Suchergebnisse

This paper brings the notion of translation into dialogue with the growing literature on international hierarchies and the historical origins of the modern international order. Leveraging on the writings of Karl Marx, I draw parallels between the exchange of commodities and the translation of linguistic signs in order to unmask the inequalities and asymmetries that pervade the practice of translation. I then deploy these theoretical insights to illuminate the global constitution of the modern international order. In this Marx-inspired reading, the modern international order is cast as the 'universal equivalent' that has crystallized out of the asymmetries and contradictions that pervaded the global political economy of conceptual exchange in the long 19th century. As universal equivalent, the modern international order effectively functions as the socially recognized 'metalanguage' that undergirds the miracle of global translatability and makes international/interlingual relations possible on a global scale. The paper concludes by considering the implications of the analysis for the future of international/interlingual hierarchies and world order.

AbstractThis paper brings the notion of translation into dialogue with the growing literature on international hierarchies and the historical origins of the modern international order. Leveraging on the writings of Karl Marx, I draw parallels between the exchange of commodities and the translation of linguistic signs in order to unmask the inequalities and asymmetries that pervade the practice of translation. I then deploy these theoretical insights to illuminate the global constitution of the modern international order. In this Marx-inspired reading, the modern international order is cast as the 'universal equivalent' that has crystallized out of the asymmetries and contradictions that pervaded the global political economy of conceptual exchange in the long 19thcentury. As universal equivalent, the modern international order effectively functions as the socially recognized 'metalanguage' that undergirds the miracle of global translatability and makes international/interlingual relations possible on a global scale. The paper concludes by considering the implications of the analysis for the future of international/interlingual hierarchies and world order.

As a decentralized legal order, the international system arguably has no single constitution, but the closest candidate to a constitution that it does have is the UN Charter. Thus it is worth exploring how constitutional the Charter is in theory and practice. Sixty-plus years into its evolution we can see two dominant features. First, its key constitutional elements are: supranationality in its various forms; inequality; and, like all constitutions, an 'invitation to struggle' that leads to inevitable pushback from states when UN authority expands. Second, unlike in many domestic constitutions, the pushback more than holds its own. The UN has neither integrated its parts nor centralized authority. To illustrate those points, I start with a comparison of the UN Charter to both capital 'C' domestic constitutions and to ordinary treaties. I then address with a broad brush the main features of the UN's supranationality and inequality. The Secretariat and its neutrality and independence are the next topics. I then consider two examples of tension between UN supranationality and sovereignty. I explore the trend toward 'global legislation' associated with the Security Council's counter-terrorist resolutions, 1373 and 1540. I then focus on the example of the Millennium Development Goals, the UN's recent attempt to remake itself as a development body. I conclude with a discussion of the wider constitutional significance and prospects of the UN in the light of the contrasting success of the history of US federalism and European integration. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd. & ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research.]

As a decentralized legal order, the international system arguably has no single constitution, but the closest candidate to a constitution that it does have is the UN Charter. Thus it is worth exploring how constitutional the Charter is in theory and practice. Sixty-plus years into its evolution we can see two dominant features. First, its key constitutional elements are: supranationality in its various forms; inequality; and, like all constitutions, an 'invitation to struggle' that leads to inevitable pushback from states when UN authority expands. Second, unlike in many domestic constitutions, the pushback more than holds its own. The UN has neither integrated its parts nor centralized authority. To illustrate those points, I start with a comparison of the UN Charter to both capital 'C' domestic constitutions and to ordinary treaties. I then address with a broad brush the main features of the UN's supranationality and inequality. The Secretariat and its neutrality and independence are the next topics. I then consider two examples of tension between UN supranationality and sovereignty. I explore the trend toward 'global legislation' associated with the Security Council's counter-terrorist resolutions, 1373 and 1540. I then focus on the example of the Millennium Development Goals, the UN's recent attempt to remake itself as a development body. I conclude with a discussion of the wider constitutional significance and prospects of the UN in the light of the contrasting success of the history of US federalism and European integration.

Abstract
Fostering global constitutional discourse has long been anathema to the conservative legal movement within the United States. In Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Services, which overturned Roe v Wade's right to an abortion, the court's conservative justices relied on a globalized analysis. In this article, I identify three potential hypotheses to explain this deviation from conservative orthodoxy. Dobbs' conservative globalism could be explained by attitudinal preferences, legitimation concerns or the influence of illiberal legal networks. I compare the proceedings of Dobbs against Carson v Makin and Kennedy v Bremerton School District, the other significant Constitutional cases from the court's 2021–22 term, to deal with religious issues. These two other cases did not feature global citations, despite such citations being able to advance the Justices' policy preferences or blunt legitimation concerns. Lending credence to the illiberal network hypothesis, Alito's Dobbs opinion was reliant on a unique amicus briefing by a global network of anti-abortion scholars advocating on behalf of the natural family. Such network campaigns were absent from the proceedings of Carson and Kennedy.

El presente ensayo analiza los desafíos que se presentan a las izquierdas −en especial, latinoamericanas− a comienzos del siglo XXI en su lucha contra la dominación. Según el autor, si algo se puede afirmar con alguna certeza acerca de las dificultades que están pasando las fuerzas progresistas en América Latina, es que ellas se asientan en el hecho de que sus gobiernos no enfrentaron claramente dos cuestiones centrales para el diagnóstico: la definitiva consolidación de una Constitución y la efectiva formación de hegemonía. Se discuten en primer lugar la idea de dominación, las formas de lucha y el estatus de la globalización en la actualidad, para luego, analizar la situación de los gobiernos de izquierda. ; This essay deals with the challenges presented to the lef -especially the Latin American lef- at the beginning of the 21st century in their struggle against domination. According to the author, If there is one thing that can be said with a degree of certainty about the difculties currently experienced by the progressive forces in Latin America, it is that those difculties stem from the fact that their governments have tackled neither the Constitution issue nor the hegemony issue. The idea of domination, the forms of struggle and the status of globalization are discussed in the frst place, to fnally analyze the situation of the lef governments. ; O presente ensaio analisa os desafios que se impõe às esquerdas –em especial, latinoamericanas– no início do século 21 em sua luta contra a dominação. Segundo o autor, se algo pode ser afirmado com alguma certeza a respeito das dificuldades que as forças progressistas estão experimentando na América Latina, é que seus governos não enfrentaram claramente duas questões centrais para o diagnóstico de que trata o texto: a consolidação definitiva de uma Constituição e a efetiva formação de uma hegemonia. Assim, são discutidas a ideia de dominação, as formas de luta e o status da globalização, em primeiro lugar, para então ser apresentada uma análise da situação dos governos de esquerda.