GRONINGEN’S EU CITIZENSHIP EXPERT- PROFESSOR DIMITRY KOCHENOV
CHAIR IN EU CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CO-FOUNDER OF THE INVESTMENT MIGRATION COUNCIL, BELOVED EU LAW LECTURER, PROFESSOR DIMITRY KOCHENOV IS MANY THINGS. NOW, WE GET A GLIMPSE INTO THE MIND OF THE MAN BEHIND ALL THESE TITLES.
Photo Credits: Eleonora Rossi (c)
Interview by: Jochelle Greaves Siew
Background
Q: Why did you choose to come to Groningen?
A: It’s actually because of Laurence Gormley. When I was studying at the Central European University for my master’s degree, the standard textbook that was used in EU law was Kapteyn and VerLoren van Themaat, an old classical work. The English version was written by Laurence. I think it’s still the most detailed book, a splendid encyclopaedia of EU law still overwhelmingly relevant today. Its footnotes are an absolute delight. They even contain references to parliamentary questions in the European Parliament that can shed light on the Commission’s understanding and cover some particular features of EU law which are not covered in research. So, like many others around the world, I knew Laurence’s name, John Griffiths’ name, but I had never heard of Groningen. My friend at the time made me apply. I already had an invitation from CEU to stay on at the graduate programme. When you’re already at the university you love and someone tells you to apply to somewhere you don’t know, you become hesitant, but the book I spent many months studying was too good not to trust Laurence’s name.
I expressed surprise at the reason.
A: Well, law has changed since then; the faculty has changed since then – and I am proud to have contributed to this change as much as I could. The university has acquired a growing international profile and reputation. The irony is that I was not at all a novice to the Netherlands as a student: I did my Erasmus at UvA in Amsterdam as an exchange student under Professor Eijsbouts and have never heard the word ‘Groningen’ even then among my friends who were coming from all kinds of countries, but not this one. Now it is different of course – plenty of brilliant colleagues are making this possible.
Q: How did your initial experience in Groningen compare to your experience in Hungary?
A: Well, CEU is a very good university. I actually came here to do my own work, so my experience was radically different from what I experienced in the past. That’s exactly why I left CEU and never applied to a U.S. school. I didn’t want to do any courses, and the majority of PhD programs in the world, especially in the U.S., make you sit through a number of exams before you can actually write. I agree with Brodsky – the only real study is self-study. This is what made the Netherlands overwhelmingly attractive. Here, my initial idea was to work on my research, nothing else. So, ironically, I think it’s precisely the lack of courses that was the main added value of a Dutch university for me. I know now it’s changing around from university to university but for me it’s not a positive change because the value of self-discipline, simply leaving people alone in library, is somehow underestimated. It shouldn’t be.
Q: What led you to academia in particular, rather than becoming a lawyer?
A: I never wanted to practice law. My father is a habilitated doctor teaching Medicine at the University alongside his surgery practice and my mother is a practicing doctor too. I had never doubted that I would become a doctor myself. The only question was what field I would enter.
In Russia, where I come from, the entrance exams were very strict at the time. However, during the year when I graduated from high school, law was the most competitive faculty, not medicine, so I applied for law. I couldn’t explain it to my parents. They saw it as a whimsical, strange, disruptive decision. They genuinely couldn’t understand it. I actually studied at two faculties at the same time. I studied French history alongside law. French history and French Culture was much more interesting. I kind of cheated because in the law, as it stood at that moment, you were entitled to a free degree if you passed exams and qualified as a student within the top percentage. Since there was such poor communication between the government and the universities, they, in fact, paid for my two degrees. Both universities helped, of course, there was a kind of cooperation between the two. Now I can confess because I think the statutory limitation is up. The Russian law degree was so revoltingly bad, not to say absurd, that I don’t regret combining it with something else. Besides a year at CEU, I consider myself a self-educated person. CEU was different: this is where I realized how much I have lost by going to a Russian law faculty at all. Virtually all my ‘law’ term papers in Russia were in fact in other disciplines from sociology and African family structures, to Japanese history – all taught by brilliant professors coming from other faculties and only affiliated part time with the law school. Studying law in Russia was not even funny: from what they called legal theory to the history of law – the atmosphere was of intellectually sterile self-content hypocrisy. The only escape were the plentiful subjects on the curriculum whom the professors of law there deemed irrelevant: so many jewels amongst them! The Professor of Japanese History, for instance, was from a different faculty and, to him, Japanese law was only an asterisk to the general subject. In terms of studying Soviet law, you can laugh at a lot of things and it is useful: it teaches healthy skepticism about law as such, which I cherish a lot. Self-irony helps a great deal when dealing with EU law too, of course.
Practicalities and Career
Q: Would you say you prefer research or actually lecturing?
A: The two are connected. If you don’t do research in the subject in which you lecture then I think you cannot truly, in all honesty, call yourself a professor. In such a case, you are a tutor, coach or whatever: replaceable by a robot, unnecessary. Teaching and pushing people to think a little bit is impossible without thinking about the subject matter yourself. And you do not really start thinking by reading other people’s work. It is indispensable to contribute to the literature. So, I’m always puzzled by all these staff members appointed by some universities in the UK only to teach. I find it utterly absurd. It means that, by definition, they will fail to give students the proper academic experience. The value of retelling a textbook is nil.
Q: Do you have any advice for anyone who wants to enter academia?
A: Just make sure you like this idea because if you don’t, you will find yourself in hell. If you consider it a life choice that will feed your family, good luck with that because you will be much poorer than the majority of your peers practicing law and have a much more hectic schedule. It requires a lot of travel to ensure that your ideas are taking root and spreading. Of course, there are introverted academics who live in the library and that’s it, but it is becoming more difficult to live a life like that unfortunately, as the general prestige of academic knowledge is in steep decline in contemporary world.
Q: How did you get involved in the Investment Migration Council?
A: I co-founded it. It’s not about involvement, it’s about starting. I advised the Maltese government on their citizenship law reform and that’s when I started discussing it with other colleagues involved practicing lawyers, government officials and academics. There is no neutral body that can connect all the players in the investment migration industry and the IMC tries to do precisely that. My key task at the IMC is the academic side of the organization: we have a strong record for such a young body. Several top-notch papers are available for free at www.investmentmigration.org/academic and the list is growing. We would publish more, but numerous submissions do not pass peer review and we do not publish anything the reviewers are negative about. The idea is to disseminate top-quality research. This is one of my hobbies, ultimately, just like the Quality of Nationality Index, which I release annually together with Henley & Partners and compile together with colleagues and friends, especially Justin Lindeboom, who is at our faculty.
Behind the Office Door
Q: What’s your inspiration that keeps you going?
A: I love what I do. This is also what Einstein advised to people. In order to have a worthy life, just try to find something that you enjoy. This is exactly what I enjoy – legal writing and finding the lacunae in the proper functioning of the law. If there are holes, you outline those and fill them in and help every user of the law. Of course, instructing students is another overwhelming and delightful area of exchange. When there is a big lecture, especially when I particularly love the subject, for instance EU Citizenship, I open my eyes in the morning and I really look forward to it. I don’t care about the weather or whatever else is going on. Or, when I’m writing a book, sometimes I regret that I need to go to sleep because I simply love putting the text on the page. I want to continue. It’s not only words. Law has feelings. It’s its own world. To try to describe it and understand it is very fascinating.
Q: Is there anything that you haven’t done that you would like to do, like a bucket list?
A: Well, I don’t do lists. I believe that our desires and aspirations change. What you might find absolutely unattractive today might suddenly become the purpose of your life tomorrow. I never thought I would write a popular book or non-academic book to present legal notions using popular language for a lay audience. Now I’m writing precisely that day and night. Only corpses don’t change their mind. Bucket lists are only useful if you plan to keep them and look back at yourself a couple of years later to smile at your own naïveté. Otherwise, it’s ill advised to keep those things. I try not to do what I don’t consider worthwhile and then maybe someone manages to make me change my mind. For instance, with the popular book when the press approached me I said I don’t do popular books. They sent me many samples and I decided it’s not a terrible idea and to be open to it.
Q: What is a must-read book that you can recommend?
A: A couple of hundred come to mind. There are plenty since you keep on reading and fascinations change. I very much like Adorno on the culture industry. It’s an old series of essays but it’s as acute now as when he wrote it.
Q: What’s your favourite genre?
A: I read a lot of poetry but buy all kind of books. Every time I return from a trip, the post box is usually so full that books spill on my desk. I moved here from Russia with one book of poetry and now I have thousands lying around everywhere. This is what gives me a sense of peace and place.
Q: What has been your favourite vacation spot?
A: I don’t go on vacation. Why would you go on vacation? I find it so bizarre. I have plenty of favourite destinations I’ve been to. However, vacation is a concept that you use if you hate your work or have a sense that you sell your time in a way that doesn’t give you a sense of accomplishment to such a degree that you want to interrupt your work. It is a sign that you are not satisfied with what you put your efforts to. Vacation is only an added value for those who do what they don’t like. Otherwise it is an interruption in the activity you find rewarding, so it would not be a good idea. Imagine a painter on vacation or Derek Walcott sitting on the beach on St Lucia trying hard not to write a poem. This is simply absurd.
*END*
Stay tuned for more of our Faculty Features and contact us with any queries or comments.