Miriam Gassner is a professor of legal and constitutional history at the University of Vienna and a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. Currently a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley, she is the author of The Treaty of Sèvres – Treaty Text and Analysis of the Peace Treaty with Turkey of August 10, 1920 in the Context of the Paris Peace Treaties (2023). A former practicing lawyer, she now lectures on the intersection of legal philosophy, theory, and history. Her current research examines the transfer of European legal thought to North and South America by German-speaking legal scholars who emigrated between 1933 and 1945. We had the pleasure of speaking with Gassner about her academic journey and current research.
Can you introduce yourself and talk about the path that led you to your current project?
Miriam Gassner: My name is Miriam Gassner, and I have been an academic since 2021. Before that, I worked as a corporate lawyer for ten years in Austria and Russia, with international law firms. While I was practicing law, I never abandoned my passion for academia—I even taught courses at the University of Vienna during my career.
After completing law school, I pursued a PhD in legal history, focusing on the Habsburgs' international legal relationships with South America, particularly Brazilian and Mexican independence. This research laid the foundation for my academic interests in European legal systems. My legal education began in France, continued in Austria, and included an Erasmus year near Madrid, Spain. My PhD research brought me to Rio de Janeiro, where I conducted fieldwork for two and a half years.
After finishing my PhD, I received a corporate law job offer, which I accepted, but my academic interests remained. Eventually, I transitioned into a teaching role at the University of Vienna while beginning new research at the University of Freiburg. Currently, my research explores how legal thought migrated from Europe to the Americas in the mid-20th century. Specifically, I investigate how German-speaking legal scholars adapted—or resisted adapting—to U.S. legal systems during their forced migrations in the 1930s and 1940s.
What inspired your focus on the migration of legal scholars from Europe to America during the Second World War?
MG: While working on my PhD, I spent a lot of time in South America, particularly in Mexico and Brazil. During that time, I met historians who introduced me to migration patterns of European scientists and academics. Many scholars who couldn’t make it to the United States ended up in Latin America during World War II.
What struck me was the lack of lawyers among these migrants. Digging deeper, I discovered that some European legal scholars did migrate to the U.S., but adapting to a completely different legal system proved extremely challenging. Most ended up switching fields, becoming economists or political scientists instead of continuing their legal careers. This realization uncovered a research gap that I felt uniquely positioned to address, given my background in both law and history.
The more I investigated, the more fascinating the topic became. For instance, I learned about Austrian legislation influenced by émigré jurists who became professors in the United States. My time in South America and the personal connections I formed there were pivotal in shaping my focus on migration and legal thought.
Could you elaborate on your research into European legal scholars migrating to the U.S. during the war?
MG: My research centers on three key figures who successfully continued their legal careers in the U.S. Each had unique characteristics that enabled them to adapt. First, they were relatively young—under 40—which gave them the flexibility to learn a new legal system. Second, they had the financial means to pursue further studies in the U.S., which helped them bridge the gap between European and American legal traditions. Finally, they were proficient in English, a critical factor in navigating the legal jargon of a new system.
Initially, these scholars sought to fully "Americanize." They avoided speaking their native languages, adopted American customs, and worked hard to assimilate. However, over time, as they gained stability and recognition, they began to re-integrate aspects of their European heritage. This gradual return to their roots influenced their professional work, particularly in interdisciplinary approaches like psychoanalytical jurisprudence—a theory they helped develop in the 1970s, decades after their migration.
Does your research highlight any particular schools of legal thought, such as natural law or positivist law?
MG: Yes, my research touches on the challenges of adapting European legal positivism to the U.S. legal context. Legal positivism, which emphasizes a strict separation between law and morality, was dominant in Austria and Germany in the early 20th century. However, in the U.S., this approach was often associated with legal formalism and had fallen out of favor by the time these scholars arrived.
In contrast, the U.S. saw a resurgence of natural law thinking during and after World War II. Natural law emphasizes the moral content of laws, which resonated with the American legal community at the time. This shift created opportunities for European émigré scholars with natural law backgrounds, but those rooted in positivist traditions faced significant challenges.
What are the next steps in your research?
MG: My research has unfolded in several stages. The first phase, conducted in Austria, examined the prevailing schools of thought in Austrian legal education during the early 20th century. I analyzed what was taught, who was teaching, and the role of academic networks in shaping legal careers.
The second phase focused on the networks of Austrian scholars who migrated to the U.S. and how these networks influenced their adaptation. The third phase, now underway, involves analyzing the works these scholars published while in exile. I am investigating whether they assimilated into American legal traditions or preserved and transferred Austrian legal philosophies.
What I’ve found so far is that these scholars developed a hybridized "European law" that was no longer specific to Austria. They adapted their teachings to reflect the broader legal situations in Europe, addressing their American students’ curiosity about European law.
What motivated you to apply for the Eric Schroedinger Fund?
MG: The Schroedinger Fund was essential for enabling my research abroad. Living in California, especially with three young children, is incredibly expensive, so financial support was crucial. The fund provided the resources I needed to relocate and pursue my work at UC Berkeley.
How has the Institute of European Studies (IES) supported your work?
MG: The IES has been invaluable. They helped me navigate the logistical aspects of my move, including my work visa and housing arrangements, which made settling in much easier. They also connected me with other researchers at Berkeley, fostering a supportive academic environment. Their assistance has been instrumental in allowing me to focus on my research.
We want to thank Miriam Gassner for her time and insights.