Entretien
Spotlight on鈥� Petr Muzny
Petr Muzny is adjunct professor at the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting (FTI), where he began teaching law at BA and MA level, including introductory courses, in 2009. He was awarded a PhD in law in 2004 and passed the law agrégation exam in 2006. He also holds the position of Professor of Public Law at the Université Savoie-Mont-Blanc. Since 2020, he has spent much of his time in court as an international lawyer, defending dozens of victims of human rights abuses every year worldwide. His fields of expertise include legal reasoning and logic, medical law, methods in teaching law, and, first and foremost, human rights. In this interview, he talks about teaching law to non-specialists and discusses his work as a lawyer.
Lisez cet entretien en français
How did you begin teaching at the FTI?
I started at the FTI (back when it was still the École de traduction et d’interprétation - ETI) by chance. I was teaching at the UNIGE law faculty and was talking to the dean when he took a phone call: the ETI was looking for a last-minute substitute law teacher who spoke French, to cover for another professor who was on sick leave. I agreed to step in for one semester, then two, and was appointed adjunct professor in 2009.
Did you enjoy it?
Initially I wondered if I would be bored teaching law to non-specialists, but quite the opposite. First off, the students were keen, and then I found I had to work on my teaching methods to adapt my classes to this new audience. Thirdly, the way classes are taught at the FTI is generally more congenial than at the Law faculty, where we have to follow a very detailed syllabus: there’s no sidestepping some topics that are rather on the dry side. At the FTI, there’s just no way we can cover the entire field of law in around fifty hours across the academic year, so I choose the themes that seem to me the most interesting and relevant.
How do the courses here differ from those at the Law faculty?
A good teacher adapts to the needs of the audience. At the Law faculty, I train students to solve legal problems, which means putting them in professional situations, having them take on the role of lawyer, judge, or legal expert in actual cases. The FTI students have different needs: I put them at ease with the legal texts they are to translate, helping them understand the words, meaning, and logic. But that’s not all. In the words of Hegel, “Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion”. I try to pour motivation into the study of technique and share my passion for the law, or, at least spark an interest in it.
How do you go about it?
There’s content, and there’s style. In terms of content, I show the students that the law is everywhere, all around us, even in bed with us. It’s a powerful tool, if you can understand it and wield it to good effect. Even if the students don’t end up in legal translation professionally, they have everything to gain from understanding the law so that they can use it in their daily lives.
And in terms of style? Interactive classes and learning through play. Getting the students actively involved as much as possible. Docendo discimus: teaching is learning. Putting the students in my place helps them master the content, pinpoint their weaknesses and remember the material more easily. For instance, we start the class with presentations to get them used to public speaking. Then, after a brief session on the content, we move on to the discussion-based exercises. If there are plenty of questions in the debate and I manage to spark their curiosity, job done! What I enjoy most of all is learning something myself from a chance question or comment. We learn so much better through play. I make a real effort to make my classes interactive, trying to present the law in a playful way.
What else do you do outside the FTI?
My work as a lawyer takes up more and more time. I specialise in human rights, which are regularly disregarded. There’s plenty of work for me out there.
Have any of the cases you have defended particularly made their mark on you?
I have been privileged to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights committee, and courts of high jurisdiction like the South Korean supreme court. All the cases involved recognising the right to conscientious objection to military service. My colleagues and I managed to establish it as a right in Europe and globally. I am viscerally of the opinion that a person who is constitutionally unable to take up arms and deeply allergic to violence does not belong in prison. Conscientious objection should be recognised. At the same time, such individuals should be given the option to serve their communities by peaceful, civil means, which are just as beneficial to society. But it calls for patience: changing mentalities takes time.