Comparative Law News

Anne Holthoefer (Saint Anselm College) published an article on the "construction of international crime" and the interbellum.

Abstract:
This article explains the development of international crime as a legal category. I argue that states’ pursuit of political rights claims empowers international lawyers to develop new legal categories to grant states new tools to pursue their interests. At the same time, lawyers have a stake in defending the autonomy of law from politics, thus pushing for the development of legal norms and institutions that go beyond the original state intent. States’ turn to law thus begets more law, expanding the legal and institutional tools to solve international problems while simultaneously enforcing a commitment to principles of legality. To demonstrate the plausibility of the theory, the article studies the construction of the concept of an international crime in the interwar period (1919–1939). In response to the Allies’ attempt to prosecute the German Emperor, international lawyers sought the codification of international criminal law and drafted enforcement mechanisms. The interwar legal debate not only introduced international crime into the legal and political vocabulary, it also legitimized a new set of institutional responses to violations of international law, namely, international criminal prosecution.Source: International Law Reporter.
More information with Wiley.

(image source: Blogger) Conference Humanitarianism and the Remaking of International Law: History, Ideology, Practice, Technology
Call for Papers: Deadline 1 September 2017
The language and logic of humanitarianism occupy an increasingly central place in international law. Humanitarian reason has shaped the ideology, practice, and technologies of international law over the past century, including through the redescription of the laws of war as international humanitarian law, the framing of mass displacement and armed conflict as ‘humanitarian’ crises, the use of humanitarian justifications for intervention, occupation, and detention, and the representation of international law as an expression of the conscience of humanity.
For some, this trend is clearly positive – international law is reimagined as humanity’s law, humanity as the alpha and omega of international law. Yet critics have pointed to the dark side of these developments and of the humanitarian logic operating within international law, arguing that consolidation of the laws of war has served the interests of powerful groups and states at key moments of potential challenge to existing systems of rule, humanitarianism has been taken up as a language to rationalise the violence of certain forms of occupation, intervention, and warfare, international humanitarian law has displaced other more constraining forms of law as the world becomes imagined as a global battlefield, humanitarian NGOs have served as a fifth column that has enabled particular forms of social transformation and constrained others, and a supposedly impartial humanitarianism has displaced politics.
This conference will bring together scholars working in law, history, international relations, and political theory to think critically about the ideology, institutions, practices, and technologies that condition modern humanitarianism and its relation to international law. Confirmed speakers include Amanda Alexander, Leila Brännström, Markus Gunneflo, Helen Kinsella, Martti Koskenniemi, Dino Kritsiotis, Frédéric Mégret, Naz Modirzadeh, Gregor Noll, Rose Parfitt, Hani Sayed, Ntina Tzouvala, Boyd van Dijk, and Fabia Veçoso. Selected papers will be published in an edited collection by a leading publisher.
Paper proposals related to the conference theme are now invited. Possible topics for papers include:

• laws of war and the social question
• international humanitarian law and revolution
• decolonisation and the remaking of international humanitarian law
• humanitarian intervention and occupation in international law and history
• humanitarian and securitisation responses to dispossession, displacement, and refugees
• international humanitarian law and the framing of civil war
• international humanitarian law and national liberation movements
• incidents and events in the history of international humanitarian law-making
• humanitarian law and human rights law in the 'global' battle space
• humanitarian organisations and the politics of intervention
• the relation of humanitarianism and counter-terrorism in international law
• knowledge production and international humanitarian law
• humanitarian law and visual culture 
• international humanitarian law and practices of distinction
• the technologies of humanitarian law and war
• humanitarian law and algorithmic warfare
• humanitarianism and the penal turn in international law
• the meanings of humanitarian law across time and space
• the political economy of international humanitarianism
• critical geographies of international humanitarian law
• international law after humanity

Those proposing papers for presentation at the Conference should submit a one page abstract and brief bio by email to Professor Anne Orford at laureate-intlaw@unimelb.edu.au by 1 September 2017. 
(source: International Law Reporter)

(image source: Tel Aviv University)
David Schorr reports on H-Law that a new bibliography of Israeli legal history has been published by the David Berg Foundation Institute for Law and History at Tel Aviv University.

More information here.

(image source: Wikimedia Commons)
Prof. Mathias Schmoeckel (Universität Bonn) organises a conference on Great Christian Jurists.

Programme:September 28, 2017
16:00
Welcome Reception / Registration / Coffee
17:00 – 18:00
Eike von Repgow (Tilman Repgen, University of Hamburg)
18:00 – 19:00
Johann von Buch (Mathias Schmoeckel, University of Bonn)
19:00 – 20:00
Andreas Gaill (Wolfgang Forster, University of Tübingen)
20:30
Dinner
September 29, 2017
08:30 – 09:30
Samuel von Pufendorf (Robert von Friedeburg, Erasmus University Rotterdam)
09:30 – 10:30
Christian Thomasius (Christoph Strohm, University of Heidelberg)
10:30 – 11:30
Carl Gottlieb Svarez (Sebastian Michels, University of Bonn)
11:30 – 12:30
Friedrich Carl von Savigny (Joachim Rückert, University of Frankfurt)
12:30 – 13:30
Friedrich Julius Stahl (Heinrich de Wall, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg)
13:30 – 14:30
Lunch
14:30 – 15:30
Karl Friedrich Eichhorn (Steffen Schlinker, University of Greifswald)
15:30 – 16:30
Sylvester Jordan (Hans-Georg Hermann, University of Munich)
16:30 – 17:30
Moritz August von Bethmann-Hollweg (Hans-Peter Haferkamp, University of Cologne
17:30 – 18:30
Maximilian Anton von Seydel (Malte Becker, University of Bonn)
18:30 – 19:30
Rudolf Sohm (Andreas Thier, University of Zurich)
20:00
Dinner
Source: HSozKult. 

Recensio.net published a review by Hans-Jürgen Becker of Franck Roumy, Mathias Schmoeckel and Orazio Condorelli's collective work on the influence of canon law on European legal culture, published originally in the Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 2016/4.

Fulltext here (public law) and here (penal law and penal procedure).

The European Society for the History of Political Thought (ESHPT, http://europoliticalthought.wordpress.com ) invites proposals for individual papers and panels for its next international conference. In view of the contiguous research areas with (comparative) legal history, we reproduce the call:

Amongst the keywords that have shaped the language of media, public conversation, politico-economic discourse and academic debate in the last few years, ‘crisis’ holds a prominent place. The term is applied to a huge variety of domains: from the never-ending cries of a ‘global economic crisis’ to descriptions of war zones as ‘crisis-torn’, on to characterisations of professionals as ‘crisis-experts’ as well as references to governmental ‘crisis-management’ teams. The frequency with which the word is utilised though does not signify clarity of meaning, nor does it denote historical and theoretical accuracy with regard to its origins and usages. In fact, the wide range of uses makes it for much uncertainty: from indicating stark alternatives and non-negotiable decisions, it has assumed vague connotations, which might be seen as a sign that the current historical era is deeply marked by instability and lack of clear direction(s).
If the Oxford English Dictionary stresses that ‘crisis’ pointed, first and foremost, to the medical sense of ‘the turning-point of a disease for better or worse’, before the connotations closer to those normally referred to nowadays, that is of ‘times of difficulty, insecurity, and suspense in politics or commerce’, it is important to underline that plenty of historians have reflected on crisis from different angles. Economic and social historians (Eric Hobsbawm, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Roland Mousnier, Geoffrey Parker and others) have addressed the ‘general crisis of the seventeenth century’ as a series of calamities in Europe inaugurating the dynamic development of capitalism and the emergence of modern states. In a similar vein, Paul Hazard described the late seventeenth-century ‘crisis of the European mind’ as leading to the Enlightenment, while according to Reinhart Koselleck enlightened ‘critique’ represented a challenge (i.e. of the political by the social, ethical and cultural), and ‘crisis’ the moment of subversion. In each of these approaches the idea of ‘crisis’ comes across as a kind of ‘testing time’ that might give rise to new experimentation. As a matter of fact, this throws interesting light on the current, apparently ‘critical’ predicament of liberal democracy and the agenda this might prescribe for political theorizing.
Whilst taking into consideration these approaches (which are just a sample), our conference at Heidelberg University, where Koselleck was a student and wrote Kritik und Krise, is shaped by the thematic and methodological preoccupations of the history of political thought. Our aim is to broaden some of these themes in new directions and investigate the notion of ‘crisis and renewal’ (also as a mirror image of work on ‘decline and fall’). We ask papers to focus on the ways in which the self-reflection of innovative thinkers in critical times moulded their vocabularies and the modalities in which the ‘critical’ element of their contributions was articulated. We invite proposals that address, but are not confined to, the following questions:
- How does political thought react to critical moments in history?
- Does political thought produce ‘crisis/es’?
- Are moments of ‘crisis’ also moments of creativity for the history of political thought and political theory?
- Are existing concepts at a given time suited to face crises or are established principles employed in different ways to respond and make sense of them?
- How can we theorise, indeed reflect both theoretically and historically, vis-à-vis (notions of) ‘crisis’?
- How do we account for the complex changes and developments occurred in the meanings of ‘crisis’ from ancient Greece (where the word was coined) up to the last few decades?
- What trajectory/ies did ideas of crisis take in different contexts at different historical junctures?
- What are the relations between political ideas and material factors such as famine, war, weather etc. in conjunction with ‘crisis’?
These questions need to be addressed by embracing the full geographical and chronological spectrum of ‘European political thought’ from antiquity to the present. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the ESHPT and of the discipline of the history of political thought, we welcome papers and panels seeking to cover some of the questions above from multiple methodological and historiographical perspectives (e.g., political thought, political theory, history, philosophy, law).
Keynote speakers: Erica Benner (Berlin)
Paschalis Kitromilides (Athens)
Proposals for individual 20 minute papers should be no longer than 250 words, and proposals for panels should not exceed 500 words. Short CVs of the speakers should be added (name, institutional affiliations, major publications – no more than five). Panels at the conference will normally last 90 minutes, with 3 papers each. (Exceptionally, panel proposals consisting of more than 3 papers can be accommodated.)
Please send your proposals by 30 September 2017 to László Kontler, kontlerl@ceu.edu, cc to Gregor Stiebert, gregorstiebert@zegk.uni-heidelberg.de.
Authors will be notified of paper acceptance or non-acceptance by 15 December 2017.

Call for Papers : Law’s Porosities
The North-American section of the Société de législation comparée is organizing a bilingual conference (French-English) on “Law’s Porosities” on October 26, 2017 in Washington, D.C. at the American University Washington College of Law, in conjunction with the American Society of Comparative Law’s annual meeting, which will be held on October 27 and 28, 2017. Presentations in English or French are welcome.The Keynote lecture will be delivered by Mireille Delmas-Marty, Professor Emerita, Collège de France.There is no cost to attend either or both meetings, and reduced hotel costs will be available to anyone registered for either or both meetings.Please send a short abstract of your proposed presentation before August 31 to VivianeCurran@pitt.edu.Details for registration will be posted soon on the site of the American Society of Comparative Law: http://ascl.org/We are hoping to see many of you in Washington!-Vivian Curran, President, North-American Section, Société de législation comparée and            President, American Society of Comparative Law-George Bermann, Vice-President, North-American Section, Société de législation comparéeAppel à communications : Porosités du droit
La Section nord-américaine de la Société de législation comparée organise une conférence bilingue (français-anglais) sur les « Porosités du droit » le 26 octobre 2017 à Washington, D.C. à l’American University Washington College of Law, en conjonction avec la conférence annuelle de l’American Society of Comparative Law qui aura lieu le 27 et 28 octobre 2017.  Les interventions en langue française ou anglaise seront bienvenues.Discours d’ouverture par Madame le Professeur Mireille Delmas-Marty, Pr. émérite, Collège de FranceEntrée gratuite aux deux conférences et tarifs réduits pour le logement avec inscription à l’une ou aux deux conférences.Prière d’envoyer un court résumé de votre intervention proposée avant le 31 août à VivianeCurran@pitt.edu. Précisions pour inscriptions se trouveront bientôt sur le site de l’American Society of Comparative Law : http://ascl.org/Espérant vous voir nombreux àWashington !-Viviane Curran, Présidente de la Section nord-américaine de la SLC etPrésidente de l’American Society of Comparative Law
-George Bermann, Vice-Président de la Section nord-américaine de la SLC

New from Hart PublishingI am pleased to announce the publication of the title(s) shown below. If you would like to order with your 10% discount you can do so through our US distributor’s website (please quote the reference HART EMAIL in the voucher code field and click ‘apply’).Alternatively please contact ISBS directly to place your order (details below).

Criminal Sentencing as Practical WisdomGraeme Brown
How do judges sentence? In particular, how important is judicial discretion in sentencing? Sentencing guidelines are often said to promote consistency, but is consistency in sentencing achievable or even desirable? Whilst the passing of a sentence is arguably the most public stage of the criminal justice process, there have been few attempts to examine judicial perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the sentencing process.Through interviews with Scottish judges and by presenting a comprehensive review and analysis of recent scholarship on sentencing – including a comparative study of UK, Irish and Commonwealth sentencing jurisprudence – this book explores these issues to present a systematic theory of sentencing. Through an integration of the concept of equity as particularised justice, the Aristotelian concept of phronesis (or ‘practical wisdom’), the concept of value pluralism, and the focus of appellate courts throughout the Commonwealth on sentencing by way of ‘instinctive synthesis’, it is argued that judicial sentencing methodology is best viewed in terms of a phronetic synthesis of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case. The author concludes that sentencing is best conceptualised as a form of case-orientated, concrete and intuitive decision making; one that seeks individualisation through judicial recognition of the profoundly contextualised nature of the process.
Graeme Brown LLB (Hons), LLM, MSc, MJur (Dunelm), PhD (Edin), Dip LP is a solicitor and Honorary Fellow in the School of Law, University of Edinburgh.
June 2017     9781509902613     304pp     Hardback     RSP: $108
DISCOUNT RATE TO EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBERS: $97.20 (+ postage)
Please click here for more information about this title and to order online
Human Rights and Judicial Review in Australia and CanadaThe Newest Despotism?Janina Boughey
It is commonly asserted that bills of rights have had a ‘righting’ effect on the principles of judicial review of administrative action and have been a key driver of the modern expansion in judicial oversight of the executive arm of government. A number of commentators have pointed to Australian administrative law as evidence for this ‘righting’ hypothesis. They have suggested that the fact that Australia is an outlier among common law jurisdictions in having neither a statutory nor a constitutional framework to expressly protect human rights explains why Australia alone continues to take an apparently ‘formalist’, ‘legalist’ and ‘conservative’ approach to administrative law. Other commentators and judges, including a number in Canada, have argued the opposite: that bills of rights have the effect of stifling the development of the common law. However, for the most part, all these claims remain just that – there has been limited detailed analysis of the issue, and no detailed comparative analysis of the veracity of the claims. This book analyses in detail the interaction between administrative and human rights law in Australia and Canada, arguing that both jurisdictions have reached remarkably similar positions regarding the balance between judicial and executive power, and between broader fundamental principles including the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. It will provide valuable reading for all those researching judicial review and human rights.
Janina Boughey is a Lecturer in Public Law at Monash University.
Click here for more details about the Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law Series
June 2017     9781509907861     320pp     Hardback     RSP: $108
DISCOUNT RATE TO EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBERS: $97.20 (+ postage)
Please click here for more information about this title and to order online
General Principles of LawEuropean and Comparative PerspectivesEdited by Stefan Vogenauer and Stephen Weatherill
Examining general principles of law provides one of the most instructive examples of the intersection between EU law and comparative law. This collection draws on the expertise of high-profile and distinguished scholars to provide a critical examination of this interaction. It shows how general principles of EU law need to be responsive to national laws. In addition, it is clear that the laws of the Member States have no choice but to be responsive to the general principles which are developed through EU law. Viewed through the perspective of proportionality, legal certainty, and fundamental rights, the dynamic relationship between the ingenuity of the Court of Justice, the legislative process and the process of Treaty revision is comprehensively illustrated.
Stefan Vogenauer is Director of the Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, Frankfurt.Stephen Weatherill is Jacques Delors Professor of European Law, University of Oxford.
Click here for more details about the Studies of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law Series
June 2017     9781509910717     432pp     Hardback     RSP: $114
DISCOUNT RATE TO EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBERS: $102.60 (+ postage)
Please click here for more information about this title and to order online
Gender Equality in LawUncovering the Legacies of Czech State SocialismBarbara Havelková
Praise For The Book‘In ‘Gender Equality in Law: Uncovering the Legacies of Czech State Socialism’, Barbara Havelková offers a sober and sophisticated socio-legal account of gender equality law in Czechia. Tracing gender equality norms from their origins under state socialism, Havelková shows how the dominant understanding of the differences between women and men as natural and innate combined with a post-socialist understanding of rights as freedom to shape the views of key Czech legal actors and to thwart the transformative potential of EU sex discrimination law. Havelková’s compelling feminist legal genealogy of gender equality in Czechia illuminates the path dependency of gender norms and the antipathy to substantive gender equality that is common among the formerly state-socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Her deft analysis of the relationship between gender and legal norms is especially relevant today as the legitimacy of gender equality laws is increasingly precarious.’Professor Judy  Fudge, Kent Law School
Gender equality law in Czechia, as in other parts of post-socialist Central and Eastern Europe, is facing serious challenges. When obliged to adopt, interpret and apply anti-discrimination law as a condition of membership of the EU, Czech legislators and judges have repeatedly expressed hostility and demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of key ideas underpinning it. This important new study explores this scepticism to gender equality law, examining it with reference to legal and socio-legal developments that started in the state-socialist past and that remain relevant today. The book examines legal developments in gender-relevant areas, most importantly in equality and anti-discrimination law. But it goes further, shedding light on the underlying understandings of key concepts such as women, gender, equality, discrimination and rights. In so doing, it shows the fundamental intellectual and conceptual difficulties faced by gender equality law in Czechia. These include an essentialist understanding of differences between men and women, a notion that equality and anti-discrimination law is incompatible with freedom, and a perception that existing laws are objective and neutral, while any new gender-progressive regulation of social relations is an unacceptable interference with the ‘natural social order’. Timely and provocative, this book will be required reading for all scholars of equality and gender and the law.
Barbara Havelková is the Shaw Foundation Fellow in Law at the University of Oxford.
Click here for more details about the Human Rights Law in Perspective Series
June 2017     9781509905867     368pp     Hardback     RSP: $94
DISCOUNT RATE TO EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBERS: $84.60 (+ postage)
Please click here for more information about this title and to order online
The Fundamental Right to Data ProtectionNormative Value in the Context of Counter-Terrorism SurveillanceMaria Tzanou
Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, data protection has been elevated to the status of a fundamental right in the European Union and is now enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights alongside the right to privacy. This timely book investigates the normative significance of data protection as a fundamental right in the EU. The first part of the book examines the scope, the content and the capabilities of data protection as a fundamental right to resolve problems and to provide for an effective protection. It discusses the current approaches to this right in the legal scholarship and the case-law and identifies the limitations that prevent it from having an added value of its own. It suggests a theory of data protection that reconstructs the understanding of this right and could guide courts and legislators on data protection issues. The second part of the book goes on to empirically test the reconstructed right to data protection in four case-studies of counter-terrorism surveillance: communications metadata, travel data, financial data and Internet data surveillance. The book will be of interest to academics, students, policy-makers and practitioners in EU law, privacy, data protection, counter-terrorism and human rights law.
Maria Tzanou is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Keele.
Click here for more details about the Modern Studies in European Law Series
June 2017     9781509901678     320pp     Hardback     RSP: $94
DISCOUNT RATE TO EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBERS: $84.60 (+ postage)
Please click here for more information about this title and to order online
Religion, Equality and Employment in EuropeThe Case for Reasonable AccommodationKatayoun Alidadi
Praise For The Book'This book offers a comprehensive exploration of a traditionally neglected theme which is of great practical significance for the prosperous development of multi-religious societies. Alidadi presents an innovative combination of findings from different normative and empirical disciplines, particularly law and sociology, and offers critical contributions to central debates within legal theory, including on the meaning of State neutrality vis-à-vis religion, secularity, formal and substantive equality, diversity and multiculturalism …a 'must' for everyone in the future dealing with issues of religious freedom, tolerance or discrimination in the workplace.'Heiner Bielefeldt, Professor of Human Rights and Human Rights Policy at the University of Erlangen and Former UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
'…a timely, expansive, and tremendously important book which offers a smart, sophisticated examination of divisive issues. Alidadi presents her thought-provoking argument in a balanced and compelling fashion.... The case for reasonable accommodation may very well provoke opposition in the current socio-political European context. But there can be no doubt that this rich study will have an impact on any future academic discussion on the accommodation of religious diversity in the workplace.'Rik Torfs, Professor of Canon Law and University Chancellor Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium
'Alidadi’s work will rapidly emerge as the premier study of religion in the workplace.  Drawing on extensive empirical and legal research, she provides a powerful analysis pointing to the crucial importance of reasonable accommodation as a vital solution not only in employment settings, but in the larger context of our increasingly diverse societies.'W. Cole Durham, Jr., Founding Director, International Center for Law and Religion Studies, Brigham Young University Law School
The management of religious and ideological diversity remains a key challenge of our time – deeply entangled with debates about the nature of liberal democracy, equality, social cohesion, minorities and nationalism, security and foreign policy. This book explores this challenge at the level of the workplace in Europe. People do not surrender their religion of belief at the gates of their workplace, nor should they be required to do so. But what are the limits of accommodating religious belief in the workplace, particularly when it clashes with other fundamental rights and freedoms?Using a comparative and socio-legal approach that emphasises the practical role of human rights, anti-discrimination law and employment protection, this book argues for an enforceable right to reasonable accommodation on the grounds of religion and belief in the workplace in Europe. In so doing, it draws on the case law of Europe’s two supranational courts, three country studies –Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK – as well as developments in the US and Canada. By offering the first book-length treatment of the issue, it will be of significance to academics, students, policy-makers, business leaders and anyone interested in a deeper understanding of the potentials and limits of European and Western inclusion, freedom and equality in a multicultural context.
Katayoun Alidadi is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies at Bryant University (Smithfield, RI, USA) and a Research Associate at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology (Halle, Germany). Her work focuses on human rights, conflict of laws, employment law and the intersections of law and religion. She was awarded the 2013 Ius Commune Prize for her research on reasonable accommodation for religion and belief. Katayoun holds a PhD in law from the KULeuven (Leuven, Belgium) and an LL.M. from Harvard Law School (Cambridge, MA, USA).
June 2017     9781509911370     320pp     Hardback     RSP: $108
DISCOUNT RATE TO EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBERS: $97.20 (+ postage)

Please click here for more information about this title and to order online

Movable Goods and Immovable Property. Gender, Law and Material Culture in Early Modern Europe (1450‒1850)9th Conference of the European network “Gender Differences in the History of European Legal Cultures”
German Historical Institute London, 19-21 July 2018Conveners: Annette Cremer (Gießen), Hannes Ziegler (London)
(image source: HU Berlin)

The history of material cultures offers important new ways of studying the significance of gender differences in the history of legal cultures by exploring new relationships between gender, law and material culture. Material and immaterial possession informs the self-image of individuals and societies, dynasties and families. A threefold scheme of legal distinction differentiates between usufruct (1), possession (2), and property (3). Yet these relationships between individuals and objects are not only relevant to civil law, but correspond to political regimes. While usufruct, possession and property thus correspond to different forms of authority and society, they also have a bearing on gender relations on different levels of society. Usually, these gendered aspects of material culture are the products of traditional proximities between certain areas of activity and related groups of objects. Communities in early modern Europe can thus be said to have a gendered and often legally sanctioned relationship to the material world and the world of objects.
Our assumption is that this situation led to social rivalries and gender-informed conflicts between individual members of societies regarding usufruct, possession, and property. The action of taking possession of something is thus more than just a way of achieving material security, but a form of social practice and a way of self-assertion: in order to gain social status, as a way of accumulating social capital or broadening one’s personal or dynastic room for manoeuvre. In this respect, the single most important event is the distribution of goods in generational succession. Despite their chronologically wide applicability, we would like to explore these questions with respect to early modern history.
The starting point for our conference is objects and groups of objects, that is to say, mobile and immobile resources, and their relationships with gender, structures of power, estate orders, customs and legal norms. Perspectives from social and legal sciences will thus be combined with approaches from material culture studies. Our basic assumption is that ways and forms of usufruct, possession and property regarding certain objects inform the self-image and the prospects of individuals and families. What changes and dynamics can be observed in relation to the correlations between gender and objects? What differences occur between different forms of societies?
The network „Gender Differences in the History of European Legal Cultures“ operates in a diachronic and comparative way. We are therefore looking for papers engaging with the relationships between objects, gendered self-images and rights of ownership on the basis of textual, pictorial and material sources in Europe between 1450 and 1850. Despite this emphasis on early modern history, we also encourage proposals that highlight transitions from the Middle Ages. Papers should engage with one or more of the following themes and questions:
1.      How can the distinction between movables and immovables be explained? On what experiences and everyday considerations is it based?2.      When does the category of movables become relevant? Is the understanding of the house as immovable based on its material aspects, e.g. fabrics?3.      Does the gendered coding of movables and immovables exist in different legal areas? How is the attribution of gendered codes argued for?4.      What are the consequences of gendered attributions of objects and resources? Does the distribution of resources lead to specific hazards or profits?5.      What objects are especially disputed? We are looking for examples of individuals trying to take possession of mobile and immobile, material and immaterial resources.6.      Can tensions be discerned between the aims and interests of households and family units and the superior interests of the manorial system, the economies of cities and states, or the public weal?7.      Does the distinction between mobiles and immobiles extend beyond legal norms? How is it handled in Common or Roman Law? 8.      What are the strategies of testators for distributing their property? How binding were marriage contracts and last wills in the case of succession?9.      What institutions are resorted to in case of conflicts?10.  How is the value of mobiles and immobiles assessed? How relevant are market values, auctions and valuers?11.  What is the role of gender, marital status, age, social standing, and religious confession for pursuing one’s interest and the chances of success in the case of judicial conflicts?12.  What is the influence of the distribution of wealth on power relations within the family?13.  And finally: what is the shape of households that have been reorganised by gavelkind, single heir rule and other mechanisms of distribution? In other words: how is the redistribution of goods handled within households?
Keynotes will be presented by:
Amy Erickson (Cambridge) and Margareth Lanzinger (Wien)
Please send your proposals for papers (appr. 1 page/300 words) together with a short academic CV by 15 October 2017 to:annette.cremer@geschichte.uni-giessen.deandziegler@ghil.ac.uk

(image source: Brepols)
Elisbeth Lusset (CNRS) published Crime, châtiment et grâce dans les monastères au Moyen Âge with Brepols Publishers.
Book abstract:Ce livre analyse les crimes commis à l’intérieur des monastères médiévaux (violences, homicides ou encore vols) et la manière dont les religieux criminels étaient corrigés tant par les abbés, les évêques, les chapitres généraux des ordres religieux que par les organes de la curie romaine. Il compare, à l’échelle de l’Europe, les établissements de moines, chanoines réguliers et moniales, qu’ils appartiennent à un ordre (Cluny, Cîteaux, Prémontré, Grande Chartreuse) ou à une nébuleuse moins définie sur le plan juridique (abbayes et prieurés de moines bénédictins ou de chanoines réguliers). En explorant le fonctionnement de la justice claustrale, les peines prescrites ainsi que les mécanismes de réconciliation des criminels, l’ouvrage éclaire sous un angle nouveau les processus de construction institutionnelle et de réforme des ordres religieux entre les XIIe et XVe siècles.On the author:
Ancienne élève de l’École normale supérieure de Lyon, ancienne pensionnaire de la Fondation Thiers, agrégée d’histoire et docteur en histoire médiévale, Élisabeth Lusset est chargée de recheche au CNRS. Elle travaille sur l’histoire comparée des ordres religieux et sur le gouvernement de l’Église médiévale.
Table of contents:
 Chapitre premier - Secreta ou detecta ?  Instances de correction des religieux criminels et production documentaireA. La correction au sein du cloître
1. Chapitre des coulpes et correction secrète des crimes
2. Les instances en charge de la correction au sein du monastère
B. La correction des criminels au sein des ordres religieux
1. Exemption et souveraineté en matière disciplinaire
2. Le chapitre général : instance législative et judiciaire suprême
C. La correction des criminels par les évêques et les archevêques normands et anglais
1. Les registres épiscopaux
2. Le contrôle disciplinaire des monastères non exempts
3. Le contrôle disciplinaire des monastères exempts
D. La correction des religieux par le pape
1. Le droit pontifical
2. Les registres de la chancellerie et de la pénitencerie apostolique
E. Pouvoirs laïques et discipline claustrale
1. La collaboration des pouvoirs ecclésiastiques et laïques
2. Une intervention croissante des juges laïques: les cas français et anglais
Chapitre II - Procédures : dénoncer, enquêter et gracierA. Dénoncer les crimes au chapitre des coulpes
B. Procédure lors des visites
1. Enquête générale
2. Enquêtes criminelles
3. Abandon des charges, sentence ou purgation canonique
C. Pétitionner le pape
1. À quel organe pontifical recourir ?
2. Le parcours des clercs réguliers et de leurs suppliques
Chapitre III – Typologie des crimes et circonstancesA. Typologie des crimes
1. Les violences physiques et verbales
2. Les homicides
3. Le vol
4. Les crimes de faux, d’incendie et de sorcellerie
B. Lieux du crime
1. Infra ou extra septa2. Les espaces sacrés : l’église et le cimetière
3. La salle capitulaire
4. Le dortoir et les chambres
5. Le cloître et le réfectoire
C. L'heure du crime
D. Crimes individuels ou collectif ?
E. Les armes du crime
1. Armes offensives
2. Crimes de poison
Chapitre IV – Mobiles du crimeA. Des crimes sous influence : colère, vin et haine
1. Ira et furore commotus2. Inebriatus et potu repletus3. Per odium et rancorem motumB. L'accès aux charges claustrales
C. Gestion et partage des biens
D. Le gouvernement de la communauté monastique
1. Les conflits entre « nations »
2. Iuniores contre seniores3. Le convers pervers
4. Le refus de l’autorité des supérieurs
5. Correction et abus
6. L’exercice trop autoritaire du pouvoir
7. Régime de faveur
E. Réformes
1. Le topos du réformateur persécuté
2. Les conflits de réforme au prisme des actes de la pratique
F. La persistance du vieil homme
1. Rhétorique de l’excuse
2. Fama et vindicta3. A verbis ad verbera. Des insultes aux coups
4. Maniement des armes
5. Poids des solidarités familiales
6. Une conversio morum en actes
Chapitre V – L’eau de tristesse et le pain de douleur - Pénitences et peinesA. Expulsion et/ou livraison au pouvoir séculier
B. Excommunications
1. Excommunicatio regularis et pénitences
2. Excommunication canonique
C. Transfert pro culpa1. Les buts du transfert pro culpa2. Les modalités du transfert pro culpa3. Résistances
4. L’encadrement de l’usage du transfert pro culpaD. L’enfermement punitif
1. Types d’enfermement
2. Généralisation de la peine de prison au XIIIe siècle
3. Conditions d’incarcération et perception de la peine
E. Scandale et sévérité des peines
Chapitre VI - Mélanger l’huile de miséricorde et le vin de la correctionA. Mitigation les peines et réconciliation des criminels
1. Des peines modulables
2. La réconciliation des criminels apostats ou expulsés
3. Réhabilitation
B. Répartition et hiérarchisation des compétences en matière d’absolution et de dispense
1. Le canon Si quis suadente et les modalités d’application de la réserve pontificale
2. La potestas absolvendi et dispensandi épiscopale
3. La potestas absolvendi et dispensandi au sein des monastères
C. L’exercice de la miséricorde pontificale
1. Crimes énormes ou ordinaires ?
2. Pourquoi s’adresser à la pénitencerie apostolique ?
D. Concilier rigueur et miséricorde
1. Résistances des prélats aux injonctions de miséricorde
2. Défense des prérogatives disciplinaires des chapitres généraux
Conclusion
Annexes
Abréviations utilisées
Sources manuscrites et imprimées
Bibliographie sélective
Index
Table des matières

(image source: ResearchGate)
The European Society for Comparative Legal History's fifth Biennal Conference (2010 Valencia - 2012 Amsterdam - 2014 Macerata - 2016 Gdansk) will take place in Paris next year.

The call for papers can be found below:



Laws Across Codes and Laws Decoded28 June – 30 June 2018 at the Ecole Normale Supérieure (Paris)
The Organising Committee of the 5thBiennal Conference and the Executive Council of the European Society for Comparative Legal History are pleased to call for papers for the upcoming conference to be held. The main theme picks up threads of thought from the earlier ESCLH conferences in Valencia (2010), Amsterdam (2012), Macerata (2014) and Gdansk (2016) to explore what codes and codification have meant and continue to mean for legal systems with codes, and for those without. Papers should be submitted, as set out below, by 15 November 2017.
The conference will focus on the issue of codes or alternatives to codes as instruments of transforming laws in Europe and in the world. While codes, and the process of codification, are at least familiar if not always completely understood, this conference challenges us to look deeper at what a code meant for the legal systems affected by it. The conference seeks to understand the whole process of codification, from political aspects to its conception, agreement and roll-out, through to technical matters of drafting and implementation and even to linguistic matters of expression and deeper meanings. Challenging the importance for legal rules to be inserted within or outside a code, the conference proposes to examine all sorts of codes, and not only the most known civil codes: general codes as special (such as penal, commercial, labour, family, military) codes, officious codes as official codes. The conference seeks also to study the effects the codified structure of the norms could have on their content and on the way law functions, notably through case law and law writing. All the historical situations in which law reform took place outside of codification and outside of codes can be questioned could be relevant in helping us to understand law reform through codes or its alternatives.
Papers should be novel, properly researched and referenced. They should address the conference theme, exploring doctrinal, theoretical, cultural or methodological aspects of comparative legal history. They must also be comparative, addressing more than one system of laws. The organisers particularly welcome addressing multiple legal systems or cultures. This includes where a similar legal system functions in different cultural circles.Practical details: 1. To offer a paper, please send the title of their paper, a short abstract (of 200-400 word, absolutely no more and a short CV (no more than 1 page) by 15 November 2017 to the organizing committee, c/o jean-louis.halperin@ens.fr.2. The presentations should be in English.3. It is also possible to submit a complete proposal for one or more panels (3 papers normally).4. The list of accepted papers will be announced by 8 December 2017.
Shortly, a conference website will be launched with fuller details of the conference. For the moment, some transport and accommodation information follows.
Paris offers many accommodation possibilities ranging from five-star hotels, through smaller hotels in the Quartier latin and private rooms to beds in youth and student hostels. For some postgraduates the Ecole Normale Supérieurecould offer cheaper accommodation in student dormitories.

Sehepunkte published the fulltext of a book review by Ulrike Barbusiaux of Kaius Tuori's The Emperor of Law (Oxford: OUP, 2016).

First paragraph:
Die konstitutive Bedeutung der kaiserlichen Rechtsprechung für Machtbegründung und -erhalt des princeps ist unumstritten. Stark divergierend sind aber die Deutungen ihrer Grundlagen und Begründungen, wobei sich vor allem die stärker machtpolitischen althistorischen und eher legalistischen rechtshistorischen Rekonstruktionen kaum auf einen Nenner bringen lassen. Kaius Tuori hinterfragt die bisherigen Erklärungsmodelle und präsentiert einen Neuansatz zur kaiserlichen adjudication . Die Originalität dieses Ansatzes liegt darin, dass er nicht nach rechtlichen Regeln oder gar Ermächtigungen sucht, und auch die tatsächlichen Grundlagen der kaiserlichen Machtentfaltung nicht näher beleuchtet. Vielmehr fragt er nach Narrativen ( narratives ), welche die Selbstdarstellung und Außenwahrnehmung der kaiserlichen Rechtsprechung bestimmen und verändern. Auf diese Weise gewinnt er Einblick in den Dialog zwischen Herrscher und Beherrschten sowie in die Mechanismen, durch welche Veränderungen legitimiert und Anpassungen erklärt werden können. Die moderne Konzeption der narratives hat dabei - wie er zutreffend hervorhebt - ihre Entsprechung in der antiken Kultur der exempla . (5ff.).More information here.

The Legal History Blog signalled a chapter by Markus D. Dubber on "Colonial Criminal Law and Other Modernities: European Criminal Law in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century", to be published in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of European Legal History (edited by the author with Christopher Tomlins).

Abstract:
This paper has two parts. The first part reflects on various traditional approaches to the historical study of European criminal law in the nineteenth and twentieth century. The second part lays out an alternative, two-track, conception of "modern" European criminal legal history. It does this by taking an upside-down - or outside-in - view of the subject, by focusing on an understudied, but fascinating, project of European criminal law: the invention, implementation, and evolution of colonial criminal law.  More information on SSRN.

 (image source: CUP)
George Duke & Robert P. George edited a Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence.

Abstract:
This collection provides an intellectually rigorous and accessible overview of key topics in contemporary natural law jurisprudence, an influential yet frequently misunderstood branch of legal philosophy. It fills a gap in the existing literature by bringing together leading international experts on natural law theory to provide perspectives on some of the most pressing issues pertaining to the nature and moral foundations of law. Themes covered include the history of the natural law tradition, the natural law account of practical reason, normativity and ethics, natural law approaches to legal obligation and authority and constitutional law. Creating a dialogue between leading figures in natural law thought, the Companion is an ideal introduction to the main commitments of natural law jurisprudence, whilst also offering a concise summary of developments in current scholarship for more advanced readers.
• Brings together leading international experts in the field • Provides a comprehensive overview of cutting edge scholarship in the area • Can serve as an introduction to the central area of legal theory, or the first port of call for scholars and students of natural lawTable of contents:
 1. Introduction George Duke and Robert P. George; Part I. Foundations: 2. Aquinas and natural law jurisprudence John Finnis; 3. Natural law, God and human dignity Robert P. George; 4. Early modern natural law theories Knud Haakonssen; 5. Metaphysical foundations of natural law theories Jonathan Crowe; Part II. Practical Reason, Normativity and Ethics: 6. Natural law, basic goods, and practical reason Christopher Tollefsen; 7. Practical reason in the context of law Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco; 8. Hume, virtue and natural law Thomas Pink; 9. Natural law reasoning in applied ethics Jacqueline Laing; Part III. Law and Politics: 10. Law as an idea we live by N. E. Simmonds; 11. The moral impact theory, the dependence view, and natural law Mark Greenberg; 12. The ideal dimension of law Robert Alexy; 13. Two unhappy dilemmas for natural law jurisprudence Mark C. Murphy; 14. The common good George Duke; 15. Natural law theory and constitutionalism Gerard V. Bradley; 16. Opening the doors of inquiry: Lon Fuller and the natural law tradition Kristen Rundle.More information with CUP.

The authoritative panel of the VABB (Vlaams Academisch Bibliografisch Bestand), an organ of the Flemish universities, has recognised our society's organ, Comparative Legal History (Routledge - Law, ISSN 2049-6788), as a peer reviewed journal.

This recognition was given earlier to other journals in the field, such as the Legal History Review (Brill), The Journal of Legal History (Routledge), de Revue historique de droit français et étranger (Dalloz), Forum Historiae Iuris (MPIER) the Journal of the History of International Law (Brill), Rechtskultur (Regensburg), Pro Memorie (Verloren) or Fundaminia (Sabinet).

The VABB list (used as a quantitative basis for university funding) can be consulted here.

Kevin Schembri, Oikonomia, Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Rome, 2017), ISBN 978-88-97789-39-0, € 35
About the book:How do the Eastern Orthodox Churches understand the mystery of marriage? On what grounds do these Churches concede ecclesiastical divorce and tolerate a new marriage? What is oikonomia and how is it invoked in the Orthodox East? Over the last decades, these questions were the subject of numerous studies. With a foreword by Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, this volume builds on this research and attempts to offer a comprehensive systematic answer to these questions. By doing so, it adds to the already rich tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and presents the Western Churches with a valuable resource in their pursuit of ecumenical dialogue, in their dealing with the ever-growing reality of mixed marriages, and in their ministry to the divorced and remarried members of their faithful. Published as volume 23 in the Series Kanonika, this study forms part of the various projects launched by the Pontifical Oriental Institute during its centenary celebrations.
About the author:Kevin Schembri is a lecturer in canon law at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Malta. He holds a licentiate in sacred theology from the same university and a doctorate in canon law (with specialisation in canonical jurisprudence) from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He is a Catholic priest and serves as promoter of justice and defender of the bond for the Archdiocese of Malta.
For more info: http://www.kanonika.org/it/kanonika23.php

WHAT Younger  Scholars Forum in Comparative Law, within the XXth International Congress  of  Comparative  Law, Forum & Call for papers

WHEN July 25, 2018

WHERE International Academy of Comparative Law, Fukuoka, Japan

all information here

We invite younger scholars to participate in the first-ever Younger Scholars Forum in Comparative Law, to be held in Fukuoka, Japan on Wednesday, July 25, 2018, from 9:00am to 12:00pm as part of the larger quadrennial Congress of Comparative Law organized by the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL).Abstracts are invited for eight (8) Workshops and one (1) TED-style Speakers’ Corner. All nine sessions will be held concurrently from 9:00am to 12:00pm on the day of the Forum. More details follow below on the subject-matter of each Workshop and on the format of the Speakers’ Corner.Abstracts may be submitted in either English or French, the two official languages of the IACL.The CongressThe IACL hosts a general Congress of Comparative Law every four years. It is the premiere gathering for scholars of comparative law. It is a “general” Congress because scholars of all fields attend and participate in Workshops on specific subjects that span the broad range of private and public law. To learn more about the IACL, here is its website: http://iuscomparatum.info. And here is a description of the IACL itself: http://iuscomparatum.info/general-presentation.The Younger Scholars Forum in Comparative LawFor the first time in its history (the first general Congress was held at The Hague in 1932), the IACL will host a program for younger scholars, defined as those scholars with no more than ten years of tenure-track faculty experience. This includes graduate students as well as post-doctoral fellows, lecturers and visiting affiliates who have yet to secure a continuing faculty appointment.The Younger Scholars Forum in Comparative Law is chaired and convened by Richard Albert (Canada/USA) along with vice-chairs Luisa Fernanda García López (Colombia) and Maxime St-Hilaire (Canada). The chair is supported by a Program Committee and a Senior Advisory Committee. Members of both committees are identified further down below. The Program Committee is composed of three subcommittees: the Planning & Priorities subcommittee, co-chaired by Cora Chan (China) and Yaniv Roznai (Israel); the Information & Recruitment subcommittee, co-chaired by Cristina Fasone (Italy) and Daniel Wunder Hachem (Brazil); and the Communications & Technology subcommittee, chaired by John Haskell (United Kingdom).


WorkshopsEach Workshop will be conducted as a discussion group structured around accepted papers. Each Workshop will feature two Moderators and a Distinguished Provocateur-Discussant. The moderators will select up to 25 participants for a wide-ranging discussion that will run for the duration of the three-hour session. The Distinguished Provocateur-Discussant will comment on remarks made by participants, draw connections among the points made by the participants, seed the discussion with new points and questions, as well as challenge, reinforce and/or complicate the comments made by the participants. Discussions will be conducted in both English and French. Each of the Workshops follows below with an abstract identifying the Moderators and Distinguished Provocateur-Discussants.Speakers’ CornerThe Speakers’ Corner will feature 15 to 18 TED-style 9-minute oral presentations on a scholarly subject related to a topic of the speaker’s choice in comparative law. All presentations will be recorded live in front of an audience at the Forum and uploaded on YouTube for larger dissemination with the global community of comparative law.How to ParticipateBy September 15, 2017, younger scholars should email an abstract between 150 and 500 words to the Corresponding Moderator of the Workshop in which they would like to participate. All Corresponding Moderators are identified below in connection with each Workshop. For those interested in participating in the Speakers’ Corner, younger scholars should email an abstract between 150 and 500 words to the Director of the Speakers’ Corner, also identified further below.Applicants will be notified by October 15, 2017.The IACL does not cover expenses for any participant, including Moderators and Distinguished Provocateur-Discussants. But we believe that applicants’ home institutions will support participation in this event given the prestige and history of the IACL along with the special opportunity to exchange ideas and interact with younger scholars, Moderators and Distinguished Provocateur-Discussants from around the world.All successful participants will have to register with the IACL. No other affiliation is required to participate in this program.QuestionsFor questions about the Workshops, please contact Program Committee vice-chairs Luisa Fernanda García López (Colombia) at luisa.garcia@urosario.edu.co or Maxime St-Hilaire (Canada) at Maxime.St-Hilaire@usherbrooke.ca.For questions about the Speakers’ Corner, please contact the Director John Haskell (United Kingdom) at johndhaskell@gmail.com.For questions about the IACL, please contact Program Committee Chair Richard Albert at Richard.Albert@bc.edu.WorkshopsWorkshop 1: The Separation of Powers and its Challenges in Comparative PerspectivesAbstract: The modern vanguard of constitutional design has proven that separating powers alone according to parliamentary or presidential forms is not sufficient to create a structure of checks and balances that leads to good governance, an efficient and equitable delivery services, as well as democratic outcomes. In order to achieve these and other public goods, modern constitutional design must also account for higher social values, the reality of political parties, the relationship among the administrative state and the traditional branches of government, and it must also contemplate and in turn concretize a direct or mediated role for the people. Has the traditional understanding of the separation of powers outlived its usefulness in the present day or is it more important today than ever before? What are the current and future challenges to traditional understandings of the separation of powers? Are there models around the world that show promise as potential models for adoption elsewhere? This Discussion Group invites paper submissions on these and other related question on the separation of powers.Distinguished Provocateur-DiscussantMortimer Sellers (USA)
ModeratorsDaniel Wunder Hachem (Brazil)Ren Yatsunami (Japan)
Corresponding ModeratorRen Yatsunamiren.yatsunami@gmail.com

Workshop 2: Populism and Comparative Approaches to Democratic TheoryAbstract: Democracy seeks to reconcile discordant elements of self-interest and common weal; wealth and poverty; class and community; liberty and equality. Theories of democracy thus pair opposites such as realistic/idealistic democracy; elitist/participatory democracy; liberal/republican democracy; input-oriented/output-oriented democracy; and weak/strong democracy revolving around the question of the relation between the individual and the political body. Constitutional arrangements based on the concept include direct democracy, representative democracy, and deliberative democracy. Comparative approaches to democratic theory can be analyzed from a number of methodological approaches (historical; normative; contextual; functional) and a plethora of theoretical/institutional choices. Moreover, democracy theories have to grapple with endogenously and exogenously induced problems (populism; tyrannical majorities; political extremism; states of emergency and forms of militant democracy; loss of confidence in elected representatives; low public participation; secessionist impulses), as well as factor in continuing and often inconsistent forms of democratic experimentalism and external challenges of fragile/unstable polities transitioning to democracy. The Discussion Group invites paper submissions that undertake analysis of such issues.Distinguished Provocateur-DiscussantOran Doyle (Ireland)
ModeratorsCristina Fasone (Italy)Yaniv Roznai (Israel)
Corresponding ModeratorCristina Fasonecristinafasone@gmail.com

Workshop 3: Comparative Public and Private Law Responses to Religious DiversityAbstract: The accommodation of religious diversity raises important questions for public and private law, many of which entail a breakdown of boundaries between the two. For instance, accommodation of religious freedom may entail ceding religious autonomy to certain groups and by incorporating systems of religious personal laws into the legal system. Conflicts between personal laws and general law or among different personal laws, however, require an enquiry into the scope of religious autonomy. Existing constitutional settlements face challenges in the face of increased claims from “new” religious groups and changing social conditions. In this regard, an emerging area of conflict is in non-discrimination statutes, where its horizontal applicability to private conduct may require religious entities to modify religious practices or face criminal or civil liabilities. Indeed, where religious claims conflict with other constitutional values such as freedom of speech and equality, new constitutional settlements are needed to ensure peaceful coexistence. This Discussion Group invites papers reflecting on these multifarious issues from comparative, public, and private law perspectives.Distinguished Provocateur-DiscussantMichel Rosenfeld (USA)
ModeratorsJaclyn Neo (Singapore)Ioanna Tourkochoriti (Ireland)
Corresponding ModeratorIoanna TourkochoritiIoanna.tourkochoriti@nuigalway.ie

Workshop 4: Defences to Liability: Philosophy and DoctrineAbstract: Defences to liability are recognized in various areas of law. For instance, in tort law, illegality and necessity might be raised as defences; in contract law, duress and illegality; in criminal law, duress and necessity; in restitution, change of position. This Discussion Group explores the similarities and differences in the defences available in various areas of law and the philosophy underlying them, as well as compares how the scope of these defences are defined and the prospects of convergence across areas of law and jurisdictions. Paper submissions that discuss any aspect of defences to liability in one or more areas of law are welcome. Analyses can be either jurisdiction-specific or cross-jurisdictional.Distinguished Provocateur-DiscussantC.M.D.S. Pavillon (Netherlands)
ModeratorsCora Chan (China)Eduardo Ferreira Jordão (Brazil)
Corresponding ModeratorCora Chancorachan@hku.hk

Workshop 5: Technology and Innovation: Challenges for Traditional Legal BoundariesAbstract: Technology has challenged longstanding legal paradigms, changing the way lawyers regulate tourist accommodation (e.g. with Airbnb), labor (e.g. Uber), public decision-making (e.g. use of big data by tax authorities), liability (e.g. robots’ actions), intellectual property (e.g. platforms like Spotify or Pandora), and even war (e.g. use of killing drones). How should law respond to these technology-mediated challenges? Technological evolutions also challenge the paradigm of territoriality of law and have led towards the emergence of a new paradigm, that of transnational law. In data protection, for instance, European authorities have attempted to enforce EU law outside EU, leading to serious conflict of laws with countries like the US that do not maintain similar standards. Can the clash of values reflected by such clash of standards by transcended? What would be the appropriate solutions? We invite paper submissions on law and technology, including (i) comparative intellectual property law; (ii) artificial intelligence; (iii) regulation of the platform economy; (iv) data science and law; (v) privacy and cybersecurity; (vi) technology and human rights.Distinguished Provocateur-DiscussantSofia Ranchordás (Netherlands)
ModeratorsCatalina Goanta (Maastricht)András Koltay (Hungary)
Corresponding ModeratorAndrás Koltay (Hungary)koltay.andras@gmail.com

Workshop 6: Migration and Asylum: Comparative Approaches and the Need for Harmonizing RegimesAbstract: The recent migration “crisis” that Europe has experienced raises concerns about the effectiveness of existing legal tools in addressing the problem of large-scale irregular movement. This panel will evaluate existing international, regional and domestic legal tools on migration and asylum. It will attempt to explore a number of questions that emerge from the recent attempts to handle the crisis. Is the crisis in Europe really a crisis at all, compared to that experienced by countries in the Middle East and Africa, which host much larger refugee populations? Is the crisis in Europe the result of deficiencies in the EU’s immigration and asylum policy and practice? How do some retrogressive measures, such as the closing of borders and mandatory immigration detention, fit with international human rights standards?  Do such policies have a disproportionate effect on certain “vulnerable” groups such as children, families, victims of torture and trauma etc.  Are the policies of countries like Canada, which have advanced systems of refugee resettlement and sponsorship, more effective? How can Europe return to the humanitarian values that underpinned the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees?Distinguished Provocateur-ModeratorAdelle Blackett (Canada)
ModeratorsAsha Kaushal (Canada)Dimitry Kochenov (Netherlands)
Corresponding Moderator Asha Kaushal (Canada)kaushal@allard.ubc.ca

Workshop 7: Misuses of Power in Both Private and Public Law: Dual Perspectives on CorruptionAbstract: The efficiency of the fight against corruption is generally considered as quality factor of the Rule of Law. This efficiency relies, among other things, on the unity of action. In turn, this unity depends upon our capacity to coordinate legal effects across those two major categories of legal literature that are public law and private law. It is not only the level, but also the content of such a coordination that varies with the legal systems, both national and supranational ones. Beyond the search for functional equivalents across countries within the same category, such as the fiduciary duty at common law and the duty of loyalty and fidelity under the French Commercial Code, it is thus worth examining the ways in which real or apparent equivalents may differently relate to public or private law according to the jurisdiction. At another level, whether it is stated to be private or public, the law may well distinguish between private and public factual spheres, just the way the French Penal Code does between public and private corruption. Faced with the scale of the threat corruption poses to the Rule of Law around the world, we should adopt a comparative perspective in order to test the relevance of the public/private divide in anti-corruption law.Distinguished Provocateur-DiscussantGeneviève Cartier (Canada)
ModeratorsSebastián Paredes (Argentina)Maxime St-Hilaire (Canada)
Corresponding ModeratorMaxime St-HilaireMaxime.St-Hilaire@usherbrooke.ca

Workshop 8: Methodological Approaches to Comparative Constitutional Law: Evolutions and RevolutionsAbstract: Traditional methodological approaches to comparative constitutional scholarship have evolved through the classificatory, historical, normative, contextual or functional approaches. Challenges in comparative public law methodology include: limitations of language and contextual understanding; complexity and interdependence of constitutional provisions; tendency to conflate normative with positive claims on constitutionality; the need to establish the transposability of foreign norms; lack of theory building; difficulties in achieving controlled comparison and proper case selection. Scholars must also address questions of constitutional design against a backdrop of transformation of statehood (e.g. rise of transnational organizations), state sovereignty from above (e.g. can human rights treaties be seen as constitutional documents) and emergence of other sources of norm creation/implementation (e.g. the market).  This Discussion Group invites paper submissions that analyse the development of and challenges facing methodological approaches to comparative public law.Distinguished Provocateur-DiscussantGuillaume Tusseau (France)
ModeratorsLuisa Fernanda García López (Colombia)Tomasz Koncewicz (Poland)
Corresponding ModeratorLuisa Fernanda García Lópezluisa.garcia@urosario.edu.co
Speakers’ CornerAbstracts from younger scholars to participate in the TED-style Speakers’ Corner (see description above) should be sent by email to the Director of the Speakers’ Corner John Haskell (United Kingdom) at johndhaskell@gmail.com.Program CommitteeRichard AlbertBoston College Law School (until December 31, 2017)University of Texas at Austin School of Law (as of January 1, 2018)United States/CanadaChair of the Program Committee
Cora ChanHong Kong UniversityFaculty of LawChina
Cristina FasoneLUISS Guido Carli UniversityDepartment of Political ScienceItaly
Luisa Fernanda García LópezUniversidad del RosarioFacultad de JurisprudenciaColombiaVice-Chair of the Program Committee
Daniel Wunder HachemUniversidade Federal do ParanáPontifícia Universidade Católica do ParanáBrazil
John HaskellUniversity of ManchesterSchool of LawUnited Kingdom
Virginia Harper HoKansas UniversitySchool of LawUnited States
Asha KaushalUniversity of British ColumbiaAllard School of LawCanada
András KoltayPázmány Péter Catholic UniversityHungarian Academy of SciencesHungary
Tomasz KoncewiczUniversity of GdanskFaculty of Law and AdministrationPoland
Jaclyn NeoNational University of SingaporeFaculty of LawSingapore
Duncan OkubasuKabarak UniversityLaw SchoolKenya
Sebastián ParedesUniversidad de Buenos AiresFacultad de DerechoArgentina
Sofia RanchordásUniversity of GroningenLaw SchoolNetherlands
Yaniv RoznaiInterdisciplinary Center—HerzliyaRadzyner Law SchoolIsrael
Esteban Restrepo SaldarriagaUniversidad de los AndesFacultad de DerechoColombia
Valentina Rita ScottiKoç UniversityLaw SchoolTurkey
Sarbani SenJindal Global Law SchoolIndia
Maxime St-HilaireUniversity of SherbrookeFaculty of LawCanadaVice-Chair of the Program Committee
Ioanna TourkochoritiNUI GalwaySchool of LawIreland
Sujith XavierUniversity of WindsorFaculty of LawCanada
Ren YatsunamiKyushu UniversityFaculty of LawJapan
Senior Advisory CommitteeMaurice AdamsTilburg UniversityLaw SchoolNetherlands
Aharon BarakInterdisciplinary Center—HerzliyaRadzyner Law SchoolIsrael
Allan R. Brewer-CaríasUniversidad Central de VenezuelaColumbia Law SchoolVenezuela/USA
Vivian CurranUniversity of PittsburghSchool of LawUnited States
Nicolás Etcheverry EstrázulasUniversidad de MontevideoFacultad de DerechoUruguay
Diego Fernández ArroyoSciences PoÉcole de droitFrance
David GerberIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicago-Kent College of LawUnited States
Gábor HalmaiEuropean University InstituteDepartment of LawItaly
Jaako HusaUniversity of LaplandFaculty of LawFinland
Daniel JutrasMcGill UniversityFaculty of LawCanada
Maurice KamptoUnited NationsInternational Law CommissionCameroon
Toshiyuki KonoKyushu UniversityFaculty of LawJapan
Rogelio Pérez PerdomoUniversidad MetropolitanaSchool of LawVenezuela
Leonel Pereznieto CastroUNAMFacultad de Ciencias Políticas y SocialesMexico
Julio César RiveraUniversidad de San AndrésLaw SchoolArgentina
Cheryl SaundersUniversity of MelbourneLaw SchoolAustralia
José M. SernaUNAMInstituto de Investigaciones JurídicasMexico
Julia Sloth-NielsenUniversity of the Western CapeFaculty of LawSouth Africa
Roberto ToniattiUniversity of TrentoFaculty of LawItaly
Catherine ValckeUniversity of TorontoFaculty of LawCanada
Wen-yeu WangNational Taiwan UniversityCollege of LawTaiwan

WHAT « Les manuscrits universitaires enluminés dans l’Europe médiévale (XIIIe – XIVe siècles) : production et circulation », Cours d’été par Maria Alessandra Bilotta (IEM – FCSH/NOVA), Summer course
WHEN July 31 - August 11 2017 10h00 – 12h30
WHERE Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade NOVA, Lisbon
Ce Cours abordera les étapes plus significatives de l’histoire de la production, illustration et décoration des manuscrits universitaires au Moyen Âge (Droit, Théologie, Médecine) avec une considérable attention pour les aspects codicologiques (caractéristiques matérielles, fonctionnalité structurelle du livre manuscrit dans le contexte de l’enseignement universitaire), stylistiques et iconographiques (les cycles iconographiques) ; les questions liées aux commanditaires (maitres et étudiants) et à leur circulation (la peregrinatio academica) dans les territoires européens. Encore, ce Cours abordera le contexte historique, économique et social de cette production (contrôle des universités sur la production des livres) et les techniques de production (fonctionnement des ateliers des stationarii ; système de la pecia)   
http://www.fcsh.unl.pt/escola-de-verao/cursos/os-manuscritos-universitarios-iluminados-na-europa-medieval-seculos-xiii-xiv-producao-e-circulacao.-uma-introducao-historica-e-metodologica

Satvinder Juss and Maurice Sunkin (eds.), Landmark Cases in Public Law 
all information here

Landmark Cases in Public Law answers the need for an historical examination of the leading cases in this field, an examination which is largely absent from the standard textbooks and journal articles of the day. Adopting a contextualised historical approach, this collection of essays by leading specialists in the field provides both an explanation of the importance and impact of the chosen decisions, as well as doctrinal analysis. This approach enables each author to throw light on the driving forces behind the judicial outcomes, and shows how the final reasoning of the court was ultimately as much dependent upon such human factors as the attitudes, conduct, and personalities of the parties, their witnesses, their counsel, and the judges, as the drive to seek legal realignment with the political developments that were widely perceived to be taking place. In this way, this form of analysis provides an exposition of the true stories behind these landmark cases in public law.
Table of Contents
1. Entick v Carrington [1765]: Revisited All the King's Horses Richard Gordon2. Ridge v Baldwin [1964]: 'Nuff Said' SH Bailey3. Padfield v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food [1968]: Judges and Parliamentary Democracy Maurice Sunkin4. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968]: In Perspective David Feldman5. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984]: Reviewing the Prerogative Richard Drabble6. The Factortame Litigation: Sovereignty in Question John MCEldowney7. M v The Home Office [1992]: Ministers and Injunctions Christopher Forsyth8. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005]: The Belmarsh Case Richard Clayton9. R v North and East Devon Health Authority [2001]: Coughlan and the Development of Public Law Kirsty Hughes10. R (Jackson) v Attorney-General [2005]: Reviewing Legislation Elizabeth Wicks11. Bancoult and the Royal Prerogative in Colonial Constitutional Law Satvinder S Juss12. AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate and Others [2012]: The Nature of Devolved Legislation and the Role of the Courts The Honourable Mr Justice Lewis13. Evans v Attorney General [2015]: The Underlying Normativity of Constitutional Disagreement Thomas FaircloughEpilogue: Miller, the Legislature and the Executive Paul Craig

Le droit talmudique saisi par le droit comparéColloqueUniversité de Lorraine, Nancy, 22 et 23 novembre 2017Accès à l'appel à communication