PhD Topics

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

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

I projektet undersøges forholdet mellem domstole og lovgiver (magtfordeling) på klimaområdet. Hvad er politiske beslutninger, og hvilke beslutninger kan efterprøves af domstolene? Det er bl.a. omdrejningspunkterne i en ny form for klimaaktivisme, som har fundet vej til domstolene i de såkaldte klimasøgsmål, som har været behandlet i mange europæiske lande bl.a. Irland, Holland, Storbritannien og Norge.

Der er endnu ikke anlagt en dansk klimasag. Projektet vil diskutere, hvilke hindringer og udfordringer en sådan sag vil kunne møde (acces to justice). I den forbindelse vil det være relevant at undersøge hvilke regler, der vil kunne finde anvendelse f.eks. Parisaftalen, Aarhus-konventionen internationale menneskerettigheder (fx EMRK og EU Charteret), national klimalovgivning og grundloven.

Projektet kan inddrage forfatningsretlig teori (f.eks. Societal Constitutionalism) om jurisdiktion og overveje lovgivningsmæssige begrænsninger i en global klimakamp.

I projektet kan befolkningens rolle som grundlovsgiver (hvis klimarettigheder skal beskyttes) også inddrages, og der kan foretages komparative analyser af ’grønne’ grundlove.

Kontakt: Helle Krunke, Helle.Krunke@jur.ku.dk, og Sune Klinge, sune.klinge@jur.ku.dk

This project will investigate the distinction between political and legal questions in climate case litigation in the view of separation of powers.

Did the UK Heathrow judgement follow the long-established limits of the court’s role when exercising its jurisdiction in claims for judicial review in questions related to politically debated and controversial topics? This is also debated in other jurisdictions such as the Norwegian in the climate case about issuing oil and gas licenses for deep-sea extraction from sites in the Barents Sea. Other jurisdictions can be pointed at for instance Ireland and the Netherlands.

The comparative analysis will focus on developments within different legal systems in the European climate case litigation case-law in relation to separation of powers and where to draw the line between ‘political’ and ‘legal’ court decisions.

Contact: Helle Krunke, Helle.Krunke@jur.ku.dk, and Sune Klinge, sune.klinge@jur.ku.dk

Cohesion and solidarity in the EU has been challenged during the last decade by many factors among them the consequences of the financial and economic crisis, the migration and refugee crisis, Brexit, populism, possible violations of EU’s democratic and human rights values in some EU member states, social tourism etc. At the same time, new forms of cohesion and solidarity involving new actors appear in Europe. Cities increasingly collaborate on environmental initiatives. Citizens show ‘tourism solidarity’ as regards especially popular cities such as Venice and Barcelona, shared economy and exchange of flats through for instance Airbnb.  Private initiatives have helped refugees such as ‘venligboerne’. The vegetarian/vegan movement and other private ecological initiatives show solidarity with other species. Especially in 2019 the demonstrations by school children across Europe and the world for “Fridays for Future” have had a considerable impact on policies not least in Northern Europe. Some of these initiatives are followed by regulation. Within the established systems, we see international courts such as the ECJ and the ECHR promote solidarity. We invite research projects that analyse and reflect over cohesion and solidarity in Europe in a legal or interdisciplinary perspective. We welcome projects, which address new forms of cohesion and solidarity driven by new actors, as well as projects, which address cohesion and solidarity within the existing institutions and legal frameworks. We are especially interested in how coherence and solidarity in Europe can be built in the future.

Contact: Helle.Krunke@jur.ku.dk, Ulla.Neergaaard@jur.ku.dk and Hanne.Petersen@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.

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

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 and Professor Hanne Petersen: Hanne.Petersen@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.

Technological change holds the potential to interrupt, disrupt or distort the ordinary legal order, and this project aims to provide an overarching framework capable of structuring legal responses to the introduction of artificial intelligence into society. Rather than seeing the sectorial impact of AI, for example in changing the nature of transportation with autonomous vehicles, or the nature of warfare through autonomous weapons systems, this project views the fundamental challenges to the very foundations of legal principles and processes introduced by AI in more holistic terms. Such an approach holds the potential to offer common denominator solutions to the vast array of AI challenges to the contemporary legal order, and could offer an analogy for responding to the regulatory problems triggered by other emerging technologies. 

While these concepts and approaches are being developed here to relative maturity, projects that offer different approaches to the regulation or governance of technological change (preferably, but not limited to AI) are most welcome.

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

The promise of powerful new technologies to fundamentally transform our planet, our environment, and ourselves has crystallised into the notion of the Synthetic Age (and captured in the parallel concept of the Anthropocene). The upshot, is that nature and its processes are becoming things that we increasingly design, engineer and maintain.

To be sure, contemporary capabilities yield only the possibility for limited and temporary interventions and at present is divided into distinct domains. We do not yet have the capacity to introduce and sustain large scale interventions into the fabric of nature nor ourselves. Yet, there are potentially seismic regulatory and governance ramifications flowing from such developments that we have not even scratched the surface of, leaving ample freedom for PhD projects.

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

While there are vast bodies of work considering the legal implications of new insights garnered from neuroscience (and aligned developments in other behavioural sciences), these have predominantly revolved around the interrogation of human agency, autonomy and concomitantly, of responsibility, culpability and accountability.

Yet, there are insights arising from the mirror to human behaviour provided by new and emerging technologies that have received relatively scant attention. An example of this can be found in the pivot from legal and regulatory concerns arising from artificial intelligence applications making decisions about us to such applications affecting our decision making processes that Daniel Susser has drawn attention to. There is a wealth of legal and regulatory research to be done into the implications of such a pivot, and what types of responses would be adequate and effective to meet this step change. And while presently in the realm of science fiction, what legal and regulatory repercussions might arise from the development and maturation of brain-interface technologies? Projects to bring about such technologies are in the infancy, and have been critiqued as overhyping both achievements and possibilities, but taking these ideas serious can provide the defamiliarisation necessary to deeply interrogate deep and pervasive presumptions in legal doctrine and regulatory policy that have hitherto been unquestioned. There is significant room for framing PhD projects under this broad umbrella.

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