ADVANCED PHILOSOPHY NOTES
Week 2: Global Legal Pluralism beyond borders
Chapter 1 in Hans Lindahl, Authority and the Globalisation of Inclusion and
Exclusion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 10–45.
- declension of state borders goes hand in hand with new and drastic forms of spatial
marginalisation (eg. WTO)
- the chapter distinguishes between borders and limits as 2 diff ways in which this
distinction acquires spatial form
- main idea: limits and NOT borders are the key to understand why legal globalizations can
unfold as a process of inclusion and exclusion
- legal issue: Whether dealing authoritatively with this state of affairs presupposes the
possibility of bringing about a global legal order that could include without excluding? ->
in relation with to global human rights regimes, global trade law, global constitutionalism
and global administrative law
1.1 Entering the Circle
- Legal spatiality -> 2 ways of contrasting inside and outside: (1) in terms of jurisdiction,
state borders, distinction between the domestic and foreign; (2) spatial limits rather than
borders
- (1) jurisdiction: the legal term that captures the articulation of legal power and space ->
Kelsen – the territorial unity of the state should be understood juristically rather than
geographically -> international law authorities suggest to link a sanction to crimes
committed in the territory of another state (extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction)
- the concept and practical significance of extraterritorial jurisdiction remains deeply
dependent on territoriality (Willoughby) -> extraterritoriality depends on inside (territorial
jurisdiction)
- Max Weber’s sociological definition of the state: ‘a human community that (successfully)
claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory -> the
spatial distinction between inside and outside, as drawn by state borders, is the
preconditions for state jurisdiction, both territorial and extraterritorial
No distinction between territorial and extraterritorial:
- ICJ
, - Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967)
Globalization:
- Causes the de-territorialization, especially economically
- Global law seen as on a continuum with transnational law
1.2 Globalization as Localization
1.2.1 Territory, Authority and Rights
Saskia Sassen sociology on globalization:
- Main concern: How to study foundation transformations in and of complex systems? -> by
territory, authority and rights (TAR)
- rule of law shifted from its original purpose of strengthening state authority (in TARs) to a
new role in global TARs, where it facilitated the opening of national economies to global
market
- In the modern state, TAR became centralized within the national level, where the
sovereign state gained exclusive control over its territory and the power to grant rights. ->
globalization is destabilizing this system, breaking apart the previously unified national
TAR structure -> no spatial distinction between inside and outside
1.2.2 Localization od the Global
Denationalization = ‘localization of the global’ (eg. (1) cross-border networks of activists; (2)
‘particular aspects of the work of states – for example, the implementation of certain monetary
and fiscal policies in a growing number of countries’ ; (3) the usage of national courts of
international instruments like WTO to address issues that before they delt with nationally)
- globalization should be seen as cross-border networks connecting specific localities rather
than a vague global space
- The legal concept of place is different from abstract territoriality—it is a space of action,
relevant for both state and non-state legal orders.
1.2.3 Global Networks of Places
- position ≠ place
,- place – where the things belong, but not a position determined by law – eg. Obj. in kitchen ->
the unity of a differentiated interconnection of places is a pragmatic unity, Heidegger calls a
‘region’
- the inclusion in a spatial unity (eg. Kitche), implies exclusion of other places, which do not
belong to the unity
- global law = a spatializing order that differentiates and interconnects places into a unity of
sorts: a network of places
1.3 Two Modes of the Inside/Outside Distinction
Legal question: Whether legal globalization can exist without boundaries or whether it inevitably
creates new forms of inclusion and exclusion.
- The localization of a collective comes about through a spatial closure that separates an
inside
WTO
- WTO – the spatial unity is irreducible to state territoriality; it organizes itself as a unity of
legal places – a global market- that supersedes the domestic law, EU or classical
international law
- Highly exclusionary bc it marginalizes some places as unimportant - India’s Karnataka
State Farmers’ Association (KRRS) – in the process of constituting itself as a collective,
the WTO must organize itself as an inside, configurating the global market as its own
space by excluding other kinds of places
• Inclusion: creates a spatial unity by interconnecting its member states for the purpose of
regulating global trade.
• Only places relevant to global trade are included in its structure. Eg. The KRRS
(Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha) farmers are technically included in the WTO’s global
market but excluded from their traditional agricultural practices.
Borders ≠ limits
Borders - spatial boundaries that join and separate the domestic and the foreign
- eg: The border between two countries marks the end of one legal system and the
beginning of another
- Legal/Political division (State vs. Foreign)
, Limits - spatial boundaries that join and separate the own and the strange
- Eg. A linguistic or religious boundary may exist within a state and create divisions not
based on formal sovereignty but on identity and belonging
- Cultural/Social division (Us vs. Them)
➔ Paul Schiff Berman’s idea: Legal orders don’t necessarily rely on borders but
rather on spatial limits that define their scope.
Four Conjectures
1. Legal Orders Are Always Spatially Emplaced:
• Legal rights and obligations cannot exist without a spatial reference. Global legal orders,
like the WTO, must define specific places and the relationships between them.
• Eg: The WTO’s global market connects and differentiates places (states) based on trade,
but only those places relevant to global trade are included.
2. Global Legal Orders Are Spatially Limited (Not Borderless):
• Even global legal orders that claim to be borderless (like the WTO) are still spatially
limited—they are valid only within certain contexts or areas.
• Eg: The WTO governs trade but does not interfere with all aspects of state sovereignty or
territory.
3. Globalisation Does Not "De-Territorialise" Law:
• Globalisation does not eliminate the territoriality of law. Instead, it leads to the re-
territorialisation of legal orders, with new territorial limits and closures.
• Eg: The WTO’s regulation of trade is a new form of territorialisation, where states are
interconnected in a specific way, excluding other possible forms of exchange.
4. State Territoriality Is a Condition for Global Legal Orders:
• The emplacement of global legal orders (like WTO regulations) often depends on state
territoriality. State legal frameworks are still crucial to the functioning of global law.
• Eg: Even though the WTO claims global reach, it requires state boundaries to operate.
Legal globalisations do not undermine the state but may rely on its active participation.
Earth-Grabbing
Week 2: Global Legal Pluralism beyond borders
Chapter 1 in Hans Lindahl, Authority and the Globalisation of Inclusion and
Exclusion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 10–45.
- declension of state borders goes hand in hand with new and drastic forms of spatial
marginalisation (eg. WTO)
- the chapter distinguishes between borders and limits as 2 diff ways in which this
distinction acquires spatial form
- main idea: limits and NOT borders are the key to understand why legal globalizations can
unfold as a process of inclusion and exclusion
- legal issue: Whether dealing authoritatively with this state of affairs presupposes the
possibility of bringing about a global legal order that could include without excluding? ->
in relation with to global human rights regimes, global trade law, global constitutionalism
and global administrative law
1.1 Entering the Circle
- Legal spatiality -> 2 ways of contrasting inside and outside: (1) in terms of jurisdiction,
state borders, distinction between the domestic and foreign; (2) spatial limits rather than
borders
- (1) jurisdiction: the legal term that captures the articulation of legal power and space ->
Kelsen – the territorial unity of the state should be understood juristically rather than
geographically -> international law authorities suggest to link a sanction to crimes
committed in the territory of another state (extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction)
- the concept and practical significance of extraterritorial jurisdiction remains deeply
dependent on territoriality (Willoughby) -> extraterritoriality depends on inside (territorial
jurisdiction)
- Max Weber’s sociological definition of the state: ‘a human community that (successfully)
claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory -> the
spatial distinction between inside and outside, as drawn by state borders, is the
preconditions for state jurisdiction, both territorial and extraterritorial
No distinction between territorial and extraterritorial:
- ICJ
, - Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967)
Globalization:
- Causes the de-territorialization, especially economically
- Global law seen as on a continuum with transnational law
1.2 Globalization as Localization
1.2.1 Territory, Authority and Rights
Saskia Sassen sociology on globalization:
- Main concern: How to study foundation transformations in and of complex systems? -> by
territory, authority and rights (TAR)
- rule of law shifted from its original purpose of strengthening state authority (in TARs) to a
new role in global TARs, where it facilitated the opening of national economies to global
market
- In the modern state, TAR became centralized within the national level, where the
sovereign state gained exclusive control over its territory and the power to grant rights. ->
globalization is destabilizing this system, breaking apart the previously unified national
TAR structure -> no spatial distinction between inside and outside
1.2.2 Localization od the Global
Denationalization = ‘localization of the global’ (eg. (1) cross-border networks of activists; (2)
‘particular aspects of the work of states – for example, the implementation of certain monetary
and fiscal policies in a growing number of countries’ ; (3) the usage of national courts of
international instruments like WTO to address issues that before they delt with nationally)
- globalization should be seen as cross-border networks connecting specific localities rather
than a vague global space
- The legal concept of place is different from abstract territoriality—it is a space of action,
relevant for both state and non-state legal orders.
1.2.3 Global Networks of Places
- position ≠ place
,- place – where the things belong, but not a position determined by law – eg. Obj. in kitchen ->
the unity of a differentiated interconnection of places is a pragmatic unity, Heidegger calls a
‘region’
- the inclusion in a spatial unity (eg. Kitche), implies exclusion of other places, which do not
belong to the unity
- global law = a spatializing order that differentiates and interconnects places into a unity of
sorts: a network of places
1.3 Two Modes of the Inside/Outside Distinction
Legal question: Whether legal globalization can exist without boundaries or whether it inevitably
creates new forms of inclusion and exclusion.
- The localization of a collective comes about through a spatial closure that separates an
inside
WTO
- WTO – the spatial unity is irreducible to state territoriality; it organizes itself as a unity of
legal places – a global market- that supersedes the domestic law, EU or classical
international law
- Highly exclusionary bc it marginalizes some places as unimportant - India’s Karnataka
State Farmers’ Association (KRRS) – in the process of constituting itself as a collective,
the WTO must organize itself as an inside, configurating the global market as its own
space by excluding other kinds of places
• Inclusion: creates a spatial unity by interconnecting its member states for the purpose of
regulating global trade.
• Only places relevant to global trade are included in its structure. Eg. The KRRS
(Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha) farmers are technically included in the WTO’s global
market but excluded from their traditional agricultural practices.
Borders ≠ limits
Borders - spatial boundaries that join and separate the domestic and the foreign
- eg: The border between two countries marks the end of one legal system and the
beginning of another
- Legal/Political division (State vs. Foreign)
, Limits - spatial boundaries that join and separate the own and the strange
- Eg. A linguistic or religious boundary may exist within a state and create divisions not
based on formal sovereignty but on identity and belonging
- Cultural/Social division (Us vs. Them)
➔ Paul Schiff Berman’s idea: Legal orders don’t necessarily rely on borders but
rather on spatial limits that define their scope.
Four Conjectures
1. Legal Orders Are Always Spatially Emplaced:
• Legal rights and obligations cannot exist without a spatial reference. Global legal orders,
like the WTO, must define specific places and the relationships between them.
• Eg: The WTO’s global market connects and differentiates places (states) based on trade,
but only those places relevant to global trade are included.
2. Global Legal Orders Are Spatially Limited (Not Borderless):
• Even global legal orders that claim to be borderless (like the WTO) are still spatially
limited—they are valid only within certain contexts or areas.
• Eg: The WTO governs trade but does not interfere with all aspects of state sovereignty or
territory.
3. Globalisation Does Not "De-Territorialise" Law:
• Globalisation does not eliminate the territoriality of law. Instead, it leads to the re-
territorialisation of legal orders, with new territorial limits and closures.
• Eg: The WTO’s regulation of trade is a new form of territorialisation, where states are
interconnected in a specific way, excluding other possible forms of exchange.
4. State Territoriality Is a Condition for Global Legal Orders:
• The emplacement of global legal orders (like WTO regulations) often depends on state
territoriality. State legal frameworks are still crucial to the functioning of global law.
• Eg: Even though the WTO claims global reach, it requires state boundaries to operate.
Legal globalisations do not undermine the state but may rely on its active participation.
Earth-Grabbing
