ROUNDTABLE SUMMARY
The conference was held at Université Paris Nanterre on February 19, 2026, and was organized by the CRPM Research Center.
This volume focuses on how
courts in Asia and Europe apply and interpret the law. The bilingual
(French/English) book brings together contributions from scholars across France,
Germany, Kazakhstan, Russia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The event was
organized by the CRPM research center at the Université Paris Nanterre and
moderated by the center’s coordinator (Speaker 1, referred to as StephanieRohlfing-Dijoux).
1. Participants
Panelists
• Myself, Remus Titiriga (Speaker 2) – Editor of the
volume. Romanian scholar who completed his PhD in Nancy (2008), spent 12 years
as a professor in South Korea, and is now a researcher in Romania. Specialist
in legal methods, comparative law, and Interessenjurisprudenz (doctrine of
interest).
•
Volker Lipp (Speaker 3) – Professor from the
University of Göttingen, Germany. Specialist in family law and German legal
methodology. Visiting lecturer at Nanterre.
•
Massimiliano Piras (Speaker 6) – Professor from
the University of Cagliari, Italy. Specialist in transport law. Visiting
lecturer at Nanterre.
•
Jean-Baptiste Goudon (Speaker 5) – ATER, Member
of the CRPM research center. Specialist in Eastern European and post-Soviet
legal systems. Studied law in Russia.
•
Speaker 4 – A German-trained lawyer who
contributed questions on the modern relevance of Interessenjurisprudenz and
constitutional interpretation.
• Stephanie Rohlfing-Dijoux (Speaker 1) – Moderator, professor, and coordinator of the CRPM research center at Nanterre.
Audience- Master’s students, PhD students, and other members of the Nanterre academic community.
2. Structure of the Volume
I explained that the book was originally conceived around the theme of legal interpretation, but evolved into a broader examination of how courts apply the law. The contributions are organized into three thematic parts:
Part I: Interpretation in Criminal and Civil Matters
•
Titiriga’s Introduction and a first theoretical essay on Interessenjurisprudenz
(jurisprudence of interest) and a second article with case studies of Interessenjurisprudenz from German courts.
•
Contributions by Didier Guevel and Luc-Michel Nivose on
methods of interpretation in French criminal and civil law, including practices
of the Conseil Constitutionnel and the Cour de Cassation.
• Zuldyz Sarambaeva’s article on normative resolutions of interpretation by the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan – a remnant of Soviet-era legal practice.
Part II: Constitutional Control and Interpretation
•
Maxime Charité on the French Conseil Constitutionnel
and the question prioritaire de constitutionnalité (QPC), examining how the constitutional
court functions as a “transitory legislator” when declaring laws
unconstitutional.
•
Louis-Philippe Gratton on the rule of law in England,
analyzing how the UK’s dualist system and flexible constitution interact with
the European Convention on Human Rights and parliamentary sovereignty.
• An article by Yesbol Omirzhanov on the evolution of constitutional control in Kazakhstan, tracing the development from a priori political review to an increasingly independent constitutional court.
Part III: National Courts and International Instruments
•
An article by Sandie Calme on the CMR Convention (international road
transport of goods) and how national judges interpret this uniform
international instrument differently – with an Italian case study.
• A comparative study of double taxation treaties (DTTs) in Kazakhstan and Russia, by Sagyngaliy Aidarbayev and Ilya Lifshits, examining how these self-executing treaties are interpreted despite neither country being an OECD member.
3. Key Academic Discussions
3.1 Interessenjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Interest)
The central theoretical discussion I launched revolved around the German school of Interessenjurisprudenz, developed by Philipp Heck in the early 20th century. I presented the
intellectual genealogy of this method:
•
Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Concepts): The
earlier school, rooted in the Pandectist tradition (Savigny, Puchta), which
sought to derive legal solutions through a “pyramid of concepts” and logical
deduction from abstract categories.
•
Rudolf von Jhering’s “conversion”: Jhering,
originally a great Pandectist, shifted from conceptualism to a purpose-oriented
approach, declaring that “the life of the law is not concept but interest and
purpose.”
•
Freirechtschule (Free Law School): Ehrlich,
Kantorowicz, Fuchs, and Stampe argued that the civil code has gaps and the
judge should fill them creatively. This approach was rejected by practitioners
by 1914 as too permissive.
•
Heck’s Compromise: Heck proposed that judges
should fill gaps not through free creation but by identifying the balance of
interests the legislator intended to establish. The judge acts as an “assistant
to the legislator,” not as a law-creator. This places Heck between the subjective
school (which seeks the legislator’s original intent) and the objective school
(which interprets the law autonomously from its author).
I illustrated this
method with a case involving an uncle who placed money in a bank account for
his niece (a contract in favor of a third party/donatio mortis causa),
analyzing how Heck used a “thought experiment in evaluative thinking”
(Gedankenexperiment) to determine which party’s interest should prevail – the
donee or the creditors of inheritance.
3.2 German Legal Methodology: Historical Context (Prof. Lipp)
Professor Lipp provided
essential context for understanding why Heck’s approach was so influential:
•
The German Civil Code (BGB) came into force on January
1, 1900 – relatively late compared to other great codifications. Before it,
Germany had a mosaic of regional laws unified only by Roman law as an umbrella.
•
Heck offered a practical framework for interpreting
this new code by analyzing how the legislator had weighed competing interests.
•
After World War II, German methodology evolved further.
Courts now interpret the BGB not merely through the lens of the original
legislator’s intent but in light of the Grundgesetz (Basic Law/Constitution),
creating a “constitution-based” approach to interpreting civil law.
3.3 Post-Soviet Legal Systems (Speaker 5)
Speaker 5 offered a comparative
reading of the Kazakhstan and Russia chapters, highlighting several key
observations:
•
Soviet legal heritage: A distinct “Soviet family
of law” remains visible in the writing style and analytical approach of the
Kazakh and Russian contributors, who are notably more cautious and descriptive
than their Western counterparts.
•
Normative resolutions of interpretation: Kazakhstan’s
Supreme Court still issues binding interpretive guidance to lower courts – a
Soviet-era practice analogous to the pre-revolutionary French arrêts de
règlement. Russia has formally abandoned this practice, suggesting greater
modernization, though the reality involves sophisticated central control
through constitutional review mechanisms.
•
Russia’s “monist” system: While Russia’s
constitution declares a monist approach to international law, a 2022
constitutional reform introduced a filter whereby the Constitutional Court must
approve the enforceability of any international decision negatively affecting
Russia – effectively creating a de facto dualist system.
•
Interpretation as a political tool: In both
Kazakhstan and Russia, legal interpretation is perceived as a potential threat
to central authority, leading to vertical control of the judiciary. The
articles reveal as much through what they do not say as through their explicit
content.
3.4 Transport Law and European Court of Justice (Prof. Piras)
Professor Piras discussed the
CMR Convention chapter and raised a provocative question about the European
Court of Justice’s interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger
rights. The CJEU extended compensation rights to passengers experiencing long
delays (over 3 hours), even though the regulation provided
compensation only for cancellations and denied boarding. Piras asked whether this
constituted Interessenjurisprudenz, but I concluded that it was better
characterized as objective interpretation – the court acting more like a
legislator than applying Heck’s method of identifying the original balance of
interests.
4. Broader Themes and Conclusions
•
The judge as legislator: A recurring theme was
the tension between judicial interpretation and legislative power. All legal
systems discussed – from Germany’s Wertungsjurisprudenz to Kazakhstan’s
normative resolutions to the CJEU’s expansive readings – grapple with the
question of where interpretation ends and law-creation begins.
•
Subjective vs. objective interpretation: The
German debate between subjective interpretation (seeking the legislator’s
original intent) and objective interpretation (reading the law autonomously)
was shown to have parallels worldwide, including the American
originalist/progressivist divide.
•
Law and political context: The discussion
highlighted how legal methodology is inseparable from political context,
particularly in post-Soviet states where judicial interpretation is controlled
to prevent challenges to central authority.
•
Heck’s continued relevance: I endorsed the idea that Heck’s approach remains state-of-the-art, offering a
democratic constraint on judicial power by requiring judges to act as
“assistants to the legislator” rather than autonomous law-creators.
• Comparative value of the volume: The panelists praised the book’s ambitious scope – spanning common law, continental law, and post-Soviet legal systems – noting that the differing writing styles and analytical approaches of the contributors are themselves revealing of the legal cultures they represent. The session concluded with the moderator thanking all participants and announcing that copies of the book would be made available in the Nanterre law library.
