12
Towards a Ius Commune 3.0? Ius Commune Conference Amsterdam, November 30 th 2012 Ivo Giesen Molengraaff Institute for Private Law UCALL Utrecht University

Towards a Ius Commune 3.0? Ius Commune Conference Amsterdam, November 30 th 2012 Ivo Giesen Molengraaff Institute for Private Law UCALL Utrecht University

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Towards a Ius Commune 3.0?

Ius Commune ConferenceAmsterdam, November 30th 2012

Ivo Giesen

Molengraaff Institute for Private LawUCALL

Utrecht University

Order of play:

• From Ius Commune 1.0 to Ius Commune 2.0 • The next level: towards Ius Commune 3.0!• Why this aim? Is there a need?• A ‘new’ concept? Or ‘old wine in new barrels’• Consequences of aiming at this modern Ius

Commune 3.0 version• Are there any downsides? • Is it worth it?• Final observations & Closing

From 1.0 to 2.0 (in about 8 centuries):

• The ‘old’ Ius Commune (= Ius Commune 1.0) was about the common legal heritage of the European countries (i.e. Roman-Canon law)

• The ‘new’ Ius Commune (= Ius Commune 2.0) as envisaged by our Research School is about harmonization and/ or unification in the European countries, based on comparative law

Towards a Ius Commune 3.0 (after 20 years):

• What is Ius Commune 3.0?– Put simply: it is an upgrade of the by now older ‘new’ Ius

Commune 2.0• Such an upgrade would be possible in several distinct ways

– e.g. integrate substantive and procedural law throughout all parts of our research

• But most importantly: the multidisciplinary / empirical / multidimensional angle should be our focus

• It is the logical next step to take, and • This step needs to be taken (more) explicitly and

consciously– Add ‘multidimensional’ to our mission statement

Do we need this 3.0 approach?

• Is there a need? Yes, there is…– The international and national debate is becoming

more and more multidimensional– The national debate on law as a scientific discipline

gears us towards this 3.0 approach– Our upcoming peer review assessment and the

future of our School (KNAW (re)recognition) will profit

– Finding external funding will be somewhat easier– And, maybe most importantly, attracting young &

bright scholars to take over in the future is facilitated

New wine in old barrels?

• Aren’t we already ‘doing’ this ‘3.0 thing’…? Yes, of course we are…– Examples are plentiful

• But do we show this enough? – Perhaps not. The peer review process we are entering is

a chance…• And do we do enough at this stage?

– Not yet. Taken together, there is not yet enough focus on multidimensional aspects in too little parts of our research

– This is not to cast any blame on anyone; it is a warning that we should be preparing ourselves for ‘the great wide multidimensional…’

Consequences?

• Doing more multidisciplinary/empirical work, use more of these insights, or work with people doing social science research– How? Difficult, and not for everyone, but more focus on this

(esp. for youngsters) – Give room for those who do (lower ambitions as to quantity of

output)• Teach what you (are about to) preach, thus:

– PhD training courses need some adjustment; a new course should be set up (Empirical methods in law)

– Or: our training course could be brought under a broader, (inter)national umbrella • In a ‘Center for Methodology and Empirical Legal Studies’,

cf. Van Gestel et al, NJB 2012, 2035– Offer special training sessions for senior/non-PhD members

More consequences?

• The Ius Commune research school would need to involve (more) non-lawyers, such as psychologists, economists, sociologists, political scientists, etc. – Full membership available to them– Member of one or several of the existing research

clusters– New, separate research cluster on methodology?

• If an upgrade is accepted, shouldn’t we also try an upgraded name?

Any downsides to this?

• Empirics do not and cannot provide all the legal answers• Of course, our research will become much more complex• And demands more corroboration• While less work is being done, or so it will seem,• And getting published seems to be getting much more

difficult – Thus: lower the demands for researchers as to their

output

Is it really worth it?

• Yes, it is, because we will be maximizing insights and minimizing blind spots– Law is not just about what is written down as such, law is an

instrument to change people’s behavior and to change our society.

– That requires knowledge about and thinking along the lines of real people in real life situations in a modern society

– Where law is diversified over a plurality of sources in a globalized setting

• Yes. It is highly interesting and intellectually stimulating to step outside one’s own sphere

• Yes. It increases the quality of our output• Yes. Empirical insights are already used in practice

Some final observations:

• Ius Commune 3.0 will become the better version of the ‘old’ research school – If all of us get aboard in some way or another– Without abandoning our background as lawyers

• The youngsters can take the lead if we prepare them well– Strengthen the current PhD training program!

And a true prediction:

• As T. Koopmans stated back in 1992:

• “In the light of these developments, I submit that a new ius commune for Europe is taking shape before our eyes. We see it, but we are not completely aware of it.”

• He was right, not only back then, but again 20 years later…• Towards a Ius Commune 3.0…..?