Book launch of the book I have edited „Courts applying the law ; Perspectives from Europe and Asia” on 19th February in Paris

 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.