The concept of transnational law, as controversial as it remains, is still tied too closely to the ideal of the national, and to the notion of power legitimacy as possible only within the organs of and bounded by the legal structures of the state. Transnational law still retains too close a connection to the state system, and its ideology, to offer a substantially interesting way of understanding developments in governance in the wake of globalization. What follows is the abstract and a link to the working paper. To consider the possibility of law/governance beyond the state it is necessary to avoid attaching its framework either to the state or to law (as traditionally and narrowly understood as a product of the state).
Global law can be understood as the systematization of anarchy, as the management of a loosely intertwined universe of autonomous governance frameworks operating dynamically across borders and grounded in functional differentiation among governance communities. Global law is a way of pointing to an emerging universe of systems that share characteristics and whose interactions lend them to organization; it is the as the law of non-state governance systems. The structure of global law can be understood as an amalgamation of four fundamental characteristics that together define a new order in form that is, in some respects, the antithesis of the orderliness and unity of the law-state system it will displace (though not erase). The essay considers the structure of global law in this context, understood as an amalgamation of four fundamental characteristics that together define a new order in form that is, in some respects, the antithesis of the orderliness and unity of the law-state system it will displace (though not erase). These four fundamental characteristics—fracture, fluidity, permeability, and polycentricity—comprise the fundamental structure of global law. Fracture, fluidity, permeability and polycentricity are the basic characteristics of global law, the systematization of which marks its field boundaries. These also serve as the structural foundations of its constitutional element, its substantive element, and its process element. From that systematization one can derive a method of theorizing the emerging framework of the unity of disunity in governance, in which law and governance systems multiply within a discernible internal logic, while the objects of regulation remain constant.
The Working Paper can be downloaded HERE: