Towards a Ius Commune 3.0?

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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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…’

7. 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

8. 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?

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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!

12. 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…..?