Conceptualizing legal change as ‘norm-knitting’ through the example of the environmental human right (original) (raw)
Related papers
Recursivity of Global Normmaking: A Sociolegal Agenda
Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2009
This review proposes that the recursivity of law offers a promising framework for sociolegal and interdisciplinary research on global norm-making. The recursivity approach is systematic, generates hypotheses and questions about global actors and mechanisms, takes seriously historical contingency, and is inherently comparative across issue areas and different levels of governance. In global lawmaking, recursivity proceeds principally through the intersection of three interacting cycles of global normmaking, national lawmaking, and the interaction between the two. With particular focus on genocide and war crimes, violence against women, trade law, and climate change, the review demonstrates how four mechanisms—actor mismatch, diagnostic struggles, contradictions, and indeterminacy—drive forward these cycles of reform until the inherent tensions within them are resolved and normmaking settles. A sociolegal approach to the recursivity of global normmaking emphasizes (a) the politics of ...
The Possibility of Radical Change in Transnational Environmental Law
Transnational Environmental Law
It is axiomatic that law evolves in response to change, including ecological change. 1 Sometimes change is slow, with the law taking decades to evolve. Sometimes it is sudden and dramatic, or at least appears that way at first glance. Either way, the law evolves to accommodate changing social norms, changing political and economic conditions, and changing physical and ecological realities. 2 The field of transnational environmental law is defined by efforts to envision and achieve changes in the rule of law. Notable legal evolution has come from projects at the intersection of human rights and the environment, 3 climate justice, 4 private law regimes for environmental protection, rights of/for nature, 5 1 E.g., '[W]e have only to say tempora mutantur; and if men themselves change with the times, why should not also laws undergo an alteration?':
Globalization makes less and less adequate and effective the national legal instruments of rights protection and the promotion of values declared in the national constitutions. The national systems, although still focused on the figure of the state, are increasingly integrated with others national, supranational and international systems, as well as with new regulative " regimes " in global character. Every single area of human life is ruled by a plurality of sources and normative actors, placed-in heterarchical way-on multiple levels. All of these orders and " legalities " form the " arena " of the global governance for which must be thought new principles and new (procedural) legal techniques, not always shaped as equivalent national patterns. For this reason it is increasingly determining the cooperation between legalities and regulatory regimes, in order to ensure autonomy, transparency and freedom of the individual actors in the social fields. Each " system " must ensure accountability for the future choices, ensuring participation to stakeholders and transparency of its operating mechanisms.
Legal Norms' Distinctiveness in Legal Transplants and Global Legal Pluralism
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013
Law is on the move." 1 States transplant foreign rules or procedures to improve commercial activity or as part efforts to harmonize political and legal systems. 2 Foreign laws are also used as instruments in development projects, where increasingly these projects emphasize legal norms such as transparency or accountability as ends in themselves. 3 This is the case in projects that promote the Rule of Law or democratic freedom as the key to progress 4 but also with the rise of constitutionalism as an organizing concept or archetype in legal thought. 5 Yet scholars have historically described deep connections between legal institutions and national * JSD Candidate, Cornell University. Much of the thinking in this paper follows on research and ensuing conversations with Peter Katzenstein and Benjamin Brake and I am grateful to them for their insights and ideas. Any errors are solely my own. Thank you to Odette Lienau and Mariana Mota Prado for helpful comments and suggestions on this early draft.
Georgetown Environmental Law Review, 2020
International law has become increasingly kaleidoscopic. There is a growing diversity of actors, subjects, objectives, obligations, dynamics, and mechanisms. With these innovations, there are numerous international instruments that do not fit squarely into the traditional taxonomy of international law (consisting of treaty, custom, and general principles) but appear to be binding on states. Notwithstanding their binding character, the assumption appears to be that if an instrument does not fall within the traditional taxonomy of international law that it is nonbinding or “soft.” This Article calls for an updating of the conceptualization of international law. The evolving nature of global governance, particularly as it responds to new challenges, compels a reconsideration of what constitutes international environmental law, and by extension, what constitutes international law. There is also a need to transpose our reconceptualization of the taxonomy of international law to the broader context of what constitutes binding international law. Toward that end, we propose a framework for analyzing whether an international instrument is binding, even if it is currently outside the traditional taxonomy of what constitutes international law.
Introduction: International lawmaking in a global world
Research Handbook on the Theory and Practice of International Lawmaking, 2000
International lawmaking in the past 70 years has become increasingly varied and has come to involve different loci of authority, levels of governance and shades of normativity. The perception that our time is very different from the early days of the United Nations era has inspired for example the well-known psychedelic image of [a] brave new world of international law where transactional actors, sources of law, allocation of decision function and modes of regulation have all mutated into fascinating hybrid forms. International Law now comprises a complex blend of customary, positive, declarative and soft law. 1