4 Zumbansen Transnational Law 738-754 Smits Ed 2006

8/13/2019 4 Zumbansen Transnational Law 738-754 Smits Ed 2006

1/18

Peer Zumbansen

Transnational Law

In: Jan Smits (ed.), Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. pp. 738-754

Edward ElgarPublishing: 2006

- Offprint -


2/18

68 Transnational law*

Peer Z umbansen

1 Introduction

Thefirst usage of the term transnational law (TL ) continues to be dis-puted.Whilescholarshipfocusedontheoriginsof thetermforalongtime,it hassincebecomeapparent that thereal challengeof TL lies in itsscopeand conceptual aspiration (Jessup, 1956; Koh, 1996). Alongside the

domestic-international dichotomythat markedinternational lawfor averylong time TL offers itself as a supplementary and challenging categorywithin interdisciplinary research on globalization and law. As famouslyconceptualized in a seriesof lecturesby Philip Jessup at YaleLaw Schoolin 1956 (Jessup, 1956), TL breaks the frames (Teubner, 1997b) of tradi-tional thinking about inter-staterelationships by pointing to the myriadformsof border-crossingrelationsamongstateandnon-stateactors. Now,half acenturyafter Jessups lectures, oneiswell advised to reread theslimbut nevertheless immensely richvolume. Without many references, Jessup

invites his audience to imaginean altogether diff

erent conceptual frame-work. Thisframework would help to reflect onthedichotomiesunderlyingand informing international law while decisively moving onward toembraceawiderandmoreadequateviewof globalhumanactivities. Jessupwrites that he shall use the term transnational law to include all lawwhich regulates actions or events that transcend national frontiers. Bothpublic andprivateinternational law areincluded, asareother ruleswhichdonot wholly fit intosuch standard categories (Jessup, 1956, p. 2).

When examining the inescapable problem of people worldwide whoselives areaffected by rules, Jessup wastes no timein pointing to thecon-

tingencybywhichweattributethelabel of lawtorules, normsor customsthat govern various situations. As man has developed his needs and hisfacilitiesfor meetinghisneeds, therulesbecomemorenumerousandmorecomplicated. History, geography, preferences, convenience, and necessityhave dictated dispersion of the authority to makethe rules men live by(ibid., p. 8). Jessup complementsthis bold exposition of themultitudeofnorm-producinginstitutionsandactorswithan intriguingpresentation ofthreeshortdramasthatilluminatetheparallelsbetweendomesticandinter-national constellations. Whilethefirst scenes of two of thethreedramas

738

* See also: International commercial regulation.


3/18

feature individuals caught up in disturbing, doctrinally challenging, legalconflicts variously involvingdivorceor theexerciseof membershiprights

in a stock corporation thecomplementingscenes invokea very similarproblem set on the inter-state level. Set against an ensuing discussionbetween theart critics, Mr Orthodox and Mr Iconoclast, Jessup extrapo-lates theinseparability of theissues that underlietheallegedly exclusivelydomestic versus the likewise purely international constellations. Thetrulysubversivethrust of Jessupsvisionof TL liesin theparallelsthat canberecognized between supposedly regional or internal issues in oneplaceand thosein another one. Ones ideaof what constitutesaregion isaptto beartificial and highlysubjective. Thepeoplein Boston andNew Yorktoday might quiteproperly feel that they have a closer identity with the

people of India than their grandfathers felt interest with the farmers ofIowa (ibid.,p. 26).With regardtostockholders, Jessup letsMr Iconoclastpoint out theparallelsbetweenpurportedlydomestic discussionsconcern-ing shareholder democracy and those involving increased demands forimproved participatory rights in the United Nations and other interna-tional organizations.

For thesakeof bothaccoladesandbrevity, it must sufficetopoint tothecollection of tributes appearing almost 20 years after Transnational L awwaspublished(Friedmann,HenkinandLissitzyn,1972),aswell asmention

Jessups clairvayant treatment of issues that would much later stilloccupy our legal minds. Oneof these issues concernstheproblemof theextraterritorial reach of antitrust statutes (Jessup, 1956, p. 75; Buxbaum,2004); another issue involves the uprooting of dearly-held convictionsof jurisdictional boundaries and competences (Jessup, 1956, pp. 727;Michaels,2004).Theseelementsclearlyunderscoretherelevanceof Jessupsground-breakingwork with regard to thecontinuingandfurther differen-tiatinginquiry into thelawof globalization.

Although thetermglobalizationhadnot yet entered theLexiconat thetimeof Jessupslectures, TL hasbeguntoreachdeepintotheheart of even

our present-day struggles over therole of law within dispersed and frag-mented spacesof normproduction (Fischer-Lescano andTeubner, 2004).TL presentsaradical challengeto all theorizingabout lawasit remindsusof theveryfragilityandunattainednessof law.At thebeginningof the21stcentury,wearestill atalosstoidentifyatheoryof lawthatwouldbesubtleenoughnottostifleemergingidentitiesin apost-colonial erawhileprovid-ing forms, fora and processes (Wiethlter, 1986) for the collision of dis-coursesthat mark post-metaphysical legal thinking(Habermas, 1996). TLworks itself likea drill through thefew remaining blanketscovers hastily

thrownover an impoverishedandinternally decayingconceptual body. TLlaysbareadescriptionof aworldthat longago began togivetestimonyof

Transnational l aw 739


4/18

Philip Allotts international unsociety (Allott 1990, p. 244). In thisworld in ourconceptual, political andtheoretical preoccupationwithinter-

state relationships has worked to disregard the projection of unreflecteddomestic notions of power and legitimacy onto the international scene(Zumbansen, 2001, 2002a; Koskenniemi, 2005, p. 122) while otherwisefailingto imaginetheemergenceof an international society of connectedindividuals.Withthedominanceof state-to-staterelationships, progressininternationalorganizationwasseenprimarilyasrelatingtostateactorsandfunctions(Hudson, 1932, 1944). Against thisbackgroundwecan begin tograsp and assess the revolutionary potential of Jessups concept of TL,whichheunfoldedinthelightof aninternational societyin itspresentcon-ditionof still embryonic organization (Jessup, 1956, p. 104).

In the terms long history, its variances can be attributed mostly to thedifferent doctrinal and theoretical backgrounds of those employing it. Thisshort exposition of TL will introduce the grand strands of discussionin different branches of legal doctrine and theory by way of visiting andrevisiting the places and times of TL in the historical and legal conscious-ness. Inspired by Philip Jessups exposition of the idea and concept of TL(Jessup, 1956; Schachter, 1986, p. 878), this chapter will address TL fromthe viewpoint of the commercial (arbitration) lawyer, the corporate andthepublic international lawyer and the human rights lawyer. Finally, the

chapter will conclude with brief remarks on the relationship between theemerging field of transnational (legal) history and TL and the impact of TLon legal education.

2 Lex mercatoria

The rediscovery of the medieval law merchant through the works of com-mercial lawyers after World War I I, began a great revival of the notion ofa borderless, universal trade law of nations (Goldman, 1964; Schmitthoff,1964). This notion had received a great deal of attention and intellectualconceptualizing as early as the 17th century (M ilgrom,North and Weingast

1990; Stein, 1995; Cordes, 2003). As seen above, Jessup proposed thatTL should encompass and simultaneously challenge public and privateinternational law were the latter to maintain their explanatory and guidingpotentials in an ever more integrating world. Commercial lawyers seizedthis moment and engaged for decades in a far-reaching enterprise ofcollecting, consolidating, codifying and harmonizing the various lawsgoverning international trade. Peculiarly mirroring todays dispute offervent imagination versus the school of hard knocks, i.e., visionary,theoretical, perhaps religious, legal thinking as opposed to realist, prag-

matic, result-oriented doctrine creation (Thomas Franck, in Philip AllottSymposium, EJIL 16, 343, 2005), lawyers carried on a dispute over both

740 Elgar encyclopedia of comparati ve law


5/18

thelegal nature and the very existence,of lex mercatoria as an autonomouslegal order (Schanze, 1986; Stein, 1995; Teubner, 1997; Mertens, 1997;

Berger, 2001; Gaillard, 2001). Aptly characterized as a battle betweentransnationalists (those embracing the emergence of a self-producinglegal order among commercial actors) and traditionalists (emphasizingthe continuously important role of the state in enforcing arbitral awards),the dispute over lex mercatoria exposed the vulnerability and burdens of apractice/theory-based challenge to official law, being those state-madenorms and statutes, embedded in an institutionally sound enforcementenvironment (Berger, 1996;Calliess, 2002; Zumbansen, 2002a).

Two developments, however, haveshifted thefocusaway fromsuch pre-occupations. Far frombeingtheproduct of powerlessprocessesof negoti-

ation, the common law of contracts (Teubner), the autonomous legalorder of lexmercatoriacould beshowntocontinueandamplify thepowercleavages between the haves and have-nots, between the North and theSouth, theWest andtheEast (Dezalay andGarth, 1995, 1996; Shalakany,2001). In part this critique premeditated todays scepticism towardswhat the writer Schneiderman has coined new constitutionalism(Schneiderman, 2000). However, theproponentsof an autonomouslegalorder arewell awarethat lex mercatoria will inevitably undergo dramaticphasesof repolitization (Teubner, 1997), by havingto meet itself someof

thenation states structural challenges with regulating theeconomy. Thisprocess of repoliticatization forms one layer of lex mercatorias coming ofage. Theconcept of TL that underliesand continuesto shapetheappear-ance and applicatory scope of lex mercatoria, must be seen as unfolding ina much more radical, reflexive manner. Much as in Jessups drama, TLpoints to the overarching political, perhaps utopian struggles that aresharedamongcomparabledevelopmentsandsocialmovementsindifferentregions. Thestrugglefor (legal) recognition of atransnational, denation-alized lexmercatoria is theotherwiseleft behind, domestic strugglefor thepower andlegitimacyof order throughlaw.Asit isexemplifiedthroughlex

mercatoria, TL reminds us of the never attained positivity of legal rule,whichisaconflict that wehavecometo addressbydistinguishingbetweenlegality and legitimacy. TL breaks with the separation of domestic andinternational legal (economic, social, cultural, political) problems and,instead, seeks to assess the inner connections and resemblances in theiralleged differences. These differences are not, however, the result of theopposition between its domestic and international qualities. Rather, thelables of domestic or international are merely the exertions of defini-tional andconceptual sovereigntyover anotherwiseuntameablepower.

Dramatically exemplified through the emergence of a denationalizedcommercial law,TL is nothing but a resurgence and restatement of the very



6/18

problem of regulatory power and autonomy, of private and public auton-omy. In this way, TL reconnects inseparably with both domestic, private

law discussions (over freedom of contract, duress, unconscionability andconsumer protection) and the public law themes of deregulation and pri-vatization. These discussions characterize the continuing ideological strug-gle over the delineation of the state from the market, and of the public fromthe private. Seen against this background, the project of a constitutional-ized private law undertakes the impossible task, of sustaining the paradoxbetween these irreducible spheres of societal freedom. This project shouldnot be dismissed solely for lacking the enthusiasm to (re-) embrace aperhaps inadequate conception of the state simply to prevent the marketfrom taking over.

3 Corporations

Administered centrally and from within inter-firm networks, transterri-torializedglobespanningcompanyactivitiesbringtogether amultitudeofautonomousorganizationalandeconomicactorsthatcaneasilyexhaustthetraditional regulatoryaspirationsof nationstatesandotherpolitical bodies(Hertner, 1998; Herkenrath, 2003). Thestudy of thetransnational law ofcorporate governance focuses on the various existing regulatory frame-works for businesscorporationson thedomestic, transnational and inter-

national level andhelpstoilluminatetheembeddednessof firmsin layersofrules (produced by regulatory and self-regulatory bodies), economic andpolitical constraintsandhistoricallyevolvedlegalcultures(Shonfield,1965;Granovetter, 1985; Boyer and Hollingsworth, 1997; Zumbansen, 2002b).Theembeddednessof businesscorporationsmustbeunderstoodasrelatingto their origin and development in systems of production (Storper andSalais, 1997; Jacoby, 2004) aswell as in legal andsocioeconomic cultures.In relation to the regulation of business corporations, TL differentiatesbetweenthehardlawthatgovernsthecorporationthroughcompanylawor,e.g., securitiesregulationandevenlabour lawontheonehand,andthesoft

lawof voluntarycodesof conduct,corporategovernancecodesandhumanrightscodesontheother.Asthelatter presentadramaticchallengeto tra-ditional understandingsof lawmaking, theanalysis of voluntary codesofconduct further illuminates thecomplex natureof theregulated and self-regulatingfirm.Consideringtheembeddednessof businesscorporationsinan increasingly denationalized knowledge economy, their placement in amultilevel regulatoryfield, comprisedof officialandnon-official normpro-ducers, becomes more visible. On the one hand, TL comprises the lawgoverningtheglobal businesscorporation throughamulti-level andmulti-

polar legal regime of hard and soft law, statutes and recommendations,commandcontrol structures of mandatory rules as opposed to an ever



7/18

moreexpandingbodyof self-regulatoryrules(Zumbansen,2002b;Arthurs,2002). On theother hand, TL constitutesareflexivepracticethat critiques

itself with regard to its regulatory and legitimizing aspirations. Thus, TLprovidesabetterunderstandingof thechangingnatureof theapplicablelawitself. Aswewitnesstheemergenceof soft-lawstandardsagainstregulatorydead-endsandpoliticalblockades, thequestion inevitablypresentsitself astohowweought todrawthelinebetween official lawand non-official law,between hard and soft law, ultimately between law and non-law. In thecontextof contemporarystrugglesover theadequateregulationof businesscorporationsandtheir relationstoshareholdersandstakeholders,TL mustbe seen as holding a central place within a legal theory inquiry into thenatureof governancethrough law.

4 Public (international) law

In the eyes of both the public international lawyer and the domestic admin-istrative/constitutional lawyer of the second half of the 20th century, TLmarks a significant challenge to the state-centred view of international rela-tions and international, constitutional and regulatory law. TL underminesand complements the legal view on relationships between states andstate actors in the international arena by emphasizing the importance ofnon-state actors in cross-border relationships. This recognition of private

actors growing relevance in cross-border relationships allows for a muchricher understanding of the international community than would other-wise have been possible under the pressure of the oppositional ideology ofthe Cold War. However, TL offers itself as a label for more than merelyprivate law-based, cross-border transactions involving non-state actorsand regulatory networks. Rather, TL also encompasses those relationshipsbetween state and nonstate actors across state boundaries that fall shortof leading to official international legal acts such as treaties or conventions.

Often overlooked in Philip Jessups famous definition of TL (Jessup,1956, p. 3), this public dimension turns the term into both a concept which

questions the international law regime based upon the separation of stateand non-state actors and a programme, that provokes a more radical legaltheory conceptualization of denationalized human and institutional inter-action (Sassen, 2003). At first glance, TL apparently prompts the legalimagination of a wealth of untraditional, alternative forms of border-crossing activity through regulatory and judicial networks (Slaughter,2004). Looking again, it also sparks a rediscovery of the informal,unofficial, contractual lex mercatoria of the medieval merchants (Dezalayand Garth, 1995; Teubner, 1997; Berger, 2001; Cutler, 2003; Zumbansen,

2004) Additionally, however, TL must also be seen as shaping and inform-ing a much wider field of work on legal concepts. The fruitful dynamic of



8/18

TL today lies in its capacity for illuminating the overwhelming complexityof decentred and highly fragmented socio-legal and political discourses

around transnational activity.From a public law-inspired view on international activity and norm pro-duction,TL has both a destructive and a constructive thrust. It is employedto destroy,erode and relativize the view that states alone are relevant actorsin border-crossing activity (Zumbansen, 2002a; Berman, 2005). Frequentexchanges and increasing cooperation among different state representativesnurture the view of a highly fluid and increasingly cooperative internationalfield (Slaughter, 2004). Moving from the realism and anarchy of post-warinternational relations (Bull, 1977; Morgenthau, 1978) to an era of inter-national coexistence and further onwords to one of coordination and coop-

eration (Fox and Roth, 2000), the beginning of the 21st century is markedby strongly antagonistic dynamics in international relations (K aldor, 2003;Byers and Nolte, 2003; Paulus, 2004). As a background to any legal theoryof globalization, the soul searching of public international law and the sub-versive notions of exclusion and inclusion (Slaughter, 1995; Anghie, 2005),mitigate the persisting hopes for a non-antagonistic international legal order(Tully, 1995; Koh, 1997; Koskenniemi, 2005). While public internationallaw struggles for de-ideologizations and reformalizations (Alvarez, 2001;Koskenniemi, 2002), arises as an alternative to the continuously state-

centred oppositional theoretical framework that informs internationallaw and sometimes dominates international law (especially in times ofperceived crisis and exception) (Morgan,2004; Scheppele, 2004).

For the domestic constitutional and administrative lawyer, the role ofthe state has been changing dramatically (Di Fabio, 1997; Zumbansen,2000; Arthurs, 2001). Lawyers, political scientists and sociologists areheavily invested in adeconstruction of thestate. Whilethey seean emerg-ing multipolar network of state regulatory agencies (Slaughter, 2004;Schimmelfennig2004) and non-stateactors(Hofmannand Geissler, 1998;Kaldor, 2003) in the international arena, it is also mirrored by theover-

whelming presence of intermediaries and other non-state agencies andpublicprivateactorsonthedomesticregulatorylevel.Again,HaroldKohsworkonthetransnational legal processisof greatsignificance(Koh,1996).It exposes thechallengeof theWestphalian legal order centred aroundnation states that relateto each other in accordancewith theprincipleofsovereign equality and traces the narratives of these changes back tonational trajectoriesof studyingandteachingthesetransformations(Perez,2003).TL short-circuitslegal conceptswithregardtotheglobal against thebackgroundof thedomestic. In that sense, TL makesvisibletheprojection

of domestic analogies onto denationalized spheres of social activity.



9/18

Parallel to the increased exchange among these border-crossing actors,whose status can only inadequately be reassigned to well-known public/

private distinctions we witness the emergence of a large, decentralizedand non-harmonized bodyof norms.Whetherornotthefocusisonagree-ments between large corporations and other commercial actors (lex mercat-oria, policy negotiations within regulatory networks (Slaughter, 2000, 2004;Schimmelfennig, 2004) or the still much more fragile and fleeting principlesand standards of an emerging global humanitarian law (Scott, 2001; Wai,2003; Scott and Wai, 2004), these norms constitute an emerging transnation-al normative regime that links current searches for law across territorial andconceptual divides. The most abiding example of such a divide emerges be-tween the domestic and the international. Transnational law is both and neither.

Both constitutional and administrative law give strong testimony tothe in-between state of TL when reacting to the shifting balance betweenpublic administration and private execution, between government andgovernance (Aman, 1997; Freeman, 2000). After early, unheard, recom-mendations to consider administrative law as a core element of a transna-tional legal science (Joerges, 1972; Wiethlter, 1977), its recognition as animportant field of such a science is of more recent date (Aman, 2004;Shapiro, 2000). The background is constituted partly by what has beencalled regulatory fatigue (Stewart, 2003), which has otherwise been

depicted as the welfare states increased inability to adequately structurewidespread public law and public policy interventions into the socialsphere. The promises of a transnational administrative law in the sense ofa widely conceived administrative science as regulatory science (Aman,2004) particularly lie in the unfolding of a more responsive and experi-mental approach to public administration (Ladeur, 1997). This approachmust be understood in two ways. First, in a procedural sense, transnationaladministrative law seeks to facilitate processes of participation and delib-eration in an otherwise highly dispersed and fragmented public sphere.Second in a normative sense, it aims at the creation of a regulatory regime

that can accommodate public and private claims evolving from priva-tized and deregulated frameworks of (formerly) public administration(Frankenberg,1996; Zumbansen, 2003). TLs focus on norm production isconnected closely to this twofold experiment in administrative theory.Here,TL allows for a parallel view on the allegedly separated spheres of domes-tic and international legal struggles. The global arena is populated by amultitude of norm makers and rule producers, such as standards andstandard-setting organizations. While these entities materialize in widelydiffering fields, their appearance raises closely connected questions with

regard to regulatory base and scope, as well as legitimacy of grounds andenforcement (Salter, 1999; Brunsson and Jacobsson, 2000; Schepel, 2004).



10/18

5 Human rights litigation

In the last two decades of the 20th century, civil litigation seeking com-

pensation for human rights abuses occupied courts and on all fronts lawyers, academics, practitioners, politicians and journalists around theworld (Scott, 2001). Inspired by theFilartiga decision (630 F.2d 876 [1980]),many claims by former victims of human rights violations have beenbrought against states, state officials and private corporations. The fate ofthese cases has been mixed at best. While they mostly fail to overcomevarious existing state immunity thresholds (whereby states and theirofficials are immune from lawsuits before courts in foreign states) or arerejected because the courts were declared ill-suited to hear cases involv-ing for away incidents (the so-called forum non conveniens doctrine),

plaintiffs and their lawyers do not seem willing to give up their struggle forlegal recognition of the wrongdoing (Neuborne, 2002; Stephens, 2002).

At this juncture, JusticeStorys invocationof a law governingcommer-cial transactionsand itself beingabranch of thelaw of nations (Swiftv.Tyson, 41U.S. (16Pet)1[1842]) meetsthejurisprudencein theU.S. involv-ing the 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act (28 USC 1350). Reaching back toCicero (Nonerit alia lex Romae, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac, sedet apud omnes gentes, et omni tempore una eademque lex obtinebit),JusticeStoryand LordMansfieldbeforehimrecognized thelawmerchant

as border-transgressing and as a genuinely denationalized body of law.Whilesubsequent timesdid seesomedomestication of this jurisprudencein federalist disguise (Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 [1938]),theframe-breakingcharacter of a transnational law of human rightspro-tection remains a pressing challengeand promise (Scott and Wai, 2004).Such a body and practiceof law arises against theresistanceof jurisdic-tional and conceptual boundaries firmly erected by private internationallaw(yers). Against this background, TL illuminates the degree to whichissues of jurisdiction flow from a state-based understanding of jurisdic-tional competence. However, the conflict of laws that purportedly con-

fronts the respective courts refusing to hear these cases can no longerconfined beto territorial borders. Increasingly, the norms governing thehumanrightsclaimsareof suchborder-transgressingnaturethat theybothundercut and surpass the territorial boundaries upon which various juris-dictional competences have been predicated up to this point. While thisobservation applies naturally to thecasefor universally bindingnormsofinternational lawregardlessof whether or notstateshavetransposedtheseobligations into their domestic legal regime, cases involving civil suitsagainst states, present and former stateofficials and against corporations

donot (yet) build on bindinginternational law. Clearly, thegeneral open-ness and receptiveness of domestic courts towards international law



11/18

becomes a prime issue in ascertaining the prospects of cases for humanrightsabusescommitted on foreignsoil (Scott, 2001; BrunneandToope,

20002001; Zumbansen, 2005). TL suggests nothing less than an alterna-tiveinterpretation of theprocess whereby domestic courtsapprise them-selves and appraise human rights abuses and the need to grant legalstanding to the victims. Simultaneously, this re-interpretation requires anuanced apprehension of therelevantnormsthat courtswill haveto drawupon in order to resolve these cases (Scott, 2001; Wai, 2001). TL offersitself as a means to capture the ambiguous dream of transnational civilhuman rights litigation in itswidest sense. No-onecan deny that therearemoreproblematic aspectsto such human rightslitigation than mereissuesof merely procedural or even substantive law. Through an increasingly

widespread discussion, concern and awareness of distant rights abuses,transnational human rights litigation is preceded and fuelled by a globalscandalization of human rightsabuses.

At present, theimportanceof past casesandcurrentproceedingscanbemeasured in so for as theyresoundin agreater waveof legal initiativesandcourtdecisionsin other countries. Amongtheseechaeswefindcasesin theUnited States, beginning with theaforementioned Filartigacase of 1980and culminatingfor now, in theSosav. Alvarez-M achaindecision that wasdelivered by theSupremeCourt in 2004. As it severely limits thescopeof

theFilartigacaselaw, thisdecision will most certainly overshadow subse-quent decisions by theSupreme Court, and lower-level courts alike. Themost recent and notable example of this effect was the November 2004decision in theApartheidlitigation. Heavily relyingonAlvarez-M achain, aUS District Court dismissed the Apartheidclass actions that had beenbroughtby a largegroup of former Apartheid victimsandrelated interestgroups against corporations for their alleged collaboration with andsupportof South-AfricasApartheid regime.Alongwithanumber of deci-sions coming out of Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Greece, this caseformspart of a compellingseriesof judgments that show courtsaddress-

ing issues that go beyond the boundaries of their own respective legalregimes jurisdictional competences and immunities. In an almost urgentsense, the cited decisions all reflect the courts shared awareness of thenecessity of considering thecurrent developments in neighbouring juris-dictions. For the longest time, decisions such as Filartigaserved as atransnational referencepoint for similar court proceedings in many partsof theworld. Filartiga wasboth a precedent and an inspiration. Far frombeing judicial eventsof merely domestic significance, thesecaseshaveandwill continueto exert considerableinfluencein shapingtransnational legal

consciousness in many other jurisdictions.



12/18

6 Transnational (legal) history and societal memory

The big bang of military or political revolution, setting free dynamics of

transition and transformation, of post-conflict, post-apartheid and post-war justice, has triggered a widespread and wide-ranging research agendaaround the world that is concerned with the chances of a new beginningand the need to account adequately for legacies and past experiences in theprocess (Teitel, 2000). Countries such as post-aparteid South Africa, theEast- and West-German narratives of the Nazi past to post-genocideRwanda and the current nation building in Iraq, the existing accounts ofthis process challenge our understanding of how to go about the futurewhile minding the past.

Such fragile and vulnerable societal projects challenge the role of law. In

the context of and in concert with other complementing disciplines, TLreveals the distinct quality of fertilizing other conceptual searches whilebeing informed by the transformations occuring within these disciplines.As much as TL has been shown to lay bare the raw and vulnerable foun-dations of law in all of its absurd contingency and utopian aspiration whilebeing based in social practice administered with violent, denominationalauthority (Moore, 1973; Bourdieu, 1987; Derrida, 1990; special issueof theGerman L aw Journal, 6(1), 1 January 2005), law itself reaches out to discip-lines such as history, cultural studies and anthropology to tell its own story.

With legal history emerging as a transnational enterprise (Merry, 1992;Anghie, 2005), such valuable undertakings can build on and learn from thework being done by historians and cultural studies scholars.The emergenceof transnational history gives overwhelming testimony of the border cross-ing inquiry into the legitimatory narratives of state and nation building.Formerly conceived and framed in discrete fashions, domestic, nationalhistorical narratives are discovered as sharing and being informed byexperiences and semantic appropriations in comparative, transnational andglobal perspectives (Bright and Geyer,1995; Bentley, 1996; Middell, 2000;Conrad and Osterhammel, 2004; Geschichte-transnation). This research

bears large potential for concurrent explorations in work done in transna-tional legal history and TL in general (Zumbansen, 2006).

7 Transnational legal education

The preceding sections demonstrated the degree to which transnationalhuman rights litigation, transjudicial communications and constitutionalborrowing (Slaughter,2004), constitutional analogies (Helfer, 2003) andthe proliferation of international judicial bodies (Romano, 1999) havelong ceased to be of concern only to those working in international law.

Any assessment of current developments in core fields of a law school cur-riculum will inevitably be informed by outside influences of international,



13/18

transnational and comparative law. While this insight is beginning to takehold in curriculum reform committees everywhere, there is still a long way

to go to bridge the gap between the mostly traditional canon of First Yearcourses and the crme de la crme curriculum specializations that areusually restricted to Upper Year programmes. While the struggle for dem-ocratic access to higher education still continues through today (Boyd,2005), change has been long in coming with respect to the demographic andterritorial transformation of todays student (and faculty) bodies. Withprospective students likely to be more mobile and deterritorialized in theirselection of higher education institutions, the same is suggested to themwith respect to employment opportunities after graduation. In this light,the questions regarding the direction and content of curricula might have

progressed, matured and changed to reflect a higher degree of the LawSchools nervosity and responsiveness to the needs of the market(Arthurs, 2000). And yet current, sometimes frantic,attempts to adapt theuniversity to market demands also speak of a lack of self-reflection, recon-sideration and wider-scale assessment of the conditions, role and functionof education and learning as such (Macdonald and MacLean, 2005;Macdonald, 1990). With national traditions and trajectories proving to bevery influential in shaping future conceptual thinking about education anduniversity reform, the need arises to bring together these distinct, national-

ized or segregated discourses. Focusing on legal theory from the perspec-tive of the political economy of (legal) education, the formation andtraining of lawyers becomes a crucial inquiry into the democratic accessi-bility of university studies, into the training of elites, and into questions ofpower and exclusion, of identity and of finding oneself again (Goodrich,1996).

Thisdialecticalprocessispainfullyfeltthroughoutonesacademiccareer.Theambiguity of technical terms, legal conceptsand principlescoincideswith the daily challenge to position oneself and ones work (Wiethlter,1965, 1968, p. 168). This anxiety is particularly prevalent where academic

research,writingandteachingisso intertwinedwith real politics(Arthurs,2002a; Weiss, 2003). Theopen-endednessof categoriessuch aslabour law,economic law,social law, publicandprivate law,allowsusto laybareandto make visible national traditions of legal scholarship; in turn, these tra-ditionsarethemselvesintertwined,non-linear,disputedandcontested.Andof course, how could this not beotherwise? (Glenn, 2004, 2005). It is theconstantchallengeof theresearcher andtheteacher towork in thelightofthiscomplexhistoryin order carefully tohelp shapethefuture. Whether ornot keywords, suitable for databasearchives or for bullet-pointed speech

outlines, succeedincapturingthewealthof complexhistoryhiddenbehindsimpleformulaematters less than that they aretaken as invitations to dig



14/18

deeper intothehistoryandintothesociological, political, economical andlegaldiscoursesthroughwhichthesetermshavecometoprominence.While

such an undertaking inevitably reveals local, regional and national histo-ries, it also highlights the connections, interdependencies and parallelsbetween different national andtransnational discourses. Why notusekey-wordsintransnational legal scholarshiptostrivefor abetter understandingof thelaw andof ourselves?

Bibliography

Allott, Philip (1990),Eunomia. New Order for a New World, Oxford:Oxford University Press.Alvarez, Jose E. (2001), Do Liberal States Behave Better? A Critique of Anne-Marie

Slaughters Liberal Theory of International Law, 12 European Business Law Review,183246.

Aman, Alfred C. (1997), Administrative Law for a New Century, The Province ofAdministrati ve L aw, 90107 (Taggart ed. Oxford: Hart Publishing).

Aman, Alfred C. (2004), The Democracy Deficit, New York: New York University Press.Anghie, Antony (2005), Imperialism, Sovereignty and the M aking of I nternational Law,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Arthurs, Harry W. (2000), Poor Canadian Legal Education: So Near to Wall Street, So Far

from God, 38Osgoode H all L aw Journal, 381408.Arthurs, Harry W. (2001), The Re-constitution of the Public Domain, The M arket or the

Public Domain. Global Governance & The Asymmetry of Power, 85110 (Drache ed.,London: Routledge).

Arthurs, Harry W. (2002a), National Traditions in Labor Law Scholarship: The CanadianCase, 23Comparative L abor L aw & Poli cy Journal, 64578.

Arthurs, Harry W. (2002b), Private Ordering and WorkersRights in the Global Economy:Corporate Codes of Conduct as a Regime of Labour Market Regulation, L abour L aw inan Era of Globalization. Transformative practices and possibili ti es, 47187 (Conaghan,Fischl and K lare eds, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress).

Bentley, Jerry H . (1996), Cross-Cultural Interaction and Periodization in World H istory, 101Ameri can H istorical Review74970.

Berger,K laus Peter (1996), Formali sierte oder schleichende Kodifizierung des transnati onalenW ir tschaftsrechts: zu den methodischen und prakt ischen Grundlagen der lex mercatoria,Berlin:De Gruyter.

Berger, K laus Peter (2001), The New Law Merchant and the Global Market Place. A 21stCentury View of Transnational Commercial Law,The Practice of Transnational L aw, 122(Berger ed., The Hague: K luwer Law International).

Berman,Paul Schiff(2005), From International Law to Law and Globalization, 43Columbia

Journal of Transnational L aw, 485556.Bourdieu, Pierre (1987), The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field, 38

H astings L aw Journal, 80513.Boyd,Susan (2005),Corporatism and Legal Education in Canada,14Social & L egal Studies,

28797.Boyer, Robert and J. Rogers Hollingsworth (1997), From National Embeddedness to Spatial

and Institutional Nestedness,Contemporary Capitali sm. The Embeddedness of I nsti tuti ons,43384 (Hollingsworth and Boyer eds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Bright, Charles and Michel Geyer (1995), World History in a Global Age, 100 AmericanH istorical Review, 103460.

Brunne, Jutta and Stephen Toope (20002001), International Law and Constructivism:Elements of an Interactional Theory of International Law, 39 Columbia Journal ofTransnational L aw, 19.

Brunsson,Nils and Bengt Jacobsson (2000),A World of Standards,Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.



15/18

Bull, Hedley (1997), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, London:Macmillan.

Buxbaum, Hannah (2004), National Courts, Global Cartels, 5 German L aw Journal,

10951106.Byers, Michael and Georg Nolte (eds) (2003),Unit ed Stat es H egemony and the Foundati ons ofI nternational L aw, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Calliess, Gralf-Peter (2002), Reflexive Transnational Law. The Privatisation of Civil Law andthe Civilisation of Private Law,23Z eit schrif t f r Rechtssoziologie, 185216.

Conrad, Sebastian and Jrgen Osterhammel (eds) (2004), Das Kaiserreich transnational.Deutschland in der Welt 1871914, Goettinger: Vandenhoeck.

Cordes, Albrecht (2003), The Search for a Medieval Lex Mercatoria, 5 Ox ford Universit yComparative Law Forum.

Cutler, A. Claire (2003), Pr ivate Power and Global Authorit y: Transnational M erchant Law inthe Global Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Derrida, Jacques (1990), Force of law, 11Cardozo Law Review, 9191045.Dezalay, Yves and Bryant Garth (1995), Merchants of Law as Moral Entrepreneurs:

Constructing International J ustice from the Competition for Transnational BusinessDisputes, 29L aw & Society Review, 2764.

Dezalay, Yves and Bryant Garth (1996), Dealing with V irtue: I nternational CommercialA rbi tration and the Constructi on of a Transnational L egal Order, Chicago: U of Chicago Press.

Di Fabio, Udo (1997), Verwaltung und Verwaltungsrecht zwischen gesellschaftlicherSelbstregulierung und staatlicher Steuerung, 56VVDStRL 23582.

Fischer-L escano,Andreas and Gunther Teubner (2004), Regime-Collisions:The Vain Searchfor Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global L aw,25M ichigan J. Intl L ., 9991045.

Fox, Gregory H. and Brad R. Roth (eds) (2000), Democratic Governance and I nternationalL aw, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frankenberg, Gnter (1996), Shifting Boundaries: The Private, the Public, and the WelfareState, The M ixed Economy of Social Welfare, 7294 (K atz and Sache eds, Baden-Baden

Nomos).Freeman, Jody (2000), The Contracting State, 28Fla. St . U.L . Rev155214.Friedmann, Wolfgang,Louis Henkin and Oliver L issitzyn (eds) (1972),Transnational L aw in

a Changing Society. Essays in the H onor of Philip C. Jessup, New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Gaillard, Emmanuel (2001), Transnational L aw: A Legal System or a Method of DecisionMaking?, The Practice of Transnational L aw, 5365 (Berger ed., The Hague: K luwer LawInternational).

Geschichte-transnational, http://geschichte-transnational.clio-online.net/transnat.asp? lang=en

Glenn,H. Patrick (2004), L egal Traditions of the World: Sustainable D iversit y in Law, 2nd ednOxford: Oxford University Press.

Glenn, H. Patrick, In Search of the Transsystemic: Legal Systems and Legal Traditions,

M cGill L aw Journalforthcoming.Goldman, Berthold (1964), Frontires du Droit et Lex Mercatoria, 13 Archives de la

Phi losophie de Droit, 177.Goodrich, Peter (1996), Law and the Courts of Love: Andreas Capellanus and The

Judgments of Love, 48Stanford L aw Review, 63375.Granovetter, Mark (1985), Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of

Embeddedness, 91Ameri can Journal of Sociology, 481510.Habermas, Jrgen (1996), Between Facts and Norms, trans. William Rehg, Cambridge: MIT

Press.Helfer,Laurence R. (2003), Constitutional Analogies in the International Legal System, Loy.

L .A.L. Rev., 193236.Herkenrath, Mark (2003), Transnationale Konzerne im Weltsystem. Globale Unternehmen,

nationale Wirtschaftspolitik und das Problem nachholender Entwicklung, Wiesbaden:

Westdeutscher Verlag.



16/18

Hertner, Peter (1998), Corporate Governance and Multinational Enterprise in HistoricalPerspective, Comparati ve Corporate Governance The State of the Ar t and EmergingResearch, 4159 (Hopt, Kanda, Roe, Wymeersch and Prigge eds, Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Hofmann, Rainer and Nils Geissler (eds) (1998), Non-State Actors as New Subjects ofInternational L aw From the Traditional State Order Towards the Law of the GlobalCommunity, Proceedings of an International Symposium at the Walter SchckingInstitute of International Law, K iel, 258.March.

Hudson, Manley O. (1932), Progress in internat ional organization, Oxford: Milford.Hudson, Manley O. (1944), I nternational Tr ibunals. Past and Future, Washington, DC:

Carnegie Endowment.Jacoby, Sanford M. (2004), The Embedded Corporat ion. Corporate Governance and

Employment Relationsin Japan and theU nited States,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Jessup, Philip C. (1950),Transnational L aw, New Haven: Yale University Press.Joerges, Christian (1972), Zum Funktionswandel des Kollisionsrechts. Die Governmental

Interest Analysis und die Krise des Internationalen Privatrechts, Berlin: De Gruyter.Kaldor, Mary (2003), Global Civil Society:An Answer to War, Cambridge: Polity.

Koh, Harold Hongju (1996), Transnational L egal Process, 75 Nebraska L aw Review,181206.

Koskenniemi, Martti (2002), The Lady Doth Protest Too Much. Kosovo,and the Turn toEthics in I nternational Law, 65M odern L aw Review, 15975.

Koskenniemi, Martti (2005), International Law in Europe:Between Tradition and Renewal,16European Journal of I nternational Law(EJIL ), 11324.

Ladeur, Karl-Heinz (1997), Towards a Legal Theory of Supranationality The Viability ofthe Network Concept, 3European L aw Journal3354.

Macdonald, Roderick A. (1990), The National Law Programme at McGill: Origins,Establishment, Prospects, 13Dalhousie L aw Journal, 211.

Macdonald, Roderick A. and Jason MacLean, No Toilets in Park, M cGill L aw Journal,forthcoming.

Merry, Sally Engle (1992), Anthropology, Law, and Transnational Processes, 21 AnnualReview of Anthropology, 35779.Mertens, Hans-Joachim (1997), Lex Mercatoria: A Self-applying System Beyond National

Law?, Global L aw Wi thout a State, 3143 (Teubner ed., Aldershot: Ashgate).Michaels, Ralf (2004), Territorial Jurisdiction after Territoriality, Globalisation and

Jurisdiction, 10530 (Slot and Bulterman eds, The Hague: K luwer Law International).Middell, Matthias (2000), Kulturtransfer und Historische Komparatistik Thesen zu ihrem

Verhltnis, 10Comparativ, 741.Milgrom,Paul R.,Douglass C. North and Barry W.Weingast (1990), The Role of Institutions

in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges and the Champagne Fairs, 2Economics and Polit ics, 123.

Moore, Sally Falk (1973), Law and Social Change: the semi-autonomous field as an appro-priate subject of study, 7L aw and Society Review, 71946.

Morgan, Ed (2004), Slaughterhouse Six: Updating the Law of War, 5German L aw Journal, 52544.Morgenthau, Hans (1978), Polit ics Among Nations: The Str uggle for Power and Peace, New

York:K nopf.Neuborne, Burt (2002), Preliminary Reflections on Aspects of Holocaust-Era L itigation in

American Courts, 80Washington Universit y L aw Quarterly, 795834.Paulus, Andreas L. (2004), The War Against I raq and the Future of International Law:

Hegemony or Pluralism?, 25M ichigan J. I ntl L ., 691.Perez, Oren (2003), Normative Creativity and Global Legal Pluralism: Reflections on the

Democratic Critique of Transnational Law, 10 I ndiana Journal of Global Studies, 2564.Romano, Cesare P.R. (1999), The Proliferation of International J udicial Bodies: The Pieces

of the Puzzle, 31New York Universit y Journal of I nternational Law and Policy (N.Y.U.J.Int l L. & Pol.), 70951.

Salter, Liora (1999), The Standards Regime for Communication and Information

Technologies, Pr ivate Authority and I nternational Affairs, 97127 (Cutler, Haufler andPorter eds, Albany:State University of New York Press).



17/18

Sassen, Saskia (2003), Globalization or denationalization?, 10 Review of I nternationalPolit ical Economy122.

Schachter,Oscar (1986), Philip Jessups Life and Ideas, 80Ameri can Journal of I nternational

L aw(A.J.I.L.) 87895.Schanze, Erich (1986), I nvestit ionsvert rge im int ernati onalen W ir tschaftsrechtFrankfurt amMain: Metzner.

Schepel, Harm (2004), Constituting Private Governance Regimes: Standards Bodies inAmerican Law, Transnational Governance and Consti tut ionalism, 16188 (Joerges, Sandand Teubner eds, Oxford: Hart Publishing).

Scheppele, K im Lane (2004), Law in a Time of Emergency: States of Exception and theTemptations of 9/11,6Universit y of Pennsylvania Journal of Consti tuti onal L aw, 100183.

Schimmelfennig,Frank (2004),L iberal Intergovernmentalism,European Integration Theory,7594 (Wiener and Diez eds, Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Schmitthoff, Clive (1964), Das neue Recht des Welthandels, 28RabelsZ, 47.Schneiderman, David (2000), Investment Rules and the New Constitutionalism, 25L aw &

Soc Inquiry, 75783.

Scott, Craig (2001), Translating Torture into Transnational Tort: Conceptual Divides in theDebate on Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Harms, Tort ure as Tort, 4563(Scott ed., Oxford: Hart Publishing).

Scott, Craig and Robert Wai (2004), Transnational Governance of Corporate Conductthrough the Migration of Human Rights Norms:The Potential of Transnational PrivateLitigation, Transnational Governance and Consti tut ionalism, 287319 (Joerges, Sand andTeubner eds, Oxford: Hart Publishing).

Shalakany, Amr (2001), Arbitration and the Third World:A Plea for Reassessing Bias Underthe Spector of Neoliberalism, 41 H arvard International L aw Journal(Harv. Intl L .J.),41968.

Shapiro, Martin (2000), Administrative Law Unbounded: Reflections on Government andGovernance, 8 I ndiana Journal of Global Studies, 36977.

Shonfield, Andrew (1965), M odern Capitalism. The Changing Balance of Public and PrivatePower, Oxford:Oxford University Press.Slaughter, Anne-Marie (1995), International Law in a World of Liberal States, 6European

Journal of I nternational L aw(EJIL ), 139.Slaughter, Anne-Marie, J udicial Globalization, 40 Vi rginia Journal of I nternational Law,

110324 (2000).Slaughter,Anne-Marie (2004), A New World Order, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Stein, Ursula (1995), Lex M ercatoria: Realitt und theorie, Frankfurt am Main:

K lostermann.Stephens, Beth (2002),Translating Filrtiga:A Comparative and International Law Analysis

of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations,27Yale J. I ntl L .,157.Stewart, Richard B. (2003), Administrative Law in the Twenty-First Century, 78New York

University L aw Review, 43760.

Storper, Michael and Robert Salais (1997), Worlds of Production. The Action Frameworks ofthe Economy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Teitel, Ruti (2000),Transit ional Justi ceOxford University Press.Teubner, Gunther (1997a), Global Bukowina: Legal Pluralism in the World Society,

Global L aw Wi thout a State 328 (Teubner ed., Aldershot: Ashgate).Teubner, Gunther (1997b), Breaking Frames: The Global Interplay of Legal and Social

Systems, 45Ameri can Journal of Comparati ve L aw, 14569.Tully, James (1995),Strange M ulti plicity. Consti tuti onalism in an Age of D iversity,Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Wai, Robert (2001), In the Name of the International: The Supreme Court of Canada and

the Internationalist Transformation of Canadian Private International Law, 34 TheCanadian Yearbook of I nternational Law, 117209.

Wai, Robert (2003), Countering, Branding, Dealing: Using Economic and Social Rights in

and around the International Trade Regime, 14European Journal of I nternational L aw(EJIL ), 3584.



18/18

Weiss, Manfred (2003), The Future of Comparative Labor Law as an Academic Disciplineand as a Practical Tool, 25Comparative Labor L aw and Policy Journal, 16981.

Wiethlter, Rudolf (1965), Die Position des Wirtschaftsrechts im sozialen Rechtsstaat,

Wir tschaftsordnung und Rechtsordnung, Festschri ft fr Franz Bhm zum 70. Geburtstag,4162 (Coing, Kronstein and Mestmcker eds, Karlsruhe: Muller).Wiethlter, Rudolf (1968), Rechtswissenschaft Frankfurt am Main: F ischer Taschenbuch

Verlag.Wiethlter, Rudolf (1977), Begriffs- oder Interessenjurisprudenz falsche Fronten im IPR

und Wirtschaftsverfassungsrecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung imAusgang des 20. Jahrhundert s, 21363 (Lderitz and Schrder eds, Frankfurt am Main:Metzuer).

Wiethlter, Rudolf (1986), Materialization and Proceduralization in Modern Law,Dilemmas of L aw in the Welfare State, 22149 (Teubner ed., Berlin:De Gruyter).

Zumbansen, Peer (2000), Ordnungsmuster im modernen Wohlfahrtsstaat. L ernerfahrungenzwischen Staat, Gesell schaft und Vert rag, Baden-Baden:Nomos.

Zumbansen, Peer (2001), Spiegelungen von Staat und Gesellschaft: Governance-

Erfahrungen in der Globalisierungsdebatte, 79ARSP-Beiheft, 1340.Zumbansen, Peer (2002a), Piercing the Legal Veil: Commercial Arbitration and

Transnational Law, 8European Law Journal, 40032.Zumbansen, Peer (2002b), The Privatization of Corporate Law? Corporate Governance

Codes and Commercial Self-Regulation, Juridikum, 13645.Zumbansen, Peer (2003), Quod Omnes Tangit: Globalization, Welfare Regimes and

Entitlements, The Welfare State, Globalization, and I nternational Law, 13573 (Benvenistiand Nolte eds, Berlin: Springes).

Zumbansen, Peer (2004), Sustaining Paradox Boundaries: Perspectives on the InternalAffairs in Domestic and International Law, 15 European Journal of I nternational L aw(EJIL ), 197211.

Zumbansen, Peer (2005), Beyond Territoriality: The Case of Transnational Human Rights

Litigation, Vol. 1 CLPE Research Paper Series (available at http://www.comparativere-search.net and at http://www.ssrncom).


NP

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pamella640
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

4 Zumbansen Transnational Law 738-754 Smits Ed 2006

Documents