On 10–11 February 2026, the conference “Unwritten Constitutionalism and Informality” was held at the SYRI Institute at Masaryk University in Brno. It was co-organised by Durham University (within the UCNP project) and Masaryk University (within the INFINITY project). Over two days, researchers and scholars in constitutional law, political science, and international law presented their work. The common theme was the role of unwritten norms, informal institutions, and professional cultures in the functioning of constitutional systems, particularly under political pressure and institutional stress.
The opening discussion already suggested that unwritten constitutionalism today is far more than just the traditional debate on constitutional principles in the Anglo-Saxon context. A significant part of the program focused on constitutional culture, judicial behaviour, and constitutional resilience. Presentations by Katarína Šipulová, Silvia Suteu, Lisa Hilbink, and Erin Delaney showed different dimensions of this problem—from the limits of judicial resistance and the defence of democracy to the relationship between legitimacy and institutional resilience. David Kosař’s contribution on public prosecutors under political pressure also fits into this line of discussion, expanding the debate beyond the judiciary.
The section devoted to distinguishing between the concepts of “unwritten” and “informal” had a strong methodological dimension. Contributions by M. A. Rivera, Akwasi Osei-Dwomoh, and Ondřej Kadlec showed that these categories are not interchangeable. While “unwrittenness” better captures the normative dimension, the concept of informality often more precisely describes specific procedures, institutions, and practices with constitutional effects.
Alongside conceptual debates, the conference also offered several empirically oriented contributions. Seána Glennon and Vanessa MacDonnell focused on Canadian deliberative mini-publics, while Michal Kovalčík presented a paper on transparency in the nomination of Constitutional Court judges in the Czech Republic, and Diego Platz Pereira addressed the informal dimension of the judiciary. The contributions of Hannah Birkenkötter and Mathieu Leloup in particular brought an international and supranational perspective: using the example of the rule of law in international law and the relationship between domestic informal norms and supranational oversight, they showed that questions of unwrittenness and informality extend far beyond the framework of national constitutional systems.
Another part of the program consisted of contributions focused on constitutional conventions, constitutional culture, and comparative perspective. Oran Doyle opened the methodological question of how to conceptualize conventions for comparative research across different legal systems; Asha Kaushal critically analysed the use and misuse of the concept of constitutional culture in the Canadian context; Sophie Turenne addressed the role of judicial and legal culture in the English constitutional setting; and Mariana Llanos and Alina Ripplinger offered a comparative perspective on constitutional resilience, showing that alongside written guarantees, unwritten constraints, institutional habits, and political restraint also play a crucial role.
This broad comparative perspective was a significant strength of the conference. In addition to examples from England, Canada, and Germany, perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America were also presented. Overall, it was confirmed that constitutional law cannot be fully understood solely through written text: its shape and functioning are also co-determined by unwritten norms, institutional practices, professional cultures, and political expectations. The connection between conceptual debate and concrete comparative examples was among the main contributions of the Brno conference.
David Kosař and Vanessa MacDonnell contributed to the content preparation of the conference. Kateřina Hobzová, Petra Pichaničová, and Šimon Chvojka then ensured the organizational coordination of the event.
Experts in the judiciary discussed key issues surrounding the modernization of justice. The main topics were the digitalization of the judiciary, improving communication with society, and the role of judges in the 21st century. The discussion also focused on effective court management and transparency. Additionally, they debated how courts can better respond to current challenges while maintaining independence.
A workshop on judicial governance will take place in Prague on February 27–28, 2025, focusing on digitalisation, court communication strategies, and judges' extrajudicial activities. This hybrid event invites judges, prosecutors, and legal professionals to engage with experts from across Europe. Participants will gain practical insights while fostering international collaboration.
