Organised by Dr. Sara Göthlin (Director of the SCCL) and Dr. jur. h.c. André Andersson (Chair of the SCCL Board) on the Stockholm side and Prof. Birke Häcker (Schlegel Chair in Civil Law, Common Law and Comparative Law) on the Bonn side, the two-day event brought together well over forty legal scholars and some practitioners working in Sweden and Germany and allowed them to discuss fundamental questions and current legal issues in an international commercial context.

The first day, 16 April, was dedicated to a “Junior Scholar Workshop” exploring a series of specific topics and methods in comparative and interdisciplinary legal research. Sixteen doctoral and early post-doctoral candidates, eight from each institution, presented aspects of their work to each other. Presenters from Stockholm were paired with commentators from Bonn, and vice versa, thus fostering a lively and very inspirational academic exchange. Chaired by senior scholars from both sides, topics ranged from procedural to substantive matters, with a mix of different methodologies, from doctrinal to empirical and comparative approaches.

The day started with an analysis of how the argumentative burden is allocated in civil proceedings (Hanna Larsson and Dominik Zilsdorf), continued with tricky questions pertaining to intra-family property disputes (Tove Lindgren, Cecilia Baltes and Caroline Erhardt) and the contrast between functionalist and substantive concepts of property rights (Algot Bengtsson and Hannah Winter). In the afternoon, the group pondered different responses to induced mistake in contract law and the appropriate methodology for comparing them (Nils Hennig and Patryk Sapa) as well as different initiatives for stock exchange regulation and their effect on competitiveness and growth (Andreas Gustafsson and Franziska Seitz). The final two sessions both concerned the field of arbitration, asking how far newly established state commercial courts provide an attractive alternative to arbitration proceedings (Dr. Sebastian Hitzel and Johanna Böhm) and whether the widely bemoaned “judicialization” of international arbitration poses a threat to this form of dispute resolution (Ömer Bildik and Robin Ollus). 

The second day, 17 April, was subdivided into two parts. In the morning, participants gathered for a “Senior Scholar Workshop”, when it fell to more senior members of both constituencies to share some perspectives and experiences with the doctoral cohort and with each other. One session addressed the multi-faceted interface between academia and legal practice, exploring ways in which individuals and institutions can bridge these two different worlds. It was led by a mixed panel of experts who have, in different ways and directions, made the transition from one to the other and who were able to testify to how the experience was both challenging and intellectually enriching (Dr. André Andersson, Dr. Sara Göthin, Hanna Larsson, Prof. Louisa Specht-Riemenschneider, and Prof. Matthias Weller). A second panel was devoted to methodological challenges in legal research and shone a spotlight on the diversity of different approaches and to some extent on the fluidity and the grey areas between them (Prof. Laura Carlson, Prof. Emil Elgebrant, Prof. Birke Häcker, Prof. Svenja Hippel, and Prof. Alexander Scheuch). While panels members worked with and favoured a variety of methods, all agreed on the central importance of tailoring one’s methodology to fit the aim of the individual project and, in doing so, of being intellectually honest with oneself and others.      

The symposium culminated in an afternoon session tracing “The Limits of Party Autonomy” in an international commercial context. Impulse papers focused on three different fields, namely arbitration, contract law, and insolvency. Prof. Ulf Maunsbach and Prof. Matthias Weller discussed current challenges to the sanctity of arbitration agreements from the perspective of international private law as well as through the lens of anti-suit injunctions. Prof. Birke Häcker and Dr. Stina Bratt pondered actual or apparent limitations to freedom of contract both at the level of substantive rights and at the “remedial” level of enforcing these rights. Finally, Prof. Moritz Brinkmann and Prof. Johan Sandstedt analysed the avoidance provisions of the new Insolvency III Directive. In doing so, they drew attention to the pros and cons of achieving EU-wide harmonisation by what appears, in this case, to be a large-scale transplantation of German domestic rules (and problems).

Following two days of lively round-table discussions stimulated by the various topics and contributions, the Stockholm-Bonn Law Symposium 2026 concluded with a dinner allowing participants to continue their conversations in a more informal setting. Regardless of whether they had already met in 2024 or only just become acquainted, the animated chatter around the room bore testimony to their enjoyment of each other’s company. A special treat was provided by Irina Gill performing pieces by Mozart and Liszt on the grand piano, thus captivating the audience and adding a musical cherry to the proverbial cake of academic, social and culinary pleasures. The organisers are delighted that the whole event was so well-received on both sides. They look forward to continuing the collaborations and to further expanding the links between Stockholm and Bonn.

The event was organised under the auspices of the IECL and held at Brasenose College, Oxford. Default rules are legal rules that apply where and insofar as nothing else has been agreed or provided by the relevant parties; in contrast to mandatory rules, the parties may derogate from default rules by making their own arrangements. The aim of the workshop was to explore default rules in various areas of private law and from a comparative perspective. It is envisaged that the proceedings will be published in a collective volume in due course.

Professor Birke Häcker set the scene with a comparative introduction to default rules. She outlined the idea behind the collaborative project and highlighted some of the recurring themes and questions to be addressed at the workshop. These included the nature and functions of default rules, the very different forms default rules can take, and on what they are – or ought to be – modelled. Methods and mechanisms of generating default rules were then discussed by Professor Florian Möslein (University of Marburg). His focus was on ‘digitizing defaults’ in the context of online platforms, which increasingly seek to set the rules for parties operating on the platforms by displacing the otherwise applicable legal defaults. Professor Alexander Hellgardt (University of Regensburg) addressed the regulatory dimension of default rules in more detail. He looked at both the burden of ‘opting out’ of defaults and the content of defaults as means of regulation in private law. Turning to the supranational level, Professor Jürgen Basedow (Emeritus Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg) considered the role of default rules for European integration and the EU Internal Market. More specifically, he discussed the relevance and purposes of default rules that exist in EU private law and whether the scope of such rules could usefully be increased. Taking the perspective of behavioural economics, Dr Geneviève Helleringer (IECL Lecturer in French Law and Business Law) subsequently presented on the importance of defaults in light of the bounded rationality of humans. She explored various biases which may affect decision-making and can be counteracted by suitably designed defaults. Changing the perspective to how the judiciary sees and deals with default rules, Lord Sales (Justice of the UK Supreme Court) offered insights on default rules in the Common Law. He shed light on substantive rules as well as precedent and demonstrated just how ubiquitous the phenomenon is and how many shades of meaning and forms of operation the ‘default rules’ mechanism can take. The subsequent discussion particularly benefited from contributions by two former Law Commissioners, Professor Jack Beatson (formerly Lord Justice of Appeal; Emeritus Professor, University of Cambridge) and Professor Hugh Beale (Emeritus Professor, University of Warwick), who juxtaposed the legislative perspective on the use and creation of default rules.

Investigating default rules in specific areas of private law, Professor John Cartwright (Emeritus Professor at the University of Oxford) discussed the nature and function of defaults in contract law. He shed light on the role of default rules for contracts in the Common Law tradition and for the various types of ‘special’ contracts in Civilian jurisdictions, using the example of France. Subsequently, Professor Simon Whittaker (University of Oxford) focused on consumer contracts, where default rules are in fact the exception since most of the rules are mandatory. Nonetheless, he explained that even within consumer contract law default rules played a number of different roles and explored this, inter alia, with respect to the scope and application of the law governing unfair contract terms. The great significance of default rules in the area of commercial and corporate finance law was addressed by Professor Louise Gullifer (University of Cambridge). She elucidated the sources, purposes, and design of default rules as they underpin, support and enhance the crucial role of private autonomy in the commercial context. Professor Gregor Christandl (University of Graz) dealt with defaults in succession law. Their relevance was highlighted mainly with regard to the rules on intestacy and the construction of wills. Professor Alan Bogg (University of Bristol) continued the discussion with his presentation on the nature and function of default rules in employment law. He discussed different trends regarding the role of defaults for employment contracts and more widely in connection with the transformation of the employment status we are witnessing at the moment. Turning to the law of civil procedure, Professor Giesela Rühl (Humboldt University Berlin) argued that one can often perceive supposedly mandatory rules in national civil procedure as defaults since party autonomy allows the parties to choose whether, where and how to litigate. On the other hand, she argued that in arbitration the flexibility provided by defaults appears increasingly limited. The closing presentation was delivered by co-convenor Dr Johannes Ungerer, who spoke on private international default rules. In the light of the complexity of cross-border cases, he addressed the relevance of defaults for both international uniform laws and the conflict of laws.

The convenors expressed – and would like to take this opportunity to reiterate – their gratitude to all participants for their papers and fruitful contributions to the discussion, to the IECL for generously supporting the event, and to Brasenose College for hosting it with characteristic warm hospitality. Two intense days of round-table discussions brought home to everybody how hugely important default rules are in academic debate and legal practice, yet how fiendishly complicated it can be to find their optimal design and mode of operation.