Chairs:

• Manon Altwegg-Boussac
• Marie Cretin Sombardier
• Claire Saunier

Within cultures of legal constitutionalism (or written constitutionalism) fundamental rights are most often understood and enforced through Courts. Codified in declarations of rights, they are interpreted by constitutional courts through specific forms of legal reasoning. By focusing primarily on the judicial dimension of rights protection, the language of rights and freedoms tends to obscure the socio-political issues that surround them. This workshop proposes to shift our focus beyond judicial guarantees and formal interpretation, to consider rights and freedoms within their broader social and political contexts. The aim of this workshop is to open the conversation to other research perspectives and to foster a critical reflection on our own intellectual habits and legal framework. A variety of themes may be explored. For instance, we might examine how constitutional courts sometimes decline jurisdiction when rights and freedoms are framed as “societal questions” or “political questions” (as seen in France, Italy, or before the European Court of Human Rights). In such cases—often involving bioethics, abortion, or adoption—the courts may defer to legislative decision-making, considering the issues too political, philosophical, or ethical for judicial resolution. Furthermore, the interpretation of rights and freedoms often incorporates more than purely textual arguments. Parliamentary debates and the contributions of various social actors frequently enrich the legal discussion with concrete (sociological, political, psychological, scientific etc.) arguments that constitutional scholars should also take seriously.

Another theme of interest is the potential inadequacy of our current legal categories and concepts in addressing key challenges of contemporary constitutionalism. For example, can ecological issues be effectively addressed through the language of environmental rights and freedoms? Should we reconsider our understanding of legal subjects (e.g., by recognizing the rights of nature), or should we shift the focus toward collective interests and political decisionmaking? In addition, the rise of authoritarian constitutionalism—often disguised in the language of the rule of law—calls for urgent reflection on our conceptual frameworks. Theoretically and critically, this workshop also invites a reconsideration of the genealogy of human rights and theoretical thought since the 18th century. How have these genealogies shaped—or distorted—our understanding of the boundaries between individualism and society, between natural rights, individual rights, civil rights, and social rights? Any other topic related to the workshop theme is welcome.