. Discussants: Véronique Champeil-Desplat (Paris X) & Jérôme Sgard (CERI – Sciences Po). Salle de réunion (4e étage), 14h-17h, Ecole de droit, Sciences po, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris.

UPCOMING EVENTS: LOOK OUT FOR ADDITIONAL SESSIONS (OCTOBER- DECEMBER) with Neil Walker (on Intimations of global law, 13 November), PG Monateri (on the Geopolitics of global law), Paul Schiff Berman (on Global legal pluralism and PIL, 9 October).

 

 

7 May 2015: Law and authority without (State) pedigree

PROBING LEGAL KNOWLEDGE IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: A DANGEROUS METHOD? (2015)

 LAW AND AUTHORITY WITHOUT (STATE) PEDIGREE MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

Competing, diffuse, post-Westphalian forms of authority and correlative displacements of power to non-state actors are difficult to capture in legal terms.  Is it possible to take seriously – whether to legitimize, challenge, or govern – new, diffuse and disorderly expressions of authority and normativity which do not necessarily fit traditional forms of legal knowledge, nor respond to familiar methods of legal reasoning? While private international law seems to deny the adequacy of legal pluralism, either to assess legitimacy of such claims or to solve conflicts between them, what are the alternative accounts of informal law (s) beyond the state?

  • Transnational authority: Max del Mar, Roger Cotterell (Queen Mary, London)
  • The technical turn and global norms: Benoît Frydman (ULB Brussels)

École de Droit, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris, 7 mai 2015, 14h45 à 17h45 (Salle de réunion, 4th floor)

6 March 2015: Global Paradigm and Legal Method(s)

PILAGG 2015 – PROBING LEGAL KNOWLEDGE IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: A DANGEROUS METHOD?

GLOBAL PARADIGM AND LEGAL METHOD(S)

WP_000515

The emergence of a global legal paradigm upsets assumptions/fictions developed within the modern, Westphalian model, which takes the law to be a self-contained, stable and coherent state-based system and designs its method(s) accordingly. To what extent, then do comparative and internationalist perspectives provide plausible alternative legal methodology(ies) within an emerging “global legal paradigm”? Paying critical attention to law in global context is likely to constitute a “dangerous method” with respect to its subversive and emancipatory potential.

  • The Mind and the Method(s): Jan Smits (Maastricht)
  • Global Legal Paradigm: Ralf Michaels (Duke)

WP_000516

École de Droit, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris, 6 mars 2015, 14h à 17h (Salle de réunion, 4th floor)

PILAGG PROGRAM 2015: The theoretical framework

PILAGG SEASSON II (2015-…)

PROBING (PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL) LEGAL KNOWLEDGE IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE: A DANGEROUS METHOD? (2015 Workshops)

I. GLOBAL PARADIGM AND LEGAL METHOD(S) (6 March):

The emergence of a global legal paradigm upsets assumptions/fictions developed within the modern, Westphalian model, which takes the law to be a self-contained, stable and coherent system and designs its method(s) accordingly. To what extent, then do comparative and internationalist perspectives provide plausible alternative legal methodology(ies) within an emerging “global legal paradigm”? Paying critical attention to law in global context is likely to constitute a “dangerous method” with respect to its subversive and emancipatory potential.

II. LAW AND AUTHORITY WITHOUT (STATE) PEDIGREE (April):

Competing, diffuse, post-Westphalian forms of authority and correlative displacements of power to non-state actors are difficult to capture in legal terms.  Is it possible to take seriously – whether to legitimize, challenge, or govern – new, diffuse and disorderly expressions of authority and normativity which do not necessarily fit traditional forms of legal knowledge, nor respond to familiar methods of legal reasoning? While private international law seems to deny the adequacy of legal pluralism, either to assess legitimacy of such claims or to solve conflicts between them, what are the alternative accounts of informal law (s) beyond the state?

III.     GLOBAL LAW AND INTERDISCIPLINARY INQUIRY (May):

Law’s status as (empirical) social science, repeatedly mooted then rejected in the name of its “internal” or dogmatic perspective, is arguably the most significant methodological debate in its modern history. But what is it about globalization which makes the need for interdisciplinarity resurface today in view of rethinking legal method? Is global law a relevant object of inquiry for the social sciences? Can the methods of private international law help frame a common problematic?

IV. CO-PRODUCTION AND EPISTEMOLOGY (September):

To what extent can the “idiom of coproduction”, developed within science and technology studies, be brought to bear in order to understand (demystify) the relationship between law and supposedly external or non-legal phenomena such as markets, scientific facts, or the internet, by showing up the importance of social choice? What are the implications for the governance of global spaces, which are in the traditional remit of private international law?

V. GLOBAL LEGAL CULTURE: CHIMERA OR THREAT (October):

What does law as cultural knowledge mean beyond the state? Is standardization/pateurization of legal knowledge inevitable in this context? Is there any room for the idea of cultural community beyond the state? Private international law has stood until now for the protection of cultural difference as among national cultures. How does globalization, with increased interaction with non-Western traditions which rely on customary, indigenous or religious laws, affect  its traditional perspective?

VI. NEW GENEALOGIES, CRITICAL GEOGRAPHIES (November):

The genealogy and geography of legal traditions are the focus of new critical approaches to comparative law and global legal history(ies).  Several of these have turned to other types of knowledge (for instance, aesthetics) as resistance to the increasing standardization of legal space beyond the state in the wake of the quantitative turn and the dominance of economics. To what extent are they helpful in understanding the vocabularies and ideologies of global law? To what extent does the global turn involve a revival of pre-modern methods of private international law, within a discipline which is said to thrive on historical cycles of decline and renewal?

VII.    THE SURVIVAL OF PIL AS A DISCIPLINE (December):

Private international law pre-existed the emergence of the modern state. Arguably however, it did not appear as a discipline before the latter part of the XIXth century. As such, its content was predominantly methodological and rested upon a specific epistemology which linked it on the one hand to the vision of the international legal order carried by its public international counterpart, on the other to a particular (essentially continental) understanding of private law. Today, its methods are challenged both by the rise of the global, and by the constitutional/human rights turn. Can it/should it survive as a discipline?