Kostia Gorobets is an Assistant Professor and recent PhD graduate at the Faculty of Law. Below is a short interview, inquiring about his research and teaching role in the Faculty.

What is your specific academic background, and what are your research interests? Do you currently work on any specific research projects?

My primary academic background is legal philosophy. I’ve been interested in it since the beginning of my university studies in Ukraine. Already during the first year of my law degree, I realized that as much as the law itself was boring, the concept of law was fascinating. I was surprized how much of a disagreement there is about it, and how many conceptual inconsistencies penetrate the legal domain. So, I began to go to student conferences in legal theory and jurisprudence, I wrote my Master thesis in jurisprudence, and then I did the then academic equivalent of PhD (up until 2016, Ukraine was using the Soviet system of academic degrees; mine was “Candidate of Legal Science”, which is more or less the same, in terms of timeframe, publications requirements, size of the thesis, etc, as PhD in Law). I was particularly invested in legal axiology, which is the study of values in law. Are there any specifically legal values, and if so, what is special about them? What is the interplay between legal values and legal rules? How does the law structure social values?

Some years after my Ukrainian “PhD”, which I got in 2012, I started drifting more and more towards international legal theory and philosophy of international law. I was puzzled by the fact that in general jurisprudence, international law is often treated with some degree of annoyance. It upsets many conceptions that are normally seen as almost truistic, like, for instance, that law is a formally hierarchical system, or that without courts there can be no law, or that legality requires officials, and so on. I started writing on the idea of the international rule of law, which I found to be the most interesting entry point into all these discussions. Normally, in the domestic context, we see the Rule of Law as a set of standards and limitations that apply to public institutions in order to make sure they do not abuse their powers. But how would that work internationally, given that there the distinction between subjects of law and officials does not quite hold? Whom does international rule of law protect, and against whose abuses?

The intersection between legal philosophy and international law is currently what shapes my academic identity. I write mostly on legal philosophical puzzles about international law. My PhD thesis that I wrote here, in Groningen, was about the concept of authority of international law, where I explore most of the questions that I already mentioned. It was recently awarded with the Erasmus Research Prize, which I am very happy about, of course.

At the moment, I am shaping a new research project on imperial legalities and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We often hear how the invasion is characterised as an imperialistic/colonial enterprise, but there is little attention to, and clarity about, the legal side of it. In fact, Russian legal narratives and arguments are often too easily dismissed as bizarre. But I believe Russia is attempting to construct a particular imperial mode of international legality, in which its actions are legally meaningful and justifiable. I want to deconstruct and critique this legality.

What courses do you teach within the Faculty?

I’ve been quite lucky to teach courses that match my academic interest. It is a combination of legal and political philosophy with international law. I teach a course called Contemplating Democracy and the Rule of Law, which is part of a university-level minor, and so is open to students from different faculties. It is a large course (10 ECTS), and I greatly enjoy teaching it. It has been my sandbox of a sort, where I toss some ideas and concepts with students, which is fascinating for both sides of the conversation. We discuss the puzzles of the Rule of Law, why it matters, and why it often fails. We speak about democracy and how many different things it may mean, to an extent when there is almost a deadly clash between various conceptions of it. We discuss populism, imperialism, and justice. It is always a lot of fun, and each year I am very excited to teach it again.

I also teach part of Introduction to International and European Law for the 1^st year LLB students. It is a monster of a course, with several hundred students and many classes. In reality, these are two courses under one roof, with one team of lecturers teaching international law, and another ­ the EU law. I find it quite challenging for both teachers and students, because in a relatively short number of classes (seven lectures and seminars for each team) we need to convey a lot of introductory-level material about rather intricate domains, given that 99% of students have never done any law studies. I have so far only taught lectures in this course, and I am now considering a deep redesign of their content.

I am also involved in some other courses, like Advanced International Law, where I teach one lecture on legal positivism and Natural law, and the Research Seminar, where I often coordinate one or two assignments for students. This latter one is one of my favourite courses, primarily thanks to its creative element. Each year, we need to come up with some new assignment for students, which would be timely, interesting, but also sufficiently challenging. This year, I am coordinating an assignment of the crime of aggression and how it can be prosecuted.

What do you enjoy teaching about these course subjects?

I think the main thing is that I just like sharing the sense of understanding something. That is not specific to the courses that I am teaching, but this is what makes me enjoy them, in particular. Because I teach to different audiences (first year LLB students, second and third years Bachelor students from various faculties, LL.M students), I get to experience a spectrum of reactions to something fascinating and complicated. When I teach philosophical subjects, I appreciate how students get more and more submerged into intricate questions and problems they thought were easy enough just a couple of minutes ago. When I teach international law, I like to expose the power dynamics and contingencies that shape particular rules, principles, or entire regimes. There is a tendency to present international law as something neat and structured, and so when students see all the concealed messiness of it and discover its (not so) hidden undercurrents, it makes me happy as a teacher.

How are the programmes you teach in unique compared to similar programmes elsewhere?

For several years before coming to Groningen, I’ve been teaching at several law schools in Ukraine (in Odesa and Lviv). The law degree programmes in Ukraine are different in many regards, both at the level of structure and at the level of content. For instance, there is much more emphasis on legal theory and legal philosophy. Most LLB programmes in Ukraine have a year-long course on Theory of Law and State, which plays a crucial role in preparing students for specific legal courses they typically start in the second year of their studies (like civil law, criminal law, international law, etc.). This is something that we lack at our English-taught LLB programme, and I think that is a bit of a problem. Oftentimes, especially in the first-year courses, students struggle with legal concepts like validity, rights, obligations, bindingness, and so on. I’ve always believed that it is such fundamental concepts that are the most intricate ones, and I think there should be some space in the programme for a course in legal theory, like there is one in Dutch-taught LLB.

At the same time, international law curriculum is much more robust here than in other programmes where I used to teach in Ukraine. There is an emphasis on depth and systematicity in Groningen's programmes, which I really appreciate. My previous teaching experience was much more fragmented and shallower in comparison.

What career prospects do you think there could be for students who pursue careers in your specific legal field of expertise?

I think now is perhaps one of the best times ever to do the career in international law. Not only the sheer number of institutions is growing, but also the integration between international law and domestic legal systems has become a real professional area of expertise. Many NGOs now rely on specialised knowledge of international law, not to mention governmental agencies or international organisations of all sorts. Especially in The Netherlands, with all the international institutions the country is hosting, trying to build a career as an international lawyer is a great idea. The field is insanely competitive, of course, but that has always been the case.

I also often advise students to think of a career in academia. In my view, being an academic is perhaps the best way of living a life. It may not earn you that much money as a legal practice, but it may give you a profound sense of satisfaction in cracking difficult problems and asking profound questions that need to be answered. This is also where my original field of expertise shines. Legal philosophy is great because it pushes you to revisit old questions with the view of new problems. This is comforting, but also quite intellectually challenging. One of my favourite quotes about legal philosophy come from Leslie Green, who used to be the Chair of Jurisprudence at Oxford University: “The most important truths in jurisprudence are not new. They do not need to be reinvented; rather, people need to be reminded of them.”

Did the Covid-19 situation or any other recent international events affect the way in which experts in your field practise/operate their professions?

COVID-19 was huge, and it affected everyone in a very immediate and direct way. But for me the biggest ongoing event has of course been the Russian invasion into my homeland. By 8 am on February 24th 2022, my hometown in Southern Ukraine, some 50 km North of Crimea, was occupied. My parents were there. They still are. Life under military occupation means a constant threat and fear. There has been no day when I did not worry about them. I dream to see the day when I finally hug them again. And overall, the invasion has been a heavy blow for me personally because it put things into perspective. When missiles fly and shells explode, there is little room for “authority” and “rule of law”. There is life and death, and the rest is irrelevant. It took me a while to gather strength and find a way of being intellectually useful.

It has been much worse for my Ukrainian colleagues, of course. Kharkiv – Ukraine’s second largest city – has suffered a great deal of damage from this war, because it is so close to the Russian border. It hosts Ukraine’s largest law school – Yaroslav Mudriy National Law University. My colleagues who work there found themselves displaced shortly after the invasion. Many lost their homes. Some enlisted to the army. Yet they still find strength to write articles and run law journals. I just got an invitation to submit a piece to a special issue. This is a most powerful reminder of, first, how privileged I am in being here, and second, how strong the intellectual curiosity can be.

For international law as a discipline, the invasion has become one of the most intricate and sophisticated case studies for how international law works, and how it can fail. This is inevitable, but sometimes it does get under my skin how lightly we tend to speak of “case studies”, treating them as mere points of interest, something to teach students at the next lecture. Because it is so personal and deeply traumatizing for me, I think I see the war as some raw and naked event that just happens and throws you into a hostile and cold space, from which there is no escape. And the only thing you can do about it is to sit and take it one day at a time, carefully examining the thoughts and the talks that lead Russia to steamrolling my country. This is why I am now interested in the Russian imperialism and its use of international law.

Do you have any advice for students interested in pursuing your same field of legal expertise?

I am generally not a big fan of advises because they are often premised upon an idea that there is one correct way of doing things, or that what worked for one would work for another. Yet as someone who is coming from Eastern Europe and has constantly felt inferior (intellectually and professionally), I can say this: your experience and your background matter. It is valuable. There is no reason to be ashamed of it or think that it is unworthy. You don’t have to remake yourself to fit in. You don’t need to unlearn anything. Cherish your identity and be open to the identity of others.

- Interview by: Dr. Chris Brennan, Marketing Advisor, Faculty of Law

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interested in more information about our LLB or LLM programmes? You can ask questions directly to the Faculty by filling out our information request form.