Study Day: Transformations of law in poli/cultural contexts - Minutes
Introduction:
Representing Section 3: Translations, the Study-Day was opened by Dr. Katharina Schramm. The participants were welcomed and introduced to Prof. Keebet and Prof Franz von Benda- Beckmann, who were to present the theme of the Study-Day by reference to papers circulated among the participants before the meeting. For the cause of structuring the discussions following the later presentations, it was suggested that papers given in Part II of the Study- Day were rearranged according to their topics. The new structure is listed below:
Part II: Case Studies
15.15 - 15.30
Markus Höhne: Transformation of statehood as political concept and empirical reality
15.30 - 15.50
Discussion of the paper
15.50 - 16.10
Kai Porwoll: On the relationship between science, technology and law in Japan
16.10 - 16.30
Discussion of the paper
16.30 - 16.40
Coffee Break
16.40 - 16.55
Lutz Greisiger: Conceptions of Torah in Early Christianity
16.55 - 17.10
Katharina Schramm: Citizenship under debate: State-Law, biology and "soul"
17.10 - 17.50
Discussion of the two papers
17.50 - 18.00
Concluding remarks
Part I
The first part of the Study-Day concerned theoretical approaches to understanding the phenomena of law. With reference to the Graduate School’s focus on world reference systems, Keebet and Franz von Benda-Beckmann elaborated on transformations of law through interaction in different trans-national and poli-cultural contexts.
During his introduction, Franz von Benda-Beckmann raised the question: What is really new in the recent processes regarding trans-nationalization of law? He also called for a clarification on what should be understood as ’law’ and proposed the inclusion of both normative orders and legal bodies. Keebet von Benda-Beckmann elaborated on the relationship between power and law, and recent developments concerning the analysis of this matter. Referring to Hirsch and Lazarus Black (1994), she discussed their proposed heuristic continuum of hegemony and ideology. Furthermore, she discussed law as systems of meaning, and also how oppressed people may use law as a means of resistance in global settings.
The discussion revolved around two themes. First there was a call for clarification on the concepts of hegemony and ideology. Boris Nieswand questioned if there might be different kinds of hegemony relating to different sources of power. In response Katharina Schramm suggested that the concepts of law should be relativised in terms of how it is applied on a local level.
The second part of the discussion revolved around a question posed by Markus Höhne concerning the enforcement of law and the authority of the state or other institutions in the era of globalization. Franz von Benda-Beckmann confirmed that most literature was concerned with the power of state and suggested to look for recent changes. Keebet von Benda- Beckmann followed up by elaborating on the difficulties of enforcing international law, considered as "soft law", in the absence of cohesive powers. The enforcement of law in religious and historical contexts was discussed after Asma Shakir Khawaja suggested that belief itself could act as authority. Keebet von Benda-Beckmann then responded by referring to processes of socialization and the internalisation of local norms. Lutz Greisinger made the point that one had to take into account local elites and that by faith alone one cannot create a social order. Keebet von Benda-Beckmann closed the discussion with the remark that this should rather be understood as an act of hegemony.
Part II
With reference to the non-recognized Republic Somaliland, Markus Höhne gave an introduction to the history of nation states and the present day importance of such institutions. He proposed to refer to a mono-cultural context due to the restricted framework for becoming an internationally accepted state. Why the Republic Somaliland is not accepted as state even though fulfilling accepted criteria was vividly questioned in the following discussion. The alternative approach of being recognized as minority was suggested and the political context of the case was further discussed. Responding to the question: how is an alternative way of thinking beyond the state possible? Markus Höhne suggested that the concept of nation state should be understood as an idea that has become hegemonic with real implications for people living in those states. Boris Nieswand then pointed to the unrecognised state’s actual recognition on the local level. Referring to the differences between de jure and de facto aspects of law, Franz von Benda-Beckmann concluded that the case served as a very good example for legal pluralism.
Kai Porwoll then gave a talk about the relationship of science, technology and law in Japan and raised the question of how the state could plan the development of science and technology by law. With an example of the introduction of Morse-codes in Japan and the following unreflected process of translating Morse-codes to Japanese language, he explained difficulties concerning technological transfer and stated that technologies are often introduced without applying scientific standards for local usage.
Discussing his paper, participants from Japanese studies made comments on the Japanese constitution and the US influence on its drafting. To provoke a more general discussion the question was raised: what interests states have in regulating the introduction of such technologies? Participants mentioned the integrative role of a common language. Applying regulations to the technological sector was discussed with remarks that there are already unwritten international standards people tend to follow. The discussion then turned to the political implications of laws and the interests of those constructing them. Kai Porwoll stated that by introducing a law on science and technology, Japan wanted to portray itself as a modern state. That the export of technology is important to affect international standards of the sector was discussed until the coffee-break.
The last part of the Study-Day concerned two texts presented by Lutz Greisiger on the conception of Torah in primitive Christianity and Katharina Schramm on the debate of citizenships among diasporic Afro-American home comers to Ghana. The presentations were followed by a joint discussion of the two papers.
Concerning the first paper, Lutz Greisinger was asked by Franz von Benda-Beckmann to elaborate on the socio-political context of the changes he had documented in his paper. The main critique related to its descriptive form and lack of focus on the relations of power in these processes. He replied with the importance of outsiders of the Holy Land by reference to Greek influences, the Roman Empire and to the contemporary social relations between Jews and Christians. Asma Shakir Khawaja asked if there was a new perception of the law as it was literalised. On Katharina Schramm’s paper, the discussion revolved around the relationship between Ghanaians and Afro-Americans and the role of the state. Katharina Schramm explained the contested symbolic of slavery in relation to local and diasporic identity politics, and further, how reflections on slavery-history still produces local tensions between North- and South of Ghana. The role of the state was also discussed, mainly concerning the impact of dual citizenships and the government’s attempts to attract foreign direct investment.
Protocol by:
Steffen F. Johannessen and Christoph Langer