Scholars of culture, humanities and social sciences have increasingly come to an appreciation of the importance of the legal domain in social life, while critically engaged socio-legal scholars around the world have taken up the task of understanding "Law's Empire" in all of its cultural, political, and economic dimensions. The questions arising from these intersections, and addressing imperialisms past and present forms the subject matter of a special symposium issue of Social Identities under the editorship of Griffith University's Rob McQueen, and UBC's Wes Pue and with contributions from McQueen, Ian Duncanson, Renisa Mawani, David Williams, Emma Cunliffe, Chidi Oguamanam, W. Wesley Pue, Fatou Camara, and Dianne Kirkby. This paper introduces the volume, forthcoming in late 2007. The central problematique of this issue has previously been explored through the 2005 Law's Empire conference, an informal but vibrant postcolonial legal studies network.

Law's Empire

The Concept Of Law

In literary theory, the philosophy of law, and the sociology of knowledge, no issue has been more central to current debate than the status of our interpretations. Do they rest on a ground of rationality or are they subjective impositions of a merely personal point of view? In \"Doing What Comes Naturally,\" Stanley Fish refuses the dilemma posed by this question and argues that while we can never separate our judgments from the contexts in which they are made, those judgments are nevertheless authoritative and even, in the only way that matters, objective. He thus rejects both the demand for an ahistorical foundation, and the conclusion that in the absence of such a foundation we reside in an indeterminate world. In a succession of provocative and wide-ranging chapters, Fish explores the implications of his position for our understanding of legal, literary, and psychoanalytic interpretation, the nature of professional and institutional culture, and the place of reason in a world that is rhetorical through and through.

Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies

Deep and detailed research into the workings of corporate enables Professor Herman to throw considerable light on how the board of directors operates, how important outside directors are, how new members are selected, and how multiple directorships interlock the large corporations. Throughout the book the author contrasts the power of the managers with that of other interest groups - bankers, family - and he concludes that power lies with the managers. But this has not changed the basic objectives of the corporation - the pursuit of growth and profits - nor has it enhanced social responsibility. After thorough investigation Edward Herman concludes that government regulation has done surprisingly little to reduce the autonomy of the corporation. Just as the influence of bankers and investors has been resisted, so has the effect of regulation. Improved communications and controls, geographic dispersion, and the enhanced adaptability and mobility of the large corporation have all played a part in maintaining corporate power and managerial control. Corporate Control, Corporate Power will be essential reading for executives, policy makers, regulators, and all those concerned to make the corporation more responsible and accountable.

Corporate Control, Corporate Power.

Yield strength predictions from the plastic zone around nanocontacts

. The unconstrained legal actor, typically a judge, is a central character in modern jurisprudence. He is feared by legal formalists, legal positivists, and Ronald Dworkin alike. He is lauded by some legal realist and critical legal studies theorists. Stanley Fish says that all of this theorising is pointless because the unconstrained legal actor cannot exist. My paper evaluates Fish's arguments for this surprising position.

Does the Unconstrained Legal Actor Exist

The 1987 film RoboCop is not just a science fiction action story; it is also a critique of the neoliberal resurgence in law and politics at the end of the twentieth century. In particular it critiques the privatisation of police services, and the expansion of private property claims to cover a cyborg policeman, notwithstanding its human components. I connect the critique in the film with the broader academic literature dealing with the privatisation of police forces and the expansion of private property claims, particularly copyright and patents. Finally, I consider whether, as a result of the neoliberal expansion of private property rights over the last few decades, the law could now justify a private property claim over a cyborg like the one in the film.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S1744552308003029

Property and privatisation in RoboCop

Unlike those who read Fish as declaring that free speech is an illusion or incoherent, I argue that Fish provides a superior explanation of what makes free speech possible, and a more insightful description of what judges are doing when they decide cases under laws which protect it. In this paper I first identify the central philosophical commitment from which Fish derives most of his controversial positions. Next, I demonstrate how his position on free speech in particular flows from this central philosophical commitment. Finally, in the main section of the paper, I consider three serious objections to Fish's analysis of free speech, and consider how Fish might respond to them. I seek to defend Fish's denial that the relationship between freedom and constraint is one of simple opposition; rather, he claims that constraint is the precondition for freedom. He therefore sees all speech as made under conditions of constraint. He also sees a commitment to censoring some speech as inherently contained within any commitment to freedom of speech, and so toleration of all viewpoints is impossible. He denies that any free speech principle can be neutral regarding viewpoints, and he denies that any free market of ideas is without bias and exclusions. He therefore rejects the accounts given by American courts deciding cases under the First Amendment which stress a fidelity to neutral principles. Since there are no such principles in existence, such courts are really doing one of two things. Either they are pragmatically advancing a partisan agenda, and constraining some speech in a way which is obfuscated, or their false belief in the existence of neutral principles paralyses them in the face of danger and prevents them from performing this pragmatic exercise.

Principle, Pragmatism and Paralysis: Stanley Fish on Free Speech

I. INTRODUCTIONStanley Fish says that theory does not exist, and because it does not exist, it has no consequences. This is doubly disturbing for someone who thinks of himself or herself as a legal theorist. While it is one thing to be dismissed as an impractical ivory tower type, out of touch with the real world of practice, it is quite another to be told that you do not exist at all. If legal theory does not exist, what have I been doing these past years? Indeed, what is it that Fish himself has been up to in his many books and articles devoted to jurisprudential issues?Most of his law-related writings have been collected in Stanley Fish, DOING WHAT COMES NATURALLY: CHANGE, RHETORIC AND THE PRACTICE OF THEORY IN LITERARY AND LEGAL STUDIES (Duke University Press, 1989); Stanley Fish, THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH . . . AND IT’S A GOOD THING, TOO (Oxford University Press, 1994); and Stanley Fish, THE TROUBLE WITH PRINCIPLE (Harvard University Press, 1999). Moreover, simply existing is not the limit of a legal theorist’s ambition. We want what we do to have significance, and Fish’s claim that theory has no consequences denies us that status.

“what am i doing?” stanley fish on the possibility of legal theory

My contention in this paper is that many of our commonly accepted ideas about property are defective. But these deficiencies are not just simple, surface mistakes that could be cleared up easily. They stem from a flawed conceptual framework used in making sense of and justifying property relationships. I also contend that this flawed conceptual framework maintains property relationships that are unjust. These property relationships produce an unequal distribution of wealth, status, and power, as well as reduced opportunities for autonomy and self-development. This is unjust because, I believe, no satisfactory justification has been given for this inequality. Exposing some weaknesses of this conceptual framework is thus a step in promoting more egalitarian property relationships.

Michael Robertson

Papers

Does the Unconstrained Legal Actor Exist

Property and privatisation in RoboCop

Principle, Pragmatism and Paralysis: Stanley Fish on Free Speech

“what am i doing?” stanley fish on the possibility of legal theory

Property and Ideology