Paradigms of governance are defined in part by paradigms of contestation—stockpiles of culturally legible tactics for contesting power. This article analyzes the growing use of hard-block and mutual aid tactics in Metulia (sometimes called Victoria, B.C.) as exemplars that suggest liberal paradigms of contestation may be becoming less rigid. Drawing on Robert Cover and Charles Tilly, I argue that the present conjuncture is not, as many analyses suggest, merely a tipping point between one paradigm and the next. Rather, it is a creative moment of experimentation and indeterminacy defined by multiple crises, multiple emergences, and their unpredictable interactions.
{"title":"Pandemics and Paradigms of Contestation","authors":"Keith Cherry","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.26","url":null,"abstract":"Paradigms of governance are defined in part by paradigms of contestation—stockpiles of culturally legible tactics for contesting power. This article analyzes the growing use of hard-block and mutual aid tactics in Metulia (sometimes called Victoria, B.C.) as exemplars that suggest liberal paradigms of contestation may be becoming less rigid. Drawing on Robert Cover and Charles Tilly, I argue that the present conjuncture is not, as many analyses suggest, merely a tipping point between one paradigm and the next. Rather, it is a creative moment of experimentation and indeterminacy defined by multiple crises, multiple emergences, and their unpredictable interactions.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139926750","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}
Is the COVID-19 pandemic a critical juncture? An emerging social scientific scholarship on the COVID-19 pandemic has set out to study its effects on a range of social, political, and economic phenomena. Some of this scholarship theorizes that the COVID-19 pandemic is one of those rarest and most impactful moments in time, what historical institutionalists would call a “critical juncture”. This article tests a COVID-19 critical juncture hypothesis by conducting a theory-infirming case study of recent multilingual developments in the United States. Process tracing of federal and state multilingual trajectories reveal that two of the hypothesis’ observable implications are absent: there is no evidence of radical institutional change and ostensibly “new” multilingual pathways were in fact established prior to the pandemic. In light of this evidence, the article concludes by discussing alternative understandings of COVID-19’s effects and this might mean for the study of the pandemic moving forward.
{"title":"Is the COVID-19 Pandemic a Critical Juncture? Insight from the Study of “New” Multilingual Governance Techniques","authors":"Arjun Tremblay","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.27","url":null,"abstract":"Is the COVID-19 pandemic a critical juncture? An emerging social scientific scholarship on the COVID-19 pandemic has set out to study its effects on a range of social, political, and economic phenomena. Some of this scholarship theorizes that the COVID-19 pandemic is one of those rarest and most impactful moments in time, what historical institutionalists would call a “critical juncture”. This article tests a COVID-19 critical juncture hypothesis by conducting a theory-infirming case study of recent multilingual developments in the United States. Process tracing of federal and state multilingual trajectories reveal that two of the hypothesis’ observable implications are absent: there is no evidence of radical institutional change and ostensibly “new” multilingual pathways were in fact established prior to the pandemic. In light of this evidence, the article concludes by discussing alternative understandings of COVID-19’s effects and this might mean for the study of the pandemic moving forward.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139918023","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}
This article reflects on the global uprisings in support of Black life during the early pandemic. The focus is on what the protests reveal about Black resistance to the nation-building project of Canada. Protests during this period are understood here to have included taking to the streets, practicing care, and calling for abolition. Drawing on critical race theory and Black Studies, especially Black feminism, the author claims these forms of protest condemned Black dispossession under Canadian laws, while they simultaneously exceeded Canada’s jurisdiction. In other words, the protests can be understood ambivalently, as occurring under and responding to, but not being of, domination. They refashioned the self and the collective, expressing transient freedom from domination and partial redress, even as settler colonial laws would continue to suppress Black and other subaltern peoples. The article navigates such insights through works by Dionne Brand, Saidiya Hartman, and Katherine McKittrick, among others.
{"title":"To Protest for Black Life during the Pandemic: Resistance and Freedom in a Settler State","authors":"Sarah Riley Case","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.24","url":null,"abstract":"This article reflects on the global uprisings in support of Black life during the early pandemic. The focus is on what the protests reveal about Black resistance to the nation-building project of Canada. Protests during this period are understood here to have included taking to the streets, practicing care, and calling for abolition. Drawing on critical race theory and Black Studies, especially Black feminism, the author claims these forms of protest condemned Black dispossession under Canadian laws, while they simultaneously exceeded Canada’s jurisdiction. In other words, the protests can be understood ambivalently, as occurring under and responding to, but not being of, domination. They refashioned the self and the collective, expressing transient freedom from domination and partial redress, even as settler colonial laws would continue to suppress Black and other subaltern peoples. The article navigates such insights through works by Dionne Brand, Saidiya Hartman, and Katherine McKittrick, among others.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139926790","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}
Power, while fundamental to sociality, might be exercised with haphazard ferocity or more judiciously in legally constrained ways. Such constraint requires us first to understand how ruling paradigms work, and the effects of their powers, before entertaining suitable forms of legal limitation. Transposing Kuhn’s famous concept, this paper examines a ruling paradigm of biopolitical sovereignty at the Cape of Good Hope through two examples: the 1891 census’ racialized categorizations of the “population”; and a racialized segregation responding to the 1901 bubonic plague. Prefiguring apartheid, both examples indicate how colonial laws authorized discretionary biopowers and yet exempted themselves from monitoring how officials demarcated and governed racialized population groups. The paper touches on the growing maladroitness of positivist ideas about a sovereign “rule of law” in regulating arbitrary biopolitical forces. It concludes by briefly indicating the promise of legal pluralism and Indigenous legalities to check capricious biopowers while pursuing legitimate life-affirming forces.
{"title":"Plaguing Segregations: Paradigms of Rule at The Cape of Good Hope","authors":"George Pavlich","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.25","url":null,"abstract":"Power, while fundamental to sociality, might be exercised with haphazard ferocity or more judiciously in legally constrained ways. Such constraint requires us first to understand how ruling paradigms work, and the effects of their powers, before entertaining suitable forms of legal limitation. Transposing Kuhn’s famous concept, this paper examines a ruling paradigm of biopolitical sovereignty at the Cape of Good Hope through two examples: the 1891 census’ racialized categorizations of the “population”; and a racialized segregation responding to the 1901 bubonic plague. Prefiguring apartheid, both examples indicate how colonial laws authorized discretionary biopowers and yet exempted themselves from monitoring how officials demarcated and governed racialized population groups. The paper touches on the growing maladroitness of positivist ideas about a sovereign “rule of law” in regulating arbitrary biopolitical forces. It concludes by briefly indicating the promise of legal pluralism and Indigenous legalities to check capricious biopowers while pursuing legitimate life-affirming forces.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"173 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139928610","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}
Résumé Cet article porte sur les effets et les contraintes posés par la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les mécanismes de la gouvernance dans le système fédéral canadien. Pour ce faire, nous empruntons un cadre analytique bien spécifique, que nous faisons découler expressément des réflexions de la Cour suprême du Canada dans son Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec. Nous nous intéressons ainsi aux quatre principes sous-jacents à la Constitution canadienne identifiés par la Cour – soit le fédéralisme, la démocratie, le constitutionnalisme et la primauté du droit, de même que la protection des minorités – et à leur respect (ou non-respect) en temps de crise. Nous posons la question suivante : dans quelle mesure l’esprit de ces quatre principes constitutionnels fondamentaux a-t-il été respecté par les acteurs clés du système de gouvernance au Canada alors qu’ils étaient confrontés à la pandémie de COVID-19?
{"title":"Gouvernance et démocratie fédérale en temps de crise : quelques leçons tirées de la pandémie de COVID-19 au Canada","authors":"Dave Guénette, Félix Mathieu","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.23","url":null,"abstract":"Résumé Cet article porte sur les effets et les contraintes posés par la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les mécanismes de la gouvernance dans le système fédéral canadien. Pour ce faire, nous empruntons un cadre analytique bien spécifique, que nous faisons découler expressément des réflexions de la Cour suprême du Canada dans son <jats:italic>Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec.</jats:italic> Nous nous intéressons ainsi aux quatre principes sous-jacents à la Constitution canadienne identifiés par la Cour – soit le fédéralisme, la démocratie, le constitutionnalisme et la primauté du droit, de même que la protection des minorités – et à leur respect (ou non-respect) en temps de crise. Nous posons la question suivante : dans quelle mesure l’esprit de ces quatre principes constitutionnels fondamentaux a-t-il été respecté par les acteurs clés du système de gouvernance au Canada alors qu’ils étaient confrontés à la pandémie de COVID-19?","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"286 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139918025","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}
Questions concerning border closures during pandemics often focus on international borders or rights-based considerations. Closures of internal borders in federal countries, such as Canada, raise independent concerns regarding who can close internal borders when. Those questions are not exhausted by rights-based considerations and cannot be resolved using brute empirical measures. They instead implicate the nature and ends of federalism. This text uses the case of internal border restrictions in Canada during COVID-19 to explore whether the kinds of closures that took place there can be justified on federalism grounds. It argues that the case for provinces being able to unilaterally enact interprovincial border closures in federal countries, as observed in Canada during COVID-19, do not withstand scrutiny. It attends to possible justifications for federalism to demonstrate that the best arguments for federalism do not support provincial control over borders that justify provinces possessing, let alone exercising, unilateral authority to close interprovincial borders to persons residing in other provinces.
{"title":"Public Health, Internal Borders, and the Ends of Federalism","authors":"Michael Da Silva","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.22","url":null,"abstract":"Questions concerning border closures during pandemics often focus on international borders or rights-based considerations. Closures of internal borders in federal countries, such as Canada, raise independent concerns regarding who can close internal borders when. Those questions are not exhausted by rights-based considerations and cannot be resolved using brute empirical measures. They instead implicate the nature and ends of federalism. This text uses the case of internal border restrictions in Canada during COVID-19 to explore whether the kinds of closures that took place there can be justified on federalism grounds. It argues that the case for provinces being able to unilaterally enact interprovincial border closures in federal countries, as observed in Canada during COVID-19, do not withstand scrutiny. It attends to possible justifications for federalism to demonstrate that the best arguments for federalism do not support provincial control over borders that justify provinces possessing, let alone exercising, unilateral authority to close interprovincial borders to persons residing in other provinces.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139926784","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}
La pandémie de COVID-19 représente-t-elle véritablement un moment charnière pour la gouvernance contemporaine? Cette question suscite de multiples réponses de même qu’une grande variété de débats et de perspectives. D’un côté se trouvent ceux qui soutiennent ardemment que cette pandémie constitue un événement historique des plus rares, aux répercussions profondes, notamment dans le domaine du droit et de la gouvernance. En revanche, d’autres prétendent que la pandémie, plutôt que de marquer le début d’une ère nouvelle, a principalement amplifié et prolongé les paradigmes préexistants de la gouvernance. Par ailleurs, d’aucuns affirment que la pandémie a revigoré et revitalisé les mouvements sociaux axés sur la remise en question des structures étatiques établies.
{"title":"Pandémies et paradigmes de gouvernance : quels futurs pour l’État de droit au XXIe siècle?","authors":"Amy Swiffen, Joshua Nichols","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.29","url":null,"abstract":"La pandémie de COVID-19 représente-t-elle véritablement un moment charnière pour la gouvernance contemporaine? Cette question suscite de multiples réponses de même qu’une grande variété de débats et de perspectives. D’un côté se trouvent ceux qui soutiennent ardemment que cette pandémie constitue un événement historique des plus rares, aux répercussions profondes, notamment dans le domaine du droit et de la gouvernance. En revanche, d’autres prétendent que la pandémie, plutôt que de marquer le début d’une ère nouvelle, a principalement amplifié et prolongé les paradigmes préexistants de la gouvernance. Par ailleurs, d’aucuns affirment que la pandémie a revigoré et revitalisé les mouvements sociaux axés sur la remise en question des structures étatiques établies.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139926786","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}
Abstract Mining has been at the forefront of coloniality for hundreds of years in Brazil, representing one of the main threats to the integrity and health of Indigenous lands. The 1988 Brazilian Constitution recognized Indigenous peoples’ rights to the lands they occupy, and their natural resources, according to their traditions, uses, beliefs, and practices. Constitutional provisions, however, have not impeded governments and lawmakers from actively enabling extractive activities in Indigenous territories and their surroundings. Recently, the Bolsonaro government proposed a package of laws and policies to legalize mineral exploitation on Indigenous lands, using the economic uncertainties generated by the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification. However, this action must be explained through the paradigms (or philosophical frameworks) of the extractive economy and coloniality of power, operationalized by necropolitics. The article’s main argument is that the Constitution requires the government to engage in practices of decoloniality that express Indigenous legal traditions. Even though a newly elected government has been revoking many of Bolsonaro’s proposals, the paradigms of the extractive economy and the coloniality of power have a profound, structural influence on the Brazilian legal and political systems and must be challenged by a revival of decolonial ways of thinking and acting.
{"title":"The Pandemic’s Golden Touch: (Neo)Extractivism, Coloniality, and Necropolitics on Brazil’s Indigenous Territories","authors":"Rebeca B. Macias Gimenez","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.28","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Mining has been at the forefront of coloniality for hundreds of years in Brazil, representing one of the main threats to the integrity and health of Indigenous lands. The 1988 Brazilian Constitution recognized Indigenous peoples’ rights to the lands they occupy, and their natural resources, according to their traditions, uses, beliefs, and practices. Constitutional provisions, however, have not impeded governments and lawmakers from actively enabling extractive activities in Indigenous territories and their surroundings. Recently, the Bolsonaro government proposed a package of laws and policies to legalize mineral exploitation on Indigenous lands, using the economic uncertainties generated by the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification. However, this action must be explained through the paradigms (or philosophical frameworks) of the extractive economy and coloniality of power, operationalized by necropolitics. The article’s main argument is that the Constitution requires the government to engage in practices of decoloniality that express Indigenous legal traditions. Even though a newly elected government has been revoking many of Bolsonaro’s proposals, the paradigms of the extractive economy and the coloniality of power have a profound, structural influence on the Brazilian legal and political systems and must be challenged by a revival of decolonial ways of thinking and acting.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"63 24","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136347878","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}
{"title":"Pierre Rousseau\u0000Une véritable justice équitable, décolonisée, par et pour les peuples autochtones. Québec : Presses de l’Université Laval, 2023, 220 pp.","authors":"F. Robert","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.13","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43460632","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}
Abstract We examine the use of forced confinement and isolation to limit the spread of COVID-19 in Ontario prisons and jails. Drawing on interview data, we illustrate how a reliance on forced confinement and isolation has exacerbated harms experienced by prisoners in relation to physical, mental, and social health. Through discourse analysis of grey literature, we then discuss the politics and governance of carceral institutions during the pandemic, focusing on how practices of isolation were legitimized during the pandemic, despite recent rulings establishing isolation and segregation as torture. We close by arguing that the case of isolation during the pandemic is one example which highlights the systemic and ongoing nature of rights violations in Canadian prisons and jails. To address these harms, we must shift focus away from reform and towards decarceration.
{"title":"Governing Risk Through Forced Confinement: Clawback of Pre-Pandemic Reforms","authors":"Jessica Evans, Linda Mussell","doi":"10.1017/cls.2023.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2023.15","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We examine the use of forced confinement and isolation to limit the spread of COVID-19 in Ontario prisons and jails. Drawing on interview data, we illustrate how a reliance on forced confinement and isolation has exacerbated harms experienced by prisoners in relation to physical, mental, and social health. Through discourse analysis of grey literature, we then discuss the politics and governance of carceral institutions during the pandemic, focusing on how practices of isolation were legitimized during the pandemic, despite recent rulings establishing isolation and segregation as torture. We close by arguing that the case of isolation during the pandemic is one example which highlights the systemic and ongoing nature of rights violations in Canadian prisons and jails. To address these harms, we must shift focus away from reform and towards decarceration.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135002430","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：