Advertisement

Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 155–178 | Cite as

Prolegomenon to a Southern Jurisprudence

  • Prabhakar SinghEmail author
Article

Abstract

It is good to take stock from time to time and to see how things stand in jurisprudence. So, what is the relationship of doctrine and theory with jurisprudence? Is private law theory apolitical while public law contains politics for the very many constitutional ends in the Global South? In India, legal theorist Chhatrapati Singh very originally asked if legal systems and normative systems were the same? Chhatrapati’s enquiry was however a species of the classical approach to the law that promotes the law’s purity. On the contrary, the postcolonial approaches account for the historical life as well as the political proclivities of the law. The private law theory often seen as impersonal and non-imperial comes under scrutiny in the postcolonial approaches. Duncan Kennedy and Roberto Unger notably problematized contract theory, while Upendra Baxi argued for mass tort as public law—contract and tort are both private law—to offer, if you will, a jurisprudence of the South. A southern jurisprudence essentially rejects an impersonal reading of the private law.

Keywords

Jurisprudence Global South Private law theory Critical legal studies 

Notes

References

  1. Anand, R.P. 1965. The Role of Individual and Dissenting Opinions in International Adjudication. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 14: 788–808.Google Scholar
  2. Anghie, Antony. 1999. Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law. Harvard International Law Journal. 40: 1–80.Google Scholar
  3. Baxi, Upendra. 2000. Mass Torts, Multinational Enterprise Liability, and Private International Law. Recueil des Cours 276: 301.Google Scholar
  4. Baxi, Upendra. 2007. The Rule of Law in India. Sur International Journal on Human Rights 6: 7–26.Google Scholar
  5. Baxi, Upendra. 2014. Chhatrapati Singh and the Idea of a Legal Theory. Journal of the Indian Law Institute 56: 5–24.Google Scholar
  6. Baxi, Upendra. 2015. Human Rights Responsibility of Multinational Corporations, Political Ecology of Injustice: Learning from Bhopal Thirty Plus? Business and Human Rights Journal 1: 21–40.Google Scholar
  7. Baxi, Upendra. 2019. Chiselling secularism. The Indian Express. November 12.Google Scholar
  8. Dagan, Hanoch, and Roy Kreitner. 2011. The Character of Legal Theory. Cornell Law Review 96: 671.Google Scholar
  9. Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Finnis, John. 1985. On “The Critical Legal Studies Movement”. American Journal of Jurisprudence 30: 21.Google Scholar
  11. Finnis, John. 2014. What is the Philosophy of Law? American Journal of Jurisprudence 59: 133–142.Google Scholar
  12. Fitzpatrick, Peter. 2001. Modernism and the Grounds of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, Michel. 1998. Polemics, Politics and Problematizations. Interview by P. Rabinow, May 1984. In Essential Works of Foucault, vol. 1, ed. J.D. Faubion. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, Lon. 1958. Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart. Harvard Law Review 71: 630–672.Google Scholar
  15. Ginsburg, Ruth. 2010. The Role of Dissenting Opinion. Minnesota Law Review 95: 1–8.Google Scholar
  16. Goodrich, Peter. 1985. Legal Hermeneutics; An Essay on Precedent and Interpretation. Liverpool Law Review 7: 99–155.Google Scholar
  17. Goodrich, Peter. 2005. Slow Reading. In Nietzsche and Legal Theory: Half-Written Laws, ed. P. Goodrich and M. Velvedre, 185–200. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Gupta, Arpita. 2019. Mass Tort Jurisprudence and Critical Epistemologies of Risk: Dissolution of Public-Private Divide in the Indian Mass Tort Law. Liverpool Law Review.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-019-09235-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halpérin, Jean-Louis. 2019. Personal Laws: Undetermined Norms and Undetermined Concept? Liverpool Law Review.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-019-09227-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart, H.L.A. 1958. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review 71: 593–629.Google Scholar
  21. Hegel, G.W.F. 1824. Philosophical History. In Man and the State: The Political Philosophers, ed. S. Commins and R. Linscott, 411–419. New York: Modern Pocket Library.Google Scholar
  22. Jakson, Bernard S. 1980. Towards a Structuralist Theory of Law. Liverpool Law Review 2: 5–30.Google Scholar
  23. Jha, Kinshuk. 2019. The Jurisprudence of Taxpayer Rights in India: An Evolutionary Tale in Direct Taxation. Liverpool Law Review.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-019-09239-7
  24. Kelsen, Hans, and Stanley L. Paulson. 1982. The Concept of the Legal Order. American Journal of Jurisprudence 27: 64–84.Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy, Duncan. 1976. Form and Substance in Private Law Adjudication. Harvard Law Review 89: 1685.Google Scholar
  26. Khaitan, Tarun, and Steel, Sandy. 2019. Theorising Areas of Law. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464432.
  27. Lamond, Grant. 2016. Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/. Accessed 1 Nov 2019.
  28. Lauterpahct, H. 1927. Private Law Analogies of International Law. Calcutta: Longman, Greens & Co.Google Scholar
  29. Lino, Dylan. 2018. The Rule of Law and the Rule of Empire: A.V. Dicey in Imperial Context. Modern Law Review 81: 739–764.Google Scholar
  30. Marx, Karl. 1847. The Communist Manifesto. In Man and the State: The Political Philosophers, ed. S. Commins and R. Linscott, 495–532. New York: Modern Pocket Library.Google Scholar
  31. Masani, Zareer. 2014. Macaulay: Pioneer of India’s Modernization. Gurgaon: Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. Morss, John. 2008. Can Custom Be Incorporated in Law? On the Place of the Empirical in the Identification of Norms. American Journal of Jurisprudence 53: 85–99.Google Scholar
  33. Morss, John. 2009. The Legal Relations of Collectives: Belated Insights from Hohfeld. Leiden Journal of International Law 22: 289–305.Google Scholar
  34. Morss, John. 2018. Description Without Apology? On Structures, Signs and Subjectivity in International Legal Scholarship. Indian Journal of International Law 58: 235–264.Google Scholar
  35. Morss, John. 2019. Cutting Global Justice Down to Size? Rights, Vulnerabilities, Immunities, Communities? Liverpool Law Review.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-019-09231-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Munshi, Sherally. 2017. Comparative Law and Decolonizing Critique. American Journal of Comparative Law 65, Issue suppl_1: 207–235.Google Scholar
  37. O’Sullivan, Richard. 1937. A Scale of Values in the Common Law. Modern Law Review 1: 27–38.Google Scholar
  38. Pollock, Frederick. 1923. Plea for Historical Interpretation. Law Quarterly Review 39: 163–169.Google Scholar
  39. Reale, Miguel. 1992. O Direito Como Experiência: Introdução à Epistemologia Jurídica. 2nd ed. Editora Saraiva: São Paulo.Google Scholar
  40. Robert, Alexy, and Ralf Dreier. 1990. The Concept of Jurisprudence. Ratio Juris 3: 1–13.Google Scholar
  41. Santos, Boaventura de Sausa. 2014. Epistemologies of South. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Santos, Boaventura de Sausa. 2018. The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Singh, Chhatrapati. 1985. Law from Anarchy to Utopia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Singh, Chhatrapati. 1986. The Dialectics of Law. Journal of the Indian Law Institute 28: 36–52.Google Scholar
  45. Singh, Prabhakar. 2018. More Norms, Less Justice: Refugees, the Republic, and Everyone in Between. Liverpool Law Review 39: 123–150.Google Scholar
  46. Singh, Prabhakar. 2019a. Spinning Yarns from Moonbeams: A Jurisprudence of Statutory Interpretation in Common Law. Statute Law Review.  https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmy035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh, Prabhakar. 2019b. The Private Life of Transnational Law: Reading Jessup from the Post-colony. In The Many Lives of Transnational Law Critical Engagements with Jessup’s Bold Proposal, ed. Peer Zumbansen, 419–440. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Singh, Prabhakar. 2019c. Of International Law, Semi-colonial Thailand, and Imperial Ghosts. Asian Journal of International Law 9: 46–74.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S204425131800005X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swaminathan, Shivprasad. 2017. A Tale of two Harts: The Paradox in Essays on Bentham. Legal Theory 23: 27–54.Google Scholar
  50. Swaminathan, Shivprasad. 2019. Dicey and the Brick Maker: An Unresolved Tension Between the Rational and the Reasonable in Common Law Pedagogy. Liverpool Law Review.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-019-09228-w.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Unger, Roberto. 1983. The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Harvard Law Review 96: 561–675.Google Scholar
  52. Weber, Max. 1978 [1922]. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  53. Zumbansen, Peer. 2012. Comparative, Global and Transnational Constitutionalism: The Emergence of a Transnational Legal-Pluralist Order. Global Constitutionalism 1: 16–52.Google Scholar

Cases, Statutes, Statements

  1. Delhi Transport Corporation v D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress. 1990 Indlaw SC 224.Google Scholar
  2. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. 1973. SCR Supp 1.Google Scholar
  3. Kapse v. State of Maharashtra. 2019. Order. Criminal Appeal No.1638 of 2010.Google Scholar
  4. Lingala Vijayakumar v. Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh. 1978 Indlaw SC 149.Google Scholar
  5. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India. 2014. 10 SCC 1.Google Scholar
  6. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. Karunakar. 1993 Indlaw SC 430.Google Scholar
  7. National Archives of India.1965 [1835]. Minute by the Hon’ble T. B. Macaulay, dated the 2nd February 1835, in, H. Sharp (ed) Bureau of Education. Selections from Educational Records, Part I (17811839). Delhi, pp.107–117.Google Scholar
  8. National Bank of Lahore v. Sohanlal Sehgal. 1965. Indlaw SC 147.Google Scholar
  9. Novartis AG and others v Union of India. 2013. Indlaw SC 172.Google Scholar
  10. Parelkar v. Mantri. 1942. 44 Bom LR 703.Google Scholar
  11. Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France (Fr. v. Yugo.). 1929. PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 20.Google Scholar
  12. M. Siddiq (dead) v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. 2019. Civil Appeal Nos 10866–10867 of 2010.Google Scholar
  13. State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad. 1974. Indlaw SC 404.Google Scholar
  14. State of Karnataka v Shri Ranganatha Reddy. 1977. Indlaw SC 247.Google Scholar
  15. Statute of the International Court of Justice. 1945. 33 UNTS 993.Google Scholar
  16. Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. 1921. 6 LNTS 379.Google Scholar
  17. Vander Veil and Co.1936. 1 KB 399.Google Scholar
  18. Venkatachalapathu Reddy v. Bank of India. 2002. Indlaw AP 231.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jindal Global Law SchoolSonipatIndia

Personalised recommendations