Asian Journal Of Comparative Law, Volume 12 – Issue 2 – December 2017

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-comparative-law/latest-issue

Preface

Articles

Front Cover (OFC, IFC) and matter

Back Cover (OBC, IBC) and matter

Book : Stategraphy: Toward a relational anthropology of the state

Stategraphy: Toward a relational anthropology of the state

 

Authors
Tatjana Thelen, Larissa Vetters, Keebet von Benda-Beckmann (eds.)

Publisher
New York, NY; Oxford: Berghahn

Year of publication
2018

ISBN
978-1-78533-699-7

OPAC

Abstract
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

Call for Participation (PhD students in all disciplines)

The Uses and Futures of Interdisciplinary Legal Studies

 

http://ils2018.weebly.com/

 

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

 

Conference Theme

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?

Fees:

Registration Fee: £35

Website:

More details on the Conference, Travel, Accommodation and related matters will be regularly updated at the Conference’s site which can be visited at:

http://ils2018.weebly.com/

Contact:

If you have any questions please feel free to contact:

Thanos Zartaloudis at t.zartaloudis@kent.ac.uk

Donatella Alesandrini d.alessandrini@kent.ac.uk

 

Book : Law and Memory Towards Legal Governance of History

Law and Memory
Towards Legal Governance of History

Uladzislau Belavusau (University of Amsterdam)
Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias (Polish Academy of Sciences)

Cambridge University Press

September 2017

Isbn: 9781108102889

Law and Memory

Legal governance of memory has played a central role in establishing hegemony of monumental history, and has forged national identities and integration processes in Europe and beyond. In this book, a range of contributors explore both the nature and role of legal engagement into historical memory in selected national law, European and international law. They also reflect on potential conflicts between legal governance, political pluralism, and fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression. In recent years, there have been numerous monumental commemoration practices and judicial trials about correlated events all over the world, and this is a prime opportunity to undertake an important global comparative scrutiny of memory laws. Against the background of mass re-writing of history in different parts of the world, this book revisits a fascinating subject of memory laws from the standpoint of comparative law and transitional justice.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements
Contributors
Introduction: memory laws: mapping a new subject in comparative law and transitional justice Uladzislau Belavusau and Aleksandra Gliszcyńska-Grabias
Part I. International Law:
1. The UN Human Rights Committee’s view of the past Antoon De Baets
2. The role of international criminal tribunals in shaping the historical accounts of genocides Marina Aksenova
3. The ‘right to truth’ in international law: the ‘last utopia’? Patricia Naftali
Part II. European Law (Council of Europe and European Union):
4. Kononov vs Latvia as the ontological security struggle over remembering the Second World War Maria Mälksoo
5. Testing the ‘uniqueness’: denial of the Holocaust vs denial of other crimes before the European Court of Human Rights Paolo Lobba
6. Legislating history: the European Union and the denial of international crimes Luigi Cajani
Part III. National Perspectives within European Union:
7. Challenging historical facts and national truths: an analysis of cases from France and Greece Ioanna Tourkochoriti
8. Legal silences and the memory of Francoism in Spain Alfons Aragoneses
9. Politics of public knowledge in dealing with the past: postcommunist experiences and some lessons from the Czech Republic Jiří Přibáň
10. Adjudication in deportation cases of Latvia and international law Ieva Miluna
11. Judging the conducător: fascism, communism and legal discontinuity in post-war Romania Cosmin Sebastian Cercel
12. Dealing with the past in and around the fundamental law in Hungary Miklós Könczöl
13. On the politics of resentment, mis-memory and constitutional fidelity. The demise of the Polish overlapping consensus? Tomasz Tadeusz Koncewicz
Part IV. Perspectives beyond European Union:
14. Defending Stalinism by means of criminal law: Russia, 1995–2014 Nikolay Koposov
15. Cutting the umbilical cord: the narrative of the national past and future in Ukrainian de-communization policy Lina Klymenko
16. Banning genocide denial – should geography matter? Robert A. Kahn
17. ‘From banning Nakba to bridging narratives’: the collective memory of 1948 and transitional justice for Israelis and Palestinians Jeremie Bracka
18. Historical revisionism and the settler state: the Canadian experience Michael Morden
19. Defense of democracy and the preservation of collective memory through criminal legislation: the challenges of reconciliation in Peru Salvador Herencia Carrasco
Epilogue: beyond ‘memory laws’: towards a general theory of law and historical discourse Eric Heinze
Index.

Editors

Uladzislau Belavusau, University of Amsterdam
Uladzislau Belavusau is Senior Researcher in European Law at the T. M. C. Asser Institute (the Hague), Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias, Polish Academy of Sciences
Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias is Senior Researcher in Human Rights at the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

Contributors

Uladzislau Belavusau, Aleksandra Gliszcyńska-Grabias, Antoon De Baets, Marina Aksenova, Patricia Naftali, Maria Mälksoo, Paolo Lobba, Luigi Cajani, Ioanna Tourkochoriti, Alfons Aragoneses, Jiří Přibáň, Ieva Miluna, Cosmin Sebastian Cercel , Miklós Könczöl, Tomasz Tadeusz Koncewicz, Nikolay Koposov, Lina Klymenko, Robert A. Kahn, Jeremie Bracka, Michael Morden, Salvador Herencia Carrasco, Eric Heinze

 

Appel à propositions : Les droits humains au XXIe siècle

Les droits humains au XXIe siècle

Human rights in the 21st century

 

Revue « Communications » n° 104 (2019)

Communications journal issue 104 (2019)

*  *  *

Résumé

Pour les besoins d’un numéro de la revue Communications sur le thème des droits humains, nous sollicitons des propositions d’articles inédits présentant et analysant les nouvelles luttes, aujourd’hui, pour le respect de ces droits. Comment, au XXIe siècle, dénoncer, documenter, combattre les violations des droits humains ? Qui sont les acteurs de ces combats ? Quel est leur impact ? On s’intéressera à la fois aux nouveaux agents, groupes, associations, pressions citoyennes, portant ces combats, aux formes de leurs interventions dans l’espace public et à la façon dont ils contribuent à une extension du périmètre de ces droits et à leur redéfinition juridique. Nous souhaitons des études concrètes. Une attention particulière sera accordée aux situations et expériences non européennes.

Argumentaire

La Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, adoptée le 10 décembre 1948, dont l’article premier stipule que « Tous les êtres humains naissent libres et égaux en dignité et en droits », affirme comme principe intangible à l’échelle de l’humanité tout entière le fait que la dignité (mentionnée en premier), les libertés et les droits fondamentaux sont inhérents à chaque être humain et inaliénables. Si cette Déclaration ne fait pas partie du droit international dit « contraignant » (c’est-à-dire d’application obligatoire), elle constitue un texte de référence qui a inspiré nombre de traités internationaux, eux légalement contraignants, relatifs aux droits de l’homme et à leur développement à l’échelle internationale.

Ces droits sont toutefois critiqués de diverses manières. Au nom d’une vision inégalitaire de l’humanité, le mépris pour les « droits-de-l’hommistes », selon une expression venue de l’extrême droite, reprend de la vigueur. Des pouvoirs non démocratiques les récusent en invoquant le relativisme culturel, comme en Chine où le discours officiel oppose l’« harmonie » d’inspiration confucéenne aux droits de l’homme, d’inspiration occidentale. Plus profondément, la notion philosophique, politique et juridique d’universalité fait l’objet de contestations et d’interrogations. Au nom de l’histoire, et notamment de l’histoire coloniale, ces droits, proclamés et exportés par un monde occidental qui ne les a pas respectés, sont dénoncés comme l’alibi d’un impérialisme culturel. L’universalisme abstrait, aveugle par principe aux différences, s’avère par là même aveugle aux discriminations et inégalités. D’où la question, sujette à polémiques, particulièrement en France (cf. les débats sur la parité ou les « statistiques ethniques » par exemple) : pour assurer l’égalité réelle des droits, ne faut-il pas assouplir l’universalité formelle du droit ?

Nul doute que ces droits sont inégalement garantis et que leurs violations sont innombrables. Ils ne sont ni la garantie d’un progrès inéluctable, ni une promesse illusoire. Ils doivent être en permanence repensés et leur extension comme leur universalisation dépendent avant tout des combats menés en leur nom. Nous considérons en effet, avec Danièle Lochak, que « les droits de l’homme ne sont pas un corps de principes gravés une fois pour toutes dans le marbre. Ils ont une histoire qui continue à s’écrire en fonction d’enjeux complexes et entremêlés : politiques, idéologiques et juridiques. » (Les Droits de l’homme, La Découverte, 2009). Prenant acte de cette histoire, nous préférons ici parler de droits humains. Ceux-ci sont confrontés à des défis nouveaux liés à la mondialisation. Et dans cette mondialisation, le phénomène des migrations est devenu central.

Pour les besoins d’un numéro de la revue Communications sur ce thème, nous sollicitons des propositions d’articles inédits présentant et analysant les nouvelles luttes, aujourd’hui, pour le respect des droits humains. Comment, au xxie siècle, dénoncer, documenter, combattre les violations des droits humains ? Qui sont les acteurs de ces combats ? Quel est leur impact ? On s’intéressera à la fois aux nouveaux agents, groupes, associations, pressions citoyennes, portant ces combats, aux formes de leurs interventions dans l’espace public et à la façon dont ils contribuent à une extension du périmètre de ces droits et à leur redéfinition juridique. Nous souhaitons des études concrètes. Une attention particulière sera accordée aux situations et expériences non européennes.

Conditions de soumission

Les propositions de contributions doivent être rédigées en français et comporter le nom de l’auteur, son affiliation professionnelle et son courriel.

Elles devront être envoyées, avec la mention « Droits humains » en objet du message, à revue-communications@ehess.fr

Calendrier

Date limite d’envoi des résumés courts (3000 signes) : 26 janvier 2018

 

Date de notification des réponses : 26 février 2018

Date limite de remise des textes (articles inédits de 30 000 signes maximum notes comprises) : 15 mai 2018

Date de parution du numéro : 2019

Conference Call: ‘Punishment: Negotiating Society’ Location: Halle (Saale) February 14, 2018

Conference Call
‘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?”

Call

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 () and Günther Schlee () 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.

Call as pdf

Article : Magistrature et domination étrangère. Réflexions d’anthropologie juridique sur trois cas belges

Derk Venema

Magistrature et domination étrangère. Réflexions d’anthropologie juridique sur trois cas belges

Article publié dans les C@hiers du CRHIDI, vol. 40 – 2017, « Un corps de l’État à l’heure des Big Data. Prosopographie et histoire judiciaire :  les magistrats belges et coloniaux 1795-1962″.

Résumé

Ce texte reprend les contributions qui précèdent et les analyse sous l’angle de l’anthropologie juridique. Ces contributions ont en effet en commun d’étudier la magistrature dans un contexte politique marqué par la domination étrangère. Ce texte revient d’abord sur le concept sociologique de domination étrangère avant de traiter, dans une perspective anthropologique, de certains comportements des juges souvent délaissés car considérés comme irrationnels ou négligés car ne relevant pas de la recherche prosopographique traditionnelle.

 

Ethnologie française 2018, n° 1 (Justices ultramarines)

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.

 

Sommaire

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
Yerri Urban

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
Sophie Blanchy

Le sang, le nom, la coutume. Controverses judiciaires sur la paternité kanak en Nouvelle-Calédonie
Benoît Trépied

Genre, justice et indemnisation des victimes de statut coutumier kanak
Christine Salomon

Droit coutumier et loi républicaine dans une collectivité d’outre-mer française (Wallis-et-Futuna)
Françoise Douaire-Marsaudon

Ethnographie de l’État aux confins de la République. Le dispositif de l’audience et la justice foraine en Polynésie française
Natacha Gagné

Passer devant le juge aux affaires familiales ? Intermédiaires de la justice et alternatives au tribunal à Saint-Laurent du Maroni (Guyane)
Stéphanie Guyon

« La carte n’est pas le territoire » ! Coutume, droit et nationalité plurielle en Guyane
Catherine Benoît

« 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

 

Varia

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 : Law, Knowledges and the Making of ‘Modern Healthcare’

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

Socio-legal studies/sociologie du droit: methods, traditions, theories in France and the UK

Description

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 e.cloatre@kent.ac.uk by the 8th December 2017. We will endeavour to respond by the 15th December.

Registration

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.

Queries: klsresearch@kent.ac.uk

http://store.kent.ac.uk/product-catalogue/faculty-of-social-sciences/kent-law-school/sociolegal-studiessociologie-du-droit-methods-traditions-theories-in-france-and-the-uk

Report 2014-2016 : Law & Anthropology Department

Law & Anthropology Department
Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology

Report 2014-2016

The Law & Anthropology Department at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology has recently published its first triennial report covering the Department’s activities for the 2014-2016 period.

If you would find it more convenient to browse through this report in an electronic format, the online version is available at : http://www.eth.mpg.de/4593493/2014—2016

 

 

CALL FOR PAPERS : Multiple Religious Identities – Individuals, Communities, Traditions

16th Annual Conference of the European Association for the Study of Religions
(EASR 2018)

Multiple Religious Identities – Individuals, Communities, Traditions
17-21 June 2018, Bern

CALL FOR PAPERS

CALL_FOR_PAPERS_EASR_2018_Self-identity

Self-identity and Otherness: Shia Approaches to Religious Pluralism
This panel is an examination of the history of Shia views of other religious traditions as well as the contemporary legal-theological reflection about religious pluralism. The aim is to discuss the theoretical and conceptual issues related to religious plurality from the perspective of Shia Jurisprudence (fiqh) and the theological implications of such a perspective in the construction of religious identity debates. Shias are the minority group within Islam, having broken with the majority Sunnis in a disagreement over the Prophet Mohammed’s successors and the role that his successors were to play. With this panel, we intend to reflect on Shia self- perceptions and perceptions of others with respect to religion, covering both historical and contemporary approaches. The papers presented will reflect upon the investigation of the nature and dynamics of Shia normative responses to religious diversity and pluralism and the challenges they face. The aim of the panel is to bring together academics and researchers whose works are related to the topic and to discuss recent theoretical and conceptual achievements in the
field.

Deadline: 15th Jan 2018
Chair and Convenor: Dr. phil. Shirin Naef (University of Zurich)
Contact: garmaroudi@gmx.ch
All submission should be made online
at: https://www.conftool.com/easr2018/

Book : Cultural Legal Studies

Cultural Legal Studies

Law’s Popular Cultures and the Metamorphosis of Law

Cassandra Sharp, Marett Leiboff (ed.)

Routledge, 2017

 

Cultural Legal Studies: Law's Popular Cultures and the Metamorphosis of Law (Paperback) book cover

 

Description

What can law’s popular cultures do for law, as a constitutive and interrogative critical practice?  This collection explores such a question through the lens of the ‘cultural legal studies’ movement, which proffers a new encounter with the ‘cultural turn’ in law and legal theory.  Moving beyond the ‘law ands’ (literature, humanities, culture, film, visual and aesthetics) on which it is based, this book demonstrates how the techniques and practices of cultural legal studies can be used to metamorphose law and the legalities that underpin its popular imaginary. By drawing on three different modes of cultural legal studies – storytelling, technology and jurisprudence – the collection showcases the intersectional practices of cultural legal studies, and law in its popular cultural mode.

The contributors to the collection deploy differentiated modes of cultural legal studies practice, adopting diverse philosophical, disciplinary, methodological and theoretical approaches and subjects of examination. The collection draws on this mix of diversity and homogeneity to thread together its overarching theme: that we must take seriously an interrogation of law as culture and in its cultural form. That is, it does not ask how a text ‘represents’ law; but rather how the representational nature of both law and culture intersect so that the ‘juridical’ become visible in various cultural manifestations. In short, it asks: how law’s popular cultures actively effect the metamorphosis of law.

Table of Contents

PART I: Cultural Legal Studies – The Urgency of Method and Story 1. Cultural Legal Studies and Law’s Popular Cultures, Marett Leiboff & Cassandra Sharp 2. Cultural Legal Studies as Law’s Extroversion, Marett Leiboff 3. Finding Stories of Justice in the Art of Conversation: Ethnography in Cultural Legal Studies, Cassandra Sharp PART II: Cultural Legal Studies as Legal Storytelling 4. Interventions into the Feeling of Popular Justice: Australia’s Stolen Generations, the Problem of Sentimentality, and Re-Encountering the Testimonial Form, Honni Van Rijswijk 5. Border Crossings: The Transnational Career of the Television Crime Drama, Sue Turnbull 6. Theatre and the Law in the 21st Century, Peter Robson PART III: Law’s Technologies and Cultural Legal Studies 7. Picturing Justice in a Fraught Legal Arena: Fetus, Phantoms and Mandatory Ultrasounds, Jessica Silbey 8. Peeping: Open Justice and Law’s Voyeurs, Katherine Biber 9. Irony as Method: Reframing Photographs in Cultural Legal Studies, Karen Crawley 10. Bodies, Cinema, Sovereignty: Using Visual Culture Methodologies to Think About Other Ways that Law Might Work, Kirsty Duncanson PART IV: Cultural Legal Studies as Jurisprudence 11. Popular Culture’s Lex Vampirica: The Law of the Undead in True Blood, the Twilight Sagaand The Passage, William Macneil 12. Reading the Law Made Strange: Cultural Legal Studies, Theology and Speculative Fiction, Timothy D Peters 13. Republicanism Meets (Dystopian) Faërie: Harry Potter and the Institutional Disaster, Luis Gómez Romero

About the Editors

Cassandra Sharp‘s research draws on a range of disciplinary methods to empirically explore individual responses to law. Her focus is the use of popular stories by individuals in challenging and constructing legal meaning and identity. She is a member of the Legal Intersections Research Centre (LIRC) at the University of Wollongong, Australia.

Marett Leiboff is a cultural legal studies and law and humanities scholar who is working on a monograph that explores theatrical jurisprudence. Her scholarship is grounded in her pre-law background in academic theatre studies. Marett is a member of the Legal Intersections Research Centre, University of Wollongong, Australia.

Séminaire Anthropologie des processus de citoyenneté

Séminaire Anthropologie des processus de citoyenneté (2017 – 2018)

Catherine Neveu, directrice de recherche au CNRS (TH) (IIAC/Ehess)
Maxime Vanhoenacker, chargé de recherche au CNRS (IIAC/Ehess)

1er, 3e et 5e jeudis du mois de 15 h à 18 h (salle AS1_23, 54 bd Raspail 75006 Paris), du 18
janvier 2018 au 5 avril 2018

Il s’agira dans ce séminaire de poursuivre l’exploration entamée en 2016-2017 des apports de l’anthropologie politique du contemporain tant à la saisie empirique des processus de citoyenneté qu’à un retour critique sur les théorisations dont elle fait l’objet. Les pratiques et représentations de la citoyenneté sont relativement sous étudiées dans l’anthropologie politique française, alors qu’elle fait l’objet de nombreux travaux dans le monde. Outre l’exploration de ces travaux parfois méconnus, ce séminaire sera consacré à la mise en discussion de recherches pluridiciplinaires portant sur différents espaces de pratiques citoyennes, notamment celles visant un renouvellement de l’éthos démocratique et de l’émancipation. Une place spécifique sera accordée également aux enjeux d’une recherche qui soit elle-même « citoyenne ».

Mots clés : Anthropologie sociale, Citoyenneté, Mobilisation(s), Politiques publiques, Sociologie politique,

Programme synthétique du séminaire 2017-2018

Programme prog_seminaire_2018

=> 18/01/18 – Séance 1 : Qu’estce qui est appelé « citoyenneté » ? Comment saisir empiriquement cette notion ? Introduction générale du séminaire. Catherine Neveu (CNRS IIAC/ Ehess) et Maxime Vanhoenacker (CNRS IIAC/ Ehess)

=> 01/02/18 – Séance 2 : « Un citoyen responsable, une ville responsable ». La participation, un nouveau mot d’ordre de la République Islamique d’Iran ? Sahar Saeidnia (Postdoctorante Gerda HenkelIremam, Docteure en sociologie associée à l’IrisEHESS)

=> 15/02/18 – Séance 3 : projection documentaire, à confirmer

=> 01/03/18 – Séance 4 : L’afroféminisme, une politique du sensible ? Du vécu des rapports de pouvoir à leur politisation dans le parcours de femmes afrodescendantes. Silyane Larcher (CNRSUrmis, politiste)

=> 15/03/18 – séance 5 : Le fardeau de l’apprentissage de la citoyenneté dans les activités de jeunesse ? Maxime Vanhoenacker (CNRSIIAC/ Ehess, anthropologie)

=> 29/03/18 – Séance 6 : Politiser l’éducation populaire, un « réenchantement » ? Emannuel Porte (INJEP) et Emmanuel de Lescure (MCF Sciences de l’éducation Université Paris V, CERLIS)

=> 05/04/18 – séance 7 : Pouvoirs d’agir dans les quartiers populaires : pour une sociologie de la citoyenneté au croisement de l’ordinaire, du mouvement social et des institutions. A propos d’une enquête à Villepinte et Montréal Nord. Marion Carrel (MCF Sociologie Université Lille, CeRIES)

=> 24/05/18 – séance 8 : Présentation des travaux de validation des étudiants (exposés) et discussion générale

 

BOOK : Oikonomia, Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, by Kevin SCHEMBRI

Title: Oikonomia, Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition

Author: Kevin SCHEMBRI

Publisher: Orientalia Christiana & Valore Italiano

Series: Kanonika (vol. 23)

Year: 2017

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: 

http://www.kanonika.org/1/bookshop_1270111.html?product=102191

Blog d'actualité de l'anthropologie juridique