Close
GCDC supports doctoral candidates at UCL and Oxford to convene one-day workshop at UCL Laws.
27 January 2025
On 27 January 2025, doctoral candidates at UCL and the University of Oxford gathered to convene a one-day workshop at UCL Laws. The workshop was coordinated by UCL doctoral candidates Tasneem Ghazi and Edward Pérez, and Oxford doctoral candidates Pía Chible and Ana Diaz, with support from the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism (GCDC). Participants presented on various public law topics, including judicial review, housing rights, states of emergencies, and constitution-making processes. The presentations in each panel were followed by comments from academics and question-and-answer sessions with members of the audience.
In the first panel, Siân McGibbon, doctoral candidate at UCL, presented on ‘“Government by Numbers”: A Principled Approach to Rational Discrimination and Reasonable Distinctions in Predictive Modelling by Public Bodies’. McGibbon discussed the use of statistical and predictive modelling in decision making by public bodies, making the case for applying the public law doctrines of rationality and relevance in this context. Following the presentation, Dr Joanna Bell, Associate Professor at the University of Oxford, gave her comments.
Some attendees in Panel 1
The second panel was titled ‘Liberal Democracies in Flux: The Long-Term Implications of Normalised States of Emergencies and Crisis Governance on Democratic Foundations and Human Rights’. In this panel, Jana Ruwayha, doctoral candidate at the University of Geneva and visiting researcher at UCL, highlighted how the normalisation of states of emergencies poses a significant threat to liberal democracy. To counter this trend, she advocated for proactive strategies that prioritise resilience and adaptability in governance frameworks. Professor Jeff King, Professor of Law at UCL and Deputy Director of the GCDC, was the discussant for this panel.
L-R: Morales-Cerda, James, Ruwayha, and King in Panel 2
The third panel was on ‘The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life and (In)adequate Housing’. In this panel, Eve Lister, doctoral candidate at UCL, discussed the evolving uses of the right to respect for private and family life as they pertain to access to adequate housing. She highlighted how the case law reveals broader legal and cultural perceptions about the right to housing and presumptions about what kind of tenant is entitled to housing. Dr Rishika Sahgal, Assistant Professor in Law at the University of Birmingham, commented on the presentation.
L-R: Diaz, Lister, and Sahgal in Panel 3
The fourth panel saw Natalia Morales-Cerda, doctoral candidate at UCL, present her paper ‘Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: Chile’s 2019–2022 Constituent Process from the Narrative of Non-Failure’. Morales-Cerda critiqued the narrative of constitutional failure that has been used to characterise Chile’s 2019–2022 constituent process, introducing two new categories of constituent failure and electoral failure. She argued that Chile’s process should be described as an electoral failure, which is merely the failure to adopt a new constitutional text rather than the inability to lay the foundation for a new constitutional order. Discussant Dr Leah Trueblood, Fellow and Tutor in Public Law at the University of Oxford, commented on the presentation.
In panel 5, Kevin James, doctoral candidate at UCL, presented his review of Stephen Tierney’s The Federal Contract: A Constitutional Theory of Federalism, titled ‘The Limits (and Possibilities) of a Constitutional Theory of Federalism’. James assessed the methodological and substantive claims in Tierney’s book, arguing that while the book makes a significant contribution to the field, it is constrained by its methodological and theoretical choices. The discussant for this panel was Dr Signe Larsen, Associate Professor at the University of Warwick.
Panel 6 was on ‘System-Focused Judicial Review: A Challenge to the Judicial Role?’ In this panel, Amy Hemsworth, doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford, reviewed the case law on system-focused judicial review – cases in which the court is asked to rule on the lawfulness of an administrative system as opposed to an individual decision. She highlighted how such cases are in tension with traditional understandings of the role of courts in reviewing administration and outlined how courts have been resistant to such attempts to make their role in judicial review more expansive. Professor Rick Rawlings, Professor of Public Law at UCL, gave his comments following the presentation.
In the seventh panel, Derick Luong, doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford, presented on ‘The New Anglo-Australian Counterespionage Laws: The Risk of Americanising Espionage Jurisprudence’. Luong analysed the counterespionage laws of the US, the UK, and Australia, as well as their implications for press freedom. He argued that the Anglo-Australian counterespionage laws risk importing similar laws in the US, and suggested how these laws can be reframed to better protect media freedom. Following the presentation, Dr Ewan Smith, Associate Professor in Public Law at UCL, gave his comments.
L-R: Ruwayha, Luong, and Smith in Panel 7
The eighth panel was titled ‘Judicial Review for Error of Law: England, France, and Germany (1860s–1910s)’. In the presentation, Jan Langemeyer, doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford, highlighted the different approaches to judicial review in England, France, and Germany in the late 1800s and early 1900s, noting how English judges were much more deferential than their counterparts in giving autonomy to decision makers. Langemeyer also argued that the different approaches can be explained with reference to the institutional and constitutional foundations of judicial review in each legal system. Commenting on the presentation was Professor Colm O’Cinneide, Professor of Constitutional and Human Rights Law at UCL.
The final panel featured Kenta Tsuda, doctoral candidate at UCL, who presented his paper ‘Calibrating Agnosticism: Theories of Bureaucratic Motivation in Administrative Law’. Tsuda identified two theories of bureaucratic motivation – the state trustee theory and the public choice theory – seeking to identify which of these theories best explains administrative decisions. Drawing on empirical evidence from administrative decisions to privatise environmental analysis under the US National Environmental Policy Act, Tsuda concluded that the public choice explanation is more plausible than the state trustee theory. Professor Erin Delaney, Leverhulme Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at UCL and Director of the GCDC, was the discussant for this panel.
Some attendees in Panel 9
Following the panel discussions, Professor Delaney concluded the day with a keynote speech on formalism and written constitutionalism in the age of democratic backsliding. Drawing on the constitutional writings of Frederick Douglass, she explored the ways in which law interacts with politics in constitutional interpretation. Against this narrative, Professor Delaney urged participants, as legal scholars, to be intentional about interdisciplinarity and collaboration. The goal, she concluded, should be to integrate legal scholarship with insights from other fields to create a more stable and shared foundation for democratic constitutionalism.
L-R: Workshop organisers Pérez, Chible, Diaz, and Ghazi