Law and scale: lessons from Northern Ireland and Brexit

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Legal Studies Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1017/lst.2024.3
Sylvia de Mars, Aoife O'Donoghue
{"title":"Law and scale: lessons from Northern Ireland and Brexit","authors":"Sylvia de Mars, Aoife O'Donoghue","doi":"10.1017/lst.2024.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>All aspects of law possess scaler elements, but critiques from the ‘politics of scale’, a concept well established in political geography, remain rare in legal analysis. Brexit, especially as regards Northern Ireland, provides a key opportunity to consider scaler analysis both in a descriptive and theoretical sense. Scale deepens our understanding of how law co-constitutes multiple scales but also highlights where a flat understanding of law tied to vertical jurisdictional frames foils attempts to garner a full understanding of its operation. Northern Ireland, a legal and political space that from one perspective lends itself to an apparently clear-cut vertical description of legal scales, actually presents a rich space where networked, rhetorical and nodular scales and structures continuously (re)contest scaled solutions. The Brexit outcome of what used to be known as the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and is now known as the Windsor Framework – and specifically how the Framework is intended to operate in practice – provides an opportunity to not only understand Northern Ireland within a scale and law frame, but also to highlight the shortcomings of law's traditional scaler approach and what lessons may be learned when analysing or engaging with the intersection of law and politics in similar future situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":46121,"journal":{"name":"Legal Studies","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2024.3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

All aspects of law possess scaler elements, but critiques from the ‘politics of scale’, a concept well established in political geography, remain rare in legal analysis. Brexit, especially as regards Northern Ireland, provides a key opportunity to consider scaler analysis both in a descriptive and theoretical sense. Scale deepens our understanding of how law co-constitutes multiple scales but also highlights where a flat understanding of law tied to vertical jurisdictional frames foils attempts to garner a full understanding of its operation. Northern Ireland, a legal and political space that from one perspective lends itself to an apparently clear-cut vertical description of legal scales, actually presents a rich space where networked, rhetorical and nodular scales and structures continuously (re)contest scaled solutions. The Brexit outcome of what used to be known as the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and is now known as the Windsor Framework – and specifically how the Framework is intended to operate in practice – provides an opportunity to not only understand Northern Ireland within a scale and law frame, but also to highlight the shortcomings of law's traditional scaler approach and what lessons may be learned when analysing or engaging with the intersection of law and politics in similar future situations.

法律与规模:北爱尔兰和英国脱欧的经验教训
法律的方方面面都有标度元素,但在法律分析中,"标度政治 "这一在政治地理学中确立已久的概念却很少受到批评。英国脱欧,尤其是北爱尔兰的脱欧,为我们提供了一个从描述和理论意义上考虑尺度分析的重要机会。尺度加深了我们对法律如何共同构成多种尺度的理解,但同时也突出了对法律的平面理解与垂直管辖框架的联系,从而阻碍了对法律运作的全面理解。北爱尔兰是一个法律和政治空间,从一个角度来看,它显然适合于对法律尺度进行清晰的垂直描述,但实际上,它提供了一个丰富的空间,在这个空间中,网络化、修辞化和节点化的尺度和结构不断(重新)争夺尺度化的解决方案。过去被称为《爱尔兰/北爱尔兰议定书》、现在被称为《温莎框架》的英国脱欧结果--特别是该框架打算如何在实践中运作--不仅提供了一个在规模和法律框架内理解北爱尔兰的机会,而且还强调了法律的传统规模方法的缺点,以及在未来类似情况下分析或处理法律与政治的交叉时可以吸取的教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信