standards’ that exceed their binding obligations under international human rights law.
Other articles in this special issue highlight other important questions that could contribute to criticallegalscholarship. Cinnamon Carlarne and Mohamed Helal question the assumption that states form an
Critical Legal Scholarship was first introduced to Chinese legal academia in late 1980’s, and gained great attentions in the following decade. Later on, however, Chinese jurists showed little interest in exploring more of Critical Legal Scholarship because of their oversimplification of Critical Legal Scholars as indeterminists, deconstructionists, extremists and nihilists. This article points out the typical, gross misconceptions of Chinese jurists to Critical Legal Scholarship, and explores the reasons of such misconceptions. The author of this article hopes that his representation of Critical Legal Scholarship would help to reopen the door for further communications between the Critical Legal Scholarship and their audiences in China. Remarks on how to approach Critical Legal Scholarship further from a Chinese perspective are provided at the end of this article.
World Trade Organization, and 168
Colombia 99, 131, 175, 246, 342, 348
criticallegalscholarship, and 33
human rights law, and 95
international law, and 2
criticallegalscholarship, and 164–5
cryptotypes, in 20
functionalism, in 164
legal formants, in 61
interest in the subjects covered by the book.
Professor Montgomery’s thesis about the decline of jurisprudence from
natural law through to the deconstructionist approaches of criticallegalscholarship and the mirroring of this decline in modern theology from a
Reformation position relying on the
). Ecological Restoration in International Environmental Law therefore offers an invaluable contribution to the field and, as expected, is already inspiring new waves of criticallegalscholarship 24 in terms of ‘future directions for law on ecological restoration’ (Chapter 12). The book will come across to
criticallegalscholarship of the genesis of modern International Law.
This book began as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science for the
Law Faculty of the University of Melbourne, which I was awarded in December
2005. Thanks must be expressed to my two supervisors Professor Tim Lindsey
historians can present themselves as radical disruptors because of the vehiculation of a caricatural image of the international legal field. But the inaccuracy of this image might also depend upon one’s estimation of criticallegalscholarships’ influence vis-à-vis mainstream scholarships in the field
author’s intellectual project – insofar as it is reflected
in the book under review – by drawing a comparison between it and the deconstruc-
tivist/transformative posture of criticallegalscholarship.
Charging global justice scholarship of abstract moralizing or ignorance of in-
Looking through the Anthropocene’s lens, a vast body of criticallegalscholarship now reveals the truth about iel and its entanglement with, and structural complicity in, sustaining multiple drivers of Earth system destruction and socio-ecological injustices.
consigned to academic irrelevance. The pole of societal influence exerts significant pressure throughout icl scholarship, and criticallegalscholarship aims to build a position between these two extremes, as it never completely breaks from a prescriptive perspective on the law, but constructs a scholarly