Tous les articles par laetitiaguerlain

call for writing-up fellowships at the Department “Law & Anthropology” at the Max planck institute for Social Anthropology in Halle

Max-Planck-Institut für ethnologische Forschung
Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology

The Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology is one of the leading centres for research in socialanthropology. Common to all research projects at the Max Planck Institute is the comparative analysis of social change; it is primarily in this domain that its researchers contribute to anthropological theory, though many programmes also have applied significance and political topicality.

The Law & Anthropology Department invites applications for Dissertation writing-up fellowships


One of the aims of the Law & Anthropology Department is to offer a stimulating interdisciplinary forum whereboth anthropologists and lawyers can engage with one another and conduct cutting-edge, policy-relevant research linked to the intensification of exchanges and encounters among and between societies, communities and cultures in today’s world. This calls for an in-depth assessment of the ways in which different normative orders and systems of morality coexist at various levels of decision-making.

The Law & Anthropology Department offers writing-up fellowships to enable doctoral candidates in the final stage of their programme to spend up to 6 months at the Institute to take advantage of its resources while finalizing their dissertations. The topic must be of immediate relevance to the Department’s research programme (see: The fellow must be prepared to participate in the activities of the Department during the fellowship period, and is expected to submit a working paper that addresses the topic of his or her research. A presentation of the doctoral research will be included in the Department’s seminar series.

A clear understanding must be reached in advance between the Director of the Department and the candidate’s principal supervisor regarding how the candidate can take fullest advantage of this period and how the home university and the Max Planck Institute can collaborate in the best interests of the candidate and of both institutions.

The writing-up fellowships can begin either in September 2019 or January 2020. The grants will be awarded for a period of 3 – 6 months. The Institute provides successful candidates with a monthly living stipend that is not taxable and is free of social security obligations.

The Max Planck Society is committed to an equal opportunity policy.

Application procedure

Applicants are asked to submit the following materials:

– cover letter;
– curriculum vitae;
– writing sample (chapter of the PhD dissertation);
– 1-2 page summary of the PhD work;
– photocopies of university degrees and transcripts;
– a letter of recommendation from the principal supervisor confirming that the applicant is in a position to complete the doctoral manuscript within the 3- to 6-month period (to be sent directly to the Department at

Please submit your application materials electronically by 30 April 2019 by following the link for vacancies onour homepage (under ‘Career’), or by going directly to the online application form using the link below.

If you have further questions regarding the application procedure, please contact:
Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology
Personnel Administration
Janka Diallo (

We look forward to receiving your completed online application under https://recruitingapp .

Further information on the research agenda of the Max Planck Institute is availableon our website:

Conférence de Laetitia Guerlain “Droit et Anthropologie dans la France des XIXe et XXe siècles. Un programme de recherches” (Rennes, 14 mars 2019)

Dans le cadre des Rencontres de l’IODE. Séminaire interdisciplinaire sur et autour du droit. Jeudi 14 mars 2019, à 12h30, en salle 10.

Cette conférence sera l’occasion de découvrir les rapports qu’entretient la discipline juridique avec les autres sciences humaines et sociales. Plus précisément, dans une perspective historique, elle présentera les interactions anciennes qui ont pu concourir à rapprocher l’anthropologie et le droit.

More information :

CALL FOR PAPERS: Law in Context Early Career Workshop, 17-18 September 2019

The International Journal of Law in Context and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at the University of Oxford jointly invite early career scholars to participate in a workshop to be held in Oxford, September 17-18, 2019. The purpose of this international workshop is to bring together scholars at a relatively early stage in their careers to support them in developing research projects and preparing publications to submit to scholarly journals in the field of socio-legal studies. 

During the workshop scholars will make a presentation, take part in discussion, and receive feedback on their work from senior research staff at the Centre and the editorial team of the Journal. The best papers presented at the workshop will be considered for publication in the International Journal of Law in Context.

The deadline for applications is 10 July 2019.

To be eligible to apply, the submission of a doctoral thesis is expected in 2019. Applications from inside and outside the UK are welcome. The ten best submissions will be selected and applicants will be invited to the workshop.
To make an application you should send a 1500-word extended abstract together with a cover letter with your name and contact information, details about your place of study or work, and the date of your expected or past doctoral submission. Abstracts may be on any contextual work dealing with law and its relationship with other social science disciplines.

Please send applications to Katie Hayward,

Meals and accommodation for one night in Oxford will be provided by the organisers. We expect that participants will pay for their own travel expenses.

Cultural expertise and socio-legal studies : Special issue of Studies in law, politics and society, vol. 78, 2019

This special issue of Studies in Law, Politics, and Society aims to foster a dialogue that is inclusive, constructive, and innovative in order to lay the basis for evaluating the usefulness and impact of cultural expertise in modern litigation. It investigates the scope of cultural expertise as a new socio-legal concept that broadly concerns the use of social sciences in connection with rights and the solution of conflicts. While the definition of cultural expertise is new, the conflicts it applies to are not, and these range from criminal law to civil law, including international human rights. In this special issue, socio-legal scientists with interdisciplinary backgrounds scrutinize the applicability of the notion of cultural expertise in Europe and the rest of the World. Cases include murder, female genital mutilation, earthquake claims, Islamic law, underage marriages, child custody, adoption, land rights, and asylum. The authors debate on a variety of themes, such as legal pluralism, ethnicity, causal determinism, reification of culture, and the “culturalization” of defendants. The volume concludes with an overview of the ethical implications of the definition of cultural expertise and suggestions for a way forward.

Introduction; Livia Holden

Part I. Cultural Expertise with(out) Cultural Experts

From Invisible to Visible: Locating Cultural Expertise in the Law Courts of Two Finnish Cities; Taina Cooke

Cultural Expertise in Italian Courts: Contexts, Cases and Issues; Antonello Ciccozzi and Giorgia Decarli

Part II. Sites of Cultural Expertise

Assessing Cultural Expertise in Portugal: Challenges and Opportunities; João Teixeira Lopes, Anabela Leão and Ligia Ferro

Cultural Expertise in Asylum Granting Procedure in Greece: Evaluating the Experiences and the Prospects; Helen Rethimiotaki

Part III. Comparative Perspectives on Cultural Expertise

Court Cases, Cultural Expertise, and FGM in Europe; Ruth Mestre and Sara Johnsdotter

Between Norms, Facts and Stereotypes: The Place of Culture and Ethnicity in Belgian and French Family Justice; Caroline Simon, Barbara Truffin and Anne Wyvekens

Part IV. Cultural Expertise in Non-European Contexts

Cultural Expertise in Australia: Colonial Laws, Customs, and Emergent Legal Pluralism; Ann Black

The Role and Use of Cultural Expertise in Litigation in South Africa. Can the Western World Learn Anything from a Mixed, Pluralistic Legal System? Christa Rautenbach

Part V. Suggestions for a Way Forward

Beyond Cultural Expert Witnessing: Toward an Integrated Definition of Cultural Expertise; Livia Holden

Format:Hardback ISBN:9781787695160
Published:28 Feb 2019
Publisher:Emerald Publishing
LimitedDimensions:216 pages – 152 x 229mm
Series:Studies in Law, Politics, and Society

Publisher’s website :

Journée d’études : L’ “aliéné indigène”. Justice et administration face à l’altérité psychique en Afrique française. Perspectives historiques et enjeux actuels (EHESS, 11 mars 2019)

Dans le contexte colonial français des siècles XIXeet XXe, que se passe-t-il lorsque l’altérité constitutive de l’« indigène » se double d’une différence supplémentaire qui touche à la sphère de la pathologie mentale ? Quelles sont les spécificités du traitement juridico-administratif de la folie ? Que les catégories et les discours de matrice coloniale nous apprennent-ils sur les politiques contemporaines de santé mentale ? Que reste-t-il de l’imaginaire colonial dans les pratiques et dans les discours institutionnels actuels autour de la santé mentale des populations d’origine africaine présentes en France ? Ces questionnements de fond sont à l’origine du projet AMIAF – « Aliéné mental » et « indigène ». Histoire juridique d’une double discrimination de statut en Afrique française (Fin XIXe  siècle-1960). Financé en 2018 par l’ANR dans le cadre des actions JCJC, le projet AMIAF se propose de réaliser une enquête historico-juridique relative aux discours et aux pratiques qui président à la construction et au fonctionnement du statut de l’« aliéné indigène » dans les territoires africains colonisés par la France. 

La demi-journée d’études exploratoire, qui fera suite à la première réunion de l’équipe du projet, vise à  poser les jalons de la recherche à venir, en focalisant l’attention sur les aspects méthodologiques de l’étude du traitement juridico-administratif de la folie en situation coloniale. Les communications seront centrées essentiellement sur la manière dont l’administration et la justice coloniale se sont saisies de la maladie mentale des populations africaines. Une attention spécifique sera accordée au rapport des institutions aux croyances et aux cultures locales, en prolongeant le regard sur les enjeux postcoloniaux. 


Réunion pour les membres de l’équipe du Projet ANR AMIAF


Accueil, introduction et présentation du projet ANR AMIAF


Discussion avec les membres de l’équipe du projet sur les apports et sur les perspectives de recherche de chacun.e,  sur les étapes futures du projet

12h00  Pause déjeuner


Demi-journée d’études ouverte au public


Romain Tiquet (Postdoctorant FNS, Département d’histoire générale, Université de Genève), Aliénés et condamnés : transfert et internement des “fous dangereux” au Sénégal (Fin XIXesiècle-1918)


Silvia Falconieri (CR, CNRS, IMAF), La « mentalité indigène » entre normalet pathologique. Lieux et modes du traitement juridico-administratif de la folie en Afrique française (1900-1940)

14h30   Discussion 

14h45   Pause


Sandra Fancello (DR, CNRS, IMAF), Sorcellerie, justice et santé mentale. Commentaire au documentaire « World of Witchcraft »


Projection du documentaire World of Witchcraftde Daniel Bogado.

16h30  Discussion 

17h00 Fin des travaux, pot de clôture (Salle réunion de l’IMAF)

Discussion animée par R. Collignon (CR, CNRS)

Avec la participation des membres de l’équipe de l’ANR AMIAF : S. Falconieri(CNRS, IMAF, responsable du projet) ; G. Aïdan(CNRS, CERSA) ; R. Collignon (CNRS, LESC) ; N. Derasse(Université de Lille, CHJ) ;  S. Fancello(CNRS, IMAF) ; J. Ferrand(Université de Grenoble, CERDAP) ;H. Ferrière(Université de Bretagne Occidentale) ; R. Gallien(Université Paris 7) ; A. Lainé(IMAF) ; T. Le Marc’Hadour(Université d’Artois, CHJ) ; E. Pestre(Université Paris 7, UFR Études psychanalytiques) ; F. Renucci (CNRS, IMAF), M. Scarfone(Université de Strasbourg) ; I. Thiébau(CNRS, IMAF), R. Tiquet(Université de Genève).

Otis ghislain (ed.), Contributions à l’étude des systèmes juridiques autochtones et coutumiers, HermanN, 2018

Cet ouvrage collectif sur les systèmes juridiques autochtones et coutumiers est publié au moment où la connaissance de ces systèmes, restés jusqu’à aujourd’hui largement invisibles aux yeux de la majorité, est plus que jamais nécessaire à ceux qui réfléchissent aux voies d’une nouvelle relation entre autochtones et non-autochtones, qu’ils soient juristes, décideurs ou universitaires. La reconnaissance des traditions juridiques autochtones est en effet devenue un thème central dans la quête d’une « réconciliation ». Les auteurs analysent des données recueillies par des équipes impliquant le plus souvent des collaborateurs ou des partenaires autochtones. Ils expliquent et comparent les aspects fondamentaux de plusieurs ordres juridiques autochtones et coutumiers afin d’éclairer leur spécificité, mais aussi leur degré d’ouverture au dialogue avec les cultures juridiques occidentales. En plus de mieux faire comprendre les modes de production du droit chez les peuples autochtones, cette publication permet au lecteur de découvrir comment ces peuples abordent le droit de la famille, le règlement des conflits et le rapport au territoire. 

Ghislain Otis est membre du Barreau du Québec et détient un Ph.D. de l’Université de Cambridge. Professeur à la section de droit civil de l’Université d’Ottawa, il est titulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Canada sur la diversité juridique et les peuples autochtones (niveau 1). Le professeur Otis est aussi membre de l’Académie des sciences sociales de la Société royale du Canada. Il dirige un grand partenariat international de recherche sur la gestion du pluralisme juridique en contexte autochtone (voir

190 pages.  24,00 €

Publisher’s website :

Book : Jessica Carlisle, Muslim Divorce in the Middle East: Contesting Divorce in the Contemporary Courts (2019)

Carlisle, J. Muslim Divorce in the Middle East: Contesting Divorce in the Contemporary Courts, Palgrave Pivot (Gender and Politics), 2019.

  • eBook ISBN 978-3-319-77007-9 DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-77007-9
  • Hardcover ISBN 978-3-319-77006-2

  How have Muslim marriages legally ended around the turn of the 21st century? Who has the power to initiate and resist shari‘a derived divorce? When are husbands and wives made to bear the costs of their marital breakdown? What does divorce law indicate about the development of gender regimes in the Middle East and North Africa? 

  This book opens with a description of the historical development of Islamic divorce in the MENA. Subsequent chapters follow a Syrian male judge, a Moroccan female legal advice worker and a Libyan female judge as they deal with divorce cases in which husbands, wives, their relatives and lawyers debate gender roles in contemporary Muslim marriages. 

  MENA ‘state feminism’ has increasingly equalized men’s and women’s access to divorce and encouraged discussions about how spouses should treat each other in marriage. The real life outcomes of these reforms have often been surprising. Moreover, as the last chapter explores, jihadi proto-states (such as Islamic State) have violently rejected state feminist divorce law reform. 

  This accessible book will appeal to students, researchers and a general readership interested in Islamic law; Middle Eastern studies; gender and sexuality; and, legal and social anthropology.

To purchase the book :

call for papers : the philosophy of customary law

Call for Papers: The Philosophy of Customary Law

Special edition of the French journal Noesis


For more than 20 years, the peer-reviewed journal Noesishas been at the forefront of French contemporary philosophy. Affiliated to the Center for Research in the History of Ideas(CRHI) of the University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Noesispublishes two special editions a year, collecting papers around a topic chosen by its scientific committee. The Philosophy of Customary Lawwill be the name of the Spring 2020 double issue. It follows the organization of a conference on the “Philosophy of Customary Law” in May 2018. 

The call

Far from considering the phrase “customary law” as a self-evident truth, papers will aim at identifying and trying to solve the many tensions created by the juxtaposition of two separate but parallel forms of social regulation: law and custom. What matters then is to investigate the ambiguity behind the very idea of customary law. Does it point out one more sort of law, or does it designate an autonomous kind of law, with its own features and not reducible to the law? 

Answering these questions requires without any doubts an enquiry about the peculiar dynamics of customary law, grounded on both empiricist and theoretical perspectives. To know whether it is a form among others of law or it is specific enough to be called a genus of law, it is crucial to define its principles. If this law is called customary it is because custom is key to it as a sourceof law. Understanding the specific features of customary law means therefore striving to understand what role custom plays to shape the very nature of customary law.

It will be necessary to investigate the way the main role assigned to customs determines the very existence of specific institutions and peculiar criteria of the bigger law frame that regulates the individual. Any legal system that includes custom as its element must establish spatial, temporal and logical frame of custom proofs. Nevertheless, Anglo-Saxon Common law and its peculiar principles mustn’t overshadow any attempt to grasp the principles and the peculiarities of customary law; and we will be particularly sensitive to the way the customary law settles in pluralist contexts, where different customary laws can be concurrent. In these conditions the interaction between law and custom takes the shape of a normative conflict more than of a coherent customary law. 

Exploring the limits and the fictions of customary procedures adopted by the Common Law could be the first step of both a new deployment of the customary law potential and an enquiry about its foundations. Indeed, it would be of extreme interest to study the different forms of customary law in eras where the Common Law model is spreading at different levels and domains, especially in international law, and where customary law is adopted in de-colonized regions where the law system is marked by a strong plurality of contexts.

Peculiar stakes of these contexts force to investigate both the limits and the flexibility of customary law. Do evolutions of scales and domains concern the essence of customary law, if this nature exists? Or are they only variations of a single nature beyond the peculiarities of each embodiment?  It will also be necessary – among other issues – to address the specific effectiveness of customary law, and to determine if it lays on the same constraint as the law; and if it is supported by peculiar institutions and applications. The question of the role of the sanctionis in this respect essential. 

In the wake of these reflections it is necessary to note that custom is reduced to the status of simple source of the law in every law called customary, and is therefore deprived of every autonomous form of normative power. It is not custom that is not acknowledged as custom according to the processes required and in the name of the institutions and criteria defined by law. In this case, custom is not anything more than one of the many possible sources of law, and concurring with them; it has not a primary juridical existence. 

This is the reason why John Austin could so easily disqualify custom self-sufficiency, arguing – with Hobbes and against the historical school – that the very nature of law prevents custom to be effective on its own besides the implicit or explicit, direct or indirect acknowledgement by the sovereign. One of the main ambitions of this collective publication would be indeed to question Austin’s position. This could in turn allow to address the issue of the substantial or accessory priority of the phrase “customary law”. Beyond this lies the very issue of the autonomy of custom as a social regulation tool.

In order to do that, one could be tempted to consider what disappears of custom and what does not, in customary law, so as to really understand its very nature. This brings us to discuss the specific subject of the codification of custom, the cornerstone of customary law. This codification is neverdefactoa neutral act, and it will be more relevant to point out from every point of view all the implicit tensions of the codification, which standardize and stabilize power balances or social and economic struggles. One of the axes of the study, already well known in social science but overlooked by philosophy, would be that of interaction between formal law and custom in de-colonized countries. 

Legal codification is one of these moments when powers and knowledge meet with most intensity. The “historical school” of law maintained the necessity of combining law studies with humanities, and we can now include social sciences such as economy, anthropology and sociology. We will therefore investigate which place these disciplines can or should have within the codification and definition of custom; we will also enquiry about their legitimacy, methods and approaches.  

The question arises of which place one should give to specific case studies in this volume. It is clear that they must be crucial while studying customary law as a theoretical object; but no discourse should be limited to a series of descriptions of different customary laws.

The following, non-exhaustive list of questions should allow to prefigure various leads:

Does “customary law” locutionshow a specific mode of social regulation between the juridical and the customary? Is custom a source of law? Or could be considered as an object beyond or before it? Does a specific form of customary law exist despite its different expressions? Does a model of customary law exist – such as the international law? 

Which transformations does custom endure when integrated with the “customary law”? Which philosophical implications does codification of custom produce within customary law? Which are the stakes of the very existence of customary law in pluralist and decolonized contexts? What are the relationships between customary law on one side and moral or juridical standards such as human rights on the other? What is the place of customary law within social change dynamics?

Which interactions and which concerns exist about humanities, social sciences and law with respect to custom? Which are the links of customary law with localities, territories, their history and their social displaying? How different disciplines of social and human sciences allow to reflect upon these phenomena and their conflict with law’s peculiar formality? 


The committee and the editors will make their selection from a set of complete papers only. Proposals will not be reviewed. 

Papers may be as long as 35.000 signs / 7.500 words. This does not include: the main title, abstracts, footnotes, the author’s presentationetc. Only the main text counts in the total of words. 

Papers may be written in French, English and Italian only. They should be sent to the following email addresses altogether, by June 1st, 2019.

To ensure an unbiased selection, the document must be anonymous. It must be modifiable, therefore .doc files are preferable. Please include in your email a separate document that states your name, affiliation, topics of interests. We should provide an answer by August 1st, 2019.  

Then, selected papers might need some modifications. The final versions of the papers will be due by September 15, 2019.  

bOOK : John R. Campbell, Bureaucracy, Law and Dystopia in the United Kingdom’s Asylum System, ROUTLEDGE, 2017.


The central concern of this book is to find answers to fundamental questions about the British asylum system and how it operates.Based on ethnographic research over a two-
year period, the work follows and analyses numerous asylum appeals through the British courts. It draws on myriad interviews with individuals and a thorough examination of many state and non-state organizations to understand how the system works. While the
organization of the book reflects the formal asylum process, a focus on specific legal appeals reveals the ‘political’ factors at play as different institutions and actors seek to influence judicial decision-making and overturn/uphold official asylum policy. The final
chapter draws on the author’s ethnographic findings of the UK’s ‘asylum field’ to re-examine research on the Refugee Determination System in the US, Canada and Australia which has narrowly focused on judicial decision-making. It argues that analysis of Refugee Determination Systems must be situated and studied as part of a wider, political, semi-autonomous ‘asylum field’ which needs to be better understood. Providing an in-depth ethnographic study of a national asylum system and of immigration law and practice, the book will be an invaluable resource for academics, researchers and policy-makers in the UK and beyond working in this highly topical area.

Table of Contents

List of Tables and Boxes
List of Cases
List of Case Law
Chapter 1. An anthropological approach to studying the asylum field
Chapter 2. The evolution of the British Asylum System
Chapter 3. The work of the British Home Office and UK Border Agency

Chapter 4. Taking and making refugee claims: The work of immigration caseworkers,
interpreters and barristers
Chapter 5. The Immigration and Asylum Tribunal and the work of Immigration Judges
Chapter 6. The politics of ‘permission’ and the Court of Appeal
Chapter 7. The Kafkaesque experience of asylum seekers
Chapter 8. Interest groups, asylum policy and Home Office intransigence
Conclusion and Postscript

Dr John R. Campbell is a Reader in the Anthropology of Africa and Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. He has undertaken fieldwork in Ghana, Tanzania, Ethiopia and the UK, and has undertaken development-related consultancies in Kenya, Ethiopia and Botswana. In addition to teaching the anthropology of development and the ethnography of Eastern Africa, he teaches courses on legal anthropology. His most recent book is Nationalism, Law and Stateless: Grand Illusions in the Horn of Africa (Routledge, 2013).


‘Dr. Campbell’s important field study concerns the bureaucratic processing of asylum
applications from Ethiopians and Eritreans seeking asylum in the UK. While this excellent
work describes the pertinent formal law, its striking originality lies in its ethnographic
perspective. This includes detailed case studies of the peculiar workings of an overloaded,
under- prepared and understaffed government bureaucracy righteously turning down most
such applications.’
Professor Sally Falk Moore, Harvard University, USA

‘The processing of asylum claims largely takes place in conditions which exclude the voices
of the people whose future is being decided. This important book offers rich anthropological
insights into the operation of the refugee determination system and identifies the need for
continued vigilance about failures to protect vulnerable individuals.’
Professor Werner Menski, SOAS, University of London, UK

‘Dr. Campbell’s remarkable book provides deep insights into the UK asylum system and how
it limits who is determined to be a refugee. Findings and conclusions are premised onextensive interviews and analysis of cases in the British asylum system. It will become a
touchstone for future asylum system studies.’
Dr James C. Simeon, York University, Canada

Julie Coleman et Baudoin Dupret (ed.), Ethnographies du raisonnement juridique, Paris, LGDJ, 2018.

il est fréquent d’entendre qu’il existe une façon de raisonner qui est propre aux juristes. Parfois entendue positivement – au sens de la précision du raisonnement ou de ses termes – et parfois négativement – le goût de l’argutie, le caractère procédurier, l’excès de formalisme -, cette façon de raisonner est même tenue pour être la caractéristique principale du droit et de ses experts. Si donc l’on tient une forme de raisonnement pour spécifique au droit (ce qu’on peut appeler le juridisme), il reste à se demander de quoi elle est faite, au-delà des poncifs tenant à sa rigueur et à son formalisme. 

Cet ouvrage s’inscrit résolument dans une perspective ethnographique du raisonnement juridique qui se donne comme objectif de décrire comment ce dernier opère en situation. Ses contributions s’organisent selon trois axes. Le premier rassemble des textes qui traitent des catégorisations de sens commun et de leur lien étroit avec les catégorisations juridiques. Le second s’intéresse à l’établissement des faits de la cause. La dimension factuelle du raisonnement juridique est étroitement liée aux questions de preuves matérielles ou testimoniales. En filigrane apparaît la question de la vérité judiciaire qui émerge du jugement et se construit peu à peu à travers les différentes opérations matérielles et cognitives mises en oeuvre par les magistrats. Enfin, le troisième axe s’intéresse aux rapports entre droit et culture. 

La grande variété des ethnographies présentées dans cet ouvrage, variété qui doit autant aux dispositifs méthodologiques qu’aux terrains de recherche, permet d’appréhender le raisonnement juridique à travers ses divers accomplissements pratiques. S’appuyant tantôt sur les interactions observées lors d’audiences judiciaires, tantôt sur le processus décisionnel ou encore sur l’analyse documentaire et le compte-rendu du travail d’enrôlement des professionnels du droit autour d’un cas particulier, le raisonnement juridique se déploie au gré des cas problématiques qui sont soumis aux cours et tribunaux afin que soit dit le droit censé résoudre le problème et mettre fin au conflit. Toutes les contributions partagent une même attention accordée au processus de « mise en pertinence » des cas à résoudre. Elles révèlent la richesse de la démarche ethnographique qui, en étant au plus près des pratiques des professionnels et des experts du droit, éclaire des points jusque-là restés aveugles du raisonnement juridique. 

Ont participé à cet ouvrage : 
Luiza Felix de Souza Barçante 
Pedro Heitor Barros Geraldo 
Nadia Khrouz 
Julien Seroussi 
Caroline Simon 
Barbara Truffin 
Jean-marc Welller 
Ayang Utriza YaKIN

  • 1re édition
  • Volume 32 
  • Collectif
  • Editeur : L.G.D.J
  • Collection : Droit et société
  • Sous-collection : Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme
  • ISBN : 978-2-275-02928-3
  • 270 pages – Parution : 12/2018

Publisher’s website :

Sophie Andreetta, Saisir l’Etat Les conflits d’héritage, la justice et la place du droit à Cotonou

À partir des conflits d’héritage et de la réforme du droit de la famille du Bénin, ce livre examine la place de la loi dans les négociations familiales, dans le travail des juges et dans le fonctionnement des tribunaux à Cotonou, la capitale économique. Il propose de repenser la place de l’État et des normes formelles dans un contexte où les services publics sont souvent qualifiés de corrompus, de réfléchir au rôle des professions libérales et à leur rapport à l’État sur le continent africain.

Sophie Andreetta est chargée de recherche au département Law & Anthropology du Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology. Elle était auparavant aspirante FRS-FNRS à l’ULiège, où elle a récemment obtenu un mandat postdoctoral. 

Espace Afrique  , Vol. 21 , 370 pages.  36,5 €

Parution : 11/2018
Editeur : Academia
ISBN : 978-2-8061-0429-8

Christophe Quézel-Ambrunaz et Johann Le Bourg (eds.), Sens et non sens de la responsabilité civile, Paris, LGDJ, 2018

Table des auteurs

Johann Le Bourg
Maître de conférences à l’Université Savoie Mont Blanc (CDPPOC, EA 4143)
Christophe Quézel-Ambrunaz
Professeur à l’Université Savoie Mont Blanc (CDPPOC, EA 4143)

Dominique Lagorgette
Professeure à l’Université Savoie Mont Blanc (LLSETI, EA 3706)
Alain Sériaux
Professeur à l’Université d’Aix-Marseille (LDPSC, EA 4690)
Mickaële Lantin Mallet
École des Hautes Études en sciences sociales
Yazid Ben Hounet
Chargé de recherche au CNRS / Laboratoire d’anthropologie sociale (CNRS, Collège de France, EHESS)
Marine Bobin
Doctorante en anthropologie
à l’Université Toulouse 2 (LISST, UMR 5193 – Centre d’anthropologie sociale)
Frédérick Bruneault
Professeur au Collège André-Laurendeau, Département de philosophie
Andréane Sabourin Laflamme
Professeure au Collège André-Laurendeau, Département de philosophie
Stéphanie Bordel
Chargée de recherche en psychologie sociale, Centre d’études et d’expertise sur les risques, l’environnement,
la mobilité et l’aménagement
Dina I. Waked
Professeur à l’École de droit
de Science Po (Traduction : Laurie Friant)

Clément Benelbaz
Maître de conférences à l’Université Savoie Mont Blanc (CDPPOC, EA4143)
Jean-François Dreuille
Maître de conférences HDR
à l’Université Savoie Mont Blanc (CDPPOC, EA 4143)
Philippe le Tourneau
Professeur émérite de l’Université Toulouse Capitole
Matthieu Poumarède
Professeur à l’Université Toulouse Capitole (IEJUC, EA 1919)
Aurélie Ballot-Léna
Maître de conférences à l’Université Paris Nanterre (CEDCACE, EA 3457)
Geneviève Pignarre
Professeure émérite de l’Université Savoie Mont Blanc (CDPPOC, EA4143)
Olivier Gout
Professeur à l’Université Jean Moulin – Lyon 3 (Équipe de recherche Louis Josserand, EA 3707)
Daniel Gardner
Professeur à l’Université Laval
Mariève Lacroix
Professeure agrégée et vice-doyenne aux études, Faculté de droit, Section de droit civil, Université d’Ottawa
Rodolphe Bigot
Maître de conférences à l’Université de Picardie Jules Verne (CEPRISCA, EA 3911)

Philippe Brun
Avocat général à la Cour de cassation, en service extraordinaire


Introduction ……………7

Regards aux confins du droit….. 25

Étude diachronique de « responsable »
et des termes associés (XIIe-XVIIIe siècles) …………………………………. 27

Une théologie de la responsabilité……………………………………….. 89

Sens et non-sens de la responsabilité du point de vue anthropologique……………………………………………………………… 99

La responsabilité civile est-elle toujours pertinente ?
Principes philosophiques au fondement de nos obligations
mutuelles ………………………………………………………………………123

Sens et fonctions de la responsabilité pour l’homme occidental : apport de la psychologie sociale…………………………………………149

Sens et non-sens de l’analyse économique du droit
de la responsabilité délictuelle ……………………………………………173

Regards de juristes 197

La responsabilité de la puissance publique face à l’Histoire………. 199

Victime d’une infraction et voie pénale, quelques pistes
de sens et de non-sens ……………………………………………………. 223

Sens et non-sens de la responsabilité civile en cas d’inexécution
du contrat……. 233

Sens et non-sens de la responsabilité civile en droit des affaires…. 251

Sens et non-sens de la responsabilité en droit social ……………….. 275

Sens et non-sens de la responsabilité civile dans la matière
médicale …………………………………………………………………….. 297
Sens et non-sens de la responsabilité civile en matière
d’accidents de la circulation……………………………………………….311

Sens et non-sens de la responsabilité civile des aliénés
et des infantes…………………..331

Sens et non-sens de la responsabilité civile des professions
juridiques ……………………………………………………………………. 359
Brèves remarques conclusives ……………………………………………………………… 433

Publisher’s website :

Latest issue of the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, 2018/2

2018 | Issue 2

Download issue


#Vulnerability – Expectations of Justice through Accounts of Terror on Twitter

by Cassandra Sharp



Socio-Legal Studies, Law Schools, and Legal and Social Theory

by Roger Cotterrell



Who is Afraid of Jurisprudence?

by Alice Schneider



Brexit and Devolution: New Frontiers for the UK Union

by Stephen Clear



International Legal Sightseeing

by Sofia Stolk and Renske Vos



Research Access and Ethics in Myanmar

by Kristina Simion