Comparativism and Colonizing Thinking in International Law

Jean d’Aspremont
{"title":"Comparativism and Colonizing Thinking in International Law","authors":"Jean d’Aspremont","doi":"10.1017/cyl.2020.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Comparison is a very common tool for international lawyers. In fact, international law is built around, and draws upon, constructions necessitating an exercise of comparison. In recent years, however, calls have been made to turn the familiar tool of comparison into a central way to engage with international law. This is the idea of those spearheading the rise of a new field called comparative international law. This article critically examines the promotion of comparison as a central mode of engagement with international law and scrutinizes some of the main features of the comparativist project. It particularly shows that the comparativist project, far from laying bare the plurality of international legal thought and practice, enables a thought-colonizing enterprise. The article ends with some reflective observations on the possibility of limiting colonizing thinking in international legal studies. In doing so, it argues that it must remain possible for international lawyers to engage with alterity in a way that does not unilaterally manufacture the “other,” silence it, and speak on its behalf. This approach is called counter-comparability.","PeriodicalId":52441,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","volume":"57 1","pages":"89 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/cyl.2020.14","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian yearbook of international law. Annuaire canadien de droit international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2020.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Comparison is a very common tool for international lawyers. In fact, international law is built around, and draws upon, constructions necessitating an exercise of comparison. In recent years, however, calls have been made to turn the familiar tool of comparison into a central way to engage with international law. This is the idea of those spearheading the rise of a new field called comparative international law. This article critically examines the promotion of comparison as a central mode of engagement with international law and scrutinizes some of the main features of the comparativist project. It particularly shows that the comparativist project, far from laying bare the plurality of international legal thought and practice, enables a thought-colonizing enterprise. The article ends with some reflective observations on the possibility of limiting colonizing thinking in international legal studies. In doing so, it argues that it must remain possible for international lawyers to engage with alterity in a way that does not unilaterally manufacture the “other,” silence it, and speak on its behalf. This approach is called counter-comparability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际法中的比较主义与殖民主义思想
摘要比较是国际律师常用的工具。事实上,国际法是围绕和借鉴需要进行比较的结构而建立的。然而,近年来,有人呼吁将人们熟悉的比较工具转变为参与国际法的核心方式。这是那些引领一个名为比较国际法的新领域兴起的人的想法。本文批判性地研究了促进比较作为参与国际法的一种中心模式,并仔细审查了比较主义项目的一些主要特征。它特别表明,比较主义项目非但没有暴露出国际法律思想和实践的多元性,反而使一个思想殖民的企业得以实现。文章最后对国际法学研究中限制殖民思维的可能性进行了一些反思性的观察。在这样做的过程中,它辩称,国际律师必须保持可能,以一种不单方面制造“另一方”、使其沉默并代表其发言的方式进行争吵。这种方法被称为反可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Investissement Le Scotland Act Reference, les référendums sur l’indépendance et le droit à l’autodétermination des peuples The Negotiation, Diffusion, and Legacy of NAFTA Chapter 11: An Empirical Eulogy Recovering the Dimensions of Dignity in Religious Freedom: Protecting Religious Proselytization in International Human Rights State International Agreements: The United States, Canada, and Constitutional Evolution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1