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)

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 book is coming!!!

Cover

Private International Law and Global Governance

Edited by Horatia Muir Watt and Diego P. Fernandez Arroyo

See the information in the Oxford University Press website: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198727620.do

Table of Contents

Introduction: The Relevance of Private International Law to the Global Governance Debate, Horatia Muir Watt and Diego P. Fernández Arroyo

Part I: BEHIND CLOSED DOORS: THE PRIVATE MODEL AND ITS DISCONTENTS
Section A. Epistemological Challenge: The Meaning of ‘Private’ in Private International Law
1. Comparative Law as Resistance, Geoffrey Samuel
2. Private v Private: Transnational Private Law and Contestation in Global Economic Governance, Robert Wai
3. Post-critical Private International Law: From Politics to Technique, Ralf Michaels

Section B. Political Critique: Privatization as Homogenization
4. Global Land Grabbing: A Tale of Three Legal Homogenizations, Tomaso Ferrando
5. Governance Implications of Comparative Legal Thinking: On Henry Maine’s Jurisprudence and British Imperialism, Veronica Corcodel

Section C. Searching for Legitimacy: Questions of Design
6. Private Adjudication Without Precedent?, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
7. The Merchant Who Would Not Be King: Unreasoned Fears about Private Lawmaking, Gilles Cuniberti
8. Balancing the Public and the Private in International Investment Law, Yannick Radi

PART II: BEYOND THE SCHISM: EMERGING MODELS AND WORLDVIEWS
Section A. The Global Turn to Informality: Pragmatism and Constructivism
9. A Pragmatic Approach To Global Law, Benoit Frydman
10. Rules of Recognition: A Legal Constructivist Approach to Transnational Private Regulation, Harm Schepel
11. The Extraterritorial Application of Access to Justice Rights: On the Availability of Israeli Courts to Palestinian Plaintiffs, Michael Karayanni

Section B. Re-importing Public Law Methodology: Federalism and Constitutionalism
12. Variable Geometry, Peer Governance, and the Public International Perspective on Private International Law, Alex Mills
13. The Constitution of the Conflict of Laws, Jacco Bomhoff
14. Importing Proportionality to the Conflict of Laws, Jeremy Heymann

Section C. Reinventing a Global Horizon: Working towards a Global Public Good
15. Regulatory Choice of Law as a Public Good, Bram van den Eem
16. Recognition( and Mis-recognition) in Private International Law, Ivana Isailovic
17. Can Private International Law Contribute to Global Migration Governance?, Sabine Corneloup
Paradigm Change in Private International Law: Renewal, Circularity, or Decline?, Horatia Muir Watt

PILAGG Final Meeting 2013

Vendredi 31 mai 2013, 9h00-16h15

Attention!!!
Changement de bâtiment: toutes les séances se tiendront au 28 rue des Saints-Pères

 

Private Post-National Law Making and Enforcement

 

* Table I, 9:00 – 10:45 – Manufacturing private norms (Junior stream)

Caroline DEVAUX

Anna ASEEVA

Catherine TITI

Charles GOSME

 

* Table II, 11:00 – 12:45 - Around legitimacy and enforcement

Sergio PUIG (Stanford University)

Robert WAI (York University)

Diego P. FERNÁNDEZ ARROYO (SPLS)

 

* Table III, 2:30 – 4:00 – Revisiting party autonomy

Giuditta CORDERO MOSS (Universitetet i Oslo)

Gian Paolo ROMANO (Université de Genève)

 

* Concluding remarks, 4:00 – 4:15

Horatia MUIR WATT (SPLS)

Activités PILAGG dans la Semaine doctorale intensive de Sciences Po / Paris X (27 au 31 mai)

Lundi 27 mai 2013, 17h00-19h00

Amphithéâtres A. Leroy-Beaulieu – A. Sorel

27, rue Saint Guillaume, 75007 Paris

L’arbitrage international et le droit de l’Union européenne : un dialogue constructif ou une collision inévitable ?

Le sujet sera présenté par George A. Bermann (voir document de base pour la discussion: Arb Int 28-3 2012-G Bermann)

qui débattra avec

Emmanuel Gaillard
Catherine Kessedjian
Horatia Muir Watt
et
Diego P. Fernández Arroyo
Un cocktail sera offert par l’École de Droit à l’issue du colloque.
L’entrée est libre mais l’inscription est indispensable.
http://master.sciences-po.fr/droit/en/contenu/colloque-larbitrage-international-et-le-droit-de-lunion-europ-enne-un-dialogue-constructif-o

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

Vendredi 31 mai 2013, 9h00-16h15

199 Boulevard Saint Germain, 75007 Paris

PILAGG Final Meeting 2013

Private Post-National Law Making and Enforcement

* Table I, 9:00 – 10:45 – Manufacturing private norms (Junior stream)

Caroline DEVAUX

Anna ASSEVA

Catherine TITI

Charles GOSME

 

* Table II, 11:00 – 12:45 - Around legitimacy and enforcement

Sergio PUIG (Stanford University)

Robert WAI (York University)

Diego P. FERNÁNDEZ ARROYO (SPLS)

 

* Table III, 2:30 – 4:00 – Revisiting party autonomy

Giuditta CORDERO MOSS (Universitetet i Oslo)

Gian Paolo ROMANO (Université de Genève)

 

* Concluding remarks, 4:00 – 4:15

Horatia MUIR WATT (SPLS)

 

Argentine à lépreuve des fonds vautours

L’Association des Étudiants et Anciens Étudiants Latino-américains en Droit International, en partenariat avec PILAGG, a le plaisir de vous convier à sa prochaine conférence

Mercredi 15 mai 2013 à 19h00

L’Argentine à l’épreuve des fonds vautours : un défi pour le droit international

avec la participation de

Mathias Audit, Professeur à l’Université de Nanterre

Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, Professeur à l’École de droit de Sciences Po

Agnès Maîtrepierre, Conseiller référendaire à la Cour de cassation

Yves Nouvel, Professeur à l’Université Panthéon-Assas

Modératrice :

Yai González Murillo, Présidente de l’ELADI

Maison de l’Amérique Latine – Auditorium

217, Boulevard Saint Germain, 75007 Paris
Inscriptions sur eladi.red@gmail.com
http://eladifrance.wordpress.com/

PILAGG Launching Paper published on Transnational Legal Theory

Horatia MUIR WATT’s article “Private International Law Beyond the Schism”, already published on (2011) 2(3) Transnational Legal Theory 347–427

Despite the contemporary turn to law within the global governance debate, private international law remains remarkably silent before the increasingly unequal distrib tion of wealth and power in the world. By leaving such matters to its public international counterpart, it leaves largely untended the private causes of crisis and injustice affecting such areas as financial markets, levels of environmental pollution, the status of sovereign debt, the confiscation of natural resources, the use and misuse of development aid, the plight of migrating populations, and many more. This incapacity to rise to the private challenges of economic globalisation is all the more curious that public international law itself, on the tide of managerialism and fragmentation, is now increasingly confronted with conflicts articulated as collisions of jurisdiction and applicable law, among which private or hybrid authorities and regimes now occupy a significant place. The explanation seems to lie in the development, under the aegis of the liberal separation of law and politics and of the public and the private spheres, of an « epistemology of the closet », a refusal to see that to unleash powerful private interests in the name of individual autonomy and to allow them to accede to market authority was to construct the legal foundations of informal empire and establish gaping holes in global governance. It is now more than time to de-closet private international law and excavate the means with which, in its own right, it may impact on the balance of informal power in the global economy. Adopting a planetary perspective means reaching beyond the schism and connecting up with the politics of public international law, while contributing a specific savoir-faire acquired over many centuries in the recognition of alterity and the responsible management of pluralism.

HMW-PIL Beyond the Schism-TLT2011

PILAGG Final Meeting – Compte rendu, photos, David Kennedy’s paper

Le vendredi 11 mai PILAGG a célébré sa réunion finale du cours 2011/2012. Soixante-dix personnes ont participé des activités de toute la journée. Pendant le déjeuner avec David Kennedy, une cinquantaine de doctorants et professeurs participants à la semaine doctorale intensive organisée par SPLS et l’Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, nous ont rejoint. Le compte rendu de la réunion (en anglais) préparé par Kellen Trilha et Ivana Isailovic, peut être consulté ici : CR PILAGG Final Meeting

 

 

Alex Mills, Gilles Cuniberti, Horatia Muir Watt, Sabine Corneloup

 

 

See David Kennedy’s paper on: David Kennedy-Paper-PILAGG FM

David Kennedy, Horatia Muir Watt, Mikhaïl Xifaras

 

 

 

Antônio Cançado Trindade, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo

 

 

 

 

Hans van Loon, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, Frédérique Mestre

 

La gouvernance globale a-t-elle besoin d’une jurisprudence arbitrale ?

Le prochain séminaire de PILAGG, ensemble avec l’Ecole doctorale de Sciences Po, se tiendra autour du thème : ” La gouvernance globale a-t-elle besoin d’une jurisprudence arbitrale ?”

Jeudi 12 avril 2012 (12h30-14h30)

Sciences Po, 13 rue de l’Université, 75007 Paris, Salle du Conseil

Entrée libre dans la limite des places disponibles

Le séminaire sera animé par le Prof. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo

  • L’arbitrage est devenu le moyen normal de résoudre les différends dans un large éventail de matières relatives au commerce et à l’économie globale. Même des questions affectant des intérêts généraux et, directement ou indirectement, les droits de l’homme sont aujourd’hui soumises à l’arbitrage.  Parallèlement, une partie importante de l’activité arbitrale, y compris les sentences qu’y en découlent, se maintient en dehors de la connaissance du public. Or, compte tenu des enjeux en présence et du rôle fondamental pris par l’arbitrage dans la résolution des litiges internationaux, la confidentialité qui l’a traditionnellement caractérisé, est de plus en plus mis en doute. Dans le cadre de l’arbitrage d’investissement – ainsi qu’en matière d’arbitrage du sport -, la tendance vers la transparence s’impose, nonobstant une certaine réticence politique et des obstacles techniques ou opérationnels pour sa mise en œuvre. Les tensions vécues au sein du Groupe de travail d’arbitrage de la CNUDCI qui essaie d’élaborer un instrument consacrant un standard de transparence pour les arbitrages des différends entre États et investisseurs en témoignent. La confidentialité semble même s’affaiblir en tant que « principe » dans le domaine de l’arbitrage commercial international.
  • Cela dit, l’accès au contenu des sentences arbitrales étant une conditio sine qua non pour la formation d’une jurisprudence arbitrale, n’est pas, évidemment, la seule condition nécessaire. En effet, si l’identification des précédents est parfois possible, l’autorité de ces précédents ne va pas de soi. La jurisprudence arbitrale resterait ainsi une « pseudo-jurisprudence », un cumul de tendances – souhaitables ou non – que les tribunaux arbitraux ont la totale liberté de suivre ou d’ignorer. Certes, la pratique arbitrale montre fréquemment une cohérence étonnante à portée universelle, ce à quoi il est très difficile d’aboutir dans la jurisprudence judiciaire. Cependant, dans des matières particulièrement sensibles, les contradictions entre tribunaux arbitraux sont souvent grossières. Dans ce contexte, nous voudrions nous demander si cette incohérence est inévitable ou, au contraire, inadmissible, en particulier concernant certaines matières. On sait – la réalité le met en évidence chaque jour – que les États continuent à avoir des approches différentes vis-à-vis l’arbitrage. Mais, sans sortir du « monde arbitral », la question est d’identifier le degré d’incohérence que l’arbitrage international peut se permettre lorsqu’il revendique son caractère de véritable ordre juridique et lorsqu’il est devenu l’usine distributrice de justice des grands différends privés et public-privés.