WHAT Ius dicere in a globalized world, the XXIV Biennial Colloquium of the Italian Association of Comparative Law (AIDC), Colloquium and Call for papers
WHEN June 15-17 2017
WHERE Naples, Suor Orsola Benincasa University
Call for papers
The
colloquium intends to put the focus, from a comparative perspective, on some of
the following topics: 1. Can one agree on the statement that in the Western
world the notion of jurisdiction is considerably fragmented and is no longer
limited to the national State (or expression of public sovereignty) courts, and
is dispersed in a multiplicity of experiences? Private jurisdictions (such as
ADR, arbitration, sport courts etc.); and trans-national jurisdictions, set by
international treaties, or by lex mercatoria).
2. What
do we mean today, in the western world, by “jurisdiction”? What are its essential
features? Can the resolution of disputes still be considered the main function
of courts of law or should the traditional model of jurisdiction be enriched to
encompass the new role of courts in many social settings (e.g. transitional
justice and its emphasis on reconciliation)? Should one look essentially at the
formal elements [such as independence of the decisionmaker(s) and adversary
procedures], or at the functional role [e.g. adjudication which imitates
traditional court jurisdiction], or a legal-realist approach [jurisdiction is
what is perceived as such]?
3. To
what extent can/are Western models exportable/transposable in non-Western
contexts? To what extent have Western models of jurisdiction imported ideas
from non-Western traditions?
4. The
traditional notion of rule-of-law is strongly related to the control by the
courts and the enforceability of their decisions. Should the notion be adapted
to a changing reality?
5. What
is the effect of the fragmentation of jurisdiction on the traditional court system?
Are there consequences on the traditional (in continental Europe) distinction
between civil, criminal and administrative jurisdictions?
6. What,
if any, are the effects, both theoretical and practical, on the apportionment
of powers and functions with regard also to the branches of the legislative and
government? Is jurisdiction encroaching on Parliament and Government?
7. What
are the implications of those forms of jurisdiction directly challenging the role
of national States, e.g. those connected to international investment treaties (Investor-state
dispute settlement)? Do they represent a conditioning of State prerogatives
able to weigh upon State obligations towards their citizens?
8.
Increasingly contemporary societies are concerned with the administrative costs
related to providing access to justice, and jurisdictional procedures are seen
as a service dependent on budget allocations. What are the emerging models, and
to what extent are they circulating and hybridized? Is a global market for
judicial services feasible? Are “digital jurisdictions” an appropriate alternative?
9. Can
numbers and statistics help us to compare jurisdictions and jurisdictional models?
And how?
10.
Jurisdiction is intimately associated with effectiveness: can/should one compare/classify
models according to the degree of compliance, whether spontaneous or forced?
11.
Adjudication requires a variety of remedies: what is the relation today between
the two? What is the circulation of remedies within the various forms of jurisdiction,
within the same legal system or among different legal systems ?
12.
Sociology of adjudicators: judges, arbitrators, mediators. And what is the role
of lawyers (in a wide sense) in the various jurisdictions? What is the effect
on the recruitment of ‘traditional’judges?
13.
Involvement of laypersons (i.e. non-lawyers) in adjudication (e.g. scientific
experts in IP controversies or in international trade controversies; historians
in civil liability or property cases).
14. Rules
of procedure: imitation, circulation, adaptation, rejection. Through legislative
instruments? Or self-regulation? Or practice by the parties involved?
15. “Jurisdiction
shopping”: a disparaging notion or an occasion for effective application of comparative
law in the legal profession?
16.
Courts of law and courts of public opinion. How is the judicial process communicated
to the public? What is the interaction between traditional and social media and
the administration of justice? Should and can safeguards be taken? Or are we
facing, at the end of the day, a “narrative” issue?
II. TO WHOM
THE CALL FOR PAPERS IS ADDRESSED
AIDC
organizes on a biennial basis a “younger comparatists colloquium” (the last
one, this year, was held in Campobasso) open to PhD candidates and holders,
lecturers, adjunct professors; and the ordinary biennial colloquium (the
present is the 24th), generally open to full and associate
professors.
Therefore
the selection committee will prefer papers presented by full and associate
professors, although it may make a limited amount of exceptions. Papers should
be in Italian or English, and may be presented in either language.
Simultaneous
translation will not be provided.
III.
ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS
The
proposal must be submitted by December 20, 2016. Acceptance will be communicated
by mid-January. Within 10 days from acceptance, the participation fee (€ 100)
must be paid. If not, acceptance will be forfeited and the selection committee will
move on to other candidates. This requirement is essential in order to avoid
that no-show of some rapporteurs preclude the possibility to others to present
their papers.
The
Colloquium will be organized in plenary opening (Thursday, June 15) and closing
(Saturday, June 17) sessions (with invited speakers). And parallel sessions
(Friday, June 16) divided according to topics. It is expected that up to 35
papers will be presented in a time slot not exceeding 20 minutes per speaker.
The on-line periodical “Comparative Law Review”, sponsored by
AIDC, intends to devote a special issue to the proceedings of the Colloquium.
Participants are however free to publish their papers wherever they deem most
appropriate.
Papers in Italian may also be submitted for publication to “Diritto
pubblico comparato ed europeo”, and to “Comparazione e diritto civile”, the
other two leading Italian comparative law reviews.
IV. OTHER ASPECTS
The origins of the “Suor Orsola Benincasa” University are deeply
rooted in the grandeur of the 17th and 18th century
when Naples was the capital of one of the kingdoms of the Spanish Empire and
the largest town in Italy. Originally a women’s monastic institution,
it became entirely secular at the end of the 19th century and provided higher
education training for primary and secondary school teachers. A century later
it has become a fullfledged university – the only private university in
Southern Italy – with three faculties (Law, Humanities, and Education) and
offers over 15 different degrees. It still occupies the vast architectural
complex on Mount Sant’Elmo with a stunning view on the Gulf of Naples,
Sorrento, Capri and Mount Vesuvius. It hosts several very rich art collections and
a ‘Toy Museum’ and a ‘Musical Instruments Museum’
[http://www.unisob.na.it/ateneo/a001_a.htm?vr=1&lg=en ].
V. HOW TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL
Abstracts should be submitted by e-mail at aidc.naples2017@gmail.com in Word
format, following this order:
a) author(s)
b) affiliation
c) e-mail address
d) title of abstract
e) body of abstract (apx 250 words)
Abstract file should be entitled: Family Name_Last Name.doc
No comments:
Post a Comment