Interdisciplinary research : are we asking the right questions in legal research?

Legal research and legal writing are often informed by preconceptions closely tied to mainstream legal assumptions. Asking the right questions is a much needed exercise to expose ideological and methodological preconceptions in legal research. This compilation of texts draws upon some provocative questions such as: Why legal methodology? Why human rights? Why anti-discrimination? Why social justice? Why efficiency? Why democracy? Why the public / private law divide? Why should international law be law? Why socialise risks? These questions were asked during two popular editions of a seminar called the ‘Why-Seminar’ at the European University Institute. They ended up creating an ‘experimental setting’ where researchers discussed their methodological choices and were challenged to disclose their methodological preconceptions. Interdisciplinarity became an essential, and in many ways, surprising tool to deeply understanding legal phenomena or phenomena with legal reverberance. Interdisciplinary research revealed that serendipity can also be a good ally of the legal researcher

Which Governance for European Private Law?

The paper describes the necessity to consider the role of private rule making and the increasing importance of national regulatory agencies, in the process of European legal integration. It then focuses on the legislative design and process implementation of EPL. Its departing assumption is that EPL is and will remain a multilevel system where national implementation of European legislation generates intentional and unintentional spillover effects to be ‘governed’ through horizontal devices. The author underlines that the current legislative and judicial trend towards total harmonization is the wrong response to normative differentiation occurring in the process of national implementation. He analyses in particular the areas of unfair contract terms and commercial practices, providing examples of divergent implementation which can not be tackled only at legislative level, claiming that governance is a better response. He examines traditional modes of governance and then considers the applicability of new modes of governance to EPL. He makes several reform proposals; most of them do not require legislative intervention. At the legislative level, given that the competences are organised around policy areas while private law, following the national traditions, is conceptually organised around institutions, he proposes different ways to improve coordination at the Commission level, concerning legislative draft. Legislative drafting can also be improved by considering the different impacts of new legal categories in national legal systems, especially the general clauses. At the implementation level he emphasizes the role of judicial governance and the lack of coordination among national judiciaries proposing the establishment of a permanent judicial conference specialised in EPL to be coordinated with TFI and ECJ. He then proposes the institution of committees operating according to subjects ( contract, property, tort) that would cut across directorates competences and would analyse the impact of European legislation on private law national systems. Finally he proposes the use of OMC, adequately redefined to evaluate the policy effects of implementation especially when it involves national regulatory agencies