Populism
Religious Diversity
Defences to Liability
Technology and Innovation
Migration and Asylum
Corruption
Methodology
All workshops will run from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm in the Fukuoka International Conference Center. The full program details are available here.
Workshop 1:
The Separation of Powers and its Challenges in Comparative Perspectives
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-Discussant
Mortimer Sellers (USA)
University of Baltimore
- Moderators
Daniel Wunder Hachem (Brazil)
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná
Ren Yatsunami (Japan)
Kyushu University - Corresponding Moderator
Ren Yatsunami (Japan)
Participants
- Carolina Alves das Chagas
University of Graz - Antonia Baraggia
New York University - Lica Pierto Vanoni
University of Milan - Brian Barry
Dublin Institute of Technology - Eoin Carolan
University of Dublin - Surabhi Chopra
Chinese University of Hong Kong - Luis Eugenio Garcia-Huidobro
Australian National University School of Regulation and Global Governance - Sergio Guiliano
University of Oxford - Lando Kirchmair
Bundeswehr University Munich - Antonia Baraggia
New York University - Lica Pierto Vanoni
University of Milan - Brian Barry
Dublin Institute of Technology - Eoin Carolan
University of Dublin - Surabhi Chopra
Chinese University of Hong Kong - Luis Eugenio Garcia-Huidobro
Australian National University School of Regulation and Global Governance - Sergio Guiliano
University of Oxford - Lando Kirchmair
Bundeswehr University Munich
Workshop 2:
Populism and Comparative Approaches to Democratic Theory
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-Discussant
Oran Doyle (Ireland)
Trinity College Dublin
- Moderator
Cristina Fasone (Italy)
LUISS Guido Carli University
Yaniv Roznai (Israel)
Radzyner Law School - Corresponding Moderator
Cristina Fasone (Italy)
Participants
- Enrico Albanesi
University of Genoa - François Xavier Arnoux
Université Jean Moulin Lyon - Monika Augustyniak
Académie Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski de Cracovie - Marco Bassini
Bocconi University, Milan - Joshua Braver
Tufts University - Enrico Buono
Campania University - Felix B. Chang
University of Cincinnati College of Law - Johanna Fröhlich
Universidad San Francisco de Quito - Shannon Fyfe
Vanderbilt University - Jurgen Goossens
Ghent University and Erasmus University of Rotterdam - Sascha Hardt
Maastricht University - David Kenny
Trinity College Dublin - Younsik Kim
Sungshin Women’s University - Shao-Man Lee
UC Berkeley School of Law - Julieta Marotta
Maastricht University - Eugene D. Mazo
Rutgers Law School - Matteo Monti
Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa - Hoai-Thu Nguyen
Maastricht University - Purush Purushothaman
University of Ottawa - Neliana Rodean
University of Verona - Artem Sergeev
University of Hong Kong - Aviram Shalhal
University of Michigan Law School - Ronald Van Crombrugge
University of Leuven - Juliano Zaiden Benvindo
University of Brasilia - Fernando José Gonçalves Acunha
(co-author with Juliano Zaiden Benvindo)
University of Brasilia - Sirio Zolea
Université Paris II – Panthéon-Assas
Università di Macerata
Workshop 3:
Comparative Public and Private Law Responses to Religious Diversity
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-Discussant
Michel Rosenfeld (USA)
Cardozo Law School
- Moderators
Jaclyn Neo (Singapore)
National University of Singapore
Ioanna Tourkochoriti (Ireland)
NUI Galway - Corresponding Moderator
Ioanna Tourkochoriti (Ireland)
Participants
- Dia Dabby
University of Ottawa - Katayoun Alidadi
Bryant University and Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology - Lucas Rademacher
Institute for Private International and Comparative Law
University of Cologne - Lorraine Finley
Murdoch University, Australia - Zachary Calo
Hamad bin Khalifa University, Qatar
Research Scholar in Law and Reigion, Valparaiso University - Reyniers PYY
The Hague University of Applied Sciences - Dania Suleman
Université du Quebec à Montréal - Karolina Mendecka
University of Łódź, Faculty of Law and Administration, Institute of Theory and Philosophy of Law - Mareike Schmidt
University of Hamburg, Germany - Eugenia Relaño Pastor
Faculty of Law Complutence University Spain - Kyriaki Topidi
Faculty of law, University of Luzern (Switzerland) - Amjad Mahmood Khan
UCLA Law School - Leora Dahankatz
Polonsky Academy Fellow, Van Leer Institute
Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Léa Brière-Godbout
S.J.D. candidate, University of Toronto - Marie-Andrée Plante
D.C.L. candidate, McGill University - Mohsin Alam Bhat
Centre for Public Interest Law
Jindal Global Law School - Andrea Borroni
University of Naples - Marco Senghesio
Center for Contemporary Labour Law – Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi (Georgia) - Roman Zinigrad
JSD Candidate Yale Law School - Giuseppe Laneve
University of Macerata
Workshop 4:
Defences to Liability: Philosophy and Doctrine
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-Discussant
C.M.D.S. Pavillon (Netherlands)
University of Groningen
- Moderators
Cora Chan (China)
Hong Kong University
Eduardo Ferreira Jordão (Brazil)
FVG Rio - Corresponding Moderator
Cora Chan (China)
Participants
- Igor Vuletić
Faculty of Law Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia - Krzysztof Szczucki
Warsaw University, Poland - Delphine Defossez
University of Brasilia - Patryk Gacka
University of Warsaw - Kartika Paramita
Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta – Indonesia - Karmen Lutman
University of Ljubljana - Jane Richards
University of Hong Kong - James C. Fisher
University of Tokyo - Mindy Nunez Duffourc
Passau Universität - Tan Zhong Xing
National University of Singapore - Katerina Florou
Sciences Po - Ekaterina Perevoshchikova
University of Southampton - Hent Kalmo
Harvard University - Quincy C Lobach
Heidelberg University - Matteo Dragoni
Attorney-at-law, Italy - Eduardo Ferreira Jordão
Fundação Getúlio Vargas
Escola de Direito do Rio de Janeiro
Workshop 5:
Technology and Innovation: Challenges for Traditional Legal Boundaries
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-Discussant
Sofia Ranchordás (Netherlands)
Leiden University
- Moderators
Catalina Goanta (Netherlands)
Maastricht University
András Koltay (Hungary)
Pázmány Péter Catholic University - Corresponding Moderator
András Koltay (Hungary)
Participants
- Elena Falletti
Università Carlo Cattaneo - Markus Naarttijärvi
Umeå University - Alex Reiss Sorokin
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Althaf Marsoof
Nanyang Technological University - Marta Infantino and Weiwei Wang
University of Trieste - Paul Wragg
University of Leeds - Andrew Woods
University of Kentucky College of Law - Chien-Chih Lu
UC Berkeley School of Law - Itay Ravid
Stanford Law School - Yueh-Ping (Alex) Yang / Cheng-Yun Tsang
National Taiwan University / National Chengchi University - Enguerrand Marique
UCLouvain - Alexandra Horváthová
University of Copenhagen - Ana Gascón Marcén
University of Zaragoza - David Mangan
City University of London - Jeanne Huang
University of New South Wales Australia - Mateusz Piątkowski
University of Lodz - Pompeo Polito
Studio Legale e Tributario - Magdalena Jozwiak
Leiden University - Mayu Terada
International Christian University - Rossanna Ducato
Université catholique de Louvain - Lu Xu
University of Leeds - Aneta Tyc
University of Lodz, Poland - Cristiana Sappa
IÉSEG School of Management - Emerson Banez
University of the Philippines College of Law
Workshop 6:
Migration and Asylum: Comparative Approaches and the Need for Harmonizing Regimes
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-Discussant
Adelle Blackett (Canada)
McGill University
- Moderators
Asha Kaushal (Canada)
University of British Columbia
Dimitry Kochenov (Netherlands)
University of Groningen - Corresponding Moderator
Asha Kaushal (Canada)
Participants
- Daniel Ghezelbash
Macquarie Law School - Kevin Fredy Hinterberger
University of Vienna - Andrea Romano
University of Barcelona - Andrea De Petris
Universita Giustino Fortunato - Peter Szigeti
NYU School of Law - Gabriel Haddad Teixeira
Centro Universitario de Brasilia (UniCEUB) - Leonardo Jensen Ribeiro
Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul – UNISC - Carole Viennet
Swiss Institute of Comparative Law - Martijn van den Brink
Max Planck Institute for Religious and Ethnic Diversity
Workshop 7:
Misuses of Power in Both Private and Public Law: Dual Perspectives on Corruption
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-Discussant
Geneviève Cartier (Canada)
Université de Sherbrooke
- Moderators
Sebastián Paredes (Argentina)
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Maxime St-Hilaire (Canada)
University of Sherbrooke - Corresponding Moderator
Maxime St-Hilaire (Canada)
Participants
- Annuska Macedo
Universidade Federal da Paraíba - Túlio Felippe Xavier Januário
Universidade de Coimbra - Caroline da Rosa Pinheiro / Raphael Vieira da Fonseca Rocha
Raphael Vieira da Fonseca Rocha / Centro Universitário Serra dos Órgãos - Cédric Bernard
Université Jean Moulin- Lyon 3 / Université Laval - Daniel Melo Garcia
Université Laval - Joshua Karton
Queen’s University - Kehinde Folake Olaoye
Chinese University of Hong Kong - Lucas Bossoni Saikali
Universidade Federal do Paraná - Marta Andrecka
University of Copenhagen - Murilo Borsio Bataglia
University of Brasília - Raul Murad Ribeiro de Castro
University of Rio de Janeiro - Mário Baracho Thibau
Faculdade de Direito Milton Campos - Rui Carlo Dissenha
Universidade Federal do Paraná - Tamar Groswald Ozery
University of Michigan - Fábio de Sousa Santos
Pontifical University of Paraná - Ana Cristina Aguilar Viana
Universidade Federal do Paraná - Cristina Poncibo
University of Turin - Osayd Awawda
University of Melbourne
Workshop 8:
Methodological Approaches to Comparative Constitutional Law: Evolutions and Revolutions
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-Discussant
Guillaume Tusseau (France)
Sciences Po
- Moderators
Luisa Fernanda García López (Colombia)
Universidad del Rosario
Tomasz Tadeusz Koncewicz (Poland)
Princeton University - Corresponding Moderator
Luisa Fernanda García López (Colombia)
Participants
- Christina Lienen
University College London UK - Karol Poplawski
Akademia Leona Kozminskiego Warsaw Poland - Dave AG. Van Toor
University of Bielefeld Germany - Patricia Garcia Majado
Oviedo University Spain - Onerva- Aulikki Suhonen
Eastern Finland Law School Joensuu Finland - Carolina Silva Portero
Harvard University USA - Lucas Nonato
Brasilia University Brasil - Maria Chiara Locchi and Giacomo Capuzzo
University of Perugia Italy - Sujith Xavier
University of Windsor Canada - Andrea Romano
University of Barcelona Spain - Han Zhai
University of Tilburg Netherlands - Elisa Bertolini and Graziella Romeo
Bocconi University- Milan- Italy - Maria Daniela Poli
University of Konstanz Germany - Angel Aday and Jimenez Aleman
University of Vigo Spain - Zhang Weidong
University of Leiden Netherlands - JoãoPaulo Santos Araujo
University of Brasilia Brasil - Andrea Borroni and Giovanna Carugno
University of Naples - Jun Shimizu
University of Tokyo