Part 2 (The Social Self and the Mother)--Dialogues on a Philosophy for the Individual: The Social Self

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Flora Sapio and I continue our experiment in collaborative dialogue. We move from the individual to the social self as we work toward a philosophy of the individual. While at first blush this appears to be well worn ground--who hasn't, over the course of the last 5,000 years, in every civilization with a recorded history NOT spent vast amounts of time thinking about the social self? But much of this thinking starts at the social and works through the issues of control, management and socialization of the individual. That is, they start from the core premise that the individual is the object of a project for which the social serves as an instrument and as an ends. In the spirit of the emerging philosophy of the individual, we propose to invert the conversation--to start with the individual and work through the issues of control, management, and individuation of the social.

But we move from the individual in herself, to the individual as subject and as symbol, as something which, when observed and transformed from itself to the idea or symbol of itself, assumes a quite distinct, and useful, position for the organization of selves--and for the structure and operation of the law of the social.  To that end our conversation will likely flow around and through the following: 

1--the social self as the reflection of the mother
2--the social self as a reflection of the family
3-- social self as a reflection/result of one's ancestors
4--the social self as a reflection of God
5-the s self as a refection of the state
6--the social self as terrorist
7--the social self as orthodox

This conversation, like many of its kind, will develop naturally, in fits and starts.  Your participation is encouraged.

In this post Flora Sapio (FS) also considers the social self and the mother.

Contents.

Part I (The Social Self and the Mother)--Dialogues on a Philosophy for the Individual: The Social Self

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Flora Sapio and I continue our experiment in collaborative dialogue. We move from the individual to the social self as we work toward a philosophy of the individual. While at first blush this appears to be well worn ground--who hasn't, over the course of the last 5,000 years, in every civilization with a recorded history NOT spent vast amounts of time thinking about the social self? But much of this thinking starts at the social and works through the issues of control, management and socialization of the individual. That is, they start from the core premise that the individual is the object of a project for which the social serves as an instrument and as an ends. In the spirit of the emerging philosophy of the individual, we propose to invert the conversation--to start with the individual and work through the issues of control, management, and individuation of the social.

But we move from the individual in herself, to the individual as subject and as symbol, as something which, when observed and transformed from itself to the idea or symbol of itself, assumes a quite distinct, and useful, position for the organization of selves--and for the structure and operation of the law of the social. To that end our conversation will likely flow around and through the following: 

1--the social self as the reflection of the mother
2--the social self as a reflection of the family
3-- social self as a reflection/result of one's ancestors
4--the social self as a reflection of God
5-the social self as a refection of the state
6--the social self as terrorist
7--the social self as orthodox

This conversation, like many of its kind, will develop naturally, in fits and starts.  Your participation is encouraged.

In this post Larry Catá Backer (LCB) begins thinking about the "state of nature", the social self and the mother.

Contents

Prologue--Dialogues on a Philosophy for the Individual: The Social Self

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

In 2015, Flora Sapio and I started an experiment in collaborative dialogue.  The object was to approach the issue of philosophical inquiry from another, and perhaps more fundamentally ancient, manner. The subject of conversation revolved around the possibility of developing a philosophy for the individual that itself is grounded on the negation of the isolated self as a basis for thought, and for elaboration.  The conversation produced no consensus but much to ponder--and that itself represents an advance in the practice of the individual in search of her philosophy. But it suggested the possibilities for the confrontation of the individual on her own term--her firstness, her objectivity, her selfness--stripped of the barnacles of any symbolic or interpretive nature that is imposed from outside.  As conversation it shied away from what has passed as academic philosophy for the last century--the mating rituals of mathematics applied to the human soul. And its implications for law and lawmaking, especially law making drowning in the pretensions of individuation and human rights, might be in some  respects quite profound. The conversations on the Philosophy for the Individual may be accessed HERE.

With this post Flora Sapio and I continue our experiment in collaborative dialogue. We move from the individual to the social self as we work toward a philosophy of the individual. While at first blush this appears to be well worn ground--who hasn't, over the course of the last 5,000 years, in every civilization with a recorded history NOT spent vast amounts of time thinking about the social self?  But much of this thinking starts at the social and works through the issues of control, management and socialization of the individual.  That is, they start from the core premise that the individual is the object of a project for which the social serves as an instrument and as an ends.  In the spirit of the emerging philosophy of the individual, we propose to invert the conversation--to start with the individual and work through the issues of control, management, and individuation of the social.   

But we move from the individual in herself, to the individual as subject and as symbol, as something which, when observed and transformed from itself to the idea or symbol of itself, assumes a quite distinct, and useful, position for the organization of selves--and for the structure and operation of the law of the social.  To that end our conversation will likely flow around and through the following: 

-->

1--the social self as the reflection of the mother
2--the social self as a reflection of the family
3-- social self as a reflection/result of one's ancestors
4--the social self as a reflection of God
5-the s self as a refection of the state
6--the social self as terrorist
7--the social self as orthodox

This conversation, like many of its kind, will develop naturally, in fits and starts.  Your participation is encouraged.

 Contents follow:

Shaoming Zhou on Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law”

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Issues of democratic legitimacy of the Chinese political, constitutional. legal and economic order are fairly common in the West. Indeed there are legislative institutions in the U.S. Congress whose sole business is the production of such critique (e.g., the U.S. Congressional-Executive commission on China).

But there are differences in the way one can go about making those critiques, each of which might produce substantially distinct insights. In the West, for example, it is common to apply what I call the outside-in approach. That starts from the set of premises extracted from global consensus or the reading of democratic traditions among influential states, and then projects those into China, comparing how the Chinese approach stacks up against these outside models. A less common approach, but one sometimes used by comparative scholars is what I call the inside-out approach. This starts by a rigorous examination of the system to be examined, both the theory and practice of governance, and then projects those out against a set of foreign markers. The outside-in approach tends to reveal more about the foreign system projected inward and the extent of global harmonization, along with the character of that harmonization. The inside-out tends to provide greater insight into the working of the system examined and the extent to which the gaps between theory and implementation reveal weakness, including coherence in form or function that might be advanced through a study of foreign systems.

Jerome Cohen, Professor of Law at New York University, one of the great scholars of China in the United States, has recently produced a marvelous essay that for me highlights what may be some effects that follow the choice of methodology (Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law,” Foreign Policy (February 22, 2016)). The essay provides a powerful consideration of the consequences of the current Chinese approach to legal reform and its suggestion of the underlying structural deficiencies of the current normative Chinese political order. These judgments are made against an application of the standards of universal legal values which China has endorsed. The essay suggests the value of an outside-in approach. But it also exposes the possibilities for a distinctive approach and another potentially rich vein of analysis using an inside-out approach.

It is in this light that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, Sun Yuhua, Jade White, and I thought it might be useful to consider Professor Cohen's excellent article. To that end each of us prepared a short engagement with distinct sets of insights developed by Professor Cohen (Introduction here).

The responses may be accessed here, along with a Chinese language summary of the comments:

Part I: Larry Catá Backer
Part II: Flora Sapio
Part III: Jean Mittelstaedt
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou
Part V: 中外学者对中国法治改革的关注与讨论.
Part VI Sun Yuhua
Part VII White Jade; (English Version HERE)

This post includes Shaoming Zhou's response. 

Jean Mittelstaedt on Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law”

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Issues of democratic legitimacy of the Chinese political, constitutional. legal and economic order are fairly common in the West. Indeed there are legislative institutions in the U.S. Congress whose sole business is the production of such critique (e.g., the U.S. Congressional-Executive commission on China).

But there are differences in the way one can go about making those critiques, each of which might produce substantially distinct insights. In the West, for example, it is common to apply what I call the outside-in approach. That starts from the set of premises extracted from global consensus or the reading of democratic traditions among influential states, and then projects those into China, comparing how the Chinese approach stacks up against these outside models. A less common approach, but one sometimes used by comparative scholars is what I call the inside-out approach. This starts by a rigorous examination of the system to be examined, both the theory and practice of governance, and then projects those out against a set of foreign markers. The outside-in approach tends to reveal more about the foreign system projected inward and the extent of global harmonization, along with the character of that harmonization. The inside-out tends to provide greater insight into the working of the system examined and the extent to which the gaps between theory and implementation reveal weakness, including coherence in form or function that might be advanced through a study of foreign systems.

Jerome Cohen, Professor of Law at New York University, one of the great scholars of China in the United States, has recently produced a marvelous essay that for me highlights what may be some effects that follow the choice of methodology (Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law,” Foreign Policy (February 22, 2016)). The essay provides a powerful consideration of the consequences of the current Chinese approach to legal reform and its suggestion of the underlying structural deficiencies of the current normative Chinese political order. These judgments are made against an application of the standards of universal legal values which China has endorsed. The essay suggests the value of an outside-in approach. But it also exposes the possibilities for a distinctive approach and another potentially rich vein of analysis using an inside-out approach.

It is in this light that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, Sun Yuhua, Jade White, and I thought it might be useful to consider Professor Cohen's excellent article. To that end each of us prepared a short engagement with distinct sets of insights developed by Professor Cohen (Introduction here).

The responses may be accessed here, along with a Chinese language summary of the comments:

Part I: Larry Catá Backer
Part II: Flora Sapio
Part III: Jean Mittelstaedt
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou
Part V: 中外学者对中国法治改革的关注与讨论.
Part VI Sun Yuhua
Part VII White Jade; (English Version HERE)

This post includes Jean Mittelstaedt's response.

Flora Sapio on Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law”

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Issues of democratic legitimacy of the Chinese political, constitutional. legal and economic order are fairly common in the West. Indeed there are legislative institutions in the U.S. Congress whose sole business is the production of such critique (e.g., the U.S. Congressional-Executive commission on China).

But there are differences in the way one can go about making those critiques, each of which might produce substantially distinct insights. In the West, for example, it is common to apply what I call the outside-in approach. That starts from the set of premises extracted from global consensus or the reading of democratic traditions among influential states, and then projects those into China, comparing how the Chinese approach stacks up against these outside models. A less common approach, but one sometimes used by comparative scholars is what I call the inside-out approach. This starts by a rigorous examination of the system to be examined, both the theory and practice of governance, and then projects those out against a set of foreign markers. The outside-in approach tends to reveal more about the foreign system projected inward and the extent of global harmonization, along with the character of that harmonization. The inside-out tends to provide greater insight into the working of the system examined and the extent to which the gaps between theory and implementation reveal weakness, including coherence in form or function that might be advanced through a study of foreign systems.

Jerome Cohen, Professor of Law at New York University, one of the great scholars of China in the United States, has recently produced a marvelous essay that for me highlights what may be some effects that follow the choice of methodology (Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law,” Foreign Policy (February 22, 2016)). The essay provides a powerful consideration of the consequences of the current Chinese approach to legal reform and its suggestion of the underlying structural deficiencies of the current normative Chinese political order. These judgments are made against an application of the standards of universal legal values which China has endorsed. The essay suggests the value of an outside-in approach. But it also exposes the possibilities for a distinctive approach and another potentially rich vein of analysis using an inside-out approach.

It is in this light that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, Sun Yuhua, Jade White, and I thought it might be useful to consider Professor Cohen's excellent article. To that end each of us prepared a short engagement with distinct sets of insights developed by Professor Cohen (Introduction here).

The responses may be accessed here, along with a Chinese language summary of the comments:

Part I: Larry Catá Backer
Part II: Flora Sapio
Part III: Jean Mittelstaedt
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou
Part V: 中外学者对中国法治改革的关注与讨论.
Part VI Sun Yuhua
Part VII White Jade; (English Version HERE)

This post includes Flora Sapio's response.

Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, and Larry Catá Backer on Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law”

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Issues of democratic legitimacy of the Chinese political, constitutional. legal and economic order are fairly common in the West. Indeed there are legislative institutions in the U.S. Congress whose sole business is the production of such critique (e.g., the U.S. Congressional-Executive commission on China).

But there are differences in the way one can go about making those critiques, each of which might produce substantially distinct insights. In the West, for example, it is common to apply what I call the outside-in approach. That starts from the set of premises extracted from global consensus or the reading of democratic traditions among influential states, and then projects those into China, comparing how the Chinese approach stacks up against these outside models. A less common approach, but one sometimes used by comparative scholars is what I call the inside-out approach. This starts by a rigorous examination of the system to be examined, both the theory and practice of governance, and then projects those out against a set of foreign markers. The outside-in approach tends to reveal more about the foreign system projected inward and the extent of global harmonization, along with the character of that harmonization. The inside-out tends to provide greater insight into the working of the system examined and the extent to which the gaps between theory and implementation reveal weakness, including coherence in form or function that might be advanced through a study of foreign systems.

Jerome Cohen, Professor of Law at New York University, one of the great scholars of China in the United States, has recently produced a marvelous essay that for me highlights what may be some effects that follow the choice of methodology (Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law,” Foreign Policy (February 22, 2016)). The essay provides a powerful consideration of the consequences of the current Chinese approach to legal reform and its suggestion of the underlying structural deficiencies of the current normative Chinese political order. These judgments are made against an application of the standards of universal legal values which China has endorsed. The essay suggests the value of an outside-in approach. But it also exposes the possibilities for a distinctive approach and another potentially rich vein of analysis using an inside-out approach.

It is in this light that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, Sun Yuhua, Jade White, and I thought it might be useful to consider Professor Cohen's excellent article. To that end each of us prepared a short engagement with distinct sets of insights developed by Professor Cohen (Introduction here).

The responses may be accessed here, along with a Chinese language summary of the comments:

Part I: Larry Catá Backer
Part II: Flora Sapio
Part III: Jean Mittelstaedt
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou
Part V: 中外学者对中国法治改革的关注与讨论.
Part VI Sun Yuhua
Part VII White Jade; (English Version HERE)

Democracy Part 33: On Democratic Legitimacy in Theory and Implementation--Considering Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law”

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

Issues of democratic legitimacy of the Chinese political, constitutional. legal and economic order are fairly common in the West.  Indeed there are legislative institutions in the U.S. Congress whose sole business is the production of such critique (e.g., the U.S. Congressional-Executive commission on China). 

But there are differences in the way one can go about making those critiques, each of which might produce substantially distinct insights. In the West, for example, it is common to apply what I call the outside-in approach.  That starts from the set of premises extracted from global consensus or the reading of democratic traditions among influential states, and then projects those into China, comparing how the Chinese approach stacks up against these outside models.   A less common approach, but one sometimes used by comparative scholars is what I call the inside-out approach. This starts by a rigorous examination of the system to be examined, both the theory and practice of governance, and then projects those out against a set of foreign markers. The outside-in approach tends to reveal more about the foreign system projected inward and the extent of global harmonization, along with the character of that harmonization. The inside-out tends to provide greater insight into the working of the system examined and the extent to which the gaps between theory and implementation reveal weakness, including coherence in form or function that might be advanced through a study of foreign systems. 

Jerome Cohen, Professor of Law at New York University, one of the great scholars of China in the United States,  has recently produced a marvelous essay that for me highlights what may be some effects that follow the choice of methodology (Jerome A. Cohen, “A Looming Crisis for China’s Legal System: Talented Judges and Lawyers are Leaving the Profession, as Ideology Continues to Trump the Rule of Law,” Foreign Policy (February 22, 2016)).  The essay provides a powerful consideration of the consequences of the current Chinese approach to legal reform and its suggestion of the underlying structural deficiencies of the current normative Chinese political order.  These judgments are made against an application of the standards of universal legal values which China has endorsed.  The essay suggests the value of an outside-in approach.  But it also exposes the possibilities for a distinctive approach and another potentially rich vein of analysis using an inside-out approach.

It is in this light that Flora Sapio, Jean Mittelstaedt, Shaoming Zhou, Sun Yuhua, Jade White, and I thought it might be useful to consider Professor Cohen's excellent article. To that end each of us prepared a short engagement with distinct sets of insights developed by Professor Cohen (Introduction here).

The responses may be accessed here, along with a Chinese language summary of the comments:

Part I: Larry Catá Backer
Part II: Flora Sapio
Part III: Jean Mittelstaedt
Part IV: Shaoming Zhou
Part V: 中外学者对中国法治改革的关注与讨论.
Part VI Sun Yuhua
Part VII White Jade; (English Version HERE)

This post includes Larry Catá Backer's response. 

Announcing Conference: "Business and Human Rights: Implications for Management, Knowledge Needs and Teaching"

I am happy to report through my colleague and friend Karin Buhmann that The BHRight Initiative and the Department of Intercultural Communication and Management of the Copenhagen Business School have organized what appears to be an exciting and important conference: "Business and Human Rights: Implications for Management, Knowledge Needs and Teaching" to be held in Copenhagen 18-19 May, 2016.

This conference addresses the significance of Human Rights for responsible business. Human Rights issues are increasingly significant in relation to business communication, due diligence and risk management, human resources and labour, supply chain management, finance, public procurement, non-financial reporting and beyond. The conference addresses this from two perspectives: Management and teaching. Both turn around knowledge needs for responsible business practices.

The conference statement and links to more information and registration follows.

Ruminations 61: Justice, Law, and Context; Flora Sapio on "Justice: Socialist Core Values, Symbols, and Performance"

(Dr. Flora Sapio)

The Lund University, Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies will be hosting an open lecture by Dr. Flora Sapio, entitled "Justice: Socialist Core Values, Symbols, and Performance" 24 February 2016

Flora Sapio, one of the most astute scholars of China in the West, a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre 2004-2006, and currently a researcher at the Centre on China in the World, The Australian National University. She is an internationally renowned authority on CCP legislation, Chinese criminal and criminal procedure law, and the author or the editor of Sovereign Power and the Law in China (Brill, 2010); The Politics of Law and Stability in China (Edward Elgar, 2014); Legal Reforms and Deprivation of Liberty in China (Ashgate, 2016), besides other works on criminal justice in China.

The presentation may be accessed at Dr. Sapio's web site, Forgotten Archipelagos here.

The abstract and my brief comments follow.

New Paper Posted: "Pragmatism Without Principle?: How a Comprehensive Treaty on Business and Human Rights Ought to Be Framed, Why it Can’t, and the Dangers of the Pragmatic Turn in Treaty Crafting"

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

In June 2014, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution “to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group on a legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, the mandate of which is to "elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.” 

This resolution has been the catalyst for discussions around the world concerning both the desirability and possible content of a treaty on business and human rights. Whatever the result of these efforts, the process of negotiating such a treaty should prove valuable in itself. At its best, the process itself may advance understanding of the complex legal questions underlying projects of legalization of the human rights responsibilities of business, including the range of human rights standards applicable to companies.  There is no doubt that it will also inspire othjer business and human rights initiatives in the public and societal spheres. 

With a view to inform the ongoing debate about the value of a legally binding international instrument and facilitate the engagement of all stakeholder involved in the treaty negotiation process, a small group met to discuss various contentious issues related to the content of the proposed treaty. The meeting took place on 19 November 2015, immediately after the 4th UN Forum on Business and Human Rights.

I have just posted a preliminary draft paper that includes my contribution to that meeting.  Entitled "Pragmatism Without Principle?: How a Comprehensive Treaty on Business and Human Rights Ought to be Framed, Why It Can’t, and the Dangers of the Pragmatic Turn in Treaty Crafting,"  the paper considers the strategic issues the underlie approaches to treaty elaboration, the principles and ideological contradictions that frame them and the recourse to pragmatic principles that may be requires to move from the promise of elaboration to a draft treaty. 

The Abstract and introduction (without footnotes) follows.

In Memoriam: G. William (Bill) Rice Associate Professor of Law, University of Tulsa and Enrolled Member United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

G. WIlliam (Bill) Rice

It is my sad duty to report the death of my former colleague, G. WIlliam (Bill) Rice.  Professor Rice was an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, and served for many years as Associate Professor of Law at the University of Tulsa College of Law. He also maintained his own law practice, and was a founding member of the Spirits of the Land Foundation.

My colleague, Melissa Tatum, Research Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, has been kind enough to write a memorial to the late Professor Rice.  Professor Tatum specializes in tribal jurisdiction and tribal courts, as well as in issues relating to cultural property and sacred places.

The memorial follows. 

Just Published: Backer and Haddad, "Philanthropy and the Character of the Public University"

Happy to announce the publication of "Philanthropy and the Character of the Public Research University: The Intersections of Private Giving, Institutional Autonomy, and Shared Governance", which appears in Facilitating Higher Education Growth Through Fundraising and Philanthropy 28-58 (Henry C.Alpin, Jr.m Jennie Lavine, Stromy Stark and Adam Hocker, eds., IGI, 2016).  It was a pleasure working on this with my co-author and former student Nabih Haddad.

The chapter examines the influence of philanthropy on the increasingly contested governance space of the public research university, and against the backdrop of academic integrity and shared governance.  It is done so by situating the analysis specifically on the relationship among  The Charles G. Koch Foundation, Florida State University, and the FSU economics department.   

The abstract and introduction (citations omitted) follows. 

Just Published: "Regulating Multinational Corporations — Trends, Challenges and Opportunities," Brown Journal of World Affairs 22(1):153-173 (Fall/Winter 2015)

I am pleased to announce the publication of an article that I hope might be of interest to some of you: "Regulating Multinational Corporations — Trends, Challenges and Opportunities", Brown Journal of World Affairs 22(1):153-173 (Fall/Winter 2015).

I am in very good company. The contribution was part of a group of articles sharing distinct perspectives on MNEs. Other contributors include:

Globalization from a Business Leader's Point of View
Frits van Paasschen

Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Corporations: Normative Innovations and Implementation Challenges
John Gerard Ruggie
Tamaryn Nelson

The Cost of Free Trade
Joel Richard Paul

Transnational Mining Corporations, the Environment, and Indigenous Communities
Al Gedicks

Included below is the abstract and introduction (footnotes omitted) to my contribution.  Comments, reactions, etc. most welcome.

白轲。关于中华人民共和国慈善法（草案二审稿）的评论

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2015 )

作者简介： Larry Catá Backer (白轲。)，中文名，白轲。宾夕法尼亚州立大学W.理查德和玛丽.埃谢尔曼学者、法学教授、国际事务教授。他的研究领域集中在宪法与行政法，包括社会主义国家宪法、全球化及全球化在一国治理和体制秩序上所造成的影响等相关议题。他的著作包括法律语言符号学，比较宪法、法律与宗教方面的宪法。他目前正在完成的研究是美国法律理论、法理理论与跨国法和法律构造。白轲教授已经有许多作品发表在中国。白轲教授的联系方式是：239 Lewis Katz Building, University Park, PA 16802. 电话：1.814.863.3640. 电子邮箱：lcb911@me.com.

English version HERE. 

John Knox UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment Presents Two Important Reports to the UN Human Rights Council

John H. Knox, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment (former Independent Expert on Human Rights and the Environment) and Henry C. Lauerman Professor of International Law has been advancing his mandate. (See HERE, HERE, and HERE, and HERE).

(John Knox)

Professor Knox has just reported that he will be presenting two new reports to the UN Human Rights Council, one on implementation and one on climate change, to the U.N. Human Rights Council at its March 3, 2016 meeting.  He plans to meet with civil society representatives March 2, 2016 at the UN's offices in Geneva.  The Implementation Report--Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment (A/HRC/31/53; 28/12/2015)-- will be available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Russian (E F S A C R). The second, on Climate Change, details a variety of efforts to focus on relevant issues.

These reports reflect an important step forward in the conceptualization of the way in which environmental and sustainability issues are deeply embedded both in the discourse of human rights and in the ideologies of regulatory governance directed from those with the capacity to order and control to and for the benefit of those on whose bodies and communities the adverse effects of all of these efforts (or lack thereof) tends to fall. It is particularly useful for its quite important illustration of the framework within which regulatory governance beyond the nation-state now appears to be increasingly framed--in terms of transparency regimes (eg here), capacity building (but whose?), rights protections (but not state duty (eg here)), and harmonization (through cooperation frameworks).  Like the other great frameworks of transnational norm making (eg the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights), these efforts are addressed to those with power ("in a position to implement human rights norms in relation to the environment"). To those others, especially those  considered weak governance or conflict zones, other states and transnational actors will step in (eg here, and here). The emerging jurisprudence of application will do much to naturalize these conduct norms within critical, and critically powerful stakeholders it is hoped (eg here, and here). As for the rest, they are consider themselves lucky to be the beneficiaries of these great efforts, and to the extent that civil society, states and others presume to represent their interests and desires, also to participate indirectly through these representatives who are subject to variously effective methodologies of accountability (eg here). It is, in a way, the best one can do at the moment (eg here).  But it also represents a hint of the great work that remains after the complex process of transnational norm identification and adoption is completed (eg here).

Within these frameworks, Professor Knox has moved the conversation forward in important ways. The emerging connections between environment, sustainability, and human rights is a critical addition to the discourse the development of which is a key element of any structure of individual, institutional, state to international obligation.

The announcement with links follows.

The one page summary of the Implementation Report (with links) also follows.

The one page summary of the Climate Change Report (with links) also follows.

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) hearing on Gendercide: China’s Missing Girls

 The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) tends to be a good barometer of legislative thinking about China in the United States.  Not that this thinking is either  coherent or well directed.  But it does represent the way in which U.S. "China expert" elites and their legislative masters develop "knowledge" about China.  This knowledge is then used to shape U.S. policy and legislative approaches U.S. China relations.  It also suggests the way that U.S. ideological thinking shapes the way in which China is viewed as understood by the United States. 

 

This characterization is not meant to suggest a personal position on either the outlook or work of the CECC, or of its advisers. That characterization, however, does suggest that ideological blinders tend to tell us more about the  U.S. (in this case) than it does about the Chinese.  It is with the object of helping to understanding American construction of China, rather than of helping to understand Chinese constructions of themselves (however "flawed either exercise may be in and of itself and to itself), that this announcement is offered.

It seems that American legislators, including a candidate for the selection as the Republican Party nominee for President in the 2016 elections, have chosen to focus on what they call "Gendercide" in China.  Senator Rubio ends his statement with what appears to be the them of the hearing: "As a father of four, to include two daughters, I believe it is vital that the U.S. continues advocating for the complete elimination of government-forced population planning as  well as the fundamental rights of all Chinese citizens to live up to their God - given potential."  Apparently his breeding habits, tied to his personal relationship with the religion to which he adheres, appear to be the basis on which U.S. policy toward Chinese population control policies ought to be grounded." Perhaps that is a good a basis as any. But it ought to give pause if only because there is no reason the Chinese cannot on a similar basis begin to attack, through political contributions and the like within the United States, any number of policies they might view as, for their purposes, "barbaric."  There has to be a better way. The issue of gender disparities in birth rates ought to concern Chinese as well as the rest of us.  But it ought to concern us in all parts of the world (if that is the Ambition of American policy abroad). Perhaps something other than a lecture of this sort might produce less smoke but more fire. Still, if the object is an American conversation rather than one with the Chinese, perhaps this is the better way. Still. . . . . .

 

The announcement and the links to the texts of the opening statements of the witnesses follow. Decide for yourselves.

Workshop Presentation: "Theorizing Regulatory Governance Within its Ecology: The Structure of Management in an Age of Globalization"

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

I have written about the interdisciplinary workshop--Workshop on Regulatory Governance at the Department of Business and Politics: The Transformative Power of Regulatory Governance Rules, Resistance and Responsibility-- held at the Copenhagen Business School.  Organized by Poul F. Kjear and Antje Vetterlein both of CBS' Department of Business and Politics,

In my contribution to that workshop, Theorizing Regulatory Governance Within its Ecology: The Structure of Management in an Age of Globalization, I consider the theoretical elements of regulatory governance--that is, whether it is possible to theorize regulatory governance as technique, instrument, framework or ideology. To that end I look at the regulatory governance of the global production chain in garments, and the way the bones of any coherent regulatory structure is exposed in crisis--in this case the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory building.

The summary abstract of the paper and the PowerPoints are set out below.

The paper will follow in short order.   

-->

Workshop on Regulatory Governance at the Department of Business and Politics: The Transformative Power of Regulatory Governance Rules, Resistance and Responsibility

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

It has been my great pleasure to participate in an excellent workshop being held at the Copenhagen Business School.  Organized by Poul F. Kjear and Antje Vetterlein both of CBS' Department of Business and Politics, the Workshop brought together an interdisciplinary group of scholars--from politics, rhetoric, international relations, and law, to consider from a variety of distinct perspectives the movement now toward regulatory governance. The workshop seeks greater insight into a now deepening taste for and deployment of regulation as response to the need to respond to issues touching on individual and institutional behaviors.

 

The Workshop's Theoretical Scope and Objectives follows, along with the Workshop Program.

Incoherence or Discretion in Corruption and Investment Approaches?--The Norwegian Pension Fund Global Places Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) under observation

Norges Bank has decided to place Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) under observation because of the risk of severe corruption. Petrobras is one of the largest state owned petroleum TNCs in Latin America and one that is deeply embedded in corruption investigations  (here and here (including the write off of over $2 billion in bribe payments)) that reached all the way to the office of the President of the Republic (here). The decision is based on the recommendation submitted by the Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund Global.

The decision stands in stark contrast to the 7 January 2016 decision by Norges Bank to exclude the Chinese company ZTE Corporation, one of the world’s five largest producers of telecommunications equipment and network solutions, based on an assessment of the risk of severe corruption (my observations here). 

The two decisions together may help begin to make coherent whatever rules may be emerging about the obligations of the Pension Fund Global in matters of corruption under internationalized standards that it invokes.  Especially important may be emerging rules for determining when corruption may trigger greater use of shareholder rights and when it triggers a decision to exclude form investment.  To the extent that these decisions do not add clarity, they ill serve the developing international consensus on the corporate responsibility to avoid corruption and the consequential obligation of investors to police the conduct of the enterprises in which they invest.

Please find the Council’s recommendation here.
Please find the Council on Ethics Recommendation here.

The Council of Ethics opinion and Norges Bank decision, along with some observations, follow.

New Paper Posted: "The Evolving Relationship Between TNCs and Political Actors and Governments"

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2016)

The relationships among states, transnational corporations (TNCs) and political actors stands at the center of the evolving nature and character of governance in the economic sphere. An understanding of these relationships. Projecting outward in time it seems clear that the spaces for governance created through economic globalization has also produced substantial transformations in the nature, structures and frameworks within which the relationships among states, TNCs and political actors are understood and manifested. Though the state remains a critical actor, relationships no longer are networked exclusively through or for the object of inducing state action. TNCs and political organizations are as likely to engage in governance related interactions as both are to reach out to the state. And even in the context of public institutional communication, those might as likely be made to or through international public bodies as they are to be directed to any single or group of states. Among these stakeholders, the nature of communications continues to be complex. To some extent cooperation mechanisms—tilted toward joint governance efforts—are likely to continue to grow. Yet because the interests of political actors and TNCs do not align, there will be instances of relations that are adversarial—from those touching on monitoring and assessing TNC conduct to projections of stakeholder power onto consumer and investor communities to seek to influence discourse (and consensus) on appropriate behavior rules. What is certain, though, is that the relationship among these actors will be central to the evolution of governance norms and structures applied increasingly to production chains across states well into this century.

In this paper, The Evolving Relationship Between TNCs and Political Actors and Governments, I explore those relationships and their trajectories. It can be accessed here.

The abstract follows; comments and reactions gratefully received.