Ph.d.-emner

Helle Krunke primarily works on subjects concerning constitutional law in a Danish context but also comparatively, EU constitutional law and EU law.

Sune Klinge primarily works on subjects regarding constitutional law, EU constitutional law, EU Law and climate law.

Ulla Neergaard supervises in many aspects of EU Law. Her research has carved niches in areas like the interplay between EU Law and Danish law, the foundational pillars of EU Law and the Internal market, and EU legal theories, methods and research approaches, as well as the social dimensions of the EU and the many different dimensions of solidarity. She has also delved into contemporary challenges like digitalization, European sovereignty, colonisation, the Arctic and Greenland, defence and the implications of Covid-19)

Miriam Cullen primarily works with law related to public international law and human rights law, especially as they relate to Greenland, and disaster/climate refugees. 

Ebrahim Afsah primarily works with public international law, law of armed conflict, national security law, comparative constitutional law, state-building, Islamic law, administrative reform..

Hin-Yan Liu primarily works on topics regarding new and emerging technology and climate law.

Hanna Eklund primarily focuses on topics about EU law.

Iryna Marchuk primarily works with subjects regarding international comparative criminal law, transnational financial crimes, immunities and state responsibility.

Jacob Livingston Slosser primarily works on topics regarding Law, Linguistics & Cognition, Legal approaches to non-human cognition (AI), Interpretation & Judicial reasoning, European Human Rights Law and Feminist Legal Studies.

Mette Marie Stæhr Harder’s work concentrates on parliamentary institutions, Indigenous peoples’ representation and self-determination as well as gender and the law.

Like other Latin American societies, Chile emerged from dictatorship with a half-hearted constitutional bargain premised on freezing existing material conditions and societal amnesia about the past. This bargain has now unravelled amidst popular dissatisfaction with enduring inequality and socio-political stagnation. As the first country in this region, Chile has now entered an open-ended and inclusive process of national consultation towards the conclusion of a new, hopefully more equitable and enduring constitutional bargain. This process remains understudied, especially in its ability to serve as a possible model for other Latin American and post-conflict societies more general.

Contact person: Associate Professor, Ebrahim Afsah, ebrahim.afsah@jur.ku.dk

Der er over de senere år nedsat en lang række undersøgelseskommissioner herunder Tibetkommissionen, Instrukskommissionen, Skattekommissionen, Kommissionen om Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste og Irakkommissionen (som senere blev nedlagt). I 2021 indførte lovgiver en ny type kommission, de såkaldte granskningskommissioner, som nedsættes af Folketinget. Minkkommissionen er et eksempel på denne nye type kommissioner. Der ønskes en analyse af det danske undersøgelsessystem i lyset af reguleringen (og ændringer heri) af undersøgelseskommissioner herunder granskningskommissioner (deres nedsættelse, kommissorium, sammensætning og organisation, og funktioner mv.) samt praksis fra de seneste års mange kommissioner. Analysen bør bl.a. belyse den rolle, som kommissionerne spiller for Folketingets kontrol med regeringen og magtfordelingen mellem den lovgivende og udøvende magt, samt for åbenhed i samfundet generelt. Det vil være relevant, at inddrage betydningen af den politiske kontekst i analysen. Der kan inddrages komparative analyser af undersøgelsessystemet i andre lande. På baggrund af analysen kan projektet fremsætte forslag til ændringer af det nuværende undersøgelsessystem, såfremt dette findes relevant.

Kontaktperson: Helle Krunke: Helle.Krunke@jur.ku.dk  

Domstolsuafhængigheden er pt. under pres i mange europæiske lande. I dette projekt undersøges domstoles rolle i magtfordelingen i lyset af europæiske og danske forfatningsprincipper og retspraksis om retsstat og uafhængighed af den lovgivende og den udøvende magt. Projektet bør inddrage det nationale aspekt og grundlovens § 3 sammenholdt med § 64, om at dommerne i deres kald alene skal rette sig efter loven, samt reglerne om dommerhabilitet fx i lyset af nyere praksis fra Den Særlige Klageret om dommerens upartiskhed i forhold til sagens parter. Den nationale analyse kan med fordel sammenlignes med europæiske tendenser og praksis, hvor EU-Domstolen og Menneskerettighedsdomstolen (EMD) har forholdt sig til lignende - om end ofte mere kritiske - problemstillinger om dommerhabilitet og uafhængighed. I den forbindelse vil projektet med fordel kunne inddrage World Justice Project, hvor Danmark indtager en førsteplads på "Rule of Law index", samt Venedig Kommissionens guidelines. Dette med henblik på at kortlægge og vurdere, hvilke parametre, der indgår og kan indgå i vurderingen af dommernes og domstolenes uafhængighed og rolle og i en demokratisk retsstat. 

Kontakt personer: Sune Klinge: Sune.Klinge@jur.ku.dk og Helle Krunke: Helle.Krunke@jur.ku.dk.

Law requires an implementing bureaucracy, something that is usually taken for granted and deliberately excluded from legal science, which usually focusses on normative questions. But these structural underpinnings cannot be ignored where states are weak and inefficient. How can under these conditions effective legal institutions and rule-bound administrative systems be created? Since this question falls outside the dominant methodological preferences of legal science, it is often ignored. We are seeking doctoral candidates interested in this ‘missing dimension’ by investigating how public law works under conditions of weak administrative capability, looking at the extreme variations in the ability of state organs to carry out various functions by opening the ‘black hole of public administration.’ The focuses lies on the interplay between law and bureaucracy often ignored in the normative agenda of traditional legal scholarship. How can public law be adapted to the special needs of weak public administrations in fractured, failing or failed states, especially after violent conflict? 

Contact person: Associate Professor, Ebrahim Afsah, ebrahim.afsah@jur.ku.dk

Religious normative systems rely on supernatural beliefs, often in the form of revelation. This makes them ‘formally irrational’ in Weber’s celebrated definition of ’sacred laws’ because foundational concepts are explicitly beyond rational critique. Furthermore, such normative system seek to achieve substantive justice often at the expense of systemic coherence and an excessive reliance on casuistry, thus making them ‘materially irrational.’ These characteristics make structured comparison between different normative systems exceedingly difficult, leading some to deny that comparison is possible or even desirable. 

Epistemologically, some thus demand that every alien culture must be treated sui generis and within its own frame of reference only. The structured comparison between cultures or legal systems, especially with the dominant Western tradition, is therefore rejected as ‘ontological imperialism'. But such insistence on its specificity as a deontology entails considerable analytical and practical disadvantages, because it removes important global legal systems, such as the Islamic legal tradition, from all comparison with other legal families. In contrast, Weber’s conception and methodology, as applied by Schacht, Johansen and others allows us to situate it within evolutionary models of social and cultural history. If we want to understand the role of law in bringing about differences in wealth, stability and dynamism across societies, we need to look at the genesis of legal institutions in a context of universal history. This in turn needs functionally or symbolically equivalent references to and comparisons between different civilisations. 

Contact person: Associate Professor, Ebrahim Afsah, ebrahim.afsah@jur.ku.dk

At the FIDE Congress in the Hague in November 2021, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Koen Lenaerts, stated that: “The authority of the Court of Justice has been challenged in various Member States, as has the primacy of EU law, not only by politicians and the press, but also before and even by national courts, including certain constitutional courts. This is an extremely serious situation and it leaves the Union at a constitutional crossroads. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that its foundations as a Union based on the rule of law are under threat and that the very survival of the European project in its current form is at stake.” 

Similarly, President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has in 2019 expressed that: “The cradle of our European civilisation is Greek philosophy and Roman Law. And our European continent went through its darkest period when we were ruled by dictators and Rule of Law was banished. For centuries, Europeans fought so hard for their liberty and independence. The Rule of Law is our best tool to defend these freedoms and to protect the most vulnerable in our Union. This is why there can be no compromise when it comes to respecting the Rule of Law. There never will be.” 

On that background, proposals for projects aiming at analysing the current rule of law crisis in Europe including in particular the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union are called for.

Contact: Professor in EU Law, Ulla Neergaard: Ulla.Neergaard@jur.ku.dk

Liberal democracies are uniquely vulnerable to subversion by political enemies taking advantage of fundamental freedoms to work for the destruction of open societies. The unique experience with the rise of fascism has led the development of the concept of ‘militant democracy’, first proposed by Karl Löwenstein and subsequently formally adopted by the post-war German constitutional order and incorporated into Article 17 ECHR. Most scholarship and jurisprudence has focused on necessary restrictions of political participation rights, especially banning extremist parties. In recent years, the rise of political Islam has presented a novel threat to open societies, necessitating a re-evaluation of the existing tools of militant democracy. European societies have taken widely divergent avenues in this respect, necessitating a comparative critical study of both the respective constitutional justifications for restrictions and an empirical assessment of their effectiveness. 

Contact person: Associate Professor, Ebrahim Afsah, ebrahim.afsah@jur.ku.dk

Slow-moving but momentous demographic changes are affecting an existing global migration regime increasingly unable to effectively cope with the demands placed upon it. Open societies with generous social security systems are struggling to find normatively acceptable responses, while avoiding the dangers of political polarisation. Legal scholarship has found it difficult to address the functional challenge of increasingly unsustainable normative commitments amidst recurring mass migration crises and the weaponisation of refugee flows as part of hybrid warfare. How can constitutional, regional and international regimes be adapted to cope with the growing strains placed upon it by rising inequality and easier movement?

Contact person: Associate Professor, Ebrahim Afsah, ebrahim.afsah@jur.ku.dk

European citizenship was established with the Treaty of Maastricht, which entered into force in 1993. It has since developed into becoming a very important legal concept with huge implications. Therefore, this area may give rise to many interesting and pertinent studies.

Research could for instance take its point of departure in one of the following more general themes: union citizenship and economic rights; union citizenship and social rights (welfare state services); union citizenship and fundamental rights; the relationship between free movement of workers and union citizenship; union citizenship and education; the rights of family members to a union citizen; or the rights of third country nationals. Other angles could also be taken such as: Welfare Tourism – Myth or Reality.

The proposed project should investigate one of the many important facets of the concept of union citizenship, but also challenges deriving therefrom.

Contact person: Professor, Dr. Ulla Neergaard: Ulla.Neergaard@jur.ku.dk.

The Economic and Monetary Union is of essential importance in Europe, but it is continuously questioned as well as threatened. The concept of economic governance was therefore unsurprisingly given central importance in the Conclusions of the European Council arising from its summit on 18-19 February 2016 regarding a new settlement for the UK in a reformed European Union (in connection with the In/Out referendum in the UK (“Brexit”)) as it among others was felt necessary to state: “In order to fulfil the Treaties' objective to establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro, further deepening is needed. Measures, the purpose of which is to further deepen economic and monetary union, will be voluntary for Member States whose currency is not the euro and will be open to their participation wherever feasible. This is without prejudice to the fact that Member States whose currency is not the euro, other than those without an obligation to adopt the euro or exempted from it, are committed under the Treaties to make progress towards fulfilling the conditions necessary for the adoption of the single currency.”

The headline is intended wide as many different suggestions for research proposals are welcomed. These could for example concern areas of the social dimension of the Eurozone, the consequences of a multi-speed EU, the constitutional consequences in Member States of European economic governance, the role of the CJEU in the shaping of the economic governance, the crisis and the transformation of transnational governance, etc.

Contact person: Professor, Dr. Ulla Neergaard: Ulla.Neergaard@jur.ku.dk.

Technological advances and the power of social media have transformed the ways in which we consume information. Internet has become a fertile ground for spreading propaganda, fake news and disinformation. The effects have been so serious that numerous governmental inquiries have been commissioned to study the effects of disinformation and fake news on the democratic processes. Election campaigns worldwide have been accompanied by an uncontrollable flow of disinformation with the aim to manipulate public opinion and sway election results in favor of certain politicians/political parties. The recurring theme in the public domain is who is to be blamed? Governments that underestimated the power of technology to manipulate public opinion? Foreign governments that used disinformation as a tool to manipulate public opinion in other foreign countries? Big tech companies that exhibited gross negligence in taking down the harmful content/fake accounts and failed to adequately respond? The Centre is looking for PhD projects that outline innovative and creative ideas in studying how fake news, propaganda and disinformation have interfered with democratic processes, and what legislative/regulatory response is needed to protect such processes from any form of malign influence.

Contact person: Associate professor Iryna Marchuk: Iryna.Marchuk@jur.ku.dk

The EU’s economic order is characterised by the creation of an Internal Market, which is legally brought about by the application and enforcement of the Treaty provisions on free movement and competition, and by the adoption of legislative harmonisation measures by the EU legislator. According to Advocate General Szpunar, the Internal Market, which “constitutes – depending on one’s perspective – the means or the end of the process of European integration, is so fundamental to the Union’s legal order that it is taken as a given and constitutes no less than the central organisational principle of the Treaties”. So far, the Internal Market has appeared as sufficiently flexible to grasp new developments and challenges. However, it might be that the ways in which the foundations of this area have manifested themselves, are too frozen in a pre-Lisbon orthodoxy, and thus not sufficiently capturing newer developments including the many new challenges Europe is currently facing, such as the green, digital, and security transition in the EU, combined also with worries essentially having an economic character. To put this into perspective, it may be highlighted that the year 2023 marked the 30th anniversary of the Internal Market, which accordingly served as an occasion to evaluate the process so far and to present new ideas for the future of European integration. Strikingly, it has for instance been emphasised that - with the words of Vandermeeren - that there is a need for a new momentum and a stronger ambition. Also, it has been stressed - with the words of Letta - that much is outdated, failing to reflect e.g. new uncertainties due to climate change and is fundamentally based on 20th-century theoretical principles. More recently, in the Draghi report of 2024, it has been said that: “We have... left our Single Market fragmented for decades, which has a cascading effect on our competitiveness”, and “We have reached the point where, without action, we will have to either compromise our welfare, our environment or our freedom”. See further forthcoming works by Neergaard & de Vries.

Contact person: Professor in EU Law, PhD, Ulla Neergaard: Ulla.Neergaard@jur.ku.dk

Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have made increasingly clear that many of the impacts of climate change are baked into the system, whatever our mitigation efforts from here. It is now inevitable that the adverse effects of climate change will worsen, although the degree to which that occurs might shift. 

This research area invites candidates interested in pursuing PhD research on climate change adaptation and critical legal studies. This might be through adopting lenses which, for example, take their inspiration from decolonial and postcolonial lenses, third world approaches to international law, feminist legal theory or other critical legal discourses to examine current regulatory approaches to climate adaptation in a specific context. For instance, climate adaptation might include human mobility, migration, planned relocation, disaster risk reduction, planning and zoning laws, the incorporation of indigenous knowledge and approaches into regulatory systems, changes in the regulation of the agricultural sector and so forth.

Contact person: Assistant Professor, Miriam Cullen: miriam.cullen@jur.ku.dk

The European Union and its Member States have lived through many critical events in the past decades; the financial crisis of 2008, the failed migration reception of 2015, the COVID-19 pandemic and various manifestations of the unfolding threat to the health of our environment.
These events have made an imprint on EU law and the work of EU institutions: in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union; in proposals for new secondary legislation by the Commission and in the European Parliament, as well as prompting new demands for action by EU citizens. 
The 2020s may be a period of reflection on the traces left by these events in people’s life, as well as a period of constructive evaluation of new proposals and ideas for how to address the many challenges which these events have laid bare. Moreover, there is a growing body of literature (within critical legal history, legal anthropology, and within EU legal studies) examining the underlying ideologies, presumptions and choices that conditioned the unfolding of these events in the first place.
We are interested in proposals that take this background as a starting point from which to inquire into how EU law is changing and should change in the 2020s and beyond. Such proposals might address questions such as: Will we have a new redistributive EU? Can the Court of Justice of the EU adjudicate climate change? What should EU discrimination law look like? Can free movement be free?

Contact: Tenure track Adjunkt, Hanna Eklund: hanna.eklund@jur.ku.dk and Professor Helle Krunke: Helle.Krunke@jur.ku.dk

People often take their private law with them as they cross borders, leading sometimes to practical and normative tensions with the existing legal framework in the host community. International private law offers guidance for managing these inevitable tensions, not least by giving the host state the possibility to exclude the application of certain norms deemed to violate its ‘ordre public’. As Muslim diasporas continue to grow, the application of certain norms of Islamic law in Western jurisdictions has become increasingly controversial. While jurisprudence has often found it expedient to accept even otherwise repugnant stipulations, the ensuing negative effects for the legal, political and social order have led to legislative attempts to formalise certain ordre public boundaries. This project seeks to define the boundaries of unacceptable or dangerous legal imports through a comparative study of state and court practice across Europe.

Contact person: Associate Professor, Ebrahim Afsah, ebrahim.afsah@jur.ku.dk

We are interested in PhD proposals, which analyse how developments within digitalization impact Parliament, government and the courts including their competences, conditions, separation of powers and general legal principles. In a Danish context, for instance how is the legislative initiative and quality of legislation impacted by the political agreement on how new legislation must easily be digitalized in the administration (‘digitaliseringsparat lovgivning’)? How does digitalization of administrative decisions impact administrative decision-making and legal certainty? How does digitalization of judgments impact decision-making at the courts, the role of judges and legal certainty? Which challenges arise from such developments and how do they affect separation of powers, legal certainty and democracy in general? We are interested in PhD proposals which analyse already existing developments and future possible developments.

Contact person: Professor Helle Krunke:  Helle.Krunke@jur.ku.dk

This research area invites candidates who may be interested in working with the Court of Justice of the European Union more theoretically but also more specifically on how it has approached and solved cases with a digital element. It could be more specifically on e.g. free movement law in that regard, but also more broadly/horizontally across all areas of law as well as with an evolutionary interest taken. It could be considered how and why a court like the CJEU reacts to severe technological changes and if it reveals any more ideological stances.

Contact person: Professor in EU Law, PhD, Ulla Neergaard: Ulla.Neergaard@jur.ku.dk

Given the myriad of global catastrophic, and potentially existential, risks, there is plenty of scope for a bewildering array of PhD projects. No attempt will be made here to narrow down possible projects and approaches (given the expanse of unknown unknowns) – if you can convincingly fit your proposal into this broad area then we’re interested to read them!

Contact person: Hin-Yan: hin-yan.liu@jur.ku.dk

Hin-Yan is enthusiastic to supervise PhD projects broadly on Climate Geoengineering (large-scale intentional interventions in the earthsystem), in particular those involving Solar Radiation Management and so-called targeted or regional interventions. Projects at the interface between Climate Geoengineering and Normal Accidents or other forms of catastrophic failure would be of special interest.

Contact person: Hin-Yan: hin-yan.liu@jur.ku.dk

From the inception of the field in the 1940s, national security needs drove the development of computing and eventually artificial intelligence, driven in part by surveillance needs, especially code-breaking, and weapons development, especially nuclear test simulation. While the utilisation of some machine intelligence has thus been part of national security for decades, the recent explosive growth in machine capability is likely to transform national and international security, consequently raising important regulatory questions. 

The purpose and chief comparative advantage of artificial intelligence is the collection and analysis of vast amounts of information to detect patterns humans cannot see. Particularly the ability to fuse information from different sources and databases creates powerful capabilities to interact with complex dynamic systems, including for surveillance, social control, and defence. Primary advantages are speed, precision, and pattern recognition, but these entail considerable risks, both practical and ethical. These raise difficult questions about the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks and the potential for their adaptation.

Contact person: Associate Professor, Ebrahim Afsah, ebrahim.afsah@jur.ku.dk

The Centre is looking for PhD projects with original ideas that explore links between technology and international crimes (genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity).

Contact person: Associate professor Iryna Marchuk: Iryna.Marchuk@jur.ku.dk

1. Understanding How Technology Facilitates Mass Atrocities

The first sub-theme within “Technology and Mass Atrocities” deals with unprecedented levels of the abuse of new technologies, which have been utilized for inciting the commission of international crimes. The damning verdict of the UN report on Myanmar exposed the role played by social media giants, such as Facebook, in enabling widespread and uncontrollable dissemination of hatred on social media platforms with the purpose of dehumanizing persons belonging to targeted communities, which resulted into crimes against humanity and most probably, genocide. These deeply troubling tendencies call for the design of new solutions aimed at the prevention of the abusive use of technology leading to the commission of international crimes and re-thinking existing accountability mechanisms.

2. Impact of Technology on Digital Investigations and Fostering Accountability for Mass Atrocities 

Another important sub-theme emerging in academic scholarship is how technology may be beneficial in advancing accountability for international crimes both in international and national courts. Nowadays perpetrators tend to leave multiple digital traces of their conduct online (online posts, recorded videos etc.). Important questions arise as to how the evidence recorded via technological tools (digital evidence) can be used for prosecution purposes? How do strict rules of the admissibility of evidence apply? In the times of deepfakes and circulated falsified evidence, is digital evidence reliable enough to convict of the most serious crimes?

PhD topics within one of the two sub-themes under “Technology and Mass Atrocities” are welcome to be submitted for consideration of the Centre.