75 research outputs found
Territorial rights and colonial wrongs
What is wrong with colonialism? The standard—albeit often implicit—answer to this question has been that colonialism was wrong because it violated the territorial rights of indigenous peoples, where territorial rights were grounded on acquisition theories. Recently, the standard view has come under attack: according to critics, acquisition based accounts do not provide solid theoretical grounds to condemn colonial relations. Indeed, historically they were used to justify colonialism. Various alternative accounts of the wrong of colonialism have been developed. According to some, colonialism involved a violation of territorial rights grounded on legitimate state theory. Others reject all explanations of colonialism's wrongfulness based on territorial rights, and argue that colonial practices were wrong because they departed from ideals of economic, social, and political association. In this article, we articulate and defend the standard view against critics: colonialism involved a procedural wrong; this wrong is not the violation of standards of equality and reciprocity, but the violation of territorial rights; and the best foundation for such territorial rights is acquisition based, not legitimacy based. We argue that this issue is not just of historical interest, it has relevant implications for the normative evaluation of contemporary inequalities
The New Legal Pluralism
Scholars studying interactions among multiple communities have often used the term legal pluralism to describe the inevitable intermingling of normative systems that results from these interactions. In recent years, a new application of pluralist insights has emerged in the international and transnational realm. This review aims to survey and help define this emerging field of global legal pluralism. I begin by briefly describing sites for pluralism research, both old and new. Then I discuss how pluralism has come to be seen as an attractive analytical framework for those interested in studying law on the world stage. Finally, I identify advantages of a pluralist approach and respond to criticisms, and I suggest ways in which pluralism can help both in reframing old conceptual debates and in generating useful normative insights for designing procedural mechanisms, institutions, and discursive practices for managing hybrid legal/cultural spaces
The Influence of International Law on the International Movement of Persons
Many migration theories identify ‘the law’ as a significant constraint on the international
movement of persons. While this constraint often operates through national migration
legislation, this study examines the influence of international law in shaping contemporary
patterns in the international movement of persons at the macro level. The analysis begins with an
examination of the long-established power of a State to regulate cross-border movement of
persons as an inherent attribute of State sovereignty, together with the accepted limitations on a
State’s power to control entry and exit. Yet, international law reaches well beyond the movement
of people across borders. The development of international human rights law has been a key
constraint on state action in the United Nations era by also regulating the treatment of migrants
within a State’s borders. The study considers how international law has responded to current
migration issues, including: protection of migrant women and children; suppression of
smuggling and trafficking of people; labour migration; and environmental migration. As in other
areas of international society, there has been a proliferation of institutions through which
international migration law is made and enforced. The most prominent among them are the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization
for Migration (IOM), but the establishment of other entities with overlapping mandates has given
rise to calls for a new international migration regime based on streamlined institutional
arrangements. The study concludes that international law is an imperfect framework for
regulating the international movement of persons because it has developed in a piecemeal
fashion over a long time to deal with issues of concern at particular points in human history. Yet,
despite its shortfalls, international law and its associated institutions unquestionably play a most
important role in constraining and channeling state authority over the international movement of
persons
- …