A Pragmatic Approach to Global Law

Frydman, Benoît

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2312504

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since Cha€ ım Perelman, the Brussels School of Jurisprudence has embraced the radical pluralistic perspective. The leading works of Jacques Vanderlinden and current research conducted at the Perelman Centre for Legal Philosophy follow this tradition (Frydman 2014a(Frydman , 2014bVanderlinden 1989Vanderlinden , 2013Berns et al 2007). Radical pluralism relies on a pragmatic approach to the study of law which sets aside the concept of legal order.…”

Section: Ordered or Radical Pluralism?mentioning

confidence: 90%

A symposium on global law, legal pluralism and legal indicators

Frydman

Twining

2015

The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ordered or Radical Pluralism?mentioning

confidence: 90%

A symposium on global law, legal pluralism and legal indicators

Frydman

Twining

2015

The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…From a pragmatic perspective, there is no reason why the principles and rules that condition the validity of formal legal rules should not apply to other modes of governance, once these are intended to produce or effectively produce equivalent effects (Frydman, 2014) and can therefore be considered as 'functional equivalents'to use a concept from comparative law (Zweigert, 1972). Failing this, one arrives at the paradoxical conclusion that only official legal acts are subject to the control of compliance with the rule of law and to judicial review, while all other acts escape any form of control even if they produce equivalent effects.…”

Section: Making Global Social Indicators Accountablementioning

confidence: 99%

From accuracy to accountability: subjecting global indicators to the rule of law

Frydman¹

2017

International Journal of Law in Context

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a double genealogy of indicators as instruments of governance. These have their roots both in the use of statistical tools for normative purposes by states and in the development of indicators within firms as preferred instruments of ‘new management’. The paper argues that social indicators not only convey information, but are genuine tools of global governance and that, for this reason, their legitimacy depends not only on their accuracy, but also on their accountability. If indicators are intended to produce or effectively produce regulatory effects, they should be subjected to the rule of law and to judicial review. The essay ends by formulating four main principles that these indicators should comply with.

show abstract

“…One criterion for the consideration of political subunits remains the modern national state and the members of these human groups are the national citizens, who experience a shared bundle of norms formed by the national Constitution, formal laws and informal social norms and practices. However, this traditional organisation of the political space based on the Treaty of Westphalia does not suffice for examining the establishment and maintenance of normative orders, especially because the reality of algorithmic law is forged by transnational social relations across the cyberspace shaped by the fragmented constitutions, laws, standards and social norms of lex internetica (Frydman, 2012;2014;Frydman and Rorive, 2002;Teubner, 2012). These normative orders look more like heterarchical networks rather than the hierarchical normative pyramids of positive state law (Ost and van de Kerchove, 2010;Kelsen, 1967).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%