An Early Tragedy of Comparative Constitutionalism: Frank Goodnow and the Chinese Republic

This article recovers a lost episode in the neglected early history of comparative constitutionalism in the United States. In 1913, pioneering comparative lawyer Frank Goodnow went to China to assist the new Chinese Republic in the writing of its first constitution. Goodnow’s mission reflected the growing interest of the United States in China’s legal development in this era, and his constitution-writing project won broad support from the U.S. legal profession. Goodnow’s tenure ultimately generated great controversy when he advised China’s leaders to adopt a constitutional monarchy rather than continue on as a republic. This article describes this controversy and how the international engagement of the United States was increasingly shaped in the early twentieth century by the attempted export of U.S. legal models as a presumptively altruistic mechanism of modernization. Goodnow’s allegiance to comparative legal science agitated against this more parochial view of legal internationalism, and in the end he was excommunicated from U.S. foreign policy affairs. More broadly, this article shows how the early history of comparative constitutionalism in the United States had its roots in the early twentieth century discourse on colonial administration. Goodnow and other U.S. lawyers of the era turned to indirect engagements with foreign legal reform only after the popular rejection of colonialism that had been constitutionally sanctioned by the now infamous Insular Cases. This article further argues that these colonial roots and Goodnow’s feckless misadventure in China hold key lessons for today’s comparative constitutionalists. It provides a vivid example of how the technocratic illusion of engaging in depoliticized legal reform abroad is self-defeating and untenable. Further, it warns against the inherent tensions between a methodologically coherent comparative law and the desire to export U.S. constitutional models abroad, and how such tensions can undercut clear-sighted understanding of foreign legal developments

Law and Development as Anti-Comparative Law

This Article asserts that during the twentieth century, American law has predominantly structured its relationship to foreign legal experience through a set of ideas and practices known as law and development, which is irredeemably antithetical to the practice of comparative law. Centrally, law and development is built on the assumption that American law can be exported abroad to catalyze foreign legal development. The dismal record of such efforts has remained paradoxically popular while the field remains locked in repeating cycles of failure and optimism. This Article demonstrates that the history of law and development\u27s failures is far older than has been traditionally recognized, and dates back to the turn of the twentieth century. In this era, foreign reform became a key part of the professional image of the modern American lawyer. At the same time, the origins of law and development were intimately tied to the decline of comparative law in American legal culture. This history reveals that the paradox of law and development\u27s contemporary popularity can only be understood by recognizing the cultural politics that these developments embedded in the American legal community. The troubling legacy of this widely entrenched view of America as solely an exporter of legal knowledge presents pressing liabilities for American law, both internationally and domestically, on the competitive terrain of the twenty-first century. This Article concludes that in order to address these liabilities, America should categorically abandon law and development and should fundamentally reorient its relationship to foreign legal experience through a self-interested practice of comparative law. As exemplified in the debate over judicial citation of foreign precedents, this shift will require basic changes in how American legislative and administrative bodies relate to foreign law, as well as the place of comparative law in American law schools. Such a reorientation will enable America to strategically perceive foreign legal developments and, most critically, productively adapt foreign legal experience as an energizing stimulant to our own legal innovation

IUC Independent Policy Report: At the End of the End of History

The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the IUC Legal Standards Research Group, organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin), and composed by Franco Bassanini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”), Guido Calabresi (Yale University), Antoine Garapon (Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice, Paris), and Tibor Varady (Central European University, Budapest). Contributors include Eugenio Barcellona (Eastern Piedmont University), Mauro Bussani (University of Trieste), Giuliano G. Castellano (Ecole Polytechnique Preg/CRG), Moussa Djir´e (Bamako University), Liu Guanghua (Lanzhou University), Golnoosh Hakimdavar (University of Turin), John Haskell (SOAS), Jedidiah J. Kroncke (Yale Law School), Andrea Lollini (Bologna University), Alberto Lucarelli (Federico II University), Boris N. Mamlyuk, (University of Turin), Alberto Monti (Bocconi University), Sergio Ariel Muro (Torquato di Tella University), Domenico Nicol`o (Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria), and Nicola Sartori (University of Michigan). The IUC Independent Policy Report argues for a radical change of perspective, capable of restoring the supremacy of the law over the economic system. It is not only about finance, nor is it only about economics or policy. In this sense a transnational set of normative principles is needed in order to establish a global legal system capable of controlling economic processes, rather than being controlled by them. Within this framework a series of policy proposals are presented in order to effectively implement a new system of global standards. The current Western standard of living is unsustainable. Should the rest share the model of development of the West, our planet will simply not be capable of resisting the growth in consumption and pollution. Within this fundamental setting of scarcity in resources, using the rhetoric of the end of history as the polar star for growth, development and ultimately happiness of the whole world is simply a cynical lie. We argue here for the beginning of a necessary process aimed at the development of a legal system that is much less about creating an effcient backbone for an exploitive economy and much more about a vision of civilization, justice and respect where the laws of nature and those of humans converge in a sustainable long-term philosophy. Principles of justice, responsibility and long term environmental protection, rather than short term economic contingency and strong interests must set the legal agenda. A new governance and bottom-up inclusive integration of knowledge-based economies (wherever located), which is crucial to the very survival of humankind, cannot happen without defning new terms of a widely accepted standard of long term justice in the transnational context, hence the urgency to conceive legitimate transnational legal structures and possibly some apparatus of “superlegality.” The report is composed of fve sections. After having presented the pitfalls of the prevailing theoretical apparatus, an alternative cultural grid upon which policy actions should be shaped is presented. In this sense several normative proposals - revisiting the key characteristics of the current system - are offered aiming at acquiring a wider perspective over the actual global crisis

IUC Independent Policy Report: At the End of the End of History: Global Legal Standards: Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

This draft was presented at the seminar, Global Standards in the 21st Century, organized by the G8 Presidency in Rome at the Ministry of Economy and Finance and Villa Madama on the 11-12th of May 2009. The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the IUC Legal Standards Research Group, organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin),The IUC Independent Policy Report prepared by a group of lawyers at the International University College of Turin was presented at the meeting convened by the G8 Presidency in Rome on May 12, 2009.The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the IUC Legal Standards Research Group, organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin), and composed by Franco Bassanini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”), Guido Calabresi (Yale University), Antoine Garapon (Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice, Paris), and Tibor Varady (Central European University, Budapest). Contributors include Eugenio Barcellona (Eastern Piedmont University), Mauro Bussani (University of Trieste), Giuliano G. Castellano (Ecole Polytechnique Preg/CRG), Moussa Djir´e (Bamako University), Liu Guanghua (Lanzhou University), Golnoosh Hakimdavar (University of Turin), John Haskell (SOAS), Jedidiah J. Kroncke (Yale Law School), Andrea Lollini (Bologna University), Alberto Lucarelli (Federico II University), Boris N. Mamlyuk, (University of Turin), Alberto Monti (Bocconi University), Sergio Ariel Muro (Torquato di Tella University), Domenico Nicol`o (Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria), and Nicola Sartori (University of Michigan). The IUC Independent Policy Report argues for a radical change of perspective, capable of restoring the supremacy of the law over the economic system. It is not only about finance, nor is it only about economics or policy. In this sense a transnational set of normative principles is needed in order to establish a global legal system capable of controlling economic processes, rather than being controlled by them. Within this framework a series of policy proposals are presented in order to effectively implement a new system of global standards. The current Western standard of living is unsustainable. Should the rest share the model of development of the West, our planet will simply not be capable of resisting the growth in consumption and pollution. Within this fundamental setting of scarcity in resources, using the rhetoric of the end of history as the polar star for growth, development and ultimately happiness of the whole world is simply a cynical lie. We argue here for the beginning of a necessary process aimed at the development of a legal system that is much less about creating an effcient backbone for an exploitive economy and much more about a vision of civilization, justice and respect where the laws of nature and those of humans converge in a sustainable long-term philosophy. Principles of justice, responsibility and long term environmental protection, rather than short term economic contingency and strong interests must set the legal agenda. A new governance and bottom-up inclusive integration of knowledge-based economies (wherever located), which is crucial to the very survival of humankind, cannot happen without defning new terms of a widely accepted standard of long term justice in the transnational context, hence the urgency to conceive legitimate transnational legal structures and possibly some apparatus of “superlegality.” The report is composed of fve sections. After having presented the pitfalls of the prevailing theoretical apparatus, an alternative cultural grid upon which policy actions should be shaped is presented. In this sense several normative proposals - revisiting the key characteristics of the current system - are offered aiming at acquiring a wider perspective over the actual global crisi