It’s time to start doubting the law as an objective science

Finally again He lives He went to a real legal seminar, with speakers, in a sunny location. “double caps” It was called, about business and financial interests in legal sciences. On the way back, I immediately thought of the title of the follow-up symposium, in which former Leiden University president Karel Stolker had invited the organizers. He said, keep it up, you are on the right track. And also see how far they’ve come in biomedicine with this. “Law” is miles behind, let alone accounting.

I suggest, “Kick the time bombs,” as a sign of the upcoming meeting. The almost unknown mix of interests between legal science and commerce is alarmingly great. Just like not being able internally to see that as a problem. Basic safety mechanisms are missing. In appointing professors by sponsoring and publishing articles and scientific agenda. It is hardly discussed as a problem. However, as a solution to finance, “valuation”, made teaching and research “close to practice”, etc., which resulted, for example, in Leiden tax codes leaving only one full-time publicly funded professor – the rest was external sponsored.

The most beautiful and painful moment of the symposium was when two professors, who also worked or worked in senior positions at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), broke up the meeting at Wells/Netties over whether PwC was impeding or affecting science. Publications by tone and subject matter. One of them knows nothing about it, and the other thinks it is normal practice. Both are of my own observation. At that point, the seminar was more like an AA meeting.

What was striking was the lack of awareness that science also depends on public trust. Indeed, as Stolker explained, professors are not appointed by the university but by society. It is therefore only credible if there is confidence that the science is impartial and independent. Former Ombudsman Alex Brennenkimer pointed out that it is not just a question of whether “double uppercase” is allowed according to the rules. This isn’t convincing: “It’s about experienced integrity. Citizens have a very sensitive feeling to explore that.”

This applies more to law, which is a normative activity, where the integrity of the transmitter of all those rules, rules, standards, interpretations and theories must be more than any doubt. This realization is found in the judges’ assessment. But legal scholars hardly take that into account. Read also: Taxiology itself sold examples of chairs sponsored by large law firms, where Spoken miracles Becoming a partner of that office is also the best candidate for the chair from a scientific point of view. From a weak dissertation, submitted four times, in which the supervisor and doctoral student worked in the same office, in a reference relationship. unilaterally in much of the legal literature, driven by the agenda of the same large corporations that also pay for chairs.

Prosecutor Ruth de Bock has proposed appointing one for each professor “fed from the capital of Zuidas” taking into account citizens in debt. The legal literature threatens to be one-sided, to the detriment of the Supreme Court, which is retracting it as a source of inspiration. Legislation is already the target of “key interest lobbyists”. Then she said that the question “what is there in the legal field in return” is necessary. The greater the number of dependencies, the weaker the legal sciences.

So why shouldn’t the lecturers be a guest instead of sponsored chairs? And if it must be a chair, prevent the sponsor from nominating his or her own practitioner. Reintroducing the professorship, so that the claims of research and public opinion disappear and with it the erosion of professorship and academic freedom itself. Husband ‘Conflict of interest statements Required under articles – the interests of those who served the author before or still. Now another novelty. Do this, before the crisis of confidence also takes over the “rights”.