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).

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?

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)

 

Benoit Frydman – “Comment penser le droit global ?”

L’École doctorale de Sciences Po et PILAGG reçoivent Benoit Frydman le 9  février de 12h30 à 14h30 pour discuter avec nous sur le droit global. Vous pouvez consulter le paper préparé par Benoit en cliquant sur Frydman_Comment penser le droit global

Le séminaire aura lieu dans la Salle J208, au deuxième étage du 13, rue de l’Université.