legal globalizations as contested processes of inclusion and exclusion
➔ Emerging global legal orders seek to include individuals and places into themselves and
by the same token exclude them from alternative orders
Core Question of the Course: How to make sense of the question how globalisation is
always a process of inclusion and exclusion
→ IS IT AN EMERGENT GLOBAL LEGAL ORDER (ONLY THEN EXCLUDES AND
INCLUDES) WHICH NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED WITH THE IACA MODEL OF LAW
● Core Question: Process of globalisation is a process of inclusion and exclusion
○ → puzzling: what is at stake is if people resist the WTO, it is not because they
are simply excluded but because they are excluded in the process of being
included
○ → disturbing: what happens if any global order cannot but exclude in the process
of include (we need to become defeatist and cynical that there will always be
such problem)
○ → embarrassing: theories of legal ordering does not offer explanation why to
resist if one is excluded by being included; no theory for problem of boundary and
of law of setting boundaries
Perspectives:
Conceptual: the course unveils a general model of law that shows how and why inclusion and
exclusion are the key operations of legal ordering—and of authority.
→ a model of legal order that can explain how and why (global) legal orders include and
exclude.
Week 1-2
Empirical: the course examines a variety of normative orders to establish whether they can be
understood as forms of emergent global law, such as the WTO, eBay, the new lex mercatoria,
and the global commons. The course also explores how these emergent global legal orders call
forth resistance by alter- and anti-globalization movements; think of the Zapatistas, the Vía
Campesina, Occupy Wall Street, and hacktivism.
→ Test the model with a range of examples of putative emergent global legal orders.
Week 4-5
Normative: the central normative question of the course is whether a rich concept of authority is
available to emerging global legal orders if such orders cannot include without excluding.
Rejecting both cosmopolitanism and communitarianism, the course outlines the contours of an
alternative concept of authority in a global context dubbed ‘restrained collective self-assertion’.
→ How to deal with inclusion and exclusion? What sense to make of global justice in the face of
struggles about inclusion and exclusion?
Week 6-9
, Institutional: The course dedicates considerable attention to the institutional modes of authority
in a global context, focusing, in particular, on global administrative law, private international law,
and global constitutionalism.
→ What legal institutions are available to deal with struggles about global inclusion and
exclusion?
Week 10-12
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT CONCEPTS OF THE COURSE
Globalisation processes globalizations as contested processes of inclusion and exclusion
➔ Emerging global legal orders seek to include individuals and places into themselves
and by the same token exclude them from alternative orders
= lived as the globalisation of inclusion and exclusion.
● not processes that take place elsewhere; they take place here, locally, and as a
transformation of the local
● global law is local law because it involves a spatial closure that separates and join
an inside and an outside
● Inclusion in and exclusion from rights and obligations go hand in hand with
inclusion in and exclusion from the spaces of action over which emergent global
legal orders claim authority
➔ Emergent global legal order: legal order aspires to have validity for the whole face
of the earth, autonomy for itself vis-a-vis international law
● WTO claims to have global validity
Sassen
● processes challenge the assumption that state territoriality is a constitutive feature
of legal orders
➔ challenges methodological nationalism but does not mean that the state is simply
disappearing
➔ Rather, the role of the nation state, and the national assemblage of TAR, is
transforming. Sassen’s analysis of the global assemblage of TAR accounts for this
transformation
➔ Globalisation shows transformation of law and space instead of abandonment of
territoriality: transformation of the global and national
➔ – Denationalization: the globalisation of the local/national
➔ – Globalisation transforms territory rather than simply abandons it
,Global law: = Emergent Global legal order that claims to have global validity
● Example: WTO
● Not all states belong to the WTO; but is open to all states
● WTO looks at the globe like a market
● More than only a market
● International law is already form of Global law → difference: own institutions e.g.
within the WTO
● Claims validity of the face of the earth, not all state belong to the WTO
● It has institutions that allow for autonomous international law
● → Rather globalisation of law as a process instead of global law
● → expanding law → transformation of the space
● Claims validity of the face of the earth, not all state belong to the WTO
● It has institutions that allow for autonomous international law
● → Rather globalisation of law as a process instead of global law
● → expanding law → transformation of the pace
● is local law because it involves a spatial closure that separates and joins an inside
and an outside
● There is no global legal order that is not local
● Boundaries of space are still important
● The localization of the global
○ Denationalization
○ Global cities
○ Multinational corporations
○ GVCs
○ Global cities: network of places, example Amsterdam, space of networks
■ Spatially at the entrance of a bank e.g.
■ Example: Amsterdam business district
- → an emergent legal order can only claim global validity if it is somewhere rather
than everywhere
- → global law must be emplaced if it is to be global law
- → every legal order, global or otherwise, is vulnerable to challenges from
elsewhere
Anti- and alter-globalisation = protest against the ways in which economic, technological and legal globalisation
movements processes transform life at the local level
, ● Alter-globalisation movements: Another world is possible!; Que se vayan todos
Basta ya! Kefaya!
● Anti-globalization movements: Trump: Make America Great Again; Brexit:
slogan of Taking back control was very effective leading to the withdrawal; France
Remettre la France en ordre (returning to the state)! → right-wing movements but
also left-wing (choose between democracy and capitalism, the latter brings
dominance)
We the Peoples of the Amazon:
➢ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/02/amazon-destruction-earth-brazilian-kayap
-people
- Appeal to us as western peoples → globalisation processes are not innocent
- Destruction of the rainforest will have detrimental consequences for all of
us
- If the earth dies, we too will die
- Excluding indigenous people from e.g. property, tort, constitutional law
- Create conditions of dependency → farmers would be more self-dependent
- Torch seed from fields Monsanto
- Global law extradited them from food sovereignty
Direct Action by the Karnataka State Farmers’ Association:
➢ http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/indianfarmer.htm
➢ https://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/en/
● aimed at social change at all levels
● Movement of farmers (India)
● For KRRS there is no sense in dividing resistance and alternatives, since none of them can take
place without the other. Rejecting chemical agriculture and biotechnology necessarily implies
promoting traditional agriculture
● main actors within La Via Campesina, a world-wide network of peasant movements
Hans Lindahl’s text: Chapter 1 in Hans Lindahl, Authority and the Globalisation of
Inclusion and Exclusion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018)
- They content the WTO’s global market
- (24) engaged in direct action against measures of trade liberalisation under the
aegis of the WTO
- By mobilising to occupy and destroy fields of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) owned by Monsanto in the effort to revalorise Indian peasant ways of life,
the KRRS' direct action adumbrated a place that is outside of the WTO (and of
India), even though not in the sense of a foreign place.
- Instead, its direct action evokes a strange place, a place that, from the KRRS
'perspective, resists normative integra- tion into the differentiation and
interconnection of places that the WTO calls its own space: a global market.
