移民法律理论路径中的武断立法与无序主体性

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
E. Rigo
{"title":"移民法律理论路径中的武断立法与无序主体性","authors":"E. Rigo","doi":"10.5324/eip.v14i2.3537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article considers the changes that have affected European border regimes of migration control as a testcase for discussing arbitrariness. The argument highlights the limited capacity of notions of arbitrariness defined as a departure from the rule of law to capture the ongoing conflict at the borders of Europe and brings, instead,  to the foreground the ambivalent meaning of arbitrariness. \nBy comparing Santi Romano’s classical theory of legal pluralism with recent analyses of legal globalization processes,  arbitrariness emerges either as an authoritative attempt to impose a different order on society or as a means to contrast acts of resistance to border regimes. In both cases, arbitrariness forcefully blurs the limits between the ordered and unordered, indicating the paradoxical impossibility of excluding the law’s outside from the legal order. \nOn these premises, the article advocates the importance of reframing the demand for open borders as a call for freedom of those who challenge the pragmatic order of migration regimes. Indeed, arbitrariness is necessarily limited when the legal order recognizes, to an extent, the agency and the claims of subjectivities that resist the dichotomy between inclusion and exclusion. \nKeywords: migration, arbitrariness, borders, legal order","PeriodicalId":42362,"journal":{"name":"Etikk I Praksis","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arbitrary Law Making and Unorderable Subjectivities in Legal Theoretical Approaches to Migration\",\"authors\":\"E. Rigo\",\"doi\":\"10.5324/eip.v14i2.3537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article considers the changes that have affected European border regimes of migration control as a testcase for discussing arbitrariness. The argument highlights the limited capacity of notions of arbitrariness defined as a departure from the rule of law to capture the ongoing conflict at the borders of Europe and brings, instead,  to the foreground the ambivalent meaning of arbitrariness. \\nBy comparing Santi Romano’s classical theory of legal pluralism with recent analyses of legal globalization processes,  arbitrariness emerges either as an authoritative attempt to impose a different order on society or as a means to contrast acts of resistance to border regimes. In both cases, arbitrariness forcefully blurs the limits between the ordered and unordered, indicating the paradoxical impossibility of excluding the law’s outside from the legal order. \\nOn these premises, the article advocates the importance of reframing the demand for open borders as a call for freedom of those who challenge the pragmatic order of migration regimes. Indeed, arbitrariness is necessarily limited when the legal order recognizes, to an extent, the agency and the claims of subjectivities that resist the dichotomy between inclusion and exclusion. \\nKeywords: migration, arbitrariness, borders, legal order\",\"PeriodicalId\":42362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Etikk I Praksis\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Etikk I Praksis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v14i2.3537\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Etikk I Praksis","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v14i2.3537","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文将影响欧洲边境移民控制制度的变化视为讨论任意性的一个测试案例。该论点强调了任意性概念的有限能力,将其定义为背离法治,以捕捉欧洲边境正在发生的冲突,并将任意性的矛盾含义置于前景。通过比较圣蒂·罗马诺(Santi Romano)关于法律多元主义的经典理论与最近对法律全球化进程的分析,我们可以发现,任意性要么作为一种权威的尝试,在社会上强加一种不同的秩序,要么作为一种对比抵制边界制度行为的手段。在这两种情况下,任意性都有力地模糊了有序和无序之间的界限,表明了将法律的外部排除在法律秩序之外的矛盾的不可能性。在这些前提下,文章主张将开放边界的要求重新定义为对那些挑战移民制度务实秩序的人的自由呼吁的重要性。事实上,当法律秩序在一定程度上承认抗拒包容与排斥二分法的主体性的能动性和主张时,任意性必然受到限制。关键词:移民,随意性,边界,法律秩序
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Arbitrary Law Making and Unorderable Subjectivities in Legal Theoretical Approaches to Migration
The article considers the changes that have affected European border regimes of migration control as a testcase for discussing arbitrariness. The argument highlights the limited capacity of notions of arbitrariness defined as a departure from the rule of law to capture the ongoing conflict at the borders of Europe and brings, instead,  to the foreground the ambivalent meaning of arbitrariness. By comparing Santi Romano’s classical theory of legal pluralism with recent analyses of legal globalization processes,  arbitrariness emerges either as an authoritative attempt to impose a different order on society or as a means to contrast acts of resistance to border regimes. In both cases, arbitrariness forcefully blurs the limits between the ordered and unordered, indicating the paradoxical impossibility of excluding the law’s outside from the legal order. On these premises, the article advocates the importance of reframing the demand for open borders as a call for freedom of those who challenge the pragmatic order of migration regimes. Indeed, arbitrariness is necessarily limited when the legal order recognizes, to an extent, the agency and the claims of subjectivities that resist the dichotomy between inclusion and exclusion. Keywords: migration, arbitrariness, borders, legal order
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Etikk I Praksis
Etikk I Praksis Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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