Michell Travis (Leeds) presents on Law’s Futures: Challenging the Epistemology of the Ever-Present. 

A growing body of work in cultural studies has lamented the slow cancellation of the future. This loss of futurity has resulted in the production of an epistemological ever-present characterised by both its freneticism and lack of social change. This paper analyses this phenomenon through a discussion of neoliberalism and its focus on short term economic goals alongside relentless attacks on the humanities. In terms of law and the law school, these attacks have resulted in a focus on the professionalisation of the law degree, employability metrics and short-term impact related goals rather than longer term structural change.

In order to challenge this this paper advocates for science fiction as a legal method. In doing so the paper examines the important work that science fiction can do in terms of stimulating new and innovative approaches to justice, to providing alternative conceptions of political and legal structures and to extrapolating the dangers of current social trends. This paper utilises science fiction, therefore, as the method through which to examine law’s futures. The humanities must be at the forefront of our fight against the neoliberal ever-present as it presents us with the conceptual tools to think otherwise.

Mitchell Travis is a Professor of Law and Social Justice at the University of Leeds. He is the co-editor of Law, Technology and Human’s special issue ‘Jurisprudence of the Future’ (2022), and two Routledge edited collections Cultural Legal Studies of Science Fiction (2024) and Science Fiction as Legal Imaginary (2024). He is also the co-author of Intersex Embodiment: Legal Frameworks Beyond Identity and Disorder with Bristol University Press.

Xavier Chan (Chinese University of Hong Kong) present on Queer Legal Time and the Architecture of Delay.

Legal recognition can establish a future before that future is made available in practice. Through Sham Tsz Kit v. Secretary for Justice, this talk examines the interval between judicial recognition and implementation, asking how delay shapes the practical meaning of a legal victory.