Highlights
The Singapore Symposium in Legal Theory AY2026 “Methodology of (Continental European) Legal Science: Research Objectives, Questions, and Methods” by Professor Luka Burazin, University of Zagreb
The basic aim of the paper is to expound a more elaborate and rigorous methodological framework of legal science that is grounded in the insights of contemporary analytical legal theory. The paper focuses on five key objectives of legal scientific research: describing law, explaining law, evaluating law, recommending better law and better interpretation and application of law, and systematising law. It lays out these objectives and, for each objective, formulates possible research questions and hypotheses, and describes the appropriate methods for testing the hypotheses.
CLT Roundtable: “Collaboration or Confrontation: The Nature of the Theoretical/Academic Enterprise” by Professor Luka Burazin, University of Zagreb in Conversation with Andrew Halpin and Lynette Chua
In a loosely structured discussion, the Panelists will consider the questions whether the research we undertake should be regarded as part of a collaborative enterprise (the pursuit of knowledge), or as the advancement of an independent research profile (the promotion of my knowledge) as superior to other work in the field; whether or not these two objectives are mutually exclusive; and, whether the answers given will vary depending on the field of research, the state of existing knowledge, and the temperament of the researchers.
The Singapore Symposium in Legal Theory AY2026 “Consenting, Promising, and the Power to Contract” by Dr Irina Sakharova, Durham University
In moral and legal philosophy, there are different approaches to understanding consent as a normative power. It might be fair to observe that when a reference to consent is made, consenting is often understood as giving permission, but consent as a normative power has been conceptualised in two (different) ways: as a ‘proprietary gate’ (eg giving a license) or as a ‘normative rope’ (eg assuming an obligation).
[BLOG] Extradition and Empire
Ivan Lee observed that contrary to later interpretations, the Opium War treaties (1842-43) did not explicitly establish extradition or extraterritoriality. Instead vague language was used about handing over criminals and punishing people under their own laws. Later scholars assumed these treaties created formal legal systems, but in reality, those systems were developed gradually over the following decades and early colonial Hong Kong was a testing ground where Britain slowly built rules about jurisdiction (who has legal authority over whom).