Summary by Grace Lowes
At a time when the world grapples with political instability, technological upheaval, and shifting legal paradigms, on March 5th, The Jack & Mae Nathanson Centre hosted a panel series event centred on the theme of “crisis.” Three panels explored crises in governance, taxation, corporate power, incarceration, and the law’s role in mitigating disruptions. Across these discussions, themes of technological transformation, legal uncertainty, and shifting global power structures emerged as key reflection points.
Panel 1: The Power of Crisis: Governance, Taxation, and Corporate Influence
The first panel explored how crises shape governance, particularly in the realms of taxation, incarceration, and corporate power. Discussions highlighted how legal frameworks struggle to adapt to rapidly evolving challenges, often leaving marginalized groups vulnerable and corporate actors unaccountable.
Saptarishi Bandopadhyay’s discussion on disaster governance and incarceration raised fundamental concerns about how prisoners are treated during crises. The panel explored the tension between risk management and carceral policies, highlighting how incarcerated populations are frequently overlooked in disaster planning, despite their heightened vulnerability.
Jinyan Li’s analysis of global tax governance revealed a structural crisis in regulating multinational corporations, particularly tech giants. The failure of international tax agreements underscores how state sovereignty is being eroded by corporate interests, leaving national governments struggling to capture revenues in an increasingly digital economy. This discussion tied into broader concerns about corporate power, a theme reinforced by Hassan Ahmad’s exploration of the evolution of corporations from public-serving entities to profit-driven structures that wield immense influence over global governance. The conversation questioned whether legal reforms can rein in corporate overreach or if governments are too entangled with these entities to enforce meaningful regulation.
Carys Craig further developed the theme of legal obsolescence, turning to copyright law’s inability to address the rapid rise of AI-generated content. The panel engaged with questions of technological neutrality, legislative stagnation, and the geopolitical dimensions of intellectual property law, particularly as Canada navigates pressure from both the U.S. and European regulatory systems.
Together, these discussions illustrated how law is often reactive rather than proactive in times of crisis. Governance failures in taxation, incarceration, and corporate regulation highlight the urgent need for legal adaptation in the face of global shifts.
Panel 2: Legal Systems Under Stress: Courts, Criminal Responsibility, and Public Health
The second panel shifted the focus to legal systems, considering how courts, sentencing structures, and public health policies manage crises. The speakers explored whether legal mechanisms are capable of responding effectively to contemporary challenges or if they require fundamental rethinking.
Ben Berger’s discussion on criminal responsibility examined how sentencing laws are evolving, particularly concerning mental health. Canadian courts are increasingly considering “individualized proportionality,” weighing how incarceration affects individuals rather than relying solely on the severity of their offences. While this marks a shift toward a more humane justice system, the panel also questioned whether these changes are meaningful in a broader system that remains deeply punitive.
Suzie Chiodo addressed the long-standing crisis of judicial delays, identifying systemic inefficiencies that continue to obstruct timely justice. Despite Supreme Court efforts to streamline procedures, backlog and bottlenecks persist, raising concerns about access to justice and the effectiveness of managerial judicial reforms.
Anthony Sangiuliano connected these themes to public health governance, exploring how the precautionary principle has been applied in crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. His discussion examined the legal justifications for government restrictions and the tension between evidence-based policymaking and precautionary measures when facing scientific uncertainty. The panel debated whether the precautionary principle is an effective legal tool or if it grants governments excessive discretion, particularly in emergencies.
The overarching theme of this panel was the tension between legal adaptability and institutional inertia. Whether in sentencing, judicial management, or public health responses, the law is often caught between necessary evolution and the limits of entrenched structures.
Panel 3: Global Power, Security, and the Rule of Law in Crisis
The final panel addressed global crises, focusing on security, environmental degradation, and international legal structures. The discussions painted a picture of a world where law is increasingly subordinated to economic and geopolitical power.
Obi Okafor’s discussion on 9/11’s enduring legal legacy underscored how security concerns have been used to justify expansive state power, eroding civil liberties and reshaping international governance. This segued into Craig Scott’s critique of how technological and corporate interests are integrating into broader ideological projects that challenge the very foundation of the rule of law.
Preston Lim’s analysis of Sino-Canadian relations brought this concern into a contemporary context, illustrating how geopolitical tensions are shaping national security laws. The securitization of domestic law, particularly in areas like foreign investment and technology regulation, raises pressing questions about the balance between national interest and civil liberties.
Dayna Scott explored another dimension of crisis: environmental law’s ongoing regression in the face of economic and political pressures. Her discussion highlighted the growing trend of dismantling legal protections, illustrating how legal frameworks designed to safeguard the environment are being undone in favour of short-term economic gains. Finally, Heidi Matthews examined the ongoing crisis in Gaza, situating it within the broader failures of international law.
In the question period, the panel discussed whether legal institutions can effectively address humanitarian crises or if international law has become a tool of political convenience rather than a meaningful mechanism for justice.
Taken together, these discussions revealed the vulnerabilities of legal frameworks in an era of global instability. Whether in security law, environmental governance, or international humanitarian law, the panellists underscored the difficulty of enforcing legal norms when power dynamics increasingly dictate outcomes.
Conclusion: The Law’s Role in Crisis Response
If this event made one thing clear, crisis is not an anomaly; it is a persistent state of affairs in the modern world. Whether addressing mass incarceration, the power of multinational corporations, or the breakdown of global governance, legal scholars must remain engaged in shaping policies that can respond to these ever-evolving challenges. The Nathanson Centre’s event provided a vital space for these discussions, urging us to consider how the law reacts to crises and how it might proactively shape a more stable and just future.
