Pub Date : 2020-07-30DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1793282
Giulio Calcara
ABSTRACT INTERPOL was not created by a treaty, nor was it created by states. INTERPOL was developed by a group of diverse domestic police officers, who structured the international entity and designed its legal framework in order to co-operate within the limits set by the laws of their respective countries. As a product of the police environment, for many years INTERPOL was constituted in a way that made it look like a private police club, feeding the general confusion concerning the membership, the role, and the legal status of the organisation. Addressing many of the historical traits of INTERPOL provides a key for understanding the reasons behind the current configuration of central parts of INTERPOL's legal framework, as well as their past and present significance. For this purpose, this article explores the history of INTERPOL by presenting fragments of historical legal documents, which are then analysed and contextualised.
{"title":"A transnational police network co-operating up to the limits of the law: examination of the origin of INTERPOL","authors":"Giulio Calcara","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1793282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1793282","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT INTERPOL was not created by a treaty, nor was it created by states. INTERPOL was developed by a group of diverse domestic police officers, who structured the international entity and designed its legal framework in order to co-operate within the limits set by the laws of their respective countries. As a product of the police environment, for many years INTERPOL was constituted in a way that made it look like a private police club, feeding the general confusion concerning the membership, the role, and the legal status of the organisation. Addressing many of the historical traits of INTERPOL provides a key for understanding the reasons behind the current configuration of central parts of INTERPOL's legal framework, as well as their past and present significance. For this purpose, this article explores the history of INTERPOL by presenting fragments of historical legal documents, which are then analysed and contextualised.","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":"521 - 548"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20414005.2020.1793282","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48267587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1835261
C. Bell
ABSTRACT Ungovernance involves circumnavigating disagreement over the nature and purposes of government itself. Ungovernance, despite its name, does not imply a lack of governance and therefore a lack of law, but requires legal techniques to be enabled. While government requires clear stable rules for making laws that ensure that those laws are in turn open, clear, stable and prospective in application, ungovernance is enabled by legal techniques such as: re-iterated constitution-making; institutionalised strategic dissonance; regime assemblage; legalised reset; and legal postponement or deferment (here termed ‘tajility’). This ‘new public law’ retains the same symbiotic relationship to ungovernance that more traditional public law has to governance. Just as the old public law was bound up with the emergence of the modern concept of statehood, the new public law is bound up with a post-post-modern – or performative – ‘fragment statehood’.
{"title":"‘It’s law Jim, but not as we know it’: the public law techniques of ungovernance","authors":"C. Bell","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1835261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1835261","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Ungovernance involves circumnavigating disagreement over the nature and purposes of government itself. Ungovernance, despite its name, does not imply a lack of governance and therefore a lack of law, but requires legal techniques to be enabled. While government requires clear stable rules for making laws that ensure that those laws are in turn open, clear, stable and prospective in application, ungovernance is enabled by legal techniques such as: re-iterated constitution-making; institutionalised strategic dissonance; regime assemblage; legalised reset; and legal postponement or deferment (here termed ‘tajility’). This ‘new public law’ retains the same symbiotic relationship to ungovernance that more traditional public law has to governance. Just as the old public law was bound up with the emergence of the modern concept of statehood, the new public law is bound up with a post-post-modern – or performative – ‘fragment statehood’.","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":"300 - 328"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20414005.2020.1835261","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49228328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1829370
S. Humphreys
ABSTRACT In this article I canvass four kinds or ‘modes’ of ungovernance, which I characterise as agnostic, experimental, inoculative, and catastrophic. I then turn to climate change, and the questions of climate governance and climate equity, which, I argue, exemplify each of these four modes in different ways. The fact of climate change might be characterised as the materialisation of ungovernance, insofar as it is the incidental or accidental outcome of an aggregate of rational decisions underpinned by a vast but selective regulatory apparatus. But more poignantly, the international law apparatus that has grown up around the climate problem presumes and embeds uncertainty regarding any resolution.
{"title":"Ungoverning the climate","authors":"S. Humphreys","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1829370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1829370","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article I canvass four kinds or ‘modes’ of ungovernance, which I characterise as agnostic, experimental, inoculative, and catastrophic. I then turn to climate change, and the questions of climate governance and climate equity, which, I argue, exemplify each of these four modes in different ways. The fact of climate change might be characterised as the materialisation of ungovernance, insofar as it is the incidental or accidental outcome of an aggregate of rational decisions underpinned by a vast but selective regulatory apparatus. But more poignantly, the international law apparatus that has grown up around the climate problem presumes and embeds uncertainty regarding any resolution.","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":"244 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20414005.2020.1829370","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49214392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1830571
Zinaida Miller
ABSTRACT This article argues that fundamental critiques of the transitional justice enterprise paradoxically ended up stabilising it through a mode, style, and experience of (un)governing that I call ‘embedded ambivalence’. Transitional justice has come to be characterised by certainty about its objectives (justice, peace, truth, reconciliation), but also by increasing uneasiness about the efficacy or benefits of its forms (transnational solutions, criminal law, state-based truth inquiries). The enterprise was built on the foundation of transnational and experiential comparison and commensurability, making it possible to incrementally expand the scope, institutions, and modes of regulation as a response to important critiques. Challenges remain, however. While self-critical expansion can improve the enterprise, it can also facilitate the evasion of foundational challenges. Repeated expansion raises questions about how and where to delimit the enterprise. Recent debates over the capacity of transitional justice to incorporate decolonial approaches or a praxis of solidarity highlight these tensions.
{"title":"Embedded ambivalence: ungoverning global justice","authors":"Zinaida Miller","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1830571","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1830571","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article argues that fundamental critiques of the transitional justice enterprise paradoxically ended up stabilising it through a mode, style, and experience of (un)governing that I call ‘embedded ambivalence’. Transitional justice has come to be characterised by certainty about its objectives (justice, peace, truth, reconciliation), but also by increasing uneasiness about the efficacy or benefits of its forms (transnational solutions, criminal law, state-based truth inquiries). The enterprise was built on the foundation of transnational and experiential comparison and commensurability, making it possible to incrementally expand the scope, institutions, and modes of regulation as a response to important critiques. Challenges remain, however. While self-critical expansion can improve the enterprise, it can also facilitate the evasion of foundational challenges. Repeated expansion raises questions about how and where to delimit the enterprise. Recent debates over the capacity of transitional justice to incorporate decolonial approaches or a praxis of solidarity highlight these tensions.","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"231 ","pages":"353 - 381"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20414005.2020.1830571","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41314451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1824482
M. Burgis-Kasthala
ABSTRACT How can we understand the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis in the wake of the Oslo regime and to what extent has it facilitated the realisation of Palestinian statehood? Rather than read the Oslo regime as a prelude towards peace and resolution, instead, it has been productive of failure. In understanding how this came to pass and how this state of failure persists, the article argues that ungovernance is an instructive approach, which highlights how Israeli control is achieved through a series of disruptions: severing people from the land, severing rule from responsibility and severing statehood from self-government. After discussing the shape of the Oslo regime, this article explores how ungovernance is practiced across the Palestinian territories through the misgovernance of micro practices that produce a population in disorientation and despair.
{"title":"States of failure? Ungovernance and the project of state-building in Palestine under the Oslo regime*","authors":"M. Burgis-Kasthala","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1824482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1824482","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT How can we understand the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis in the wake of the Oslo regime and to what extent has it facilitated the realisation of Palestinian statehood? Rather than read the Oslo regime as a prelude towards peace and resolution, instead, it has been productive of failure. In understanding how this came to pass and how this state of failure persists, the article argues that ungovernance is an instructive approach, which highlights how Israeli control is achieved through a series of disruptions: severing people from the land, severing rule from responsibility and severing statehood from self-government. After discussing the shape of the Oslo regime, this article explores how ungovernance is practiced across the Palestinian territories through the misgovernance of micro practices that produce a population in disorientation and despair.","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":"382 - 407"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20414005.2020.1824482","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46729341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1822071
J. Pospíšil
ABSTRACT Resolving armed conflict by forging an inclusive political settlement is the contemporary paradigm of international peacebuilding. War-to-peace transitions are envisioned as a sequenced process, cumulating in a signed comprehensive peace agreement as the central cornerstone on the pathway to normal politics. However, the reality of peace processes appears ungoverned. While peace negotiations may succeed in formalising political unsettlement at play and to tame violence, they regularly fail in resolving the radical disagreement at the heart of the conflict. Liberal peace governance, resting on the pillars of settlement, resolution, and relation, is unlikely to deliver its promised outcomes. The irresolvable discrepancy between the promise of liberal peace and its inability to deliver is the background against which peace ungovernance emerges. It operates under the premise of non-closure in enduring transitions, where time, space, and relationality are not subject to an agreed common understanding, but elements of strategy and politics.
{"title":"The ungovernance of peace: transitional processes in contemporary conflictscapes","authors":"J. Pospíšil","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1822071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1822071","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Resolving armed conflict by forging an inclusive political settlement is the contemporary paradigm of international peacebuilding. War-to-peace transitions are envisioned as a sequenced process, cumulating in a signed comprehensive peace agreement as the central cornerstone on the pathway to normal politics. However, the reality of peace processes appears ungoverned. While peace negotiations may succeed in formalising political unsettlement at play and to tame violence, they regularly fail in resolving the radical disagreement at the heart of the conflict. Liberal peace governance, resting on the pillars of settlement, resolution, and relation, is unlikely to deliver its promised outcomes. The irresolvable discrepancy between the promise of liberal peace and its inability to deliver is the background against which peace ungovernance emerges. It operates under the premise of non-closure in enduring transitions, where time, space, and relationality are not subject to an agreed common understanding, but elements of strategy and politics.","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":"329 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20414005.2020.1822071","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49296652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1825036
Dimitri Van Den Meerssche, G. Gordon
ABSTRACT Our contribution describes a reorientation in the intelligibility of governance practices authorised under international law. Observing the World Bank, we narrate new managerial attitudes and organisational routines that exhibit heightened ‘risk appetites’. Risk and complexity are no longer seen as limiting conditions on the institutional project, but as co-constitutive elements and constructive tools, including new sets of heuristics aimed at governing with and through contingency and unknowability. The practices that we observe are characterised by adaptive, iterative and recursive routines, flexibly attuned to immanent possibilities and aims of resilience. We situate these changes in a genealogy of governmentality, focusing on the relation to a ‘surplus of life’, or unruly elements of populations that persistently escape productive incorporation into the closure of institutional programmes. The World Bank’s turn to resilience as a particular rationality of reform signals an institutional attempt to enrol what has escaped prior efforts at determinate institutional intervention.
{"title":"‘A new normative architecture’ – risk and resilience as routines of un-governance","authors":"Dimitri Van Den Meerssche, G. Gordon","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1825036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1825036","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Our contribution describes a reorientation in the intelligibility of governance practices authorised under international law. Observing the World Bank, we narrate new managerial attitudes and organisational routines that exhibit heightened ‘risk appetites’. Risk and complexity are no longer seen as limiting conditions on the institutional project, but as co-constitutive elements and constructive tools, including new sets of heuristics aimed at governing with and through contingency and unknowability. The practices that we observe are characterised by adaptive, iterative and recursive routines, flexibly attuned to immanent possibilities and aims of resilience. We situate these changes in a genealogy of governmentality, focusing on the relation to a ‘surplus of life’, or unruly elements of populations that persistently escape productive incorporation into the closure of institutional programmes. The World Bank’s turn to resilience as a particular rationality of reform signals an institutional attempt to enrol what has escaped prior efforts at determinate institutional intervention.","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":"267 - 299"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20414005.2020.1825036","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46513754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1824515
Deval Desai, A. Lang
ABSTRACT We sketch a novel mode of governance—‘global ungovernance’ (GU)—which draws on and informs the articles in this special issue. GU operates in the context of transnational institution-building projects which at once pursue big visions with claims to universality (eg, building ‘markets’ or the ‘rule of law’), and at the same time offer no adequate prescriptions. We argue that the ‘impossibility of closure’ becomes a central problematic of practical activity in GU—by which we mean the ultimate practical impossibility of matching institutional structures with desired outcomes in these contexts. Viewed as a set of organised practices, GU evinces a commitment both to pursue closure and to embrace its impossibility, equally competently and even at the same time. As a result, GU changes the nature, purpose and conditions of possibility of institution-building techniques and practices.
{"title":"Introduction: global un-governance","authors":"Deval Desai, A. Lang","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1824515","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1824515","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We sketch a novel mode of governance—‘global ungovernance’ (GU)—which draws on and informs the articles in this special issue. GU operates in the context of transnational institution-building projects which at once pursue big visions with claims to universality (eg, building ‘markets’ or the ‘rule of law’), and at the same time offer no adequate prescriptions. We argue that the ‘impossibility of closure’ becomes a central problematic of practical activity in GU—by which we mean the ultimate practical impossibility of matching institutional structures with desired outcomes in these contexts. Viewed as a set of organised practices, GU evinces a commitment both to pursue closure and to embrace its impossibility, equally competently and even at the same time. As a result, GU changes the nature, purpose and conditions of possibility of institution-building techniques and practices.","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":"219 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20414005.2020.1824515","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44963688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-11DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1777519
Pierre Cloutier de Repentigny
As marine life spirals towards mass extinction in this age of the Anthropocene, law seems incapable of preventing negative human impacts on marine biodiversity. As humanity realises its geological ...
{"title":"To the Anthropocene and Beyond: The Responsibility of Law in Decimating and Protecting Marine Life","authors":"Pierre Cloutier de Repentigny","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1777519","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1777519","url":null,"abstract":"As marine life spirals towards mass extinction in this age of the Anthropocene, law seems incapable of preventing negative human impacts on marine biodiversity. As humanity realises its geological ...","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"112 14","pages":"180-196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141216789","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/20414005.2020.1748483
Peter D. Burdon
ABSTRACT The issue motivating this article is the extent to which ecological legal thinking needs to change and adapt to the Anthropocene. My contention is that legal scholars tend to use the notion of the ‘Anthropocene’ as a synonym for the extreme impact human beings are having on the environment. Yet, few go further and consider whether the intellectual foundations or prescriptive proposals of ecological law have been challenged by Earth systems science. This is precisely the gap I intended to address in this article. Part one provides a descriptive summary of key findings in Earth systems science. Following this, part two presents two challenges to ecological lawyers. First I argue that we ought to abandon attempts to formulate a non-anthropocentric theory of law and embrace descriptive and perceptual forms of anthropocentrism. Second, I argue that earth systems science undermines many versions of ecological integrity found in legislation around the world.
{"title":"Ecological law in the Anthropocene","authors":"Peter D. Burdon","doi":"10.1080/20414005.2020.1748483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2020.1748483","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The issue motivating this article is the extent to which ecological legal thinking needs to change and adapt to the Anthropocene. My contention is that legal scholars tend to use the notion of the ‘Anthropocene’ as a synonym for the extreme impact human beings are having on the environment. Yet, few go further and consider whether the intellectual foundations or prescriptive proposals of ecological law have been challenged by Earth systems science. This is precisely the gap I intended to address in this article. Part one provides a descriptive summary of key findings in Earth systems science. Following this, part two presents two challenges to ecological lawyers. First I argue that we ought to abandon attempts to formulate a non-anthropocentric theory of law and embrace descriptive and perceptual forms of anthropocentrism. Second, I argue that earth systems science undermines many versions of ecological integrity found in legislation around the world.","PeriodicalId":37728,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Legal Theory","volume":"11 1","pages":"33 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20414005.2020.1748483","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47252947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：