Chairs:

• Vasco Pereira da Silva vasco@fd.lisboa.ucp.pt
• Jörn Axel Kämmerer axel.kaemmerer@law-school.de

SPEAKERS

Aikaterini	Iliadou
German Alfonso	LOPEZ DAZA
MARCOS AUGUSTO	PEREZ
Miroslaw	Granat
Mónica Liliana	Ibagón-Ibagón
Antonio	de la Haza Barrantes

Defending the rule of law in the face of judicial disputes is a matter, and a challenge, not only for the courts. Multiple analyses have been conducted on the increasing pressure lasting on the courts and the measures that have been, or should be, adopted to make the judiciary more resilient and to safeguard its independence. This is especially true for constitutional and supreme courts, which are in danger of becoming the puppets of power politics. Some States therefore have taken steps to protect these courts against undue influence. However, where lower courts have come under attack by politics, administrative bodies or campaigns, the administration of justice can also get into dire straits. Yet, protecting the judges is not sufficient to ensure fair access to justice, due process and respect for the rule of law, which also depend on the degree of freedom granted to other players: litigants, authorities, especially where administrative precedes judicial procedure, and, last but not least, lawyers. The role of advocacy, which some legal orders acknowledge as an institution for the administration of justice, seems to be underrated in the comparative analyses on the evolution of the rule of law and the hazards posed to it. Interference with it can originate from governments – e.g., when they sanction lawyers for appearing for someone in court or for not doing so (or not free of charge) for the government –, but hazards can also lurk in excessive proliferation of professional duties (actually or allegedly) imposed in the public interest, for example, anti-corruption or anti-money laundering rules, and, in capital investors which, if a recent judgment of the European Court of Justice is to be believed, could undermine the independence of the legal profession..