Symposia Hosted by the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty
We are excited to announce that our Rule of Law Symposium will take
place on November 5 at Greenberg Lounge, Vanderbilt Hall, 40 Washington Square South.
9:30 - Introductory Remarks (Professor Jeremy Waldron)
9:45 - 11:15 - Panel I: Classical Conceptions of the Rule of Law and
Modern Critiques (Professors Brian Tamanaha and Jeremy Waldron)
11:30 – 1:00 - Panel II: Traditional Rule of Law Principles in a
Post-9/11 World (Professors David Dyzenhaus and Trevor Morrison)
1:00 – 2:30 – Break
2:30 – 4:00 – Panel III: The Rule of Law in the Administrative State
(Professors Peter Strauss and Richard Epstein)
CLE credit will be available to those that attend the full symposium.
We have designed the panels to provide a comprehensive and topical
discussion of the rule of law and its policy implications. We have
also decided to forego the typical three-person panel format in favor
of two-person panels. We feel that in the context of this symposium
two-person panels will allow more focused discussion by enabling our
panelists to directly confront points of contention. Accordingly, each
pair has been chosen in large part because of the existence of
fundamental disagreement between the two panelists. Reducing the
number of participants also significantly reduces costs. Finally,
because of the extremely high caliber and expertise of each of our
chosen and alternative panelists, we do not feel the reduction in the
size of panels will present any significant loss to the range and
quality of the discussion.
Panel One will focus on normative visions of the rule of law by
pitting the classical liberal "procedural" conception of the rule of
law against the modern liberal "substantive" conception of the rule of
law. Panel Two will apply rule of law theory and experience to the
rule of law after 9/11 by examining slippery slope phenomena and
evaluating moral gray areas under the lens of the rule of law. Panel
Three will consider the relevance of the rule of law in the modern
administrative state and examine whether rule of law conceptions need
to be adjusted to conform to the administrative state or if the
administrative state needs to be adjusted to conform to our
understanding of the rule of law.
Panel 1: Classical Liberal Conceptions of the Rule of Law and Liberal
Critiques. The core of the rule of law debate consists of argument
over whether the rule of law is a principle of procedure or a
principle of substance. The former view, set forth by Dicey and made
famous by Hayek and Lon Fuller, holds that the rule of law is properly
understood as a limit on how laws are made. The latter view,
articulated in liberal critiques of the proceduralist view, holds that
the emphasis placed on proceduralist protections is both logically
misplaced and detrimental to individual rights.
Panel 2: Traditional Rule of Law Principles in a Post 9/11 World. The
world has changed, but has it changed significantly for the rule of
law? Applying traditional principles to a new paradigm allows us to
test the relevance and durability of our conception of laws when
confronting the problems of terrorism.
Panel 3: The Rule of Law and the Administrative State. Modern rule of
law theory was developed in the early and mid-20th century prior to
the development of the modern administrative state. Consequently, the
bulk of rule of law scholarship concentrates on statutory law and
judge-made common law. The absence of rule of law analysis of the
administrative state is staggering, and this panel offers an excellent
opportunity to advance a nascent dialogue.
