Greetings from the world’s biggest philosophy of law event!
IVR 2026 Istanbul, held in partnership with Turkish Airlines and supported by TÜBİTAK, the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye. Official Website of the Congress: IVR 2026 Istanbul
Some weeks you pencil in “congress” and it goes down in your life as “mind-opening.” 28 June – 3 July 2026 was exactly that kind of week. Camera on, coffee in hand, come on in.
What is the IVR, and why do I keep saying “massive”?
The IVR, the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, is a scholarly research society founded in 1909 under the name “Internationale Vereinigung für Rechts- und Wirtschaftsphilosophie.” In 1933 it was renamed “Internationale Vereinigung für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie.” Today it is the world’s central academic organization for the study and advancement of legal and social philosophy, and it is divided into 41 autonomous national sections.
Its main activities rest on three pillars: the biennial World Congress, the international journal Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie (ARSP), and the IVR Encyclopaedia of Legal and Social Philosophy. The Congress is basically the field’s World Cup. This year was the 32nd edition, and the host city was Istanbul.
The numbers speak for themselves: more than 300 speakers, dozens of countries, and a full week of back-to-back sessions. The theme: “Law in the Face of the Changing Problems of the World.” From artificial intelligence to neurotechnology, there couldn’t have been a better frame for discussing the new tests facing law.
The host was Kadir Has University, on a beautiful campus overlooking the sea. A special thank-you goes to Prof. Dr. Ozan Erözden, member of the congress organizing committee and Dean of the university’s Faculty of Law, and to Prof. Dr. Gülriz Uygur, for this enormous organization. Running a congress of this scale this smoothly takes serious effort.
How did I end up here?
Let me be honest: my road to this stage was a bit cinematic. I stayed undecided until the very last moment, then, with minutes left before the deadline, I suddenly put together an abstract and sent it around 23:59 😀 Life is full of surprises, and sometimes spontaneous decisions lead to the very beautiful things.
Keynotes and panels: the league of ideas
The plenary and keynote sessions were the “big screen” of the congress.
Thursday: the Presidency Panel on AI and Law
One of the most striking moments for me was the Presidency Panel on AI and Law. The speakers were Jin-Sook Yun, Klaus Günther, Matthias Mahlmann and Ahmet Ulvi Türkbağ. While AI was on the table, the conversation even stretched to transhumanism, so it was quite the roller coaster of ideas.
During the panel I asked Prof. Mahlmann a question about anthropomorphic narratives of AI, and I went up to him afterwards to continue the conversation. Mahlmann, of the University of Zurich, was strikingly clear in his views, which prompted an observation: when some colleagues present a study, they are not confused, and they know what they are arguing. On the other hand, I see some scholorship ecoles not taking a clear position has almost become a custom. At the end of a presentation or article sometimes I find myself asking, “So what does the author actually defend?” It feels as if everyone is waiting to see which view becomes dominant so they can side with it. Many topics are entered because they are popular, not to put forward a stance. Sad…
[PHOTO: Presidency Panel / panel moment]
Human dignity: a workshop and a talk
In the first days of the congress there was a workshop on human dignity, and I heard a talk that really caught my interest. Returning to the theme later in the week was just as good: Petar Popović‘s presentation, “The Legal Status of Human Dignity as the Object of Justice,” was both eye-opening and very well prepared. I learned afterwards that the author is also a priest; I had assumed he was purely a law professor.
Two things from the talk stuck with me:
“Ontological dignity can never be lost.”
It is, in his words, a kind of primordial right.
A question immediately rose in my mind: can it be gained somehow? I asked him. His answer: it depends on which definition you adopt. The vital role of definitions, once again!
And Popović was incredibly generous: he took the full text of his not-yet-published article out of his bag and gave it to me, saying, “You can read it, but please don’t share it with anyone, it isn’t published yet.” (Of course I did not share, still keep it safe) I was thrilled like a kid 😀 Petar Popović, all the best for you!
Preparing the Session with Istanbul’s cats 🙂
Just minutes before my presentation, I had retreated to a quiet corner to put the final touches on my slides. That’s when a cat wandered over and joined both my lunch and my work. We shared my Turkish simit, crumb by crumb. Luckily, it had no interest in my Americano or my natural mineral water, so those stayed mine 😀 Then I dashed off to present. Looking back, it was a lovely memory. Below, among the slides, you might spot traces of my adventure with the cat 🙂
Istanbul’s cats will make you post something like this even you’re Springer Nature at an academic congress 😀
My stage: SW12
The heart of the congress for me was Special Workshop 12 (SW12): Law and Ethics of Neuroscience and Emerging Neurotechnologies, on Friday 3 July, 14:00–16:00. The workshop was convened by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Elif Küzeci (Vice Dean of the Bilkent Faculty of Law), together with Dr. Ecem Çoban Bilici.
My presentation: “Neurotechnologies and Predictive Policing: How BCI Systems Challenge the Foundations of Legal Philosophy.”
The question is simple but uncomfortable: Can technology turn our silent thoughts into “crimes”? Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) are rapidly evolving from medical miracles into consumer gadgets. If algorithms and global corporations can monitor our most intimate mental processes, what happens to human moral agency and free will? My argument: the monopoly over neural data isn’t just a privacy issue; it can be an ontological threat to our cognitive liberty. Before Orwell’s 1984 becomes technically possible, we need solid safeguards such as constitutional neuro-rights.
To be honest: being the only student among professors was hard. It was also just as proud-making. That audiences came up to me after the presentation to ask questions was deeply motivating. Their interest for this niche topic, freshed my motivation as a researcher. I can’t wait for future collaborations.
An amazing lineup
It was a great honor to share the floor in this session with: Dr. Marietjie Botes, Dr. Allan McCay, Prof. Dr. Ozan Erözden (from the congress organizing committee and Dean of the KHAS Faculty of Law, who also spoke in our session), Prof. Dr. Anton Didikin, Dr. Özge Yücel Dericiler and Dr. Başak Ozan Özparlak.
Hearing the insights of the other distinguished speakers in the workshop was an equally precious opportunity. Listening to people approach the same questions from different disciplines and different parts of the world showed me angles in my own work that I hadn’t seen.
The audience made the session special too. Meeting Francesco Stocchi and Rostam J. Neuwirth in person and exchanging ideas was a real pleasure.
You can also get a feel for the atmosphere of our workshop from the LinkedIn post by our convenor, Elif Küzeci: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/elif-kuzeci_on-3-july-we-held-the-special-workshop-share-7479637691484233728-xZ72
Also a colleague Ilenia B. Marraffa, who joined us from Italy, attended our workshop and afterwards shared short videos of my talk with me. She also put together a lovely catch-up of the whole congress. It may be one of the best ways to feel the mood of the week, so I’m adding it below. Thank you, Ilenia!
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjaoşsfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Gala night: Sea, jazz and classic cars at the Koç Museum
The “loosen your tie” moment of the congress was the gala night at the Rahmi M. Koç Museum. The evening began with cocktails at the museum overlooking the sea and continued with a delicious dinner.
The museum itself was a surprise: the small ship and classic car exhibition especially caught my eye; sweet colored Cadillacs and some Rolls-Royces… After a week of legal philosophy, standing in front of an antique automobile wondering whether it’s a kind of positive law is its own kind of fun. Scroll down to the slideshow below to soak up some of the atmosphere!
Koç Museum / cocktails by the sea & Ship and classic car exhibition
A conversation that started on a bench
At one point the crowd got a bit much, so I looked for a quiet corner and was about to open my book on a bench. Right then someone sat down next to me and started chatting. I would later find out he was a professor at Seoul University.
He had a special interest in Türkiye and talked about his Turkish friends. The effort he put into pronouncing my name correctly surprised me: by the third attempt he nailed it, and it was clear he was familiar with Turkish names. He asked whether I was doing a PhD or was a student. “Yes, in public law,” I said, “and you, where are you doing yours, are you a student?” “Not really,” he said. “Have you finished your PhD?” I asked. “Yes.” he said in a humble way. A few sentences later I realized I was talking to a university professor! That was a joyful suprise 🙂
Then he asked about my interests. When I told him I had done my master’s in theology and then returned to law, he looked a little surprised. I explained that I’m interested in neuroscience within law, that I actually come from a STEM background: in Türkiye, students choose between a science-and-mathematics track and a social sciences-and-humanities track in high school. I had started my undergraduate degree in pharmacy, then became interested in theology, turned toward the social sciences and chose law. He listened for a while, then paused and said: “So you’re like Darwin.”
This time I paused. Seeing my hesitation, he added: “On the Origin of Species…” “Yes,” I said, to show that I knew. “But how come? Why do you think so?” His answer: Darwin first began studying medicine at the University of Edinburgh but left it unfinished. Then he moved to Cambridge, to Christ’s College, studied theology, and went on to write On the Origin of Species. Now it was my turn to be surprised.
Then a friend of his came and sat with us. I looked up, and it was the President of the IVR 🙂 While I was looking for a quiet corner for reading something, two giants of the congress came and found me. Then we’ve got a selfie!
I knew Darwin’s interest in theology, but I hadn’t known that he left medical school and turned to theology. It was genuinely fascinating, a spontaneous chat that turned out to be a little discovery about myself. I smile every time I remember this conversation. Someone from the other side of the world can, in a few minutes of conversation, make you reexamine your own past and then fly back home. Life is so interesting 🙂
Another coffee-break surprise
At congresses like this, during a break between sessions, you can be working alone on your laptop when a world-famous jurist suddenly comes and sits next to you. He starts quietly drinking his tea on his own. After a moment of shock you start chatting, and you learn that he owns a Qur’an and reads it from time to time :)) That professor was the legendary jurist Prof. Roger Cotterrell.
There is something quietly fantastic about discovering that a thought which has been circling in your own mind is also circling in someone else’s, on the other side of the world. It reminds me of a saying of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
“Souls are like troops mustered in groups: those that recognise one another [beforehand] come together in harmony, and those that do not recognise one another diverge.”
(Bukhari, Anbiya 2, Adab 19; Muslim, Birr 159)
I feel this at many congresses and workshops. There are people whose minds and temperaments feel close to yours the moment you meet, though you have never seen them face to face. Each one is a treasure. And the souls we differ with are treasures too. We have so much to learn from one another.
What struck me most was how many academics, despite their advancing years, took part with full energy: taking notes in the audience, speaking from the podium, equally curious in both seats. The organization itself and the people in it were a true source of inspiration.
The people, The real treasure
What makes a congress a congress is less the presentations than the hallway conversations. That wonderful week I met legal philosophers from the US, the UK, Korea, China and even Madagascar. Seeing everyone interested in this niche topic in one place, listening to their talks, and carrying the debate on in the coffee queue was priceless.
One of the loveliest surprises in the hallways was Professor Altan Heper introducing us to the former President of Portugal’s Constitutional Court. It was a brief chat on our feet, but the advice we heard from him stayed with us. Sometimes a few words in a hallway are worth more than many lectures.
Closing
This was my first IVR Congress, and it seems it won’t be my last. I was deeply inspired and made wonderful connections. It was a stroke of luck that Istanbul hosted this huge biennial event, and exploring Kadir Has’s seaside campus was a bonus.
Here’s to crossing paths again with all the brilliant presenters and attendees at future events, and to new collaborations.
You can find the congress programme and speakers at ivr2026istanbul.org/programme.
#IVR2026 #PhilosophyOfLaw #Neurolaw #Neuroethics #Neurotechnologies
Leave a Reply