Transcript Dia 3 - Ivo Giesen

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