2018 Younger Scholars Forum in Comparative Law

XXth International Congress 2018, International Academy of Comparative Law July 25, 2018 Fukuoka, Japan


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
    Kyushu University
  • Corresponding Moderator
    Ren Yatsunami (Japan)


  • 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

Back to top

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
    Radzyner Law School
  • Corresponding Moderator
    Cristina Fasone (Italy)


  • 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

Back to top

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
    NUI Galway
  • Corresponding Moderator
    Ioanna Tourkochoriti (Ireland)


  • 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

Back to top

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
    FVG Rio
  • Corresponding Moderator
    Cora Chan (China)


  • 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

Back to top

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
    Pázmány Péter Catholic University
  • Corresponding Moderator
    András Koltay (Hungary)


  • 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
  • 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

Back to top

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
    University of Groningen
  • Corresponding Moderator
    Asha Kaushal (Canada)


  • 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

Back to top

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
    University of Sherbrooke
  • Corresponding Moderator
    Maxime St-Hilaire (Canada)


  • 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

Back to top

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
    Princeton University
  • Corresponding Moderator
    Luisa Fernanda García López (Colombia)


  • 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

Back to top