This conference seeks to explore the tensions between law’s coercive structures and justice’s moral imperatives, examining how legal actors – judges, lawmakers, and scholars – interpret and shape justice.

Justice has long served as a cornerstone of both philosophical inquiry and legal practice. Historically, it has been interwoven with the evolution of legal systems that seek to enforce order through punitive measures. Yet, as classical theorists and modern critics have observed, the mechanisms of punishment often reveal a disjunction between the law’s outward appearance and the deeper, more abstract notion of justice. Thinkers such as Arendt have argued that while law can be deconstructed and critiqued, justice remains an ever-receding horizon – an ideal that cannot be fully captured by rigid legal norms. This tension compels us to ask: How can justice be realized when legal practices and legislative frameworks, often imbued with coercive power, fall short of encompassing the moral imperatives they claim to uphold?

Central to this inquiry is the role of justice in legal decision-making and the individuals who shape it – judges, lawmakers, prosecutors, and legal scholars. Their interpretations of justice influence how laws are crafted, enforced, and challenged. Yet, these decisions are shaped by institutional norms, political pressures, and personal biases. The dominance of retributive justice in legal systems has long favored punitive responses, often at the expense of more nuanced and restorative approaches.

These frameworks, while aiming for order and deterrence, frequently neglect the finer nuances of individual standpoints, and the complex interplay of responsibility and systemic harms within legal structures.

Another key dimension involves the intersection of justice with power, race, and gender within legal structures. The state’s monopoly on legitimate force underpins many legal practices, yet this authority often obscures the inherent violence of judicial processes. From harsh sentencing laws to the structural coercion embedded in policing and incarceration, power dynamics determine who is granted access to justice and who is excluded. Historically, marginalized communities – especially along racial and gender lines – have been disproportionately subjected to legal scrutiny, punishment, and systemic exclusion. The composition of legal decision-makers further influences these outcomes: whose perspectives shape legal norms, and whose experiences remain overlooked in judicial reasoning?

Contemporary crises further complicate the legitimacy of legal authority and the extent to which it contributes to – or detracts from – a just society. For instance, the ongoing migration crisis across Europe and beyond forces us to confront the realities of displaced populations seeking refuge from conflict, persecution, and economic hardship. Similarly, the legacy of genocide – whether reflecting on the historical scars or more recent mass atrocities – continues to shape debates over reparative justice, collective responsibility, and reconciliation? Meanwhile, technological breakthroughs that claim to offer innovative and efficient tools for crime prediction, evidence gathering, monitoring compliance with international human rights standards risk reinforcing biases and eroding judicial discretion, particularly in ways that disproportionately affect already marginalized groups.