Geographies of Global Governance / Transnational Human Rights Litigation and the Politics of Space
Abstract: The project Transnational Human Rights Litigation and the Politics of Space focusses on human rights violations not by states but by private corporations, particularly when operating in places where ‘the law’ is hardly available for victims. The latter may want to resist by means of transnational human rights litigation (THRL) and ‘find the law’ abroad. The project holds that spatial knowledge is a necessary precondition for the making of a legal case. In the field of THRL space is highly contested. While the Supreme Court decision on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum is arguably a moment of juridico-political gravity, with critical repercussions for the future possibilities of suing transnational corporation before US courts, the core interest of this project is not primarily ‘juridical.’ Instead, the focus is on the ‘politics of space’ at work in the THRL. The project is interested in how space is constructed and thus becomes a technicality of a politics of transnational law.
- Philip Liste, Geographical Knowledge at Work: Human Rights Litigation and Transnational Territoriality, European Journal of International Relations (online first).
- Philip Liste, Transnational Human Rights Litigation and Territorialized Knowledge: Kiobel and the ‘Politics of Space’, Transnational Legal Theory 5: 1. [http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/20414005.5.1.1 ]
- Philip Liste, The Politics of Space: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Verfassungsblog: On Matters Constitutional (2013), < www.verfassungsblog.de/de/the-politics-of-space-kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum >
Global Community of Courts [completed]
(together with Prof. Antje Wiener, funded by the TransCoop-Programme of the Alexander von Humboldt foundation in cooperation with the Canadian Research Council (SSHRC).
Abstract: Anne-Marie Slaughter has described the “new world order” as characterized by some “conceptual shifts,” including an increasing cooperation of domestic courts across nation-state boundaries. The cross-jurisdictional referencing of legal norms and decisions, as Slaughter holds, would lead into a “global community of courts.” This article takes issue with that observation. We argue that for such a community to emerge, cross-referencing would need to be followed by an effective transmission of meaning from one (legal) context to another. Following recent insights in the field of International Relations norm research, however, we can expect such meanings to be contested — in particular, when different cultural repertoires operate on either side of the interactive processes. Therefore, a need for translation ensues (i.e., a translation of constitutional norms or concepts from one legal order into another). The conditions of a “global community of courts” are thus not easily met. In this respect, the aim of the article is to put Slaughter’s thesis to an empirical test. To extrapolate the “normative structures of meaning-in-use” the article builds on the analysis of semi-structured interviews with legal practitioners who were involved in the jurisprudence on anti-terrorism measures in two countries, Canada and Germany. During this empirical work, we found a “global community of courts” not yet emerged. Although the concept of community does matter as an explanatory reference for research on legal cross-referencing across national borders, our research suggests that practice of cross-referencing is still more “culturally” fragmented than unified, and normative references are more regionally diverse than globally shared. Moreover, the normative context within which referencing takes place remains strong, so that the meaning of “foreign” concepts is often constructed by means of contestation rather than transferred from one contest into another. For more information, click here
- Antje Wiener and Philip Liste, Lost Without Translation? Cross-Referencing and a New Global Community of Courts, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 21: 1 (Winter 2014), 263-296.
Intertextualities as Technique of Global Governance: The Constitution of Normativity in Organizational Context [completed]
Abstract: The ever-always-the-same phrases in documents of International Organizations (IOs) are not “just” phrases. This project builds on the assumption that repetitive phraseology is a major aspect in institutional practice and a forceful technique in the global organization of normativity—understood as a continuously negotiated accumulation of normative claims or patterns of meaning. Located on the intersection of the academic fields of International Relations, Organizational Sociology and Law, the project aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the daily operations of IOs and their role in the regulation of world society as well as phenomena of constitutionalization and fragmentation of international law. The project proposes to analyze this daily practice as textual practice. By the same token, social science discourse analysis will be applied in order to elaborate the hegemonic reproduction of normativity in a global scale in which IOs are assumed to play an essential role. Guided by a theoretical interest in questions of the constitutionalization and fragmentation of international law the project aims to show paths for conducting empirical research on the nexus of IOs and the contested constitution of normative order—i.e. global normativity.
- Katja Freistein and Philip Liste, Organisation-im-Kommen: Intertextualer Institutionalismus in der Analyse von Weltorganisationen. In Martin Koch (ed.): Weltorganisationen (Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2012).
- Philip Liste, The Politics of (Legal) Intertextuality. International Political Sociology 3:4 (2010), 319-22.