Law in a Changing World – the 2026 Annual Conference of the Maastricht Centre for Law & Jurisprudence

The next day, the paper presentations were divided into four panels corresponding to the MCLJ's four research streams. The first panel, ‘Law, Normativity and Authority’ started with a rich paper entitled ‘Theoretical Reflections of Deregulation’ by Susanna Lindroos-Hovinheimo (University of Helsinki). She discussed the EU’s digital omnibus process addressing the environment, defence, and food safety. The simplification of the law that it entails, and its critiques, such as the backsliding on human rights that has gained for it the epithet of ‘Trumpist policies’, were highlighted. The panel continued with a paper by Janosch Prinz & Manon Westphal (FASoS) presented by the former, entitled ‘What is Oligarchic Democracy?’. Prinz defined the concept as the convertibility of economic power into political and legal power, and argued that the concept of ‘Oligarchic Democracy’ can help sharpen our analytical lens in the study of populism, liberalism and democratic backsliding. Roland Pierik (MCLJ) presented next a paper entitled ‘Carving out and understanding of the ECtHr alternative to both the prevalent classic international law approach and the strict constitutional model.’ Pierik analysed first Bellamy’s ECtHR model of EU governance as an international law instrument, in which power remains in the hands of the states and the EC should defer to the states so that the legislator acts. After that, he described Letsas’s proposal, through which the Court is bound by the values of the convention, and finally presented his preferred model with basis both on the Convention and consensus. Massimo Fichera (MCLJ) concluded the panel with a paper focused on the temporal aspects of a constitution, inspired in Koselleck’s work. In his view change and permanence build the foundation of a constitution, and security and stability of the polity are fundamental goals. Each of the papers of this first panel was followed by a very lively discussion and the panel constituted an excellent kick off the day.

The second panel within the research stream ‘Law and the Mind’ began with a paper by Tullio Viola (FASoS) titled ‘Folk Narratives as Sites of Knowledge and Critique’. Viola studies what counts as knowledge beyond official or academic domains and the focus of his paper was on Eastern uneducated women and black folklore in 1920’s Chicago. Michele Ubertone (MCLJ) and Giuseppe Rocchè (Visiting MCLJ) presented next a paper entitled ‘On the legal Relevance of Debunking Arguments’. They asked whether debunking arguments can be used in law, and if so, how. Ubertone and Rocchè noted the weakness of the critique to realism since the rejection of debunking arguments is due to causality, not to their content. They then presented their project, which revolves around their proposal to map and codify debunking arguments. Again, numerous questions and answers followed the panel, before we headed to the lunch break. After the break, we continued with a full afternoon of thought-provoking papers.

The third panel of the day in the research stream ‘Law Beyond the Human’ began with a paper by Lukasz Dziedzic (MCLJ) titled ‘Legal Representation of Natural Entities’. Dziedzic presented key problems of the theories of representation of nature: Who speaks for nature? Can we even know what natural entities wish/want? Can the risks identified be remedied? How do we translate into legal institutions? Dziedzic concluded  that due to the Lorax problem (no human representative can really talk for nature), listening to nature becomes more important. Next, Antonia Waltermann (MCLJ) presented her paper on ‘Legislative Intent & non-Human Minds’. She described legislatures as non-human agents and explored the question of whether the legislature has a will or it is each of the members that has a will attributable to the group. Michael Leach from Tilburg University followed with a paper on ‘International Biodiversity Law in the Anthropocene’. Leach’s argument was that we are conserving a biodiversity that is of value, (instrumental, inherent, intrinsic and ecological) mostly for human beings, but of minor importance for nature more generally. The last paper of the panel, ‘Law versus myth? A critique of international historical composition of space and time?’ by Andre Nunes Chaib (MCLJ) explored the question of ‘the end of the world’ in international law. Against catastrophic views, Nunes argued that that the world end, does not therefore need to mean annihilation. Only when an irreversible rapture in the conditions of life happen, would we be speaking of a real world end. The question he investigates is how international law reacts to these ‘world ending experiences’. 

The fourth stream of the MCLJ ‘Global Markets, Nature and the Common Good’ was represented in the last panel of the day with three speakers from the MCLJ.  Pol van de Wiel talked about ‘Rising (in)equality and the common good’. Van de Wiel shed light on the work of two contemporary thinkers, the French political historian and theorist Pierre Rosanvallon and the American political philosopher Michael Sandel and their views on inequality and political economy. Pim Oosterhuis followed with a paper on ‘The free market in 19^th century Dutch commercial law’. The paper emphasised the role of free-market thinking in the legislation (or lack thereof) and judicial decisions during the period studied. The question Oosterhuis studies is when the division among scholars began, between those portraying the law as either neutral or one with liberal roots. The last paper of the day was presented by Monica Garcia-Salmones (MCLJ) and was  entitled ‘Locke, Smith and Austin on human needs’. The paper traced the way in which these three philosophers dealt with human necessities in their relation to political economy, property and inequality and the ways in which this thinking informs much of contemporary international law.

The conversations continued over drinks at a nearby pub where the workshop ended. It was all in all a very productive day with fruitful exchanges between members of the MCLJ, and the Faculty of Law of UM more generally, FASoS and scholars from other national and international universities.