Maison Franco-japonaise: 日仏会館 Institut français de recherche sur le Japon à la Maison franco-japonaise (Umifre 19, MEAE-CNRS)

Langue:JA / FR


mardi 21 septembre 2021

[Call for Papers] International Workshop "Justice & Interest / Judicialization" (Extension of the deadline)

Call for Papers
International Workshop
Justice & Interest / Judicialization

Maison franco-japonaise, Ebisu, Tokyo - Online
January 26-27, 2022

October 5, 2021: abstract submission deadline

For more information, please read the full call for papers (PDF).
Cliquer ici pour voir le PDF de l'appel à contributions en français.

The International Workshop on Justice & Interest / Judicialization will take place online (via ZOOM) on January 26-27, 2022. It is organized by the French Research Institute on Japan in Tokyo (Institut français de recherche sur le Japon at the Maison franco-japonaise UMIFRE 19, CNRS, MEAE) in cooperation with the program “Justice and Interest” (InSHS, CNRS, field: economic philosophy) and the program “Judicialization of social and environmental issues in France and Japan” (IFRJ-MFJ, FFJ at EHESS and Tokyo University, Institute for Social Sciences). This international conference will bear on issues where the programs intersect, covering three themes in particular: 1°) Definitions, concepts and theories; 2°) Judicialization and governance, governmental legislation and CSR; 3°) Environmental and social justice, lawsuits and judicial decisions. Contributors who work in economic philosophy, law and political sociology in particular are encouraged to submit papers relevant to these themes. Contributions from other closely related disciplines are welcome and need not necessarily be specific to one geographic area, although the focus is on Japan and international comparisons between Eastern Asian countries and Western countries.
In the broad sense of the term, economics as the study and analysis of economic phenomena ceaselessly requires choices to be made. The role of the law, both in the form of legislation codes and judgments in courts intertwines with economics. They are sanctions (positive or negative) that mark the success (or failure) of earlier choices that led to decisions within the effective process of decision-making. This applies not only to the representatives of institutions and authorities in charge, but to all economic agents on the whole. The discipline that has grown under the label ‘Law and Economics’ has developed where the two disciplines overlap, intersecting and connecting both justice and interest.
On the one hand, in addition to the philosophical concept in discussion, ‘justice’ refers to institutions whose structures vary according to country and historical period. On the other hand, clearly understood interest (self-interest and mutual interest) can be seen as a plurality of such interests at the forefront of interactions among economic agents. Economics requires first and foremost selecting the phenomena that deserve scientific attention, and calculating inherently unstable equilibria. Law and justice in the courts require assessing what may enter its jurisdiction. Economics then requires theoretical tools to process these factors, while it is the role of justice to hand down appropriate sentences. Both disciplines link reflection on both the ‘material’ and ‘non-material’ aspects of justice (moral and symbolic), allowing the consequences of options retained at each stage of the economic exchange and of the judiciary process to be determined. Both moral judgement and economic calculation bear on the actions taken by agents and under decisions and choices that are never merely neutral. As inevitable as they are, the choices are never purely methodological, as they intrinsically call for ethical, epistemological and ontological positioning. This pertains to the field of economic philosophy, which provides the means with which to deal with both moral and symbols of what remains an inherently philosophical task.
In the debates on various theories of justice, notably between Rawls and Habermas (where a parallel is drawn between the modern vision of individual subjective rights and views on participative and deliberative rights engaging the citizen in political life), legal actions as a means to assert and claim one’s rights or access new subjective rights is a topic that is rarely developed. To change social conditions and related injustice, the analysis of social conflicts and struggle recognition focuses more on political channels than judiciary channels (Honneth, 1992; Pourtois 2002). However, the ‘non-material’ aspect of social justice (both moral and symbolic), as well as institutional dysfunction, the replication of social structures and other factors including the privatization of decision-making by interest groups, further limit the role of political channels to account for changes in social conditions, as emphasized by Iris M. Young.
Against this backdrop, an epistemological approach to legal action will allow us to discuss further theories on both aspects of social justice — the material and the non-material. Indeed, legal action provides an advantage (whether material or moral) to the litigant and is meant to protect the individual, who is otherwise vulnerable and who seems to beat a disadvantage to develop a positive relationship to oneself without this process. Judicialization and legal mobilization theories, the use of law and going to court, depending on the circumstances, are means to contest and defend the interests of the most vulnerable (see Tilly 1989; Shapiro 1999; Israel 2009, 2020). Such works shed light on judges’ authority over bureaucrats, politicians and private actors within the decision-making process, as illustrated for instance by recent environmental lawsuits. The right to challenge administrative decisions provides the judge with control over the regulator, which in turn creates another locus of interaction between State and society. However, the judicialization of politics is subject to normative criticism over the confiscation of democracy by the “power of judges” (Guarnieri & Pederzoli 2002). Moreover, there is inequality in access to courts, accentuated by cost-benefit calculations (there are always matters of trade-off), which determine, on the one hand, whether one chooses to resort to judges or “suffer in silence”, and on the other hand, the outcomes of “non-action” or change.

June 21, 2021: Call for Papers
September 20, 2021: abstract submission deadline (max. 500 words)
October 18, 2021: notice of accepted abstracts
November 22, 2021: provisional program
January 10, 2022: full text submission deadline (6,000 – 10,000 words for papers aiming to enter the selection for publication)
January 26-27, 2022: online workshop (ZOOM)

Abstract submission rules:
Abstract word-count of 500 words maximum. Abstracts must be anonymous (for refereeing).
Abstracts and (later) papers can be written in French or in English. Oral communications will be in English.
Please send to: justice.workshop2022[add @]

Scientific Coordinators:
Gilles Campagnolo (gilles.campagnolo[add @] & Adrienne Sala (sala[add @]

logo amse.png logo inshs.png

Accueil > Actualités > [Call for Papers] International Workshop "Justice & Interest / Judicialization" (Extens...