基础设施发展主义及其多种类型的国际法:联合国可持续发展目标与中国“一带一路”倡议的比较研究

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW London Review of International Law Pub Date : 2022-10-28 DOI:10.1093/lril/lrac017
Alejandro Rodiles
{"title":"基础设施发展主义及其多种类型的国际法:联合国可持续发展目标与中国“一带一路”倡议的比较研究","authors":"Alejandro Rodiles","doi":"10.1093/lril/lrac017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n We are currently witnessing the evolution of two gigantic development programmes: the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Perceived and real differences notwithstanding, both place infrastructures at the heart of global development. The present article analyses the relations between this new developmental thinking and law. The fluid rearrangement of public and private, formal and informal legal frameworks spurred by BRI indicate the emergence of a transnational legal infrastructure both tied to and facilitated by a material pragmatism at odds with China’s rhetorical embracement of international law as we know it. The implementation infrastructure of SDGs, for its part, reveals a resilience-driven style of governance difficult to reconcile with the futurity attaching to the idea of law. While these findings would suggest a retreat from international law, the present article argues that many types of global law are emerging and resurfacing from infrastructural developmentalism.","PeriodicalId":43782,"journal":{"name":"London Review of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Infrastructural developmentalism and its many types of global law: a comparative look at the UN Sustainable Development Goals and China’s Belt and Road Initiative\",\"authors\":\"Alejandro Rodiles\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lril/lrac017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n We are currently witnessing the evolution of two gigantic development programmes: the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Perceived and real differences notwithstanding, both place infrastructures at the heart of global development. The present article analyses the relations between this new developmental thinking and law. The fluid rearrangement of public and private, formal and informal legal frameworks spurred by BRI indicate the emergence of a transnational legal infrastructure both tied to and facilitated by a material pragmatism at odds with China’s rhetorical embracement of international law as we know it. The implementation infrastructure of SDGs, for its part, reveals a resilience-driven style of governance difficult to reconcile with the futurity attaching to the idea of law. While these findings would suggest a retreat from international law, the present article argues that many types of global law are emerging and resurfacing from infrastructural developmentalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"London Review of International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"London Review of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrac017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"London Review of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrac017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前,我们正在见证两大发展计划的演变:联合国可持续发展目标(sdg)和中国的“一带一路”倡议(BRI)。尽管存在明显的和实际的差异,但两者都将基础设施置于全球发展的核心。本文分析了这种新的发展思想与法律的关系。“一带一路”推动的公共和私人、正式和非正式法律框架的流动重新安排表明,一种跨国法律基础设施的出现,既与物质实用主义联系在一起,又受到这种实用主义的推动,而这种实用主义与我们所知的中国对国际法的口头拥抱不一致。就可持续发展目标的实施基础设施而言,它揭示了一种弹性驱动的治理风格,很难与法律理念所附带的未来相协调。虽然这些调查结果可能表明对国际法的退却,但本文认为,许多类型的国际法正在从基础设施发展主义中出现和重新出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Infrastructural developmentalism and its many types of global law: a comparative look at the UN Sustainable Development Goals and China’s Belt and Road Initiative
We are currently witnessing the evolution of two gigantic development programmes: the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Perceived and real differences notwithstanding, both place infrastructures at the heart of global development. The present article analyses the relations between this new developmental thinking and law. The fluid rearrangement of public and private, formal and informal legal frameworks spurred by BRI indicate the emergence of a transnational legal infrastructure both tied to and facilitated by a material pragmatism at odds with China’s rhetorical embracement of international law as we know it. The implementation infrastructure of SDGs, for its part, reveals a resilience-driven style of governance difficult to reconcile with the futurity attaching to the idea of law. While these findings would suggest a retreat from international law, the present article argues that many types of global law are emerging and resurfacing from infrastructural developmentalism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Tracking the civilising mission’s continuities in externalised migration controls: a critical analysis of EU cooperation with third countries ‘Nowhere home’ Doing legality as doing drag: the Yogyakarta Principles and the productive power of performing international law-making Is critique part of the practice of international law? ‘English in taste, Indian in blood’: caste hegemony in the making of British international legal thought
×
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