Conference: Law, Crisis, and Shifting Democratic Order

On 8–9 September 2025, the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism (GCDC) at UCL Laws, along with the Global Studies Institute at the University of Geneva (UNIGE), supported the organisation of the conference ‘Law, Crisis and Shifting Democratic Order’.

Opening the event, Mrs Jana Ruwayha (UNIGE) explained that the conference grew out of her recent League of European Research Universities doctoral exchange at UCL Laws, where Dr Ewan Smith supervised her, and from a desire to sustain the collaborative conversations she began in London. Mrs Ruwayha shared that the aim of the conference was not only to sharpen academic analysis but also to generate practical ideas for governing that preserve democratic resilience, increase adaptability, and protect shared values.

Professor Nicolas Levrat (UNIGE) stressed the global significance of the conference theme, noting that the challenges addressed are urgent and directly connected to the protection of fundamental rights. Dr Ewan Smith (UCL Laws) also emphasised the timeliness and significance of the conference theme, highlighting how pressing the challenges discussed are for both academic research and the broader understanding of democratic governance in times of crisis. 

Following the opening remarks, the first panel of the conference, ‘Complexity, Crisis and Evolving Legal Orders’, explored how contemporary crises reshape legal systems in structural rather than episodic ways. Professor Didier Wernli (UNIGE) examined the vulnerabilities of global knowledge systems in the face of civilisational traps. Then, Mrs Jana Ruwayha (UNIGE) analysed the normalisation of emergency powers in liberal democracies through US case studies and complexity theory. Finally, Dr Flore Vanackère (UNIGE) discussed how Europe’s legal orders learn and clash under crisis pressures. Together, the panel highlighted how crisis governance generates feedback loops, institutional path dependencies, and normative dilemmas, raising urgent questions about resilience, adaptation, and the risks of democratic erosion. The panel was moderated by Professor Colm O’Cinneide (UCL Laws).

The second panel, moderated by Professor Nesa Zimmermann (University of Neuchâtel), was on ‘Crisis Rhetoric and Rule of Law Erosion’. This session explored how the language of crisis reshapes constitutional orders and erodes the rule of law. Professor Nicolas Levrat (UNIGE) argued that liberal democracies and the rule-based international system are interdependent, with domestic rule of law underpinning global stability. He showed how Europe’s two-way linkage, particularly within the EU, offers greater resilience than one-way systems, though it remains exposed to illiberal pressures. James Milton (UCL Laws) examined how crisis rhetoric corrodes the ‘soft matter’ of the rule of law, undermining trust in institutions by portraying judges as incompetent or biased. Drawing on examples from Hungary, Mexico, the UK, and the US, he stressed how public attacks by leaders like Donald Trump weaken assurances that the rule of law will endure. Professor Colm O’Cinneide (UCL Laws) highlighted how constitutional erosion often proceeds through crisis language that legitimises rolling back supranational checks, especially on migration, and urged candid engagement with contested values to safeguard equality and democracy.

The third panel was on ‘Distinguishing Emergencies and Exceptions: From Constitutional Theory to Climate Crisis’, with Professor Frédéric Bernard (UNIGE) as moderator. Dr Ewan Smith (UCL Laws) argued that in order to understand emergencies and exceptions in constitutional law, we must think not only about moments of crisis but also about the broader ways in which law and the state are conceived. Meanwhile, Professor Ginevra Le Moli (EUI) argued that the climate crisis must be treated as a structural, long-term emergency that is reshaping international law, and that the International Court of Justice is playing a central role in that transformation.

The fourth panel, ‘Federalism and Democratic Erosion’, examined how federal structures can both safeguard and undermine democracy in times of stress. Professor Nesa Zimmermann (University of Neuchâtel) argued that democratic backsliding and human rights backlash must be analysed together, highlighting the ambivalent role of federalism. She situated her research in a broader theoretical framework linking federalism and diversity theory with feminist and migration law perspectives, aiming to connect scholarship with civil society. Meanwhile, Kevin James (UCL Laws) analysed India’s 2019 reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir, carried out unilaterally during a provincial emergency. He contended that this episode exposed a profound democratic deficit and that the Supreme Court’s validation of the process reflected a narrow, centralised view of democracy, ignoring the deliberative dimensions of federal constitutionalism. The session was moderated by Dr Ewan Smith (UCL Laws).

The fifth panel, moderated by Professor Nicolas Levrat (UNIGE), was on ‘Democratic Accountability: From Housing Rights to National Security’. This panel examined the limits of accountability in both social rights and security contexts. Eve Lister (UCL Laws) argued that debates around the right to housing expose not only a crisis of rights but also a deeper crisis of democratic faith. For her, growing housing inequality and nationalist politics risk eroding trust in democracy itself, making housing a test case for the resilience of democratic institutions. Tasneem Ghazi (UCL Laws) turned to national security, analysing the UK’s policy of deporting foreign national offenders. Her conclusion was that accountability cannot rely on Parliament alone when policies are electorally popular but constitutionally damaging.

The conference concluded with a final roundtable that gathered participants for cross-cutting discussions on democratic resilience, legal adaptability, and interdisciplinary responses to crises. This session also set the stage for future collaboration: as outlined in the call for papers, all speakers were invited to submit revised contributions, individually or in co-authorship, with the aim of collective publication. The exchanges laid the foundation for an edited volume or special journal issue, ensuring that the insights from these two days will continue to resonate beyond the conference itself.