Conceptualising the Demise of Law

SW 15 Conceptualising the Demise of Law
Convenor: Oskar Polański (European University Institute)

Contact: oskar.polanski@eui.eu

 

Participants: Oskar Polanski, Julian Davis, Andy Yu, Li-Kung Chen, Alain Lempereur,  Anna Lukina, Indira Boutier , Manos Maganaris, Max Reymann, Bruna Gonçalves, Leander Stähler, Sarah Lee, Ryszard Piotrowski, Vanja Mladineo , Paulina Jabłońska, Ilona Schembri, Hafsteinn Dan Kristjansson.

 

 

Special Workshop 15

 

Conceptualising the Demise of Law

Convenor

Oskar Polański (European University Institute)

oskar.polanski@eui.eu

 

Key words General jurisprudence, existence of law, rule of law, democratic backsliding, legal authority

 

Proposal

Law today faces increasing challenges: it can be disfigured from within used by abusive regimes to entrench themselves in power while eroding rights and undermined from without by actors seeking to replace one legal order with another. Yet while the demise of democracy or states has been theorised, jurisprudence has paid comparatively little attention to how law itself ceases to exist. Focus on concepts such as the identity or continuity of legal systems, and on the essential properties of law, has become overshadowed by discussions concerning law’s defective functioning – such as rule of law backsliding. This is so despite historical examples where legal orders have clearly ceased to exist: Roman law, feudal law, and Nazi law all once existed and no longer do. What, then, does it mean for law to die, and at what point can we call the time of death? Are we right to focus on the rule of law rather than the existence of law per se? Once we open this door, many other questions arise: How should we conceptualise the “death” of law? What exactly does it mean for law to die? What bearing do the rule of law and the separation of powers have on the possibility of law’s demise? Is law’s existence valuable in itself, or only insofar as it satisfies certain substantive or procedural conditions? Can general jurisprudence adequately capture law’s demise, or must we have recourse to the tools of other social sciences to fully understand it? This Special Workshop is devoted to addressing these questions – and any others that may arise in discussion – thereby acting as a forum for the theoretical exploration of the phenomenon of the demise of law. It aims to explore how these threats and challenges bear on the conditions under which law persists or ceases to exist.

Summary

This workshop examines the conceptual and practical dimensions of the demise of law. It focuses on three core questions: what it means for law to exist, how law may cease to exist, and how contemporary developments such as democratic backsliding, technological change, and institutional erosion – bear on these conditions. In doing so, it seeks to move beyond crisis-oriented narratives and instead provide a more precise account of how legal orders persist, transform, and potentially break down.

Contribution

The Special Workshop contributes to contemporary debates in legal philosophy by addressing a neglected question at the core of general jurisprudence: under what conditions does law cease to exist? In doing so, it engages directly with debates on legal authority, validity, and the identity and continuity of legal systems. Its distinctive contribution lies in bringing these abstract questions into dialogue with contemporary challenges such as democratic backsliding, technological governance, and institutional decline – thereby testing whether existing jurisprudential frameworks can adequately account for law’s potential demise.

Proposed format

The special workshop, Conceptualising the Demise of Law, is structured into two interconnected sessions designed to transition from high-level theoretical inquiry to empirical and practical analysis. The workshop features 13 presentations (6 in the first panel, 7 in the second). To ensure continuity and depth of engagement, it would be best if the panels were held on the same day (14:00-18:00), allowing the conceptual groundwork laid in the first half to inform the practical critiques in the second. Each session would last approximately 2 hours. The first session would begin with introductory remarks by the convenor (5-10 minutes), addressing the contemporary relevance of ‘law’s demise,’ emphasising its interdisciplinary significance across jurisprudence, political science, and sociology. It would be followed by presentations of approximately 10-15 minutes, followed by a dedicated period for moderated discussion and Q&A (around 20-30 minutes).

Panel 1: The Existence and Demise of Law

Time: 14:00-16:15

Chair: Alain Lempereur (European University Institute; Harvard University)

Speakers:

• • 1. Julian Davis (Stanford University) – Law’s Demise?

     

  • 2. Andy Yu (University of Western Ontario) – Popular Recognition and the Existence of Individual Laws and Legal Decisions

     

  • 3. Oskar Polański (European University Institute) – How law dies, when law dies

     

  • 4. Li-kung Chen (Academia Sinica) – Fictional Genealogy and Origins of Law

     

  • 5. Hafsteinn Dan Kristjansson (Reykjavik University; Oxford University) – The Pathology of Legal Systems and Norms of Legal Method

     

  • 6. Paulina Jabłońska (Jagiellonian University) – The Death of the Constitution and the Legal Scholarship

     

Panel 2: The Breakdown of Law

 

• Time: 16:15-18:15

   

• Chair: Andy Yu (University of Western Ontario)

   

• Speakers:

   

  • 1. Alain Lempereur (European University Institute; Harvard University) – The Law Is Dead. Long Live Our Daily Laws!

        

  • 2. Anna Lukina (LSE; Cambridge University) – Jurisprudence After Dark: Legal Theorists in the Service of Evil Regimes

     

  • 3. Indira Boutier & Manos Maganaris (Glasgow Caledonian University) – From Empire to Algorithm: The Afterlife of Colonial Law in the Age of Al

     

  • 4. Sarah Lee (KU Leuven) – Failed International Courts: Historical Overview and Mapping of Terminated International and Regional Courts

     

  • 5. Vanja Mladineo (European University Institute) – Before Law Dies: Civil Society Responses to Legal Decay in Central and Eastern Europe

     

  • 6. Ryszard Piotrowski (Warsaw University) – New Technologies as a Challenge to Law

     

  • 7. Ilona Schembri (University of Malta) – Selective Justice: How Femicide Laws Can Erode Legal Universality