Workshop: Comparative Public Law and the Other

On 6 March 2026, the Comparative Public Law and the Other Workshop was held at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. Co-sponsored by the Global Centre for Democratic Constitutionalism (GCDC), Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and CNRS-CTAD, the workshop brought together scholars from a range of jurisdictions and methodological traditions to explore how comparative public law engages with – and constructs – ‘the Other’. The event was organised by Professors Mathilde Cohen (CNRS-CTAD) and Myriam Hunter-Henin (UCL Laws, GCDC).

The event was structured as a flipped workshop. Eight papers were circulated in advance, and each was introduced by two designated discussants rather than by the author. Authors were invited to respond briefly before the floor was opened for extended discussion. 

The day began with coffee in Espace Curie, followed by introductory remarks given by Professors Cohen and Hunter-Henin. Professor Hunter-Henin introduced the GCDC. She outlined the Centre’s vision of fostering research and dialogue on democratic constitutionalism, and its aim to promote engagement between scholars, practitioners and policymakers. She also highlighted some of the major events organised by the Centre since its inception, as well as the contributions its members have made in the academic sphere and beyond.

The first panel centred on Yacine Mousli (Sciences Po)’s paper, ‘Transformative and/or Decolonial Constitutionalism: A View from South America’. The session was chaired by Marie-Hélène Lyonnais (UCL Laws, GCDC), while the paper was presented and discussed by Professors Susanna Mancini (University of Bologna, GCDC Sidney Distinguished Vistor) and James Fowkes (University of Münster). The discussion explored the relationship between transformative constitutionalism and decolonial constitutionalism, with a focus on the Bolivian and Ecuadorian constitutional experiences. Participants also discussed the implications of these constitutional frameworks for the recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples.

The second panel discussed Professor Cohen’s paper, ‘The Black Code: France’s First Constitution?’. The session was chaired by Dr Sophie Turenne (University of Cambridge), with Professors Diamond Ashiagbor (University of Birmingham) and Jamelia Morgan (Northwestern University) as discussants. Professor Cohen’s paper, which argues that France’s Code Noir (Black Code) continues to shape legal governance in France, sparked debates on the implications of the Black Code on labour law, and on the constitutional dimensions and enduring effects of France’s colonial legal order. It also encouraged participants to reflect more broadly on the relationship between codification and constitutionalism in the French legal tradition. Participants also engaged in discussions about the meaning(s) of and distinctions between ‘shadow constitutions’, ‘anti-constitutions’ and ‘reverse bill of rights’.

The third panel discussed Professor Hunter-Henin’s paper, ‘Constitutional “Vivre Ensemble” and Common Good Constitutionalism: Analogies of Exclusion’, and was chaired by Professor Cohen. Professor Hunter-Henin’s paper was presented and commented on by Claire de Galembert (CNRS-ISP) and Professor Sergio Verdugo (IE University). The discussion that followed the initial presentation highlighted the ways in which the concepts of ‘living together’ and ‘common good’ can mask exclusionary logics but also interrogated the extent to which these two ideas are conceptually related. Participants further considered the practical implications of these concepts for the judicial role (such as how judges can assess claims based on vivre-ensemble without simply deferring to majority interests) and proportionality analyses (such as whether the invocation of vivre-ensemble and common good constitutionalism risks shifting the burden of justification onto those who are excluded).

The final morning panel discussed Dr Ashleigh Keall’s (University of Sussex) paper, ‘Property as Responsibility: Indigenous Sacred Sites, Religious Freedom and Property in Canadian Law’. The session was chaired by Professor Hunter-Henin, with comments from Dr Akis Psygkas (Western University) and Professor Lena Salaymeh (École pratique des hautes études–PSL). The paper, which draws on critical property law theory and examines the role of law in protecting Indigenous sacred sites, prompted discussion on how Canadian law balances freedom of religion with private property rights. Participants also reflected on the extent to which the legal frameworks of colonial states can serve as the primary frame of reference for thinking about Indigenous rights, particularly when such rights come into conflict with the property rights of private settler-colonial actors.

Following lunch in the gardens of the École Normale Supérieure, the workshop resumed with afternoon panels.

The fifth panel focused on Professor Valère Ndior’s (Université de Bretagne) paper, ‘Social Media Use by Public Institutions in Europe: Comparative Legal Standards and Practices’. The session was chaired by Professor Ngozi Okidegbe (Boston University), with Dr Bernard Keenan (UCL Laws, GCDC) and Professor Beatriz Botero Arcila (Sciences Po) serving as discussants. The conversation raised questions about the origins, evolution, legal nature and effects of social media companies’ Terms of Service (TOS), as well as the relationship between TOS and content moderation practices. Participants also considered the extent to which TOS might be understood through the lens of consumer law, and whether they are primarily designed to regulate the relationship between platforms and their users.

The sixth panel discussed Professor Thomas Perroud’s (Université Panthéon-Assas) paper, ‘Reflections on the Neoliberal Penalty from a Comparative Administrative Law Perspective (France/UK)’. Dr Ewan Smith (UCL Laws, GCDC) chaired the session, with comments from Rhita Bousta (Université de Lille) and Ji Seon Song (UC Irvine). The panel examined the intersection of penal policy and administrative governance, comparing developments in France and the United Kingdom since the 1980s. Perroud’s paper, which argues that the neoliberal state tends to sanction powerful companies through administrative penalties while reserving the criminal justice system to the poor and marginalised, sparked interesting conversations about the morality of criminal law and administrative law. Participants also discussed the concept of ‘neoliberal penalty’ and pondered upon whether there is something distinctive in the neoliberal – as opposed to the liberal – approach to sanctioning.

The seventh panel discussed a paper written by Virginie Kuoch (Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne), entitled ‘The Spread of the Principle of Proportionality in Public Law in Asia’. Chaired by Dr Ming-Sung Kuo (University of Warwick), the session featured comments from Professors Eugénie Mérieau (Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne) and Silvia Suteu (European University Institute). The discussion explored the migration of the proportionality test in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia, as well as what this diffusion reveals about transnational judicial dialogue and constitutional borrowing. Participants also engaged in lively exchanges about the relationship between the presumption of constitutionality and the proportionality analysis, and about the extent to which reliance on the proportionality analysis is contingent upon particular models of judicial review.

The eighth and final panel featured Professor Roman Zinigrad’s (The American University in Paris) paper, ‘Best Interests Deferred: Judicial Reluctance and the Role of the State in Education’. The session was chaired by Professor Yseult Marique (University of Essex), with comments from Professors Anat Scolnicov (University of Winchester) and Dia Dabby (Université du Québec à Montréal). The paper prompted discussion on the ‘best interests’ principle, judicial deference and the boundaries of state intervention in educational contexts. Participants also discussed the impact of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs on parental rights and authority as well as the respective boundaries of the role of the state and parents in educating children. Participants also raised important questions about the way in which state involvement in parenting can lead to the marginalisation of racialised parents.

Together, the panels reflected the workshop’s central ambition: to rethink comparative public law by foregrounding perspectives, histories and forms of knowledge that challenge established canons and expand the field’s understanding of who – and what – counts.

The formal programme concluded with closing drinks in Espace Curie, where participants continued conversations initiated during the panels. Additional participants in the workshop included Mohamed Ben Achour (Université Paris Saclay), Professor Dominique Custos (Université de Caen), Alessandro Di Stefano (UCL Laws, GCDC), Dr Michael Koskas (Université Paris Nanterre) and Zheng Hong See (University of Cambridge), whose contributions enriched the collective discussions throughout the day.

An optional walking tour took place on the morning of 7 March, guided by Kévi Donat of Le Paris noir. Beginning at Place du Panthéon, the tour explored Paris through the histories of Black artists, thinkers and public figures, extending the workshop’s engagement with questions of visibility, marginalisation and historical memory beyond the walls of the seminar room.