Bienes Juridicos Globales - Global Legal Goods

Seminario DI-UAM: Krisch sobre bienes públicos globales y la arquitectura del derecho internacional

carlos — Tue, 14 May 2013 14:59:24 +0000

El viernes 10 de mayo hicimos un seminario con ell profesor Nico Krisch en el contexto seminario de profesores de la Facultad de Derecho de la UAM. El profesor Krisch presentó su paper “From Consent to Consultation: The Shifting Architecture of International Law”. Aquí pueden leer el paper y este es el abstract:

Because of its emphasis on state consent, classical international law is often seen as inadequate for solving problems of a global scale, especially when they involve global public goods. As these problems grow in importance, many commentators call for, and expect pressure towards, the inclusion of non-consensual elements in the international legal order. This article analyzes to what extent, and in what forms, we can empirically observe such a turn to non-consensualism. It develops expectations about the salience of different forms (collective, multilateral, unilateral; formal/informal; egalitarian/hierarchical) in responses to significant challenges of global public goods, and it uses three issue areas - antitrust, climate change regulation, and the control of terrorism financing - to investigate actual processes of change and their shape. It finds a certain, but limited, pressure on traditional international legal categories, such as multilateral treaty-making, the boundaries of institutional powers, and jurisdictional limits for unilateral action. More prominent is a turn to informal institutions and rules, often coupled with more exclusive, minilateral decision- making processes that allow for greater speed, flexibility and hierarchy in problem-solving. The limited role of consent in this order is compensated, in part, by the emergence of structures of representation and processes of consultation. In the resulting picture, international law retains much of its consensual character, but it is increasingly sidelined in favour of other sites of governance in which consent plays a much more limited role. These findings allow us to gain a better understanding of processes of change of international law and of its place in the broader normative order in global politics.

Fue un seminario excelente, donde tratamos muchos temas directamente relacionados con nuestro proyecto de investigación.

Foto: es una toma que hice de la famosa Plaza de España en Santo Domingo, con el Alcázar de Don Diego de Colón al fondo, el punto de partida de una de las principales arquitecturas del derecho internacional.

Seminario DI-UAM: Nicolas Lamp sobre el desafío de las “nuevas guerras”

carlos — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:34:35 +0000

Guantánamo – Joan Fontcuberta

El lunes 4 de marzo a las 17:00 horas tendremos en el seminario de derecho internacional de la Facultad de Derecho de la UAM (Sem DI-UAM) a Nicolas Lamp (London School of Economics), para discutir su artículo “Conceptions of War and Paradigms of Compliance: The ‘New War’ Challenge to International Humanitarian Law”. El artículo ganó en 2012 el premio Francis Lieber, que otorga la American Society of International Law a un trabajo de excelencia sobre el derecho de los conflictos armados. El artículo se puede descargar gratuitamente desde el sitio web del Journal of Conﬂict & Security Law, en “2012 ASIL Lieber Prize”). La presentación será en inglés, pero se podrá formular preguntas en español, porque Nicolas entiende nuestra lengua. Aquí está el abstract:

The article argues that the so-called ‘new wars’ pose a fundamental challenge to international humanitarian law (IHL). Although not historically new, this type of war differs in crucial respects from the conception of war that underlies the traditional paradigm of compliance of IHL. At the heart of this paradigm lie certain assumptions: that IHL embodies a compromise between the interests of the warring parties and humanitarian concerns, and that the warring parties face a number of incentives to comply with the law. The article argues that these assumptions lose their plausibility under the circumstances of the ‘new wars’. As a result, the traditional enforcement mechanisms of IHL invariably fail in these conﬂicts. The second part of the article discusses the international legal response to the ‘new wars’. In particular, it considers international criminal prosecutions, the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross and measures by the United Nations Security Council. In the common elements of these measures the article identiﬁes the contours of a new paradigm of compliance in IHL that shifts the emphasis from voluntary compliance to external enforcement.

Es una actividad que se enmarca en el proyecto DER2009-11436 sobre la protección de bienes jurídicos globales.

Publicado también en aquiescencia.

carlos — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:00:54 +0000

Se ha publicado el último número del Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho de la UAM [9 AFDUAM 16 (2012)], fruto de las jornadas que dirigimos Paco Garcimartín y yo en noviembre del año pasado. Es un volumen estupendo, si me permiten esta licencia interpretativa, y estamos orgullosos de haberlo hecho realidad. En la presentación explicamos que:

“Los bienes jurídicos globales, a imagen y semejanza de los bienes públicos globales surgidos de la teoría económica y caracterizados por la falta de rivalidad y exclusividad, deben ser capaces de producir beneficios a través de las fronteras, las poblaciones e incluso las generaciones. La protección jurídica de ese tipo de bienes —que podrían incluir, por ejemplo, desde elementos concretos como la Antártida o los fondos marinos hasta conceptos abstractos como la paz o el desarrollo sostenible— ha sido hasta ahora una responsabilidad primordial del Estado y ha tenido lugar fundamentalmente dentro de las estructuras del Estado y en sus relaciones con otros Estados sobre la base del derecho internacional. Hoy esa responsabilidad estatal sigue existiendo, aunque de una forma distinta dado que los Estados han dejado de tener un monopolio exclusivo sobre los intereses y acciones relativos a la protección de los bienes jurídicos globales. Hoy se impone un modelo pluralista en el que los gobiernos, las instituciones y la sociedad civil confluyen en la protección y también en la producción de bienes jurídicos globales.

Los autores de los trabajos que se incluyen en este volumen no parten de un concepto unívoco de bienes jurídicos globales, sino que tratan sus temas en abierta discusión con su propia idea de bienes globales. Algunos avanzan una definición bastante precisa de los bienes jurídicos globales, como ocurre con la contribución de Anne Peters que los caracteriza como «los bienes que son moldeados o incluso constituidos por el derecho, y cuya existencia y forma interesan y benefician a todos los Estados o a toda la humanidad y están a su disponibilidad». La mayoría de los autores de este volumen del AFDUAM prefieren, en cambio, una aproximación indirecta y quizá más abstracta al concepto de bienes jurídicos globales. Todas estas posiciones caben muy bien en este volumen del AFDUAM, porque la única directriz que sugerimos los directores de las jornadas, siguiendo la estela de las investigaciones sobre bienes públicos globales, fue intentar en la medida de lo posible hacer confluir los análisis en tres tipos de deficiencias que están presentes en la protección de los bienes jurídicos globales en la comunidad internacional, que se conocen como déficits normativos, de participación y de jurisdicción. En efecto, la protección de bienes jurídicos globales crea la necesidad de enfrentarse a grandes desafíos normativos que requieren respuestas de un derecho global, que ofrezca soluciones al déficit normativo que se genera en los espa- cios donde el derecho nacional e internacional no alcanzan a regular o regulan de forma insuficiente. El déficit de participación se manifiesta en el hecho de que vivimos en un mundo de múltiples actores donde la cooperación y el conflicto relativo a los bienes jurídicos globales ocurren fundamentalmente en un nivel intergu- bernamental. El déficit jurisdiccional se revela en la paradójica divergencia entre el mundo sin fronteras en que operan y deberían protegerse los bienes jurídicos globales y el poder inmenso de las fronteras nacionales como factores determinantes en la protección de dichos bienes.

El diseño de las jornadas buscaba generar una reflexión sobre la protección de los bienes jurídicos globales teniendo en cuenta las deficiencias normativas, participativas y jurisdiccionales antes aludidas, pero dentro de una cierta coherencia estructural, que se refleja en este volumen del AFDUAM. Los artículos que aquí se recogen abordan temas generales de filosofía política, economía y relaciones internacionales (José Luis Martí, Gonzalo Escribano Francés, Caterina García Segura), el constitucionalismo global (Anne Peters, Ignacio Gutiérrez), el derecho penal (Bernardo Feijoo Sánchez, Adán Nieto Martín), los derechos indígenas y los derechos de propiedad intelectual (Bartolomé Clavero Salvador), el derecho del medio ambiente (Ángel Menéndez Rexach, Alicia Campos Serrano, Teresa Fajardo del Castillo, Belén Madrazo Meléndez), el derecho privado y procesal (Fernando Gascón Inchausti, Fernando Gómez Pomar, Marta Requejo Isidro), el derecho económico y financiero internacional (José Manuel Calderón Carrero, Manuel López Escudero), para acabar como comenzamos, con una reflexión sobre ética y filosofía política, aunque esta vez aplicada a las responsabilidades y las soluciones frente a la crisis financiera global (Félix Ovejero Lucas). Toda una agenda de investigación y discusión pública sobre el bien común global, los bienes públicos globales y, por supuesto, la protección de bienes jurídicos globales.”

Este es el índice del Anuario:

PRESENTACIÓN. Carlos Espósito y Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez

Política y bien común global. José Luis Martí

Provisión de bienes públicos globales y economía política internacional. Gonzalo Escribano Francés

La «mirada cosmopolita» como requisito político y social para la provisión de los bienes públicos globales. Caterina García Segura

Bienes jurídicos globales en un orden mundial constitucionalizado. Anne Peters

Traducir derechos: la dignidad humana en el derecho constitucional de la comunidad internacional. Ignacio Gutiérrez Gutiérrez

¿Transformación del derecho penal por la protección de la estabilidad financiera como bien jurídico global? Bernardo Feijoo Sánchez

Bases para un futuro derecho penal internacional del medio ambiente. Adán Nieto Martín

Conocimientos tradicionales sobre recursos genéticos: ¿bien jurídico global? Bartolomé Clavero Salvador

El agua como bien jurídico global: el derecho humano al agua. Ángel Menéndez Rexach

Los bienes globales y las fuentes de energía. Alicia Campos Serrano

Los bienes públicos del medio ambiente: el reto de la gestión sostenible de los recursos naturales en la Unión Europea. Teresa Fajardo del Castillo .

Protección de los bienes jurídicos globales, el Registro y el medio ambiente. Belén Madrazo Meléndez

Eficacia en España de sentencias y transacciones derivadas del ejercicio de una class action en Estados Unidos. Fernando Gascón Inchausti

Bienes globales y protección colectiva: el caso del derecho de consumo. Fernando Gómez Pomar

Derechos humanos y acciones colectivas. Marta Requejo Isidro

La globalización económica y su incidencia sobre el derecho financiero y tributario: ¿implicaciones sobre la protección de los bienes jurídicos globales? José Manuel Calderón Carrero

Estabilidad económico-financiera y derecho internacional. Manuel López Escudero

Mercado financiero, responsabilidad y soluciones globales. Félix Ovejero Lucas

Los contenidos del Anuario se ponen a disposición de los lectores gratuitamente en elwebsite del Anuario un tiempo después de su publicación en formato papel. Informaré cuando los capítulos estén disponibles.

Carrillo Santarelli: Enhanced Multi-Level Protection of Human Dignity in a Globalized Context Through Humanitarian Legal Goods

carlos — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:13:33 +0000

The German Law Journal (vol. 13, No 7, 2012) has published one of our working papers: Enhanced Multi-Level Protection of Human Dignity in a Globalized Context through Humanitarian Global Legal Goodsby Nicolás Carrillo Santarelli.

Blázquez Navarro: la regulación del comercio internacional de los recursos naturales

carlos — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:00:47 +0000

Ya puede descargarse en la sección de publicaciones de nuestro web site el artículo de Irene Blázquez Navarro sobre “La regulación del comercio internacional de los recursos naturales: reflexiones a la luz de la teoría de los bienes públicos globales”.

The Protection of Humanitarian Legal Goods by National Judges

carlos — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:35:02 +0000

The European Journal of International Law has published our article “The Protection of Humanitarian Legal Goods by National Judges” [Eur J Int Law (2012) vol 23, pp 67-96]. Here is the abstract:

National judges are increasingly exposed to deciding on issues regulated by the international legal system, given its expansion and specialization. However, this is just one of the many ways in which national judges interact with international law: they have the potential not only to receive and take into account international law, but also to shape and contribute to its modification, acting alone or in conjunction with other judicial authorities, and considering or ignoring the interests of several actors. The attitude of judges towards international norms, in the reception and modification dimensions, depends on a variety of factors worth exploring in detail. Such exploration allows us to ascertain how and when judges are more prone to protecting legal goods enshrined by international norms. The fact that national judges are empowered by a domestic legal system to act, while generating tensions and paradoxes when norms created in different levels of governance clash, does not detract from the possibility for them to defend interests and values, i.e., legal goods, belonging to other legal systems, even those generated in a global space of interaction where interests and values shared by different legal systems are shaped, including the protection of human dignity.

Repercusiones de la Conferencia UNCTAD-UAM (2)

carlos — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:01:02 +0000

La UNCTAD ha colgado un post sobre la conferencia en la UAM, que reproduzco a continuación.

UNCTAD-UAM Academic Conference on “Responsible Sovereign Financing: The Search for Common Principles”, Madrid, 2.03.2012

UNCTAD and Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM) co-organized an academic conference entitled “Responsible Sovereign Financing: The Search for Common Principles” in Madrid on 2 March 2012.

The purpose of this conference was to reflect on the legal status and the economic implications of the Principles released by UNCTAD on responsible sovereign lending and borrowing. Fifteen internationally renowned scholars thus presented and discussed their articles written and submitted responding to the call for papers announced in July 2011. More than 45 participants (European and American scholars, Spanish officials and students) followed the discussions along the day.

The conference was inaugurated by Prof. Armin von Bogdandy, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. In his lecture, sponsored by the European Society of International Law, Prof. von Bogdandy elaborated on the concept of international public authority and the reasons why actors in sovereign debt prevention and restructurings should follow certain international standards, such as the Principles on Responsible Sovereign Lending and Borrowing.

The presentations made during the conference deepened on the legal status of the Principles, their economic rationale, how they could impact on China as a creditor, and their connections with fiduciary duties, debt management and the UN Convention against corruption, rating agencies and their ways to be implemented.

The conference was concluded by Prof. Robert Howse, Professor of the New York University Law School, who presented some concluding remarks in the light of international law. According to his view, the progression of international law towards normative instruments ensuring more accountability and that losses and risks are fairly shared, predict a “bright future for the Principles”.

Participants expressed special appreciation to Carlos Espósito, International Law Professor of the UAM and co-organizer of the conference, for his commitment and intellectual contribution to the conference.

Details on the conference, participants, articles and the program are available at http://www.uam.es/otros/unctad-uam

Repercusiones de la conferencia UNCTAD-UAM

carlos — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:59:34 +0000

Muy pronto voy a colgar el vídeo de la conferencia inaugural (ESIL Lecture) que pronunció el Profesor Armin von Bogdandy sobre la restructuración de obligaciones por deudas soberana como ejercicios de autoridad pública en nuestra Conferencia sobre Responsible Sovereign Financing, celebrada el viernes 2 de marzo pasado. Pero ahora no me resisto a mostrar una de las repercusiones inmediatas de la Conferencia. En efecto, ayer apareció un artículo en el New York Times -sí, lo he dicho bien- en el que citan la intervención de Mitu Gulati en nuestra conferencia, donde defendió de manera vivaz que la restructuración de la deuda griega no debía ser considerada una excepción sino un ejemplo. Según escribe el periodista del NYT con acierto, Gulati hizo vibrar a la audiencia cuando recomendó que otros países europeos altamente endeudados llevaran adelante acuerdos con sus acreedores similares a los griegos. Como es lógico, su posición generó un intenso debate. En cualquier caso, me alegro mucho de que nuestra conferencia lo haya hecho posible y tengo una única crítica: el periodista debería haber dado más datos sobre la conferencia celebrada en la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid y, en todo caso, debería haber citado a los co-organizadores de la conferencia, la UNCTAD y la UAM.

Crossposted at aquiescencia: http://aquiescencia.net/2012/03/07/repercusiones-de-la-conferencia-unctad-uam/

Estudio sobre los principios de otorgamiento y toma responsables de prestamos soberanos

carlos — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:10:23 +0000

El viernes 2 de marzo, como saben, tendrá lugar la conferencia Responsible Sovereign Financing: The Search for Common Principles, en la que analizaremos los Principios sobre promoción de otorgamiento y prestamos responsable de préstamos soberanos. Para animar la discusión la UNCTAD ha publicado un excelente estudio de Matthias Goldman, investigador del Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Heidelberg, Alemania), sobre la vigencia de los principios en los derechos internos de 15 Estados. La conclusión del estudio revela que la mayoría de los Principios constituyen principios generales del derecho para las jurisdicciones nacionales. ¿Soft Law o algo más? Aquí se puede descargar el estudio completo.

Crisis Talk at Humboldt University

carlos — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:38:10 +0000

By ISABEL FEICHTNER

Note: Originally published by the author at the Verfassungsblog. Crossposted here with permission from the author. Thanks both to Isabel Feichtner and the Verfassungsblog.

Foto: Andrew Shiue, Flickr Creative Commons

It’s easier to talk about love than about the debt crisis. Talking about the debt crisis, however, can be lovely. The conference “A Debt Restructuring Mechanism for European Sovereigns. Do We Need A Legal Procedure?” at Humboldt University on January 13 and 14 was a demonstration of lovely crisis conversation.

Christoph Paulus, Professor of Private Law at Humboldt University, had convened a group of economists and lawyers, academics and practitioners from Europe, the USA, Latin America and Japan to discuss causes and responses to the European debt crisis. Even though the emphasis of the conference lay on Europe, and more specifically a formal restructuring mechanism for sovereign debt in Europe, voices from outside enriched the debate, presenting legal approaches to the indebtedness of states and municipalities in the United States and Japan.

Listening to the presentations and debates was in several ways reassuring. Not only was the tone and atmosphere so cordial and friendly, the discussions also conveyed the impression of broad consensus among the presenters as to the feasibility and desirability of legal procedures for an orderly debt restructuring.

Some of the participants are directly involved in the ongoing crisis management. Among them Ludger Schuknecht, economist at the Ministry of Finance, who stood in for Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. His speech did not surprise – the essence being: We are on the right track – dealing with the current crisis as well as preventing and addressing future crises. He stressed the importance of avoiding a disorderly default and the need for a more rule-based governance – the latter to be achieved through the European Stability Mechanism and reforms to the Stability and Growth Pact’s preventive and corrective arms, including the new fiscal compact. His optimism also extended to the ongoing negotiations on private sector involvement (i.e. the voluntary taking of losses by private investors) in the handling of the Greek crisis which were likely to be concluded successfully (on Friday evening successful conclusion still was not in sight). The crisis countries themselves had to address the root causes of the crisis by reducing public debt and budget deficits and increasing their competitiveness. This required structural reforms including spending cuts and flexibilizing labour markets. With respect to the narrower conference topic, Schuknecht pointed to thedecision of the European Council of 26 March 2011 to include collective action clauses in all new euro area government securities from July 2013.

Being Poor as a Good Thing?

A number of people in the audience, myself included, wished the speaker would concretize the recent intentions of Merkel and Sarkozy to address unemployment, explain how the small steps towards financial regulation taken so far would restore the primacy of politics over the financial markets. Instead he emphasized the importance of restoring market confidence and praised the virtues of being poor. Sometimes, he responded to a question by the Irish ambassador, it is better to have little money since little money tends to be spent more efficiently.

Michael Burda, Professor of Economics at Humboldt University, subsequently set out to explain the economic causes of the crisis. He too did not go much beyond the diagnosis of over-borrowing and otherwise unsustainable fiscal policies. He did not use the opportunity to critically evaluate the official German position favoring austerity, for example by addressing fundamental challenges faced by European economies including how to ensurecompetitiveness of service-oriented economies vis-à-vis economies based on manufacturing and – more generally – how to address trade imbalances.

Mario Blejer, Governor of the Central Bank of Argentina during Argentina’s debt crisis, took a more critical stance, especially regarding Germany’s opposition to the European Central Bank acting as a lender of last resort. Since this matter had caused some confusion among lawyers I was particularly grateful for his clarification on how to think about IMF lending in the European debt crisis. While countries – when insolvent – may have to default on foreign debt, local debt (debt denominated in domestic currency) can always be paid and default never happens. The country merely needs to enhance the supply of its currency. The situation is different in the euro area where the European Central Bank determines monetary policy, including money supply. If the European Central Bank refuses to act as a lender of last resort, countries like Greece or Italy or Spain, in the words of Bleier, become like Panama in that they do not have a domestic currency. Even debt denominated in Euro for them is foreign debt.

The IMF borrows from Europe to lend to Europe

To pay this debt the IMF now is lending Euros to European countries whose currency is the Euro (but which for them amounts to a foreign currency). In short: the IMF borrows from Europe to lend to Europe. To Blejer this does not make sense. Instead, the ECB should directly intervene as a lender of last resort and provide money to governments. It should not only, as it currently does, provide indirect support through buying government bonds on the secondary market or providing unlimited credit to banks. By now we all know the rationale for involving the IMF: “Moral Hazard”. The detour via the IMF, Blejer fears, will damage its credibility; not only because it would not be needed if the ECB intervened (currently such intervention would violate EU law), but also because its acting as a lender to Europe will lead to double standards. It is not to be expected that the IMF enforces conditionality as strictly vis-à-vis European countries as it does towards developing countries.

All three presentations were fodder for controversial debate. However, the audience (of academics, practitioners and civil servants) seemed quite content to take it all in (throughout the conference only one “Wutbürger” vented his anger at the endless need to “pay, pay, pay”) and move to less disputed (really?) territory, namely the actual workings of sovereign debt restructuring in situations of insolvency and the desirability of a formal legal procedure to facilitate and legitimize such restructuring.

On this point there seemed to be much real consensus – the economist Jeromin Zettelmeyer from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development being slightly more skeptical about the need for a formal legal procedure than his lawyer colleagues. A formal restructuring mechanism (along the lines of the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism negotiated within the IMF at the beginning of the millennium until negotiations failed in 2004) could facilitate an orderly default with negotiated haircuts by overcoming collective action problems, most importantly the problem of hold-outs (which collective action clauses can only go so far in addressing). (I will spare you the details on the pros and cons, many explanations on this topic can be found on the website of the International Insolvency Institute).

What Is Won With A Legal Procedure?

A formal legal procedure for sovereign insolvency (or “resolvency” as Paulus would have it) could legitimate sovereign debt restructuring by providing for non-discrimination among creditors, making restructuring more transparent and inclusive and thus potentially more democratic. The latter point was stressed by Mathias Audit, Professor of Law at Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense). Not too surprisingly, it was the scholars from the United States who critically questioned enthusiasm for a formal legal procedure. Thus, Anna Gelpern, Professor of Law at American University, stressed that more was needed to make responses to sovereign default fairer or more democratic. Law, as we should know, can also work the other way, by entrenching interest and power constellations. She also pointed out that state banktruptcy in the United States (which currently is not a legal option) was associated with right-wing politics seeking to weaken labour unions. Michael Waibel (Lecturer of International Law at Cambridge) with his fascinating account of the Financial Commission of Control instituted in the 19^th century by European powers to administer Greece’s insolvency also wished to caution against over-optimism in legal engineering.

The presentations and questions from the audience touched upon two specific issues which indeed may seriously complicate things and impede the adoption of a formal restructuring mechanism that enhances legitimate debt restructuring. One is the impact of financial instruments such as Credit Default Swaps (insurances against sovereign default) on the restructuring of sovereign debt. Another (related one) is the impact of the finance industry’s lobbying on the political process.

Opinions on how Sovereign Default Swaps affect debt restructuring processes diverged. Ernst-Moritz Lipp, former chairman of the London Club and thus highly experienced with the restructuring of sovereign debt owed to private creditors, stressed the contribution of derivatives to fundamental changes in financial markets, their increased intransparency and complexity. These changes made the transmission of defaults unpredictable, no one knew whom and where exactly default would hit.

Shady Business

To the question how Credit Default Swaps affect concrete restructuring negotiations, he answered that they did not impede negotiations, that they even might facilitate them. This may be true. Indeed the argument that CDS holders impede agreement on a haircut because they would gain from a legal default does not seem to hold: CDS holders are no longer creditors of the sovereign and thus do not participate in the negotiations. However, it also seems true and was emphasized by Jay Westbrook (Law Professor at University of Texas) that Credit Default Swaps and other derivatives make the effects of the restructuring unpredictable – effects which may include insolvencies of systemically important actors such as pension funds or insurances.

The second issue – how the finance industry impacts the political process — was largely spared. It seems however crucial, not only since opposition by major financial industry associations was one reason for the failure of negotiations at the IMF for a Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism (as pointed out by Sean Hagan, General Counsel at the IMF). I agree with John Plender’s recent comment in the FT that “[t]ackling such interest groups both in the US and Europe is one of the biggest post-crisis tasks for policymakers and a key to addressing concerns about systemic legitimacy”. It will be interesting to see whether this question will receive more attention at a conference with slightly (a number of speakers are identical) greater participation of public lawyers in March at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid on Responsible Sovereign Financing. In an opening speech Armin von Bogdandy will talk about “Sovereign Debt Restructurings as Exercises of Public Authority: Towards a Decentralized Sovereign Insolvency Law.”

When in his concluding remarks Christoph Paulus tentatively asked whether the questions raised by sovereign insolvency after all were not merely technical, but might call into doubt the viability of capitalism I was slightly perplexed. True, questions as to the future of capitalism, its transformations in recent times and possible reconciliation with the democratic welfare state were not discussed explicitly (except by Alessandro Somma, Professor of Law at the Università di Ferrara) but they were looming large within the Senatssaal at Humboldt University.

Why Occupy! Is Crucial

They were the questions that had brought me to this conference in the first place and which made me wonder why so few of my public law colleagues, working on questions of democracy and equality, attended. I do believe that we as academics have a responsibility to attempt to understand the workings of financial markets, their impact on society, the role of law in shaping them. We have to try to understand in order to better articulate our dismay at increased inequality, the disappearances of public libraries, swimming pools, unprofitable railroad tracks, our inability to live sustainably. I do not want to buy that this is how we need to live in the future since we lived beyond our means and now have to do our homework. (I am convinced that there are a lot of things we will need to give up in order to save the planet (such as excessive air travel or ever new electronic appliances), but I am not ready to believe that theaters, libraries, railroads, playgrounds, good public schools….must be among them).

For all the need to be rational and understand, however, it is also time to voice concern and call for reform before everything is completely understood and we can fully predict the effects – say of a financial transaction tax or the banning of over-the-counter traded derivatives. I agree with Ignacio Tirado (Law Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) that this is the moment to act, and call for stricter regulation of financial markets. This moment will pass if we wait until we have fully understood everything. We need to express our outrage now (as Alexander Somma did) at the transformation of welfare capitalism into some other form of capitalism which works well to enhance the wealth of some, but which fails to promote public welfare.

That’s why I think Occupy! is so important and the criticism that it does no formulate concise demands entirely mistaken. I also am convinced that we have to bring study and protest back together (at times at least). Seeing all the black and grey suits at Humboldt University made me wish that our universities would become more colourful again – places for fundamental debate in what kind of society we want to live, places where protest is voiced and not only treated as the subject of scientific study. I was told that protests still happen at Humboldt University. At my home institution where cafeterias turn into cocktail lounges at night and auditoriums are named after banks this seems increasingly unlikely.

Isabel Feichtner is an associate professor for Law and Economics at Goethe University Frankfurt.