The symposium proceedings organized on the 28th of April by the Centre Perelman de philosophie have just come out.
Le dialogue des juges, coll. les cahiers de l’Institut d’études sur la justice, Bruylant, 2007.
If the judicial dialogue implies -as this essay seeks to demonstrate- the regulatory principle of a universal justice, however, this dialogue counts as many potential and concurring universes as in the might-be worlds theory. Either not only sees sunshine close to its door, but would willingly make the others adjust themselves on its sundial.
This fresh quarrel of universals, where each one seeks to impose his own vision of what law should be, not only brings legal cultures -common and written law traditions included- into conflict, but also those courts of law dealing with market or human rights issues, and even, in the occidental camp, concurrent, and sometimes divergent, interpretations on human rights, notably on both sides of the atlantic.
And one may feel this not to be a mere quarrel on precedence. The struggle for who is to determine the law is akin to the one taking place among the mighty for the worldwide political and economic dominion (abstract taken from the conclusion of Benoît Frydman).