2012 Workshops

Organizer: Bonnie Holligan

This workshop aims to reflect on the theoretical foundations and future development of private law, and to consider the following questions: Is the idea of private law still relevant? What is the value of an internal perspective on private law doctrines? Can and should private law be understood as, using Weinrib’s term, a “self-understanding enterprise”? How do we draw a boundary between public and private law? Is there something distinctive about private law reasoning? What is the function of private law in a post sovereign world? What impact does globalization have on private law? Or, in a narrower context, what does the “Europeanisation” of private law mean for national legal traditions?

Discussion of these issues will provide an important opportunity for researchers who have chosen to adopt a doctrinal approach to reflect on the nature and limitations of their work. It will also allow theories of private law to be tested through application to specific legal doctrines. In particular, the workshop will focus on contract and property law.

Workshop programme

9.15 – 10.00:   Property and the private

Professor Larissa Katz, Queen’s University, Kingston, “Privity and Force: The Significance of Possession in Law.”

10.00 – 11.20: Contract Law: Theories and Limits

Dr Prince Saprai, University College London, “Penalty Clauses and the Promise Theory of Contract,” and Dr Emmanuel Voyiakis, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), “Contract Law and Reasons of Social Justice.”

11.20 – 11.35: Coffee Break

11.35 – 12.55: Private law and Europe

Professor Peter Sparkes, University of Southampton and Professor Dr O.O. (Olha) Cherednychenko, University of Groningen.

12.55 – 13.00: Closing remarks

If you have any questions about this workshop, please don’t hesitate to contact the workshop organizer at B.Holligan@sms.ed.ac.uk.

---

Organisers: Nayha Sethi and Emily Postan

It is now common to encounter in the literature on bioethics and regulation the view that individualistic models of value, autonomy, consent and identity may be increasingly inappropriate to meet contemporary challenges posed by globalisation and genetic technologies in particular. These challenges join the perhaps longer-standing critical analyses from feminist and communitarian perspectives. This workshop will seek to explore the interplay between these diverse pressures on individualism in the principled regulation of medicine and clinical research.

Professor Michael Parker (Professor of Bioethic and Director of the Ethox Centre, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford)

Professor Heather Widdows (Professor of Global Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham)

Professor David Townend (Associate Professor of the Law of Public Health and Care, Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Maastricht University)

14.00 – 14.05:   Chair’s Welcome

14.05 – 14.40:   Session 1 – Global Bioethics. Speaker: Professor Heather Widdows

14.40 – 15.15:   Session 2 – The Shared Nature of Genetic Data. Speaker: Professor Michael Parker

15.15 – 15.30:   Coffee Break

15.30 – 16.05:   Session 3 – Public Health Research. Speaker: Professor David Townend.

16.05 – 16.15:   Session 4 – Reflecting on the Common Themes from the Papers, ‘Challenges to Individualism’

16.15 – 17.00:   Plenary questions and discussion

If you have any questions about this workshop, please don’t hesitate to contact the workshop organizers at nayha.sethi@ed.ac.uk or e.r.postan@sms.ed.ac.uk.

---

Organizer: Luiz Silveira

This workshop focusses on the application of theories of science in the context of jurisprudence, and, more specifically, in the context of legal decision-making. Especially during the 20th century, legal theorists have attempted to build a stronghold for objectivity in legal decision-making by bringing insights from the philosophy of science. This approach rises two issues we want to deal with. First, it might be the case that those theories about scientific decision-making and objectivity do not hold water in the context of legal decision-making and legal theory when they are simply transplanted (as they often were) from one field to the other. Secondly, even where those theories are relevant, the discussion in the philosophy of science has, over the past decades, evolved much without being followed by legal theory.

Workshop programme

9:30 – 10.30: The Third Theory of Legal Objectivity
Presenter: Prof. Aldo Schiavello, Professor of Legal Philosophy (University of Palermo, Italy)
Discussant: Dr. Euan MacDonald, Lecturer in Jurisprudence (University of Edinburgh)

10.40 – 11.40: Transcending the Discovery-Justification Dichotomy
Presenter: Dr. James MacLean, Lecturer in Law (University of Southampton, UK)
Discussant: Dr. Minna Gräns, Senior Lecturer in Private Law and Jurisprudence (Uppsala University, Sweden)

11.40 – 12.00: Coffee break

12.00 – 13.00: Objectivity as Intelligent Inquiry and Critical Reflection

   Dr. Bruce Anderson, Associate Professor (Saint Mary’s University, Canada)

   Discussant: Luiz Fernando Castilhos Silveira, PhD Candidate (University of Edinburgh)

Organizer: Felipe Oliveira

This workshop focusses on the relations between practical reason, objectivity and and the activity of judging things according to the law. Broadly speaking, the workshop aims to discuss the following questions: How is the objectivity of legal judgment affected by character traits of legal decision-makers? Can and should the activity of judging things according to the law be understood as essentially reflexive? If so, in what ways? The practical agent is usually seen as ‘featureless’ or ‘characterless’: her self-image is that of an impartial agent who should exercise judgment on the basis of reasons alone and who should remain unaffected by emotional influences. Is that really so? What are the implications of that assumption for the practice of legal judgment?How is the reflexive dimension of legal judgement to be combined with the normative ideals of the rule of law (e.g. publicity, legality and predictability)? What are the moral and political costs of recognizing the fact that the subjectivity of legal decision-makers plays an essential role in the way they make and justify their decisions?

14.00 – 15.00: Session 1: Doctrinal Knowledge and Objectivity

Dr. Matyas Bodig (Senior Lecturer, University of Aberdeen, UK)

Discussant: Professor Zenon Bankowski (Edinburgh)

15.00 – 16.00: Session 2: The concept of obligation: some critical remarks

Dr. Stefano Bertea (Reader in Law, University of Leicester, UK), Discussant: Professor Zenon Bankowski (Edinburgh)

16.00 – 16.10: Coffee break

16.10 – 17.00: Session 3: Practical Wisdom in Legal Decision-Making

Dr. Claudio Michelon (Senior Lecturer, University of Edinburgh), Discussant: Felipe Oliveira (PhD candidate, University of Edinburgh).

Organizer: Alexander Latham

The workshop will look broadly at two linked questions: ‘Is Parliament still sovereign?’ and ‘Should it be?’. The notion of parliamentary sovereignty lies at the heart of the traditional Diceyan view of the UK constitution, but after Factortame, Jackson and the Human Rights Act, does it remain an accurate label? More fundamentally, is the concept of parliamentary sovereignty a useful one to invoke in modern liberal democracies, or ought it be disposed with altogether, perhaps in favour of a deeper concept of constitutionalism based around the rule of law? A common defence of parliamentary sovereignty is that granting courts the power to strike down legislation would be undemocratic. But does democracy mean simply that laws should reflect what the majority of people believe, or does it have a substantive dimension, requiring respect for equality and human rights? And if democracy does require respect for human rights, does this mean there is no cost to democracy when legislation interfering with human rights is struck down by the courts?

Nicholas Barber (Oxford University)
Dr Pavlos Eleftheriadis (Oxford University)

Dr Aileen Kavanagh (Oxford University)

Dr Alison Young (Oxford University)

Session 1 – ‘Is Parliament still Sovereign?’
10.00 – 10.20:   Speaker 1 – Dr Alison Young
10.20 – 10.40:   Speaker 2 – Nicholas Barber
10.40 – 11.10:   Questions and group discussion

11.10 – 11.20:   Coffee Break

Session 2 – ‘Should it be?’
11.20 – 11.40:   Speaker 3 – Dr Aileen Kavanagh
11.40 – 12.00:   Speaker 4 – Dr Pavlos Elefteriadis
12.00 – 12.30:   Questions and group discussion