“La Ley de Seguridad interior que aprobaron las cámaras de senadores y diputados es una norma contraria a la noción y perspectiva de los derechos humanos, calificó Guillermo Luévano Bustamante catedrático de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, UASLP.”
Front Cover (OFC, IFC) and matter
Back Cover (OBC, IBC) and matter
Stategraphy: Toward a relational anthropology of the state
Tatjana Thelen, Larissa Vetters, Keebet von Benda-Beckmann (eds.)
New York, NY; Oxford: Berghahn
Year of publication
In the introduction to this special issue, we discuss recent trends in anthropological research on and in theorizing the state. We show how these have given rise to an analytical gap between state images, on the one hand, and practices, on the other. Based on this analysis, we propose a relational approach that we call ‘stategraphy’ as a way to tie together state practices and representations. This ethnographically grounded approach focuses on relational modalities, boundary work, and forms of embeddedness of actors as constitutive factors. These avenues of analyses enable a nuanced understanding and comparative investigation of change and continuity as well as of mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion.
Call for Participation (PhD students in all disciplines)
The Uses and Futures of Interdisciplinary Legal Studies
A one-day Conference at the University of Kent, Canterbury
15th June 2018
Kent Law School is proud to launch and host the inaugural Interdisciplinary Legal Studies (ILS) Network and bi-annual Conference. The inaugural postgraduate research conference titled The Uses and Futures of Interdisciplinary Legal Studies aims to provide an initial forum towards the critical exploration of interdisciplinary research/studies in and of law, as well as the formation of an informal research network between cognate PhD students (Interdisciplinary Legal Studies Network – ILS) and Law Schools. The following Schools have already joined the ILS network: Kent Law School, Westminster Law School, Birkbeck Law School, Warwick Law School, Universidad de los Andes, Law School, Melbourne Law School, LSE Law School, Science Po, Law School and the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Law School.
The Conference will not follow the conventional pattern of papers and plenaries, but rather aim for collective discussion at first in small groups, and then more widely with the support of 6 Guest Scholars: Prof. Diamond Ashiagbor (Institute of Advanced Legal Studies); Prof. Kate Bedford (Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham); Prof. Emilios Christodoulidis (School of Law, University of Glasgow); Dr. Emilie Cloatre (Reader in Law, Kent Law School, University of Kent); Prof. Marieke de Goede (Department of Politics, University of Amsterdam); and Prof. Ambreena Manji (School of Law and Politics, Cardiff University).
In order to facilitate participation and collective reflection PhD students in law, as well as PhD students in other disciplines, with an interest in thinking about law, however widely conceived) are invited to submit:
(1) a 200-word summary of their doctoral research project; and
(2) a 200-word summary brief on their experience of/reflection on interdisciplinary research in/of law.
Please email your briefs to: KLSResearch@kent.ac.uk by 15th March 2018
Arguably, modern legal scholarship is today more vibrant, complex and inter-disciplinary than ever before. Legal studies and legal practices are increasingly informed by a wide range of complex interdisciplinary borrowing, interaction and cooperation. Furthermore, different approaches to legal research and education, as varied as doctrinal, neo-realist, socio-legal, feminist, neo-Marxist, law-in-action, critical, contextual and so forth, appear to concur, often through a growing degree of self-criticism, that the emergence of sophisticated interdisciplinary scholarship amidst various political perspectives, methods and disciplines has influenced or, at least, to an extent challenged legal teaching, learning, researching, decision-making, concept-constructing and vocational practice. Our primary concern in this conference is with inquiring into the manner and purpose of the interdisciplinary research experience in contemporary broad-minded legal studies.
Interdisciplinary practices and aims have been subject to contention, as well as variation and recalibration, for many decades. Is it, for instance, disciplinary integration and/or interaction that are aimed at? Is it, instead, juxtaposition, coordination, and the rigorous ability to read parallel sequences (often categorized as falling under ‘multidisciplinarity’)? Is it the critique of the structural formation of knowledges, or the ultimate transcending of a discipline that is aimed at (its transformation, often categorized under the name of ‘transdisciplinarity’)?
What if, however, interdisciplinary legal research aimed at neither a mere self-sufficient juxtaposition, nor an over-ambitious synthesis? Who would be the audience and what would be the purpose of interdisciplinary research and study of law and in law? It is often observed, for example, that interdisciplinary attempts in legal research borrow methods or material (however successfully) from another discipline in order to then near-exclusively address a legal audience, without manifesting, in fact, a genuine attempt to study as well as engage with that other discipline’s audience. What, then, if interdisciplinarity begins only once it admits that distinctions run through disciplines as much as between them and that therefore one has to study them rigorously in all sorts of ways (be they methodological and theoretical, instrumental and critical, endogenous and exogenous etc.)?
Academic disciplines are indeed contingent and highly permeable products of complex historical processes. Distinctions and synergies between disciplines are equally contingent on different histories and cultures (for example, history is the foundational social science in France, while in Britain it is categorized under the humanities; equally we can ask: is law a social science or a part of the humanities?). Lacking some kind of absolute consistency, disciplines differentiate their functions through transforming knowledges and practices, in the self-defining and self-serving interior dynamics. Disciplines are however a recent modern invention and, more than it is usually admitted, they have always remained in a state of almost permanent ‘crisis’, flux and cognitive (as well political or social) challenge. Within the institution of the University disciplinary self-definition and self-defense has intensified, often forgetting that disciplines themselves are re-created or redefined through collisions between differing cognitive spheres.
Interdisciplinarity, it is then proposed, may be neither a panacea for all the problems one encounters in legal research and higher education more widely, nor an unnecessary opportune distraction from the rigor of a disciplinary program of study. In addition, interdisciplinarity, in its multiple and complex formations and deformations, should not be constrained by the success of its hype. Too often, as a mostly managerial or marketing buzzword without much challenging substance, it has infiltrated Universities to the point that now almost all departments and all disciplines aim to foster interdisciplinarity in research and education. While it is most challenging a climate in which we find ourselves, we think that there has not been a better time to consider, anew, and with persistent care, the paths, claims and challenges of inter/disciplinarity in legal research (and by extension education more broadly). If interdisciplinarity is not to be or remain an empty signifier, yet another fashionable façade of progress and innovation (or even the latest desperate attempt to de-socialise and isolate knowledge), we need to ask what becomes of/in interdisciplinary formations and deformations of knowledge?
Registration Fee: £35
More details on the Conference, Travel, Accommodation and related matters will be regularly updated at the Conference’s site which can be visited at:
If you have any questions please feel free to contact:
Thanos Zartaloudis at firstname.lastname@example.org
Donatella Alesandrini email@example.com
‘Punishment: Negotiating Society’
14 – 16 February, 2018
Venue: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle an der Saale, Germany
Deadline for abstract submission: 31 December, 2017
Confirmed keynote speaker:
Professor John Pratt: “The end of penal populism; the rise of political populism?”
REMEP is a multidisciplinary research school that examines the concepts of retaliation, mediation and punishment from different theoretical and methodological angles, with a focus on their role on peace and social order. This conference looks at the social context of punishment.
We start from the premise that punishment involves not only a handful of actors (i.e., members of the jurisdiction, perpetrators, victims, etc.) but a complex array of actors, including families, kin groups, and other polities that judge and punish; peers; associations; the audience(s) (including the media audience and the (mass) public); the punished (including, group-, surrogate- or proxy-punishment); and executive bodies such as states and private prison managements. We see punishment not only in the context of retaliation, deterrence, prevention, incapacitation and rehabilitation/retribution, but also as a reflection of society and as a constant negotiation of legitimacy, a renegotiation of social order and control. Populism, neoliberalism, misogyny, nationalism, and racism – to name just a few phenomena – are negotiated in the context of punishment.
This conference will be anchored around three key issues:
1. Theory, legitimacy and history of punishment
In this section, we propose to concentrate on the development of a coherent framework and theories of punishment in order to elaborate the semantics of punishment. Topics within this include the purposes of punishment in various legal systems and the historical shifts that punishment has undergone. We further seek theoretical contributions related to the informal, micro, local, national, international, and global influences on punishment policies and especially the challenges that emerge when these levels interact. Both historically and in the present, challenges can be observed especially at the fringes of normativities, it is here where legitimation is scrutinized. This occurs, for instance, in cases in which the perpetrator is also a victim, e.g. in the case of (former) child soldiers. A less obvious example are trials that shift venues from local to national or to the International Criminal Court, including changes of prisons and favourable prison conditions. This can culminate in the evasion of mundane punishment, replacing it with divine punishment by shifting the discourse from a legal to a religious one. Secular, domestic, familial, religious, cultural, and human rights discourses interact and demand for a more complex understanding of criminality and punishment. Furthermore, these interactions result in a need to find alternatives to criminal procedures that include restorative justice.
2. Media audiences, mass publics, and group punishment
The contested term “penal populism” is at the centre of a debate that questions the involvement of “the public” in the criminal justice systems, based on the argument that the presence of the public tends to encourage symbolic actions which disregard the proportionality principle in favour of populist gain. Since populism targets political success in elections, it potentially leads to preventive policies that are detrimental to minority groups, increasing the likelihood of punishment becoming a matter of living on the wrong side of the street or having the wrong passport. Such populist measures further reduce the use of risk prevention in the form of social programmes, instead giving preference to repressive measures. We are seeking to unravel the interaction of media, populists, and the public that is said to have weakened the principle of equality before the law; simultaneously, we propose to move away from this approach and analyse the justice system now and in the past as a tool of and for governing and for the creation of social order and the exertion of social control, benefitting some but not necessarily all.
3. Interdisciplinary approach to punishment
To ensure different approaches to punishment and critical perspectives on our law- and socialscience-based analysis, we especially invite scholars from other disciplines – for example, neuroscientists who are working on understanding the relation of the brain to punishment and behaviour and investigating changes in the frontal cortex that occur during and before acts of crime. Such research puts questions of free will, social control, deviant behaviour, and crime at the forefront. Further, we invite political economists who are studying the effects, benefits, and disadvantages of private prisons and home-confinement technologies and how these increase the likelihood of mass condemnations; and evolutionary anthropologists who include the evolutionary effects of punishment in their studies. Speakers will be invited by the organizers on the basis of submitted abstracts. PhD students within the REMEP program are encouraged to submit an abstract.
Speakers will be invited by the organizers on the basis of submitted abstracts. For invited speakers travel- and acommodation costs will be covered (economy fares). PhD students within the REMEP program are encouraged to submit an abstract. Abstracts should not exceed 500 words and should be submitted to Timm Sureau (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Günther Schlee (email@example.com) by December 31, 2017. Further questions should be directed to the coordinator Timm Sureau. A selection from submitted abstracts will be made by early January 2018.
Présentation de l’éditeur
La question des spécificités locales et culturelles intervient-elle dans le fonctionnement de la justice française ? Ce dossier ouvre le débat à partir du cas des populations « indigènes » de l’Outre-mer contemporain – Amérindiens et Noirs marrons de Guyane, Mahorais de Mayotte, Kanak de Nouvelle-Calédonie, insulaires de Polynésie et de Wallis-et-Futuna.
Les différents travaux rassemblés ici privilégient la méthode ethnographique pour saisir « sur le vif » la manière dont l’État français tente au quotidien de prendre en charge et d’administrer la diversité culturelle et locale dans ces contextes (post)coloniaux variés. Huit des onze articles du dossier décrivent ainsi des situations contemporaines singulières de confrontation et d’interaction entre agents du système judiciaire et justiciables originaires de ces cinq collectivités.
Les trois derniers articles offrent vis-à-vis de ces justices ultramarines des points de comparaison historiques – sur la trajectoire du droit colonial dans l’empire français – et géographiques – d’une part sur la justice familiale en France métropolitaine, d’autre part sur le traitement des justiciables autochtones mapuche par l’appareil judiciaire au Chili.
Editeurs invités : Natacha Gagné, Stéphanie Guyon et Benoît Trépied
Introduction. Cultures à la barre. Regards croisés sur la justice civile outre-mer
Natacha Gagné, Stéphanie Guyon et Benoît Trépied
Coutume et citoyenneté, des colonies aux collectivités d’outre-mer. Le point de vue du droit
Que faire des cadis de la République ? Enquête sur la reconfiguration de l’institution cadiale à Mayotte
Myriam Hachimi-Alaoui et Élise Lemercier
Les familles face au nouveau droit local à Mayotte. Continuité, adaptation et redéfinition des pratiques
Le sang, le nom, la coutume. Controverses judiciaires sur la paternité kanak en Nouvelle-Calédonie
Genre, justice et indemnisation des victimes de statut coutumier kanak
Droit coutumier et loi républicaine dans une collectivité d’outre-mer française (Wallis-et-Futuna)
Ethnographie de l’État aux confins de la République. Le dispositif de l’audience et la justice foraine en Polynésie française
Passer devant le juge aux affaires familiales ? Intermédiaires de la justice et alternatives au tribunal à Saint-Laurent du Maroni (Guyane)
« La carte n’est pas le territoire » ! Coutume, droit et nationalité plurielle en Guyane
« Faut s’adapter aux cultures, Maître ! » La racialisation des publics de la justice familiale en France métropolitaine
Céline Bessière, Émilie Biland, Abigail Bourguignon, Sibylle Gollac, Muriel Mille et Hélène Steinmetz
Juridicité autochtone et différence culturelle. Quand les juges débattent de la culture dans des affaires de violences familiales en contexte communautaire mapuche (Chili)
Fabien Le Bonniec
Le mariage entre le passé et le présent dans les sociétés dans les sociétés d’Afrique du Nord-Sahara [une conférence présentée par Tassadit Yacine]Pierre Bourdieu
Lectures sur le thème
Ethnologie française , Vol. 157 , 192 pages. 24€
Dr Emilie Cloatre‘s 5-year Wellcome Investigator Award (2017-2022) aims to explore the regulation of traditional and alternative medicines, using case studies from Europe and Africa: France and England; Ghana and Senegal; Mauritius and La Reunion.
This 5-year Wellcome Investigator Award (2017-2022) aims to explore the regulation of traditional and alternative medicines, in Europe and Africa. It will interrogate both the historical and socio-cultural context of current regulatory systems, and their effects on local practices.
As millions worldwide rely on traditional and alternative medicines for their everyday healthcare, the question of how to regulate such practices is high on policy agendas. Such regulation engages fundamental issues, including: the balancing of patient safety and autonomy of choice; the conciliation of traditional cultural practices with the demands of modern medical standards; social justice and access to health; the socio-cultural and postcolonial shaping of medicine. However, we lack evidence of the relative benefits, limitations and effects of particular regulatory frameworks on such policy concerns.
This project aims to address this pressing gap in knowledge. It will do so through a socio-legal exploration of the regulation of traditional and alternative medicines in two regions where policy conversations have been particularly intense, and current regulatory systems remarkably varied (Europe and Africa). The project’s key goals are to: critically assess the effects of contrasting regulatory frameworks on traditional and alternative medical practices, and their position in public health systems; consider how regulation can address the challenges raised by traditional and alternative medicines in a fair, effective and sustainable manner; and foster new conversations across academia and policy on relevant experiences, strategies and ways-forward.
The project will focus strategically on six case studies in Europe and Africa, organized in three sub-regional strands, that illustrate most vividly key policy-debates while giving significant scope for addressing broader conceptual questions: France and England; Ghana and Senegal; Mauritius and La Reunion.
To know more : https://www.kent.ac.uk/law/medicalknowledges/index.html
This workshop stems from several observations: first, that socio-legal scholarship as a whole is strongly influenced by both institutional contexts and local scholarly traditions, which has led it to adopt very varied forms across jurisdictions. Second, that this diversity is both an interesting object of study to understand the possibilities and forms of socio-legal research and critique, and an obstacle to some cross-jurisdictional conversations. Third, that this is particularly noticeable and interesting in the context of France and the UK. While socio-legal studies have significantly developed over the past few decades, both in the UK and (though arguably to a lesser extent) in France, cross-channel conversations across relevant communities have remained limited. In addition, the forms that socio-legal scholarship has adopted in those two contexts are strikingly different (see: Renaud Colson, Stewart Field, “Socio-legal Studies in France: Beyond the Law Faculty”, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 43, no. 2, 2016, p. 285-311).
Although various bridges and connections have been made – through common projects, borrowing of ideas, methods or theories, or occasional encounters at conferences or within topic-specific contexts – there has historically been limited efforts to engage more broadly the growing socio-legal communities in France and the UK. Such conversations on a broader scale, however, could be highly interesting at several levels. In spite of shared aspirations, UK socio-legal studies and its French equivalents have developed in very different ways, sharing some theoretical and methodological traditions, while differing in many others. In addition, the institutional settings in which each movement has developed are in stark contrast, which in turn has certainly influenced the shape of scholarship itself. Reflecting on those different contexts, and their influences is useful in a context of continuous pressure on the development and maintenance of interdisciplinary legal scholarship, both in research and teaching.
In this workshop, we want to reflect on those different trajectories, and what they have to tell us about ‘socio-legal studies in context’, but also aim to bring together this scholarly diversity in order to explore ways forward, in terms of collaborations, and in terms of methodological and conceptual explorations.
Therefore, this workshop positions itself both as a first step towards a broader set of discussions and as a significant opportunity to reflect on the impact on our own traditions on the forms of knowledge produced.
The workshop has three key aims:
1) To reflect on how different institutional contexts and traditions have shaped socio-legal thought and scholarship in France and the UK
2) To bring together contrasting approaches developed by those traditions
3) To foster future exchange and research across communities in France and the UK and facilitate new collaborations
The workshop will be held in English.
Format/call for contributions
The workshop will to be based around 4 sessions. In the first three sessions, short papers will be given by keynote speakers, followed by longer questions, discussions and exchange.
For the final session, we would like to invite contributions from early career scholars (including PhD students), in the form of very brief presentations of 8-10 mins, offering an overview of a project, with particular attention the methodological/conceptual approach adopted. An abstract of 200 words should be submitted by email to firstname.lastname@example.org by the 8th December 2017. We will endeavour to respond by the 15th December.
To register for the conference, A small fee of £50 will be requested for registration for participants other than speakers.
We may be able to offer limited financial support for ECRs for travels or accommodation. If you would need such support in order to attend the conference, please let us know as soon as possible.
Title: Oikonomia, Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition
Author: Kevin SCHEMBRI
Publisher: Orientalia Christiana & Valore Italiano
Series: Kanonika (vol. 23)
About the book:
How do the Eastern Orthodox Churches understand the mystery of marriage? On what grounds do these Churches concede ecclesiastical divorce and tolerate a new marriage? What is oikonomia and how is it invoked in the Orthodox East? Is the Orthodox position compatible with the Catholic approach to the indissolubility of marriage? Over the last decades, these questions were the subject of numerous studies. This volume builds on this research and attempts to offer a comprehensive systematic answer to these questions. By doing so, it adds to the already rich tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and presents the Western Churches with a valuable resource in their pursuit of ecumenical dialogue, in their dealing with the ever-growing reality of mixed marriages, and in their ministry to the divorced and remarried members of their faithful. Published as volume 23 in the series Kanonika, this study forms part of the various projects launched by the Pontifical Oriental Institute during its centenary celebrations.
About the author:
Kevin Schembri is a lecturer in canon law and coordinator of two master programmes at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Malta. He holds a licentiate in sacred theology from that university, and a licentiate and doctorate in canon law (with specialisation in canonical jurisprudence) from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He is a Catholic priest and serves as promoter of justice and defender of the bond for the Archdiocese of Malta.
For more info:
Call for Papers – Conference Ninth Multidisciplinary Network of Researchers on Indigenous Peoples, EMPI IX
This Call for Papers be interesting for some of you: International Conference Ninth Multidisciplinary Meeting on Indigenous Peoples (EMPI IX) “Territories in dispute: epistemologies, resistances, spiritualities and rights”. University College Roosevelt, Utrecht University Middelburg, the Netherlands, 30/31 May – 1 June 2018.
Paper proposals (max. 300 words) in English or Spanish should be submitted by email at EMPI2018@ucr.nl up to the end of April 2018.
For detailed information, see the call for papers attached to this email.
Parution : 12/2017
Editeur : Dalloz
ISBN : 978-2-2471-7177-4
Présentation de l’éditeur
Ce livre traite de façon complète et inédite du statut coutumier kanak en Nouvelle-Calédonie et expose le passage de la normativité autochtone à ce droit coutumier kanak, élaboré par des juridictions biculturelles à partir de coutumes autochtones.
Il présente tout d’abord la façon dont se construit ce statut personnel, l’organisation et le régime des terres, puis l’organisation familiale avec l’énoncé des devoirs qui incombent aux divers membres de cette société. Enfin, en conclusion, sont évoqués les droits des victimes de statut coutumier dans une société qui valorise les solidarités, sans pour autant sacrifier la réhabilitation sociale de la victime d’infractions pénales.
L’auteur offre au lecteur le fruit de son expérience de terrain en Nouvelle-Calédonie (2011-2015) en réunissant dans un seul ouvrage 48 décisions marquantes commentées, pour comprendre un système novateur entre norme autochtone et système juridique global, ainsi qu’une confrontation du contenu des décisions “coutumières” avec le contenu de la charte du peuple kanak qui rappelle les principes qui structurent la société kanake.
I. Aux sources institutionnelles et constitutionnelles du statut personnel
La place croissante du droit coutumier dans l’organisation juridique de la Nouvelle-Calédonie
Les règles spécifiques de procédure
Les institutions coutumières
II. Le droit kanak
La terre et le clan
Le mariage par enregistrement et sa dissolution dans un contexte d’alliance interclanique
L’avenir du clan : la filiation, le statut et l’intérêt de l’enfant
III. Aux limites du droit civil et du droit pénal
L’Esprit du droit , 300 pages. 40€
Gregory Ablavsky, Stanford Law School, has posted “With the Indian Tribes”: Race, Citizenship, and Original Constitutional Meanings, which is forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review.
Under black-letter law declared in Morton v. Mancari, federal classifications of individuals as “Indian” based on membership in a federally recognized tribe rely on a political, not a racial, distinction, and so are generally subject only to rational-basis review. But the Supreme Court recently questioned this long-standing dichotomy, resulting in renewed challenges arguing that, because tribal membership usually requires Native ancestry, such classifications are race-based.
The term “Indian” appears twice in the original U.S. Constitution. A large and important scholarly literature has developed arguing that this specific constitutional inclusion of “Indian tribes” mitigates equal protection concerns. Missing from these discussions, however, is much consideration of these terms’ meaning at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. Most scholars have concluded that there is a lack of evidence on this point—a “gap” in the historical record.
This Essay uses legal, intellectual, and cultural history to close that “gap” and reconstruct the historical meanings of “tribe” and “Indian” in the late eighteenth century. Rather than a single “original meaning,” it finds duality: Anglo-Americans of the time also alternated between referring to Native communities as “nations,” which connoted equality, and “tribes,” which conveyed Natives’ purported uncivilized status. They also defined “Indians” both in racial terms, as non-white, and in jurisdictional terms, as non-citizens.
These contrasting meanings, I argue, have potentially important doctrinal implications for current debates in Indian law, depending on the interpretive approach applied. Although the term “tribe” had at times derogatory connotations, its use in the Constitution bolsters arguments emphasizing the significance of Native descent and arguably weakens current attacks on Native sovereignty based on invidious legal distinctions among Native communities. Similarly, there is convincing evidence to read “Indian” in the Constitution in political terms, justifying Morton’s dichotomy. But interpreting “Indian” as a “racial” category also provides little solace to Indian law’s critics, since it fundamentally undermines their insistence on a colorblind Constitution.
La Universidad Nacional de San Martín y Instituto de Altos Estudios Sociales invitan a la charla: La invisibilización de un crimen: feminicidios en contextos indígenas en Chiapas.
Impartida por la Dra. Perla Orquídea Fragoso Lugo, catedrática CONACYT/ CESMECA-UNICACH, México.
El Jueves 30 de noviembre a las 18:00hrs.
En Sede Edificio Volta
Av. R. S. Peña 832, piso 6, CABA
COMMISSION ON LEGAL PLURALISM
Important announcement: New location and date for the next biennial course and conference of the Commission on Legal Pluralism: 17-24 August 2018, Ottawa, Canada
In March, the Executive Body of the Commission on Legal Pluralism decided to postpone and relocate the course and conference planned for August 2017 in Syracuse, NY. This decision was taken in response to worries over the US government’s travel ban and the increased hostility to Muslims and other visitors to the United States at immigration and customs.
The University of Ottawa has graciously offered to host the Legal Pluralism conference and course in August of 2018. The conference will take place from 22 to 24 August 2018, as usual preceded by our course from 17 to 20 August. Please mark these dates in your calendar!
The theme of the conference ‘Citizenship, Legal Pluralism and Governance in the Age of Globalization’ remains unchanged. Please find here a renewed call for panels, which is open until 31 October 2017. While all accepted panels are of course very welcome again, we need everyone to re-submit their panels to confirm they want to partake in the 2018 conference. We also invite new panel proposals.
Prior to the conference, we will organise an international course, covering theories, knowledge and methodologies of legal pluralism. Accepted candidates for the course in Syracuse will also be contacted about their participation in the 2018 course. Additional interested candidates can apply until 1 November 2017. If you are interested in learning more about the course, please have a look here!
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at email@example.com. We are hoping to see many of you in Ottawa in August of 2018!
The current issue features 10 original articles. In their editorial introduction, Heath Cabot and William Garriott write:
We ended our last introduction by restating our commitment to keeping PoLAR a place where anthropological work is brought to bear on the issues of the day. Of course, how one speaks to the present moment “anthropologically” remains hotly contested. But one distinguishing feature of our journal is its insistence on speaking to current issues and events from the particularities of specific times and places. This emphasis on place and time-centered contextualization gives anthropological work its specific texture, and it allows it to speak to current events with a unique voice and perspective.
In the United States, where we (the editors) live, political fights continue to rage over immigration, borders, government accountability, institutional responsiveness and efficacy, social media, surveillance technologies… the list goes on. There is no shortage of opinion on these topics. In shorter supply are scholarly takes that engage with complexity, turn to overlooked contexts for comparative perspective, and make room for the unexpected.
The articles in this issue provide such perspective. They address topics that are both timely and enduring. These include migration, borders, and the state (Yeh, Alpes); issues of identity in legal institutions (Lambert, Sapignoli, He, Li, and Feng); the unanticipated impact of policies designed to help the vulnerable (Ramsay, Vanderhurst); and the role technologies—electronic, bureaucratic—play in mediating relations between citizens and the state (Adunbi, Larson, Summers and Baiocchi). Five of the articles in this issue (Sapignoli, Vanderhurst, Adunbi, Ramsay, Alpes) center on the African continent and global or transnational links formed through displacement, legal frameworks, and extractive economies. They showcase the exciting new political and legal scholarship emerging from this rich and contested region. Articles centered on China, Mexico, the United States, and East Central Europe comprise the rest of the issue. They demonstrate the power of comparison to highlight the similarities and disjunctures that abide across discrete locales.
Read collectively, then, the articles in this issue give testament to the continued relevance of anthropological scholarship. They provide a fresh perspective on the concerns of the day while addressing the enduring questions of legal and political anthropology.