PhD Topics

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

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

Covid-19 har udfordret retsstaten i Danmark og resten af verden. Tiltagene for at inddæmme smitten har både vedrørt de demokratiske processer f.eks. gennem hastelovgivning, domstolenes uafhængighed i forbindelse med nedlukningen og menneskerettighederne f.eks. forsamlingsfriheden. I dette projekt lægges der op til en analyse af, hvordan Covid-19 tiltagene stemmer overens med dansk forfatningsret, og hvordan dette kan komme til at påvirke retsstaten på længere sigt. Der vil være mulighed for at inddrage erfaringerne fra andre lande.    

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

With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, disorder arose. For example, on an unprecedented scale, Member States drastically applied different responses with respect to travel bans and limitations, border closures and controls, requirements of testing and quarantines, and so on. Often actions were claimed to have been taken to possibly limit the spread of the virus, but could presumably also have been implemented due to their symbolic nature. At times, they could even have an impact on the protection of fundamental rights.
Also, worries as to the financial consequences of the crisis arose together with considerations as to how to handle vaccinations. In many respects, EU Law was seen as having become severely challenged and it has continuously been questioned whether solidarity among Member States had more or less vanished. However, little by little, actions at the EU level were taken. Thus, by now innovative initiatives including for example a common recovery plan, a vaccination program and an EU coordinated approach have been launched. 

On that background, proposals for projects within this context are called for including in particular the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on EU Law (i.e. e.g. focusing on the fundamental free movement principles, the Next Generation EU Recovery Fund, and/or the common public health policy).

Contact: Professor in EU Law, Ulla Neergaard: Ulla.Neergaard@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

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

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

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

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

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

For indigenous peoples, the physical consequences of climate change are inherently connected to intangible ones and can lead to the attenuation of cultural attachment to place, loss of agency, deterioration of mental health, and the erosion of cultural cohesion and identity. This research area invites candidates interested in pursuing research that intersects law, indigenous knowledge and practice and future climate adaptation. Indigenous scholars are particularly encouraged to apply.

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

This topic should appeal to candidates who are interested to critically examine the role that international organizations and non-state actors play in responding to mobilities triggered by climate change-related risks. This project would look beyond the traditional refugee paradigms to examine instances of mobility and immobilities in the contemporary context of worsening climate impacts and the pandemic.

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

Early work on Existential Risks (ExRisks) focussed rather narrowly on one-hit-knock-out hazards capable of triggering human demise in a relatively short time frame. Work coming out of our group arguably pivoted research attention to a different framework that focusses upon our exposure and vulnerability to hazards, thus factoring in the possibility for legal, regulatory and governance responses in relation to ExRisks (while simultaneously altering the identification of relevant hazards).Having opened the door for governance input and response to ExRisks, however, we would like to see where such an approach might lead, and what sorts of pragmatic possibilities can be enabled. How might we actually govern such ‘Boring Apocalypses’ and how might we frame such governance responses to in ways which still captivate the concerns of policy makers and the public? We welcome PhD projects that fall into this new trajectory of ExRisks research.

Contact person: Associate Professor, Hin-Yan Liu: hin-yan.liu@jur.ku.dk