Symposium: Fresh Perspectives on Judging

On Friday, 20 June, the Editors of Hart Studies on Judging and the Courts held a symposium at the Inner Temple, London, to mark the fifth anniversary of the series. The symposium, titled ‘Fresh Perspectives on Judging’, was supported by the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism, along with Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, the British Academy’s Horizon European Pump Priming collaboration between UK and EU partners 2024, The Dickson Poon School of Law, and UNSW Sydney.

The day began with a publishing advice session, ‘Turning Your Idea into a Proposal and Your Proposal into a Book’. Kate Whetter, Publisher at Hart Publishing, discussed how to craft an effective proposal and outlined what publishers typically look for in a proposal. Series Authors Rachel Cahill-O’Callaghan and Lewis Graham also reflected on their own experiences publishing with the series, sharing useful tips on transitioning from a PhD dissertation to a book project, identifying one’s target audience, and navigating common pitfalls in the proposal process.

The first academic panel of the day, ‘Judges and Courts in Action’, began with a paper by Matan Freidin (Bar-Ilan University) titled ‘The Fiduciary Judge: Judicial Agency Problems in Aggregate Litigation’. Drawing on fiduciary theory and corporate governance, Freidin re-examined the role of judges in class actions, arguing that judges in such cases function not as neutral arbiters but as fiduciaries. As such, he contended, judges owe normative duties of loyalty, care, and transparency, especially with regard to the absent class members.

The panel continued with Cari Hyde-Vaamonde (King’s College London) presenting on ‘Function not Fear: The Effect of Algorithms on Legitimacy in the Justice System’. Drawing on her empirical research, Hyde-Vaamonde challenged the assumption that the public are inherently technophobic, finding instead that people tend to assess algorithmic systems based on how well they function. These findings point to the possibility of the public actively evaluating the procedures through which justice is administered, thereby contributing to the reform of the justice system using algorithms.

Huabing Li (University of Hamburg) closed the first panel with his presentation on his paper ‘Can Online Courts Lower Barriers to Litigation? Evidence from China’s Internet Court Pilot’. Li discussed his analysis of China’s pilot internet courts in Hangzhou, Beijing, and Guangzhou, where he observed a rise in litigation volume, shorter trial durations, and a lower appeal rate across all three cities. However, the judicial quality score, as calculated by a large language model, improved in Hangzhou but declined in Beijing and Guangzhou. Ultimately, Li concluded that the internet court pilots, while imperfect, have enhanced access to justice and represent a promising step toward broader legal reform.

In the second panel, ‘Judges and Courts in Dialogue’, Jeronimo Lau Alberdi (University of Virginia) presented on ‘Courts without Borders: Judicial Comparativism in Latin America’. His research explored the institutional and epistemic conditions under which apex constitutional courts in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile incorporate foreign legal materials into their constitutional adjudication. He found that the nature of comparative practice in the region is shaped by factors such as institutional capacity, legal education, and the judges’ need to enhance the authority of domestic decisions.

Lise Brun (Université Laval) then presented her paper, ‘Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Québec Inc. and the Rules of Interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms relating to International and Comparative Law, A Draft Still Subject to Correction?’ She argued that the majority judgment in Quebec Inc. remains a ‘draft’ subject to correction, as its rules have been inconsistently applied by lower courts and litigants, prompting continued reflection by Supreme Court judges. She called for further clarification from the Court on the role of international and comparative law in the interpretation of the Canadian Charter, and offered some suggestions in this regard.

Panel 3, ‘Judges, Courts and Interdisciplinary Insights’, saw Evan Rosevear (University of Southampton) present on ‘Judicial “Logics” and the Interpretation of Social Rights: A Tale of Two Models’. He set out two broad approaches to judging that are often internalised: the Brazilian model, reflecting a civil law ideal type, and the South African model, reflecting a common law ideal type. Rosevear argued that these different judicial logics shape how courts interpret and adjudicate social rights, leading to fundamentally different outcomes. While civil law systems typically focus on correcting policy outcomes for individual litigants, common law systems tend to address the underlying policy itself.

Luiza Tavares da Motta (Queen Mary University of London) then discussed her paper ‘Making Time, Making Law: Language, Emotion, and Legitimation in the Nineteenth Century’. She analysed the role of verb tenses, particularly the ‘timeless’ present tense, in the legitimation of common law in the 19th century. Drawing from the field of literary studies, she highlighted Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as illustrative of 19th-century apprehensions about the future and the symbolic departure from the past. Against this backdrop, she argued, the use of the present tense in articulating common law rules served as a means of asserting their permanence in the face of a legitimacy crisis. 

Following the substantive presentations, a final panel featured a question-and-answer session with Series Editors Erin Delaney (UCL Laws, GCDC) and James Lee (King’s College London), who discussed the series Hart Studies on Judging and the Courts, as well as the process of developing a book project and contributing to the discipline. 

The day ended with participants joining a judicial panel event at King’s College London, titled ‘Judges in Dialogue: A Roundtable of National and Transnational Supreme Court Judges’. In that panel, Tim Eicke KC (European Court of Human Rights), Dr Jan Passer (Court of Justice of the European Union), Prof Avv Giovanni Pitruzzella (Italian Constitutional Court), Lady Rose (Supreme Court of the United Kingdom), and Prof Dr Simina Tănăsescu (Romanian Constitutional Court) discussed judicial dialogue in the European context. The event was chaired by Professor Oana-Andreea Stefan (King’s College London).

We thank the commentators for their insightful contributions and engagement throughout the event: Erin Delaney (UCL, commenting on Freidin’s and Lau Alberdi’s papers), James Lee (King’s College London, commenting on Freidin’s and Rosevear’s papers), Kate Leader (Queen Mary University of London, commenting on Hyde-Vaamonde’s paper), John Sorabji (UCL, commenting on Li’s paper), Lewis Graham (University of Cambridge, commenting on Brun’s paper), and Erika Rackley (University of Birmingham, commenting on Tavares da Motta’s paper).

We are also immensely grateful to staff at the Inner Temple for the excellence service and facilities provided throughout the event.