Archives par mot-clé : legal anthropology

Conference Dr. Luis Eslava, Law, Ethnography and Global (DIS)ORDER, NOV. 26th (on line)

Ecole de droit, Sciences Po Paris

LAW, ETHNOGRAPHY AND GLOBAL (DIS)ORDER

 
Dr. Luis Eslava
 
  • Image courtesy of Andrés PascualImage courtesy of Andrés Pascual

LAW & METHODS SEMINAR

Luis Eslava

 

Luis Eslava, Reader in international law & Co-Director, Centre for Critical International Law Kent Law School, The University of Kent will speak on « Law, ethnography and global (dis)order ».

This session will introduce participants to the critical potential of ethnography in the study of the present global (dis)order and its relation to law. Attending closely to the painstaking processes through which the present has come to be constituted, and to the defining features of ethnographic thinking about law, you will be invited to provincialise what we conceive as international and globalise what we have learnt to be local.

Invite-only event.

 
Date de l’événement : 
Jeudi, 26 Novembre, 2020 – 14:3016:00
 
Lieu : 
Online

first open access issue of the Journal of legal anthropology

The first Open Access issue of the Journal of Legal Anthropology has published!

Journal of Legal Anthropology is a part of the 2020 Berghahn Open Anthro Collection: https://www.berghahnjournals.com/page/berghahn-open-anthro

Access to Volume 1 is available on the journal page: www.berghahnjournals.com/jla

Volume 4, Issue 1

Editorial
Exceptions and being human: Before and in times of COVID-19
Narmala Halstead
https://bit.ly/36fU3ZE

Articles
Documents and the bureaucratisation of alternative dispute resolution in the United States
Amanda J. Reinke
https://bit.ly/347OCt0

CIDEM’s femicide archive and the process of gendered legal change in Bolivia
Xandra Miguel-Lorenzo
https://bit.ly/36kUSR1

Looking for the child soldier: The judicial investigation in the case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
Milena Jakšić
https://bit.ly/3n8oYNl

Forum
Introduction: Legal regimes under pandemic conditions: A comparative anthropology
Geoffrey Hughes
https://bit.ly/2Sf3Tm8

COVID-19 as method: Managing the ubiquity of waste and waste-collectors in India
Tridibesh Dey
https://bit.ly/3jlkrVB

Visceral non-presence: Ethnography in the age of COVID
Jessica Brinkworth, Korinta Maldonado, Ellen Moodie, and Gilberto Rosas
https://bit.ly/36iu6IU

Ethnographic witnessing: Or, hope is the first anthropological emotion
Carole McGranahan
https://bit.ly/2Sen13S

Review Article
Consistent inconsistency: New reflections on migrants, the state, and the contingencies of law
Georgina Ramsay
https://bit.ly/3jojoo4

Book Review
Larisa Carranza
https://bit.ly/30m2G17

Sign up for Email updates: http://bit.ly/2uO5d3Z
Please visit the Berghahn website for information about the journal: www.berghahnjournals.com/jla
Please support the Subscribe-to-Open initiative and recommend JLA to your institution’s library: https://www.berghahnjournals.com/page/berghahn-open-anthro Please fill out the one-step web form to do so: https://jla.berghahnjournals.com/library-recommendation

CALL for papers – COLLOQUE INTERNATIONAL ANTHROPO-RESPONSABILITÉ 28-29 janvier 2021 – musée du quai Branly – Jacques Chirac, Paris

La scène scientifique internationale est animée ces dernières années par le désir d’une application plus visible du statut de bien commun concernant les vestiges anthropo-biologiques issus des collections archéologiques et ethnographiques. Avec l’arrivée de nouvelles (bio-)technologies toujours plus performantes et le développement des études inter-disciplinaires, ces échantillons de restes humains prennent une place prépondérante dans d’autres disciplines. Ainsi, en parallèle du rôle jusqu’à présent joué dans la reconstitution de l’évolution morphologique et géographique puis biologique de nos lointains ancêtres, ce matériel d’étude est, ces dernières décennies, de plus en plus impliqué dans la compréhension de notre état de santé actuel (par exemple). Cela représente un nombre conséquent de matériel biologique humain collecté et stocké indépendamment dans les différents organismes de recherche ayant procédé au prélèvement et/ou à l’étude. De ce fait, ils se retrouvent au cœur d’une réflexion éthique plus soutenue.

 

Ce colloque intitulé Anthropo-Responsabilité a pour ambition de réunir des spécialistes des disciplines relatives à l’Homme (archéologues, anthropologues, conservateurs de musée, médecins, juristes, biologistes, criminalistes, etc.) autour des questions sur les restes humains et à leurs échantillons biologiques. Le thème instaure volontairement une approche inter-disciplinaire, dans le but de proposer un réseau de connaissances, issu de la pratique sur le terrain et en laboratoire, desquels émergent de nouveaux défis en termes de méthodologie, de réflexion, et d’enjeux éthiques. Il est, en effet, fondamental d’avoir une approche commune visant à limiter les méconduites et les impacts néfastes, tant sur ce matériel fragile (et en quantité limitée) que sur les populations sollicitées.

 

Le champ des questionnements est couvert par trois axes thématiques :

 

1 – État des lieux des disciplines dédiées à l’étude de l’Homme et problèmes éthiques rencontrés : présentation des protocoles en vigueur, du cadre légal des disciplines et des limites méthodologiques puis des problèmes éthiques rencontrés ; que ce soit sur le terrain (lors de fouilles archéologiques, de missions ethnographiques ou d’interventions médicales et médico-légales) et en laboratoire (lors de l’acquisition, du stockage, de l’exposition, de l’analyse et de la circulation).


2 – Apports des vestiges anthropo-biologiques et d’une coalition scientifique : mise en évidence de l’importance de ces vestiges humains et des échanges entre disciplines pour répondre aux diverses problématiques humaines.


3 – Protection des vestiges anthropo-biologiques, de leurs études et des populations associées : réfléchir à des actions communes permettant de pallier les problèmes éthiques allant à l’encontre de l’objectif scientifique commun et de l’intérêt général afin de revoir ces interventions de manière plus collective et transdisciplinaire tout en respectant la fragilité des ressources, la culture associée et leur caractère humain.

 

Modalités de participation :

Les contributions prendront la forme d’une communication orale de 20 min, en présentiel ou en visioconférence (ou pré-enregistrée), à travers des études de cas, des enquêtes de terrain, des synthèses et des questionnements éthiques et sociétaux, sans limite d’ère chronologique et d’aire géographique.

Les propositions d’intervention (ci-dessous) sont à envoyer avant le 8 septembre 2020 à l’adresse suivante : anthropo.responsabilite2021@gmail.com

 

Les actes de ce colloque feront l’objet d’une publication ultérieure.

 

Comité d’organisation :

– Anaïs AUGIAS – présidente de l’association USoM, docteur ès sciences, Paris-Descartes Paris 5. Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ (EA « LAAB » – Laboratoire Anthropologie Archéologie Biologie)

– Philippe CHARLIER – Département de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement, musée du quai Branly – Jacques Chirac & Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ (EA « LAAB » – Laboratoire Anthropologie

Archéologie Biologie)

– Hélène LABIT – doctorante, Sorbonne Université – Faculté des Lettres (UMR Orient et Méditerranée, EA Rome et ses Renaissances)

 

New online journal : Open anthropological research

I am pleased to announce the creation of a new open-access, on-line journal called ‘Open Anthropological Research’ published by De Gruyters. With this announcement I seek contributions, and possibly a special issue, which explore all aspects of legal anthropology/ anthropology of law. Contributions should adopt ethnographic research methods and be written in English. 

Open Anthropological Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal, which means that contributions can easily achieve worldwide readership. The papers accepted for publication are posted on the website promptly, without the need to wait for the publication of the whole volume. We invite researchers, academics, practitioners, and educators to submit proposals for thematic issues/articles dealing with a broad range of social, cultural, linguistic and biological anthropology.

Authors of Open Anthropological Research benefit from:

  • no article submission or article processing charges (APCs) in 2020
  • transparent, comprehensive and fast peer review
  • efficient fast-track publication
  • worldwide dissemination and accessibility of articles
  • promotion of each published article
  • free language-correction services for authors from non-English speaking region
  • secure archiving by De Gruyter and the independent archiving service Portico

Queries can be directed to me and/or to the Managing Editor.

Yours,

John R Campbell

Dr John R Campbell

Editor-in Chief of Open Anthropological Research and

Emeritus Reader in the Anthropology of Africa and Law

Sociology & Anthropology

School of Oriental & African Studies

Thornhaugh Street,

Russell Square,

London  WC1H OXG
Mobile 07514-598518

http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff30720.php

http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781138928107/

https://www.routledge.com/Bureaucracy-Law-and-Dystopia-in-the-United-Kingdoms-Asylum-System/Campbell/p/book/9781138214958

Conférence : L’esclavage et la question de l’homme, 30 avril 2020

Programme

10h (heure de Guyane) et 15h (heure de Paris)

1. L’esclavage et la question de l’homme des juristes romains au code noir
Arnaud Paturet, chargé de recherches au CNRS, Centre de Théorie et analyse du droit (UMR 7074) et École normale supérieure, Paris

2. L’esclavage : un fait global
Marc Pave, docteur en histoire moderne, professeur d’histoire en classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles Lettre et chargé de cours d’histoire du droit à l’Université de Guyane

 

Rejoindre la conférence avec l’application zoom :
https://zoom.us/j/7122049210?pwd=OEJpM3NlVDVqd2RubGZjRHdobzg4QT09 
ID de la conférence : 712 204 9210
Mot de passe : 799621

Rejoindre la conférence par téléphone de France, si vous n’avez pas de connexion internet : +33 1 7037 2246 ; +33 1 7037 9729 ; pour joindre la conférence par téléphone d’un autre pays : contacter florence.faberon@univ-guyane.fr 
Contact, information et connexion : florence.faberon@univ-guyane.fr 

Conférence : Peuples autochtones et droit des minorités, 24 avril 2020

Programme

10h (heure de Guyane) et 15h (heure de Paris)

1. Les peuples autochtones : notion, identité et enjeux
Florencine Édouard, ancienne présidente et fondatrice de l’Organisation des Nations autochtones de Guyane et membre de l’association Groupes d’experts et juristes en droits humains et droits autochtones

2. Droit à la terre, aux territoires et aux ressources des peuples autochtones
Alexandre Sommer-Schaechtele, Juriste expert en droits des peuples autochtones et vice-président de l’Organisation des Nations Autochtones de Guyane

3. L’autochtonie en Guyane
Alexis Tiouka, Juriste et conférencier, spécialiste des populations autochtones, membre de l’association Groupes d’experts et juristes en droits humains et droits autochtones

4. Jeunesse autochtone et engagement
Ileen Naomi Colom, Juriste expert en droits des peuples autochtones et membre de l’Organisation des Nations Autochtones de Guyane

5. Groenland, autochtones et décolonisation
Norbert Rouland, Professeur émérite d’Aix-Marseille Université et ancien membre de l’Institut universitaire de France

6. La reconnaissance paradoxale des minorités nationales en Chine
Laurent Sermet, Professeur de droit public à l’Institut d’études politiques d’Aix-en-Provence

Rejoindre la conférence avec l’application zoom :
https://zoom.us/j/347520159?pwd=Y0k5cU5WbjhJQmFkREpxRzhqYjZPdz09 

ID de la conférence : 347 520 159
Mot de passe : 799621

Rejoindre la conférence par téléphone de France, si vous n’avez pas de connexion internet : +33 1 7037 9729 ; +33 1 7095 0103 ; pour joindre la conférence par téléphone d’un autre pays : contacter florence.faberon@univ-guyane.fr 
Contact, information et connexion : florence.faberon@univ-guyane.fr 

latest issue of the Journal of Legal Anthropology, vol. 3, issue 2, 2019.

To help you overcome the challenges many of you are facing in teaching and researching outside of your universities, we have made all Berghahn journals available to access until June 30. View full COVID-19 updates: https://www.berghahnjournals.com/page/covid19/covid19-update

Volume 3, Issue 2
Governing migration through paperwork
Guest Editors: Lisa Marie Borrelli and Sophie Andreetta

Articles
Introduction: Governing migration through paperwork
Lisa Marie Borrelli and Sophie Andreetta
https://bit.ly/2X3Krg4

Governing through paperwork: Examining the regulatory effects of documentary practices in a refugee settlement
Sophie Nakueira
https://bit.ly/2JuDBYW

Constructing ‘unteachability’ through menacing warnings: The coupling of welfare benefits and migration control in Switzerland
Luca Pfirter
https://bit.ly/2UFa0m5

Paperwork performances: Legitimating state violence in the Swedish deportation regime
Lisa Marie Borrelli and Annika Lindberg
https://bit.ly/3bJwurx

Administrative guidelines as a source of immigration law?: Ethnographic perspectives on law at work and in the making
Larissa Vetters
https://bit.ly/3bEuVeq

Writing for difference audiences: Social workers, irregular migrants and fragmented statehood in Belgian welfare bureaucracies
Sophie Andreetta
https://bit.ly/3dQRgXY

Postface: Anthropology, bureaucracy and paperwork
Thomas Bierschenk
https://bit.ly/2xKdJ8A

FORUM
Managing paper trails after Windrush: Migration, documents and bureaucracy
Anna Tuckett
https://bit.ly/2X4Zp5g

Giving them the slip: Israeli employers’ strategic falsification of pay slips to disguise the violation of Thai farmworkers’ right to the minimum wage
Matan Kaminer
https://bit.ly/39CIfi6

Spells of belonging: A response to Anna Tuckett
Susannah Crockford
https://bit.ly/2UR75p4

BOOK REVIEWS
William Wheeler
https://bit.ly/3bINQVy

Sign up for Email updates: http://bit.ly/2uO5d3Z
Please visit the Berghahn website for information about the journal: www.berghahnjournals.com/jla
Please be sure to recommend JLA to your institution’s library:
http://journals.berghahbooks.com/jla/library-recommendations

XVI International Conference of the International Association for Legal Methodology (bORDEAUX, jUNE 25th-26th)

XVI International Conference of the International Association for Legal Methodology

Bordeaux, 25-26 June 2020

Theme

“Law and Facts / Le droit et les faits”

The International Association of Legal Methodology and the Institut de recherche Montesquieu (University of Bordeaux) are issuing a call for presentations on the theme “Law and Facts / Le droit et les faits” at the International Conference to be held on 25 and 26 June 2020 at the Faculty of Law and Political Science of the University of Bordeaux in Bordeaux (France).

Description

The distinction between law and facts is a commonplace subject that continues to attract the interest of legal scholars. The views on the relation between Law and facts are sometimes contradictory: some criticize the tendency to adapt Law to social facts or even to deduce legal rules from said facts, while others reconcile the two going so far as to entertain the notion that law is a social fact. Nonetheless, legal reasoning draws a sharp distinction between Law and facts and interprets social facts through the eye of the law. These attempts at reconciliation can be surprising as almost everything opposes them: unlike Law and norms, facts happen only once and never repeat themselves. Facts are part of a present that is quickly over, whereas Law provides for the future by rule and closes the past by decisions and sanctions. Facts are unique, enclosed in a deep singularity and difficult to grasp, while Law is a shape that must encompass the diversity of facts.

Everything, however, permanently opposes facts and Law. On the one hand, facts “never stand still” and extend beyond the legal framework and, on the other hand, Law leaves an indelible mark on reality.

The next AILM convention seeks to explore these different points of intersection between Law and facts.

Facts as a source of norms

• Looking back at customs and practices in the 21st century. The practices that develop within a community or social group are likely to generate norms and frame future behaviour in an original way that is different from other social artefacts such as culture and language: where do disciplines such as anthropology and ethnography stand today with regard to the various modes of social regulation and their relationship to Law? What is the topicality of these normative sources in a time of increasingly globalized Western legal traditions?

• Revolutions or when facts have their revenge on Law. Law is not immune to social facts. As a consequence, one can arguably conceive revolutions that affect societies, whether they be social, cultural or political in nature, as turning points that reveal the profoundly factual nature of the law. What function do revolutionary “facts” play in the constitution of normative orders?

• The emergence of normative facts. Certain facts give rise, by their simple occurrence, to legal consequences. Objective liability, for example, bypasses several traditional mechanisms of legal reasoning (such as fault) to generate legal consequences: what ground? Enclosed land is another example. On what grounds are these situations treated separately? Are some facts “normative?” Conversely, could legal presumptions and fictions be interpreted as a refusal to allow certain facts to bring about the legal consequences that would otherwise occur?

Facts as a source of interpretation of norms

The consideration of social facts and cultural artifacts in legal reasoning can be seen as a recognition of the interdependence between norms and facts:

 The facts in legal reasoning. Social facts are often taken into consideration in legal reasoning: in what capacity? Are they potentially interpretative constraints? What place do they have in the discourse of lawyers and scholars? Do they interact in the balancing of legal rules?

• The facts in jurisdictional reasoning. Facts are assessed by judges who categorize and select them in order to define the “case” that will have to be addressed. How are these cases constructed? What role do the parties to a proceeding play in the construction of these cases? In constitutional Law, one can ask what control do the constitutional courts have over legislative facts?

• Facts as a measure and the “intelligence” of the law. Do the complexity and singularity of facts constitute obstacles to the use of artificial intelligence in law? Do the predictability of court decisions and actuarial tools open up a reign of quantifiable and measurable facts? Can Law, like facts, be measured?

Directives for the Proposals 

Interested participants must submit send their written proposal before February 1, 2020. Proposals must have a bilingual title, contain a short summary (between 100 and 150 words) in French or English and mention the name and affiliation of the author. 

Proposals should be sent to the following email address: 

aimj-ialm2020@usherbrooke.ca

Selected participants will be invited to contribute to a collective publication. Although a proposal can discuss other issues than the ones described above, the scientific committee can give preference to proposals more directly related to these specific topics. Resources permitting, financial support may be offered to scholars who wish to participate. 

Scientific Committee: 

Nader Hakim Mathieu Devinat Jean-Yves Chérot Alexandra Popovici
ProfessorUniversité de Bordeaux President of the IALM ProfessorUniversité de Sherbrooke ProfessorUniversité d’Aix-Marseille ProfessorUniversité de Sherbrooke

Latest Issue of the Journal of Legal Anthropology (vol. 3, 2019)

 
Articles
 
 
 
 
Forum
 
 
 

clio@themis, n°16 : Droit et anthropologie : archéologie d’un savoir à la renaissance

  • GÉRALDINE CAZALS ET MARIE HOULLEMARE

    Les juristes et l’anthropologie à la Renaissance

    À lire certains ouvrages consacrés à la naissance et au développement de l’anthropologie, il semblerait que la question soit tranchée : ce seraient les travaux des naturalistes (Linné, Buffon) ayant permis de classer l’homme au sein des espèces naturelles, l’influence des philosophes (de Rousseau à Kant) ayant proposé une théorie de la nature humaine, et les récits et les observations issus de la seconde grande vague d’exploration (en Afrique, en Amérique, dans le Pacifique), qui auraient permis de (…)

     
  • RACHEL DARMON

    L’institution des dieux : mythologie, anthropologie et humanisme juridique à la Renaissance

    Résumé : Si l’anthropologie moderne diverge, par la systématicité de sa méthodologie, de pratiques d’écriture érudites au statut encore erratique, ses préoccupations n’étaient pas absentes de la démarche des humanistes, à l’intérieur, bien sûr de certaines limites. Au XVIe siècle commence à émerger une étude du fait religieux compris comme un fait de culture, comme une technique élaborée et institutionnalisée. L’humanisme juridique apporte à la tradition mythologique un cadre de réflexion sur le rôle des (…)

     
  • GÉRALDINE CAZALS

    Mens emblematica, mens juridica, mens anthropologica. Réflexions autour de la contribution des jurisconsultes humanistes auteurs d’emblèmes à l’anthropologie (premier XVIe siècle)

    Résumé : Cet article se propose d’analyser la place prise par les savoirs et les questionnements intéressant l’anthropologie dans le cadre des travaux liés au développement de l’emblématique dans la première moitié du XVIe siècle. Via l’étude de divers emblèmes composés notamment par André Alciat, Guillaume de La Perrière, Barthélemy Aneau ou Pierre Coustau, il s’attache à démontrer non seulement les liens entre emblématique, étude des rites antiques et analyse de différents phénomènes sociaux et humains, mais (…)

     
  • GAËLLE DEMELEMESTRE

    Les Dominicains et les Indiens

    Résumé : La conquête du Nouveau Monde a très rapidement suscité dans l’Espagne du XVIe siècle de violents débats, centrés autour de deux interrogations majeures portant sur le droit des Espagnols à la conquête et à la domination des Indes et sur leur droit à réduire les Indiens à l’esclavage. Pour y répondre, les théologiens et juristes espagnols de l’ordre de saint Dominique ont procédé à deux grandes innovations, que le présent article entreprend de développer. La première a été d’appuyer et de conforter leur (…)

     
  • GRÉGOIRE HOLTZ

    De l’« ensauvagement » à l’observation participante : archéologie d’une catégorie anthropologique

    Résumé : Cet article montre comment la notion d’observation participante, théorisée au XXe siècle, trouve ses origines dans les récits de voyages de la Renaissance qui expérimentent déjà l’enquête en immersion dans des sociétés étrangères. Si la légitimité de ces témoignages est héritée du paradigme judiciaire, les écrits juridiques empruntent réciproquement de nombreuses références aux récits pré-ethnographiques pour autoriser leur propos. Ces premières formes d’observation participante sont à la fois légitimées (…)

     
  • ANDREA DAHER

    Le Sauvage convertible dans l’alliance amicale franco-tupi (XVIIe siècle)

    Résumé : Ce texte porte sur l’inscription des « codes relationnels » établis avec les Indiens Tupinamba dans les récits des capucins Claude d’Abbeville et Yves d’Évreux, au début du XVIIe siècle, dans une perspective comparative par rapport au livre du huguenot Jean de Léry, dont ils sont tributaires. Il s’agit de répondre à la question de l’historicité de la notion de sympathie, dans la mise en place de critères d’identification (atribution de similitude) et de relation (hiérarchie) entre les hommes. (…)

     
  • CÉLINE ROYNIER

    L’anthropologie et le droit dans les conflits historiographiques de l’Angleterre prémoderne : l’exemple du Philadelphus de R. Harvey (1593)

    Résumé : Richard Harvey, astrologue anglais du XVIe siècle, est un auteur assez méconnu. Pourtant, c’est dans son texte intitulé Philaldelphus, paru en 1593, qu’apparait pour la première fois en langue anglaise le terme d’« anthropology ». L’objet de cet article est de tenter de dégager le sens dans lequel est employé ce terme – qui est défini par l’auteur comme l’étude de la généalogie et des actes des personnes – à partir des éléments culturels de l’époque et notamment, d’éléments de culture juridique ainsi (…)

     
  • GILDUIN DAVY

    Par-delà les brumes du Nord : remarques sur la caractérologie juridique dans l’Historia om de nordiska folken d’Olaus Magnus (1555)

    Résumé : À bien des égards, Olaus Magnus – comme son frère Johannes – peut être considéré comme un père du gothicisme, entendu comme un mouvement d’idée engendrant une nouvelle approche anthropologique du Nord. Son Historia om de nordiska folken amorce en effet une nouvelle perception des peuples scandinaves (principalement les Suédois) dans laquelle est mis en lumière tout un faisceau de valeurs primaires qui configurent leur identité à la fois politique et juridique commune. En tout état de cause, sa (…)

     
  • JEAN-FRÉDÉRIC SCHAUB

    Le sang, notion politique et régulateur social sous l’Ancien Régime. Pour une histoire longue de la race

    Résumé : Un des arguments des historiens qui avancent que la question raciale ne prend forme qu’à l’époque contemporaine consiste à montrer que l’évocation du sang est métaphorique avant l’avènement du racisme dit scientifique. Il se serait agi d’évoquer la place de l’identité lignagère à travers une image, celle du sang qui coule de génération en génération. Le présent article, s’appuyant sur des sources à la fois normatives et littéraires, entend montrer au contraire que, dès la fin du Moyen Âge, le sang réel (…)

     
  • MARIE-CLARTÉ LAGRÉE

    Des apprentis anthropologues au Levant à la fin du XVIe siècle (Nicolay, Regnault, Giraudet, Villamont) : conditions de contact et questionnement

    Résumé : En s’appuyant sur quatre voyageurs français de la seconde moitié du XVIesiècle qui se sont rendus au Levant et ont publié leur récit, cet article étudie la vision anthropologique qui pouvait être la leur. Après avoir présenté les conditions de contact, d’un point de vue juridique et diplomatique, et avoir démontré que ces occasions étaient réelles, cette étude souligne la force de la croyance en l’unité du genre humain et avance que l’intérêt des voyageurs se porte non sur l’homme, mais davantage (…)

     

    Varia

  • CARLOS PETIT

    John H. Wigmore and European Culture in the Progressive Era

    Résumé : Nous nous intéressons ici aux initiatives de John Henry Wigmore (1863-1943), doyen de la faculté de droit de la Northwestern University. Depuis le début du dernier siècle, Wigmore a promu plusieurs collections (en anglais) d’œuvres de renommés juristes européens, en matiére du droit pénal, de l’histoire du droit, bref, de la philosophie du droit. Ces pages proposent des clefs pour procéder à une interprétation des collections et pour déveler les stratégies adoptées dans une dynamique de (…)

Colloque : Les peuples autochtones : quels droits ? quelle protection ? (24-25 mai, Aix-Marseille Université)

Colloque

Les peuples autochtones : quels droits ? quelle protection ?

Du vendredi 24 mai 2019 au samedi 25 mai 2019


Présentation

Un colloque sur un sujet très actuel mais qui n’attire malheureusement pas assez l’attention. Cet évènement a pour but de sensibiliser à la cause de la protection et de la reconnaissance pleines et entières des peuples autochtones et de leur patrimoine.

Nous mettons un point d’honneur sur la recherche d’intervenants de qualité et concernés par ces problématiques : ONG en contact direct avec les peuples, représentants d’autochtones, juristes, chercheurs spécialistes, etc.

Des temps d’échange seront organisés entre le public et les intervenants.

Se tiendra également une exposition de grands photographes professionnels dans le Hall principal de la Faculté de droit d’Aix-en-Provence, du lundi 20 mai au samedi 25 mai 2019.

Programme

Vendredi 24 mai 2019

13h30 : Accueil des participants et allocution de bienvenue

14h00 : Conférence introductive

Peuples autochtones et environnement : Écocide, biopiraterie, appropriation des expressions culturelles – Exemple du peuple Kanak en Nouvelle- Calédonie 
Mme. Subama Mapou, porte-parole IKAPALA et Comité Rhéébù Nùù

Reconnaissance et statut juridique des peuples autochtones 
Mr. Daniel Arboleda, doctorant AMU

15h30 : Pause

Table ronde n°1 – Droit à la terre

15h45 : Le droit de propriété des peuples autochtones 
Pr. Aurélie Laurent, université du Mans

Les menaces aux territoires – l’affaire Montagne d’Or 
Mme. Marine Calmet, représentante ONG Nature Rights

17h20 : Exposition et buffet

Discussions informelles entre les différents intervenants et le public autour d’un buffet et d’œuvres photographiques professionnelles

19h30 : Clôture

Samedi 25 mai 2019

9h00 : Accueil des participants / petit-déjeuner

Table ronde n°2 – l’importance des cultures autochtones

09h15 : Opportunités et contraintes du patrimoine culturel immatériel pour les cultures autochtones 
Pr. Laurent  Sébastien Fournier, Université AMU

La notion de « génocide culturel » – Le cas des residential schools au Canada 
Mme. Lorraine Dumont, doctorante AMU

10h45 : Pause

Table ronde n°3 – Les actions menées en faveur des peuples autochtones

11h00 : Les actions pour la préservation de la Culture – ACCB Bordeaux et les arrivants de Nouvelle- Calédonie 
Mme. Rachelle Hnawia, représentante Association ACCB

Protection des expressions culturelles, symboles et artisanat traditionnel 
Mme. Marine Calmet, représentante ONG Nature Rights

12h30 : Clôture et restauration

Accès gratuit, tout public

Faculté de droit et science politique
Amphithéâtre Favoreu
3 Avenue Robert Schuman
13100 Aix-en-Provence

Source : https://univ-droit.fr/actualites-de-la-recherche/manifestations/31603-les-peuples-autochtones-quels-droits-quelle-protection

Book Review: An Anthropology of Marxism by Cedric J. Robinson

In An Anthropology of Marxism, reissued posthumously, Cedric J. Robinson provides a novel lens for deconstructing the work of Karl Marx by challenging Marx’s assertion that capitalism is an essential precondition for socialism. Robinson’s account holds great potential as a tool of political praxis, writes Eric Loefflad, and its critique of Marxism offers a new dimension of Marxist strategy for today’s world. An Anthropology of Marxism. Cedric J. Robinson. Pluto Press. 2019. 
In the decade following the 2008 financial crisis, global inequality is rising, climate disaster is impending and far-right authoritarianism is enjoying one political victory after another. As existing institutional logics fail to explain, let alone rectify, these situations, it is unsurprising that Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism, long marginalised after the fall of the Soviet Union, is experiencing a resurgence. However, this renewed Marxist interest is accompanied by claims that Marxism is prone to rigidity/exclusionism in its theory of universal emancipation. Diverse in its manifestations, this line of critique has portrayed the Marxist tradition as flawed in its primary location of transformative agency in a predominantly white male industrial working class whose exploitation is facilitated by their status as formally equal agents. What is lost in this account is capitalism’s reliance on inequality-based structures that include: the uncompensated labour of women in the domestic sphere, racialised colonial dispossession and the coerced extraction of value from slaves, serfs and peasants.

Against this backdrop, Cedric J. Robinson’s An Anthropology of Marxism (hereinafter ‘Anthropology’) provides a novel lens for deconstructing the work of Marx and the critiques lodged against it. Reissued from its original 2001 edition with a foreword from HLT Quan and a preface by Avery Gordon, the central argument of the now deceased Robinson is that Marx was incorrect in his assertion that capitalism is an essential precondition for socialism. Here he frames Marx’s theoretical synthesis of German philosophy, English political economy and the French revolutionary legacy as failing to interrogate its own cultural and intellectual presumptions. Rather, by rejecting pre-Enlightenment emancipatory endeavours as inconsequential instances of ‘primitive socialism’, Marx embraced the very conceits of bourgeois ideology he purported to critique. From this premise, Robinson offers an alternative genealogy of socialism by turning to eleventh-, twelfth- and thirteenth-century Europe. According to this narrative, peasant uprisings against the power of merchants, feudal lords and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church were driven by interpretations of Christianity that, in varying form, called for radical distributional and gender equality. This foundational eruption of socialism prompted the existing order to suppress these efforts through a reconfiguration of previously pluralistic Christian doctrines that labelled these popular movements as ‘heretical’. Yet, despite this concerted suppression, a formative socialism lived on through religious orders such as the Franciscans, and later the Jesuits, who attained influence as dispute resolvers and charity-providers throughout Europe and later its overseas colonies.

From here, Robinson shows how the legacies of formative socialism shaped the thought of both Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel, yet were excluded from Marx’s depiction of these theorists. Following this, Anthropology turns to Marx’s usage of Aristotle. Here Robinson claims that Aristotle’s conception of a political society of formally equal citizens, and its erasure of women and slaves, is reproduced in Marx’s conception of proletariat agency and its emphasis on formal equality as constitutive of capitalist social relations. For Robinson, this exclusion of medieval socialist formulations that centred the plight of formally unequal subjects was symptomatic of Marx’s investment in bourgeois Enlightenment conceptions of linear progress through rationality. Thus, under Marx’s influence:the originated discourse in Western socialism became subjugated knowledges. In their place socialism acquired an alternative and secularized natural history, one drawn from the discursive practices of scientific discourse and bourgeois hagiography (111).In evaluating Robinson’s argument, we must understand the intervention he was making in the context of Anthropology’s original 2001 publication. As Quan notes in the foreword, Robinson can be read as a response to the anti-socialist ethos of the post-Cold War era that purported to discard Marxism into the world-historic repository of failed ideas. Thus, in continuing the socialist project by unmooring it from its Marxist baggage, Robinson’s claim was ‘an unwavering act of faith in the ability and role of ordinary women and men to make their society anew’ (p. ix, notes omitted). While this may clarify Robinson’s purpose, it raises the question of how his analysis should be treated in our current moment in which Marxist critique has regained its relevance.That said, one means of engaging Robinson’s Anthropology is to understand it through the same modes of Marxist analysis it critiques. WhileAnthropology decries dialectical materialism as bourgeois intellectual arrogance that deprived socialism of its original promise, ironically Anthropology can be interpreted as presenting an extraordinarily innovative dialectic in its own right.  Here, if socialism, i.e. spiritual anti-hierarchical medieval communalism, was a ‘thesis’ that found its ‘antithesis’ in the individualistic rationality of the bourgeois Enlightenment, then Marxism can be understood as a ‘synthesis’ of the socialist ethic with Enlightenment analytical methods.This interpretation is supported by William Robert’s recent contextualisation of Capital within the workers’ movement of Marx’s time, which shows how Marx’s theory stemmed from claims that labour’s political goals required a sufficiently radical understanding of its distinct arena of struggle. If the medievally-rooted socialist ethic informed this backdrop of labour activism, then, far from ‘intellectual conceit’, Marx’s mastery over bourgeois theory for the purpose of levying an all-pervasive critique acted to prevent workers’ assertions from being co-opted by ultimately futile capitalist offerings of reform. While this view preserves Robinson’s premise that the existence of socialism is not contingent on the emergence of capitalism, it does add the caveat that perhaps socialism, at least in Marx’s context, required Marxism to resist capitalism.Nothing about this interpretation should detract from Robinson’s overarching point that we must decentre the agency of Marx’s privileged white male industrial working class when theorising anti-capitalist resistance. Although the Marxist tradition is certainly not without chauvinism in this regard, it has also been remarkably adaptive to self-critique. A key illustration of this is Onur Ince’s demonstration of how capitalist domination is a globally interconnected force, but its exploitation is experienced (and resisted) in different ways across varying temporal and spatial contexts that include wage labour, involuntary servitude and colonial dispossession. In taking this multi-layered perspective to the next level, Anthropology shows how postcolonial/decolonial critiques of Marxist orthodoxies regarding the non-European world also apply to Europe itself.Beyond its analytical value, Robinson’s account holds great potential as a tool of political praxis.  For what Anthropology confronts is the question of how exactly are we to make sense of the cultural and political significance of Europe’s medieval period in our current global moment? Especially in Europe and settler offshoots, this historical period is susceptible to being problematically invoked by both the liberal centre and the far right. For liberal centrists, this era can be characterised as an alleged ‘dark age’ of ignorant barbarism, and the fact that it was transcended justifies the narrative of linear progress. For the far right, this era acts as an alleged ‘golden age’ of pure white Christian identity that justifies the resurrection of violent, and potentially genocidal, fascism. Both of these narratives mischaracterise the material dynamics of the current global crisis and, in varying capacities, both are rooted in the belief in Western superiority over all other peoples. Through Robinson’s account, we are provided with a third option for understanding the contemporary meaning of Europe’s middle ages: a legacy of ordinary people struggling for emancipation against unjust material conditions. Thus, paradoxically, Anthropology’s relentless critique of Marxism offers great potential in forging an entirely new dimension of Marxist strategy in the actually-existing world.

Eric Loefflad is a PhD candidate in Law at the University of Kent, Canterbury. His current research focuses on the intertwined material histories of law, empire and the emergence of modern political consciousness.

Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics. 

bOOK REVIEW : Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction. Jim Reynolds. UBC Press. 2018.

Book Review: Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction by Jim Reynolds

Posted: 14 May 2019 06:13 AM PDTIn Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical IntroductionJim Reynolds offers an excellent new encapsulation of Canadian Aboriginal law, discussing 163 cases stretching from 1823 up until the present day and covering topics including sovereignty, Aboriginal title and treaties. Reynolds draws on his wealth of experience to provide a compendious summary of the development of Aboriginal law in Canada, writes Sarah PikeAboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction. Jim Reynolds. UBC Press. 2018.

‘Thoughtful and well-written (though brief!) analysis…’. This was part of the feedback I received in law school in 1993 on my Aboriginal Law paper about ‘Aboriginal title’, an Indigenous interest in land recognised by the common law. It occurs to me now, after practising Aboriginal law for much of the last 25 years and recently reading Jim Reynolds’s excellent new encapsulation of Canadian Aboriginal law, Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction, that my haste may not have been the only contributor to my brevity. In my defence – I now realise – there simply was a dearth of judicial decisions on my topic. Aboriginal Peoples makes clear from its very first page – a helpful one-page list of leading cases in Canadian Aboriginal law, stretching from 1823 (an American case) to 2016 – that there has been an explosion of Canadian judicial decisions concerning Aboriginal peoples and interests since the 1990s.
Of the 36 cases Reynolds lists on this opening page – his book discusses 163 overall – only ten had been decided when I was in law school. With respect to Aboriginal title, the subject matter of my paper, there were only two. The first was St. Catherine’s Milling (1888), decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England sitting in appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada (as it did then) but not involving any Indigenous parties. The second was Calder (1973), the first case brought by Indigenous plaintiffs for a declaration of Aboriginal title. The Supreme Court of Canada decided the case in 1973 but not on the merits, as the majority of the court held that the plaintiffs had not obtained the Crown’s consent to sue it – a fiat – as was required at the time. Reynolds discusses these two cases in several places in his book, most notably in a section entitled ‘History of the Law of Aboriginal Title’ (94-102).
Reynolds obtained his undergraduate law degree in 1967 and his PhD in law in 1970, both from the London School of Economics; he then taught at LSE for several years and qualified as a barrister in England, before becoming a barrister and solicitor in British Columbia in 1980. Over the last 40 years, he has had a front-row (and occasionally a driver’s) seat to many of the developments in Canadian Aboriginal law. Reynolds has now bestowed on us the benefit of his experience, teaching ability, concise writing and learned synthesis of how we got to where we are today in Canada with respect to the subject matters of his title: Aboriginal Peoples and the Law.
Aboriginal Peoples, as the publisher blurb explains, is aimed at ‘students taking both introductory and specialist courses in Aboriginal law, Indigenous studies, or the social sciences; lawyers with an interest in Aboriginal law; and journalists, government officials, business people, and other members of the public who want a better understanding of where the law stands today and where it should go in the future’. As a lawyer with several decades behind me, I learned something on nearly every page. Most importantly, I appreciated Reynolds’s explanation of the context in which the law has been made through judges’ decisions and also of the relationships between the history and the present and between various sub-fields of Aboriginal law. But I also used this book as my course textbook when I recently taught a law school Aboriginal Law course. My students, I believe, found Aboriginal Peoples a straightforward and easily-comprehensible explanation of the law that enabled them to get up to speed quickly and to begin to analyse current legal issues.
Each of the book’s eight chapters averages just under 30 pages and is well-written in plain English. Reynolds assumes the reader’s intelligence, but not that she is coming to the book with years of experience in Aboriginal law: indeed, his first chapter is entitled ‘What is Aboriginal Law?’. Reynolds includes an important second chapter on the ‘Historical Background’ to Aboriginal law in Canada, a topic indispensable to a proper understanding of Aboriginal law. Reynolds then adds a third foundational chapter, ‘Sovereignty and Aboriginal-Crown Relations’, again providing the reader with this essential overarching perspective.
The heart of Aboriginal Peoples – at least, perhaps, from a law student’s or lawyer’s perspective – is its middle chapters about ‘Aboriginal Rights and Title’, ‘Treaties’ and ‘Consultation, Accommodation, and Consent’. Here, Reynolds discusses the historical development of the caselaw on each broad legal topic, bringing the reader right up to the most recently-decided cases (as of mid-2018). He synthesises both judicial decisions and scholarship, enabling the reader to see the fabric that the law has woven, rather than only the threads making up that fabric.
Reynolds’s penultimate chapter addresses two vast topics:  ‘Indigenous and International Law’.  Indigenous law, in particular, is a rapidly-developing field as Indigenous peoples recover and develop their own laws and legal systems, many of which settler societies and legal systems around the world almost eradicated. Those who are interested in this field – in which there has been a bounty of Canadian legal academic writing in the last decade or more – might be disappointed that Reynolds does not provide more in this chapter. Some might also argue with his assertion that Indigenous laws ‘do not form part of the Canadian law except to the extent that they have been incorporated into Canadian common law’ (175). Yet Reynolds was relying on a judge’s decision in drawing that conclusion, and those who wish to read more about this topic – or any other that Reynolds so ably canvasses – can investigate further by following the plethora of footnotes accompanying each chapter.
In his final chapter, ‘A Just Society?’, Reynolds – appropriately – provides more questions than answers about the future of Aboriginal law in Canada, including ‘probably the most important question for non-Aboriginal people in areas such as British Columbia’ – Reynolds’s home and mine – ‘where treaties have not been signed and Aboriginal title still exists’. This question is: ‘what does Aboriginal title mean for private property rights?’ (200). Indeed, this aspect of Aboriginal title is now a topic for law school papers, and Reynolds’s book is an excellent place to start in understanding this still-unresolved conflict between two legal interests that both appear to ‘confer exclusive use and possession’ of land (201). Aboriginal Peoplesbrings the reader up-to-date with respect to the current caselaw on Aboriginal title, explaining the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Delgamuukw (1997), then Marshall; Bernard (2005) and, finally, Tsilhqot’in (2014) (see especially Chapter Four), thereby helping him to more fully understand the intricacies of the remaining questions.
Reynolds concludes Aboriginal Peoples with a section entitled ‘Evaluation of Existing Law’, writing in the first person, as he does on occasion through the book. In my experience, one of the difficulties in analysing Aboriginal law – whether a court decision or academic commentary – is perceiving the writer’s perspective, and I appreciated knowing when Reynolds was attempting to objectively explain the law and when he was commenting on it. His approach, I believe, contributes to the reader’s comprehension of the extent to which individual perspective affects Aboriginal law in Canada; indeed, this matter of ‘who is doing the writing?’ is itself one of the final topics Reynolds addresses. He provides his opinion that some of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Aboriginal law favour ‘liberal discourses of rights’, which include ‘an approach to equality that ignores, among other things, disparities in resources, political and social power, and social inequality generally’ (212-13). If a mark of a great book is that it makes one want to read further in the topic, then Reynolds has done a fine job. As is evident from this brief example, the questions and issues that Reynolds raises in his final pages are ones that not only law students and lawyers must consider, but also all citizens of Canada and many other settler nations as well.
That Reynolds provides us with his perspective occasionally in Aboriginal Peoples gives us a chance to reflect on how lucky we are as readers to be able to receive this, in addition to his compendious summary of the development of Aboriginal law in Canada. Were I to go back in my time machine to 1993 to discuss my paper with my law professor, I would keep Aboriginal Peoples and The Law: A Critical Introduction in my back pocket to help me better understand where we were in 1993, where we would be in 2018 and where we might very well end up in the years to come.

Sarah Pike is a lawyer in Vancouver, where she has worked since being called to the Bar of British Columbia in 1995. She has worked in a big firm, a small firm and government.  She has also been a graduate student in law and taught at a law school. Sarah is now a freelance lawyer practising Aboriginal and constitutional law through her own law firm, SPIKE Law.
Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics.