legal latin americanism

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/13/2014 4:47 PM

145

Legal Latin Americanism

Jorge L. Esquirol

I. INTRODUCTION

LegalscholarsfromLatinAmericaareincreasinglypublishing,presentingatconferencesandparticipatinginlegaldebatesintheU.S.aswellasinLatinAmerica.Thisrelativelynewdevelopmentiseffectivelychanginglegalareastudiesfocusedontheregion. It isenlargingthefieldwithmoreparticipants andpotentially alternative approaches.Whereas itmayhavebeen possible in the past for Latin Americanist legal scholars in NorthAmericatoaddressthemselvessolelytoahomeaudience,suchisnolongerplausibly the case. Legal area studies specialists are quickly confrontedwith the reactions and impact of their engagement in the placeswrittenabout.Inaddition,withmoretranslationsofacademicworksandscholarsworkinginmultiplelanguages,venues,andpublications,theirprofessionalproductionisquicklysharedfromoneforumtoanother.

Yet, there are significantdifferencesbetween legalLatinAmericanismandlegaldiscourseinLatinAmerica.LegalLatinAmericanism,inthesenseusedhere,istheacademicandprofessionalpracticeofwritingaboutlawinLatinAmericafromanexternalperspective.Itscharacteristicfeatureisnotthephysicallocationoftheauthor,butratheradistinctepistemology.MostofthisliteratureisproducedinNorthAmerica,inEnglish,foraudiencesinthe globalNorth.By contrast, legaldiscourse inLatinAmerica, again asusedhere, refers to thevast arrayof academic and societaldebate aboutlawinspecificnationallegalcommunitiesinLatinAmerica.Distinguishedinthisway,writingaboutLatinAmericanlawinEnglishinNorthAmericaandengaginginspecificlegaldebatesinaparticularLatinAmericanlocationcantakeverydifferentforms.Additionally,thelegalpoliticsinoneforummaybequiteunliketheother.And,whileLatinAmericanlegalstudiesisa fieldunto itself in theglobalNorth, thesamecannotbesaid for legaldiscourse acrossLatinAmerica as awhole. Specific locales ordiscursivecommunities may have their own conventions, authoritative references,shorthands,andinterpretationsofsourcesandevents.Still,despiteabroadrangeof localvariation,aprimarydividecanbetracedbetween legaldiscourseaboutLatinAmericaprincipallygenerated in theU.S.andEurope,andlegaldiscourseinspecificLatinAmericancountries.

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) DAVID

146 YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J. Symposium

Indeed,themodesof intervening in legaldebates inthecentermaybequitedifferent than legaldiscourseat thenational level.Thiscertainly includesdifferencesovertherelevanceandemphasisoftopicsdebated.But,more importantly, it concernswhat is considered convincing argumentation,credibletheoreticalframeworks,andthedisciplinesorfieldsdominantwithin legal debates. Due to the differences in these distinct discursiveeconomies,an intervention inthe legalpoliticalarenaatthenational levelmaynoteasilytranslate intodiscussionsatthecenter.Alternatively,LatinAmericanistframeworksanddebatesmayonlyobliquelyengagewithlegaldiscourse at the national level.While the two fields of contestationmayshare a common legal thread, and presumably the same object of study,theyarenotablynotthesame.Duetotheparticularityofdistinctinterpretivecommunities,eachexhibitsitsownepistemologicalcommitments,analyticalconventions,andpoliticalarena. Indeed,untilrecently,suchdifferences have made transparent exchange between legal actors in LatinAmericaandlegalLatinAmericanistsquitelimited.

Furthermore, these twodistinct fieldshavequitedifferentgeopoliticalimpact.They clearly involve twodifferentalthoughnotmutuallyexclusiveaudiences.LatinAmericanists areprincipally involved in academicandpoliticalcirclesintheglobalNorth.LegalscholarshipinLatinAmericaispredominantlysituatedinlegalcommunitieswithineachcountry.WhileLatinAmericanismmaysimplyappeartobethereflectivedescriptionandreproductionforforeignaudiencesoflegaldevelopmentsinLatinAmerica,it actually responds to itsown conventions andgenealogyofknowledgeproduction.Indeed,acasualobserverfromLatinAmericamaybetemptedtodismissLatinAmericanism as, atbest, a secondhand accountof legaleventsintheregion.Amorecriticalperspectivemayevenhighlightitserroneous,warped,or fantasizedquality, insomecases.And, indeed, theremaybeanumberofareasinwhichLatinAmericanistshavesimplygottenitwrong,emphasizedthewrongpoints,oreveninstrumentallymischaracterizedthesituation.

Regardless,writinginthecenteraboutLatinAmericanlawinEnglishhas,inmanyrespects,agreaterimpactonlocallawandlegalinstitutionsinLatinAmericathandoeslocallegalscholarship.ItisthistransnationalfieldthatinformsU.S.foreignpolicyonlawintheregion,includingaidforlegalandinstitutionalreform.Itisalsothesortofbackgroundanalysisthatgetstakenupby internationalorganizations in the formationof theirdevelopmentprograms, areasof assistance, and conditionson loans. Indeed, thedesignofinternationallysponsoredreformprogramsandpolicyconditionsareinterconnectedwiththesedebates.Additionally,LatinAmericaexpertsarefrequentlycalledtotestifyinU.S.courtsonthestateoflegalsystemsinspecificLatinAmericancountries.Thesesituationsarise in forumnonconveniensmotions,politicalasylumcases,U.S.enforcementofLatinAmericancourt judgments,andothersuchsituations.Thebases for theseviewsare


2013 Legal Latin Americanism 147

generatedandsupportedby the literatureon law inLatinAmerica in thecenter,intheformofacademicscholarship,expertopinions,commissionedreports,projectevaluations,andthelike.

Thepresentessaybeginstoexplorethedistinctionbetweenthefieldsoflegal LatinAmericanism and national legal discourse in LatinAmericancountries.SectionIIbrieflyoutlinesthespecificityoflegaldiscourseinLatinAmericaat thenational level.Partof thisspecificityderives,nodoubt,fromdifferences in the legal issuesmostprominent ineachcontext.Moreimportantly, though, is its distinctiveness resulting from epistemologicaldifferences,suchasdistincthistoriesof jurisprudence,particularmodesofreadingauthoritativetexts,andcontextuallypersuasivetypesofargumentation.SectionIIIhighlightstheoverallcharacteristicsandrelevanceof legal Latin Americanism, as produced mainly in the U.S. This field ofknowledgedisproportionately trains legal realist insightson law inLatinAmerica,whilemostlyacceptingliberallegalideologyintheglobalNorthatfacevalue.Thisproducesapersistentimageoflegalfailureintheregion,comparedtoanidealizedvisionofliberallawinthemoredevelopedcountries.Finally,SectionIVdescribessomeoftherecentdevelopmentsinthefieldoflegalLatinAmericanismandexaminestheprosandconsofsomeoftheseapproaches.II. LEGAL DISCOURSE IN LATIN AMERICA

Thedifferencesbetween legalLatinAmericanismatthecenterandnationallegaldiscourseinLatinAmericaaresignificant.Locallegalwritingisinthelocallanguageandmorefinelyfocused,inmostcases,onnationallegalquestions.Thisincludesthegamutofdiscussionsaboutlaw,legislativereform,judiciallydecidedcases,administrativeregulationandthelike.Itisproducedbothwithinandoutsideof formal institutions. Insomecases, itrevolvesaroundtheopinionsofhighlyregarded juristsandthe judiciary.1Inother cases, it involvesargumentsandexplanations in legal textbooks,expertcommentary,andthepress.2Inbrief,locallegaldiscourseisahighlyimportantandoftenundervalueddimensionofthelegalsystem.Onecanperceive itasaninformal legal institution. Itgeneratessocietalengagementanddebateovernationallegalarrangements.

Ofcourse,locallegaldiscourseinLatinAmericaisalsowiderthanthat.Itcanextendtophilosophicaldebates,internationallaw,andthelike.Additionally,thereissignificanttransnationalexchangeinmostcountriesofthe

1.SeegenerallyJOHNHENRYMERRYMAN&ROGELIOPREZPERDOMO,THECIVILLAWTRADITION:ANINTRODUCTIONTOTHELEGALSYSTEMSOFEUROPEANDLATINAMERICA57,60(2007).2.See,e.g.,IsabelC.Jaramillo,TheSocialApproachtoFamilyLaw:ConclusionsfromtheCanonicalFamilyLawTreatisesofLatinAmerica,58AM.J.COMP.L.843(2010).



region.3AmainexampleisLatinAmericashistoricalrelationtoEuropeanlegalsources,authoritiesanddevelopments.4Additionally,specificsubjectareasormethodologicalandpoliticalaffinitygroupscrossbordersinsignificantways.Dezelay andGarthhavedemonstrated that increased contactwithU.S.lawschoolsandlegalscholarshasbeentranslatedintocloutandinfluencebyLatinAmericanlegalactorsintheirhomecontexts.5Thishasalsobeenamodefor increasedSouthSouthexchange,possiblytriangulatedwithU.S.orforeignassistance.6Alas,thisisnottheplacetoexploreinanygreatdetail theparticularitiesof local legaldiscourse inspecificLatinAmericanlegalcommunities.

Still,locallegaldiscourseintheaggregatemaybeseenasquitedistinctfromlegalLatinAmericanism.Thisdifferencedoesnotmeanthatthetwofields never connect. In fact, as noted already, the preponderant geopoliticalpoweroflegalLatinAmericanismhasverydirectandsubstantialeffectson law and legal institutions inLatinAmerica.For themostpart,though,itisarticulatedasadiscourseofpolicyandsocialscience,externalto juristic legaldebate.7Still, ithasunderwrittenbroadscaledevelopmentprojects,theredesignofnational institutions,andeffortstotransformthelocallegalculture.Ithasnot,however,significantlyengagedwiththesubstanceofmainstreamlocallegaldebateinparticularLatinAmericancountries.However,as is thepremiseof thisessay,withmoreLatinAmericabased legalscholarsparticipating inLatinAmericanist legaldebate in thecenter, this is likely to change. It remains to be seen, however, inwhichways different local legal debates may be transformed through such increasing interaction, especially as relates to dominant conceptual frameworks,thedisciplinesemphasized,andtheactualsubstanceofdebates.III. LATIN AMERICAN LEGAL STUDIES

The fieldofLatinAmerican legal studiesproper is a relatively recentdevelopment.8 Its origins are inseparable from the lawanddevelopment

3.SeegenerallyAlejandroGarro,ShapingtheContentofaBasicCourseonLatinAmericanLegalSystems,19U.MIAMIINTERAM.L.REV.595(1988).4.SeeRENDAVID&J.E.BRIERLY,MAJORLEGALSYSTEMSINTHEWORLDTODAY(1985);PHANORJ.EDER,ACOMPARATIVESTUDYOFANGLOAMERICANANDLATINAMERICANLAW4(1950);MERRYMAN&PREZPERDOMO,supranote1;DIEGOLPEZMEDINA,LATEORAIMPURADELDERECHO:LATRANSFORMACINDELACULTURAJURDICALATINOAMERICANA(2004):JorgeL.Esquirol,TheFictionsofLatinAmericanLaw(PartI),1997UTAHL.REV.425(1997).5.YVESDEZELAY&BRYANTGARTH,THEINTERNATIONALIZATIONOFPALACEWARS(2007).6.SeeMximoLanger,RevolutioninLatinAmericanCriminalProcedure:DiffusionofLegalIdeasfromthePeriphery,54AM.J.COMP.L.617(2007).7.Ondifferentlegalinterpretivecommunities,seeWilliamS.Blatt,InterpretiveCommunities:TheMissingElementinStatutoryInterpretation,95NW.U.L.R.629(2001).8.ForhistoricalcontextonLatinAmericanstudiesingeneral,seeRichardM.Morse,TheStrangeCareerofLatinAmericanStudies,356ANNALSAM.ACAD.POL.&SOC.SCI.106(1964).



projectsofthe1960sand1970s.9Assuch,themainframeworkforthistypeofintellectualworkhasbeentheefforttopromoteeconomicdevelopmentthrough law.10Thismodel suffers from themany shortcomings thathavebeenamplydiscussedinthelawanddevelopmentliteratureaswellastheliteraturecritiquingthatfield.11Inessence,ithasbecomeevidentthatthereisnoclearblueprint forhow lawcanbealigned toproduceeitherdevelopmentordemocracy.

Scholarshavenotedthreeseparatephasesofthelawanddevelopmentmovement:theinitialsocialdemocraticvarietyofthe1960sand1970s,theneoliberalversionof the1980sand1990s,and themorerecentchastenedneoliberalismcumsocialjusticerhetoricoftheearlytwentyfirstcentury.12Though thepolicyprescriptions changedover time, theunderlyingparadigmforLatinAmerican legalstudiesremainedthesame.Itstoodtoreason that if development and democracy were lacking, and law was assumed to have something to do with it, then there must be somethingseriouslywrongwithLatinAmerican law.Essentially, it aimed lawandsociety type critiques on the regions national legal systems.13Moreover,thisbodyoftransnationalwriting,overall,repeatedlysuggeststheconclusionthatLatinAmericanlawisafailedversionofWesternliberallaw.14

Bycontrast,averydifferentparadigmforlegalstudiesrelatedtoLatinAmericahasbeentheEuropeannessapproach.15IntermsofU.S.writing,thisisarelativelymarginalstream.ItisfilledbytheranksofclassicalcomparativistswhogroupLatinAmerica togetherwithEurope.16 In termsofengagementwith juristicdiscourse in specificLatinAmerican locales, theEuropeannessstreamhaspotentiallyamuchgreaterconnection.Indeed,itsmainpointonnationallawinLatinAmericaisthecloserelationtoitsEuropeansources.However,muchofthiscomparativelawwritingtypically 9.SeegenerallyKennethKarst,TeachingLatinAmericanLaw,19AM.J.COMP.L.685(1971);JorgeL.Esquirol,WritingtheLawofLatinAmerica,40GEO.WASH.INTLL.REV.693(2009).10.SeegenerallyThomasM.Franck,TheNewDevelopment:CanAmericanLawandlegalInstitutionsHelpDevelopingCountries?1972WIS.L.REV.767(1972);LawrenceM.Friedman,OnLegalDevelopment,24RUTGERSL.REV.11(1969).11.SeeJAMESGARDNER,LEGALIMPERIALISM:AMERICANLAWYERSANDFOREIGNAIDINLATINAMERICA(1980);DavidTrubek&MarcGalanter,ScholarsinSelfEstrangement:SomeReflectionsontheCrisisinLawandDevelopmentStudiesintheUnitedStates,1974WIS.L.REV.1062(1974);THOMASCAROTHERS,THEMANYAGENDASOFTHERULEOFLAWREFORMINLATINAMERICA,INRULEOFLAWINLATINAMERICA:THEINTERNATIONALPROMOTIONOFJUDICIALREFORM(PilarDomingo&RachelSiedereds.,2001);BrianTamanaha,ThePrimacyofSocietyandtheFailureofLawandDevelopment,44CORNELLINTLL.J.209(2011).12.DavidTrubek&AlvaroSantos,Introduction:TheThirdMovementinLawandDevelopmentTheoryandtheEmergenceofaNewCriticalPractice,inTHENEWLAWANDECONOMICDEVELOPMENT1,59(DavidTrubek&AlvaroSantoseds.,2006).13.JohnHenryMerryman,ComparativeLawandSocialChange:OntheOrigins,Style,DeclineandRevivaloftheLawandDevelopmentMovement,25AM.J.COMP.L.457(1977).14.JorgeL.Esquirol,TheFailedLawofLatinAmerica,56AM.J.COMP.L.75(2008).15.MERRYMAN&PREZPERDOMO,supranote1,at57,60.16.MERRYMAN&PREZPERDOMO,supranote1;seealsoEsquirol,supranote4.



onlyaddsa fewexamples fromLatinAmerica toworksprincipallyaboutcivillawsystemsinEurope.Theviewitperpetuatesaboutlawintheregionis, in fact, that it is simply a secondrate copy ofEuropeanmodels.17Assuch,thisscholarshipdownplaystheimportanceorinterestofengagingthelaw inLatinAmerica. Itwould be better andmore enlightening, so thisthinkinggoes,tostudytheoriginalEuropeansources.

Notably,theEuropeannessapproachtoLatinAmericacontributestotheconstructionandmaintenanceofaparticularformoflegalideology.ItfurtherjustifiesLatinAmericansinbelievingthattheirlawandlegalpracticesarepartofatransnational,Europeanpractice.18Inbroadstrokes,itassistsinlegitimating the legalsystemoverall,evenat theexpenseofLatinAmericans being labeled unoriginal imitators. Additionally, lawanddevelopment practitioners incorporated this Europeanness strain ofcomparativescholarshipintotheirthinking.Itfiguresasanotheroneoftheelementsofthelegalfailurediagnosis.19LawsqualityinLatinAmericaasacopy,borrowed fromother societies,and frommodelsnotgenerallyconsideredidealeitheraddstothelawanddevelopmentdiagnosisofdysfunctionwhichisbelievedtoleadtobadeconomiesandlimiteddemocracies.

Finally,thedominantformsoflegalLatinAmericanismhavealsosignificantly influenced thesocialsciencesconcernedwith law.Thus, forexample,theexpansivelegalpluralismliteraturealsoindirectlyadoptsthegappremise,i.e.thenotionthatthereisanexceptionalgapbetweenlawandsocietyinLatinAmerica.20Thistypeofworkisusuallyconsideredquitedifferent from development scholarship.21 However, it draws on the samebackground understanding of law in the region.22 The effect, for mostcommentators,istosidelinestatelawaltogether.Alternativelegalordersclosertosocietybecomethecentralfocusand,itcommonlyfollows,leadtocallsfortheirequalstandingwith,oroutrightreplacementof,formalstatelaw.PrimaryexamplesareindigenouspeopleslawandtheinterAmericanhumanrightsregime.23Adifferentbutrelatedexample is themorerecentjudicializationofpolitics literature.24This latterscholarship isprimarily 17.SeeGarro,supranote3.18.MEDINA,supranote4.19.Esquirol,supranote15.20.BOAVENTURADESOUZASANTOS,ESTADO,DERECHO,YLUCHASSOCIALES(1991);RAQUELYRIGOYENFAJARDO,PAUTASDECOORDINACINENTREELDERECHOINDGENAYELDERECHOESTATAL(1999).21.SeealsoMAURICIOGARCAVILLEGAS,LAEFICACIASIMBLICADELDERECHO(1993)22.MULTICULTURALISMINLATINAMERICA:INDIGENOUSRIGHTS,DIVERSITYANDDEMOCRACY(RachelSiedered.,2002).23.See,e.g.,LillianAponteMiranda,UploadingtheLocal:AssessingtheContemporaryRelationshipbetweenIndigenousPeoplesLandTenureSystemsandInternationalHumanRightsLawRegardingtheAllocationofTraditionalLandsandResourcesinLatinAmerica,10OREGONR.INTLL.419(2008).24.LINNA.HAMMERGREN,THEPOLITICSOFJUSTICEANDJUSTICEREFORMINLATINAMERICA:THEPERUVIANCASEINCOMPARATIVEPERSPECTIVE(1998);WILLIAMC.PRILLAMAN,THE



produced bypolitical scientists and legal scholarsworkingwith them. Itcapitalizes on the recent expansion of constitutional courts and constitutionaljurisdictioninLatinAmerica.25Theseworksgenerallytrackhowpolicydecisionsandpoliticsthatwerepreviouslythedomainofotherbranches of government are now being transacted in the courts. This literaturepredominantlyviewslocallegaldiscourse,ifanything,asposthocrationalizations forprevailingpolitical interests.The realmeaning, following thislineofthinking,istobediscoveredinthebackgroundorderthatproducesthesedecisions.

A. The Dominant Forms

Themain literatureinthefieldofLatinAmerican legalstudiesinEnglish,andprincipally in theU.S.,has thus takenoneorbothof these twodominantforms:(1)itdevaluesformallawasirrelevant inthefaceofdifferentandmoredeterminativesocial factors;and (2)official law isexamined throughan ideological lens searching fordysfunction,under theassumption that Latin American law has played a key role in producingeconomic underdevelopment and weak democracies. 26 Indeed, much ofthis work generally follows in the lawandsociety or the lawanddevelopment typeperspectives.27Whilemuchof thisscholarship isquiteusefulandshedssignificantlightondevelopmentsinLatinAmerica,italsoleavesoutasignificantpartofthepicture.Indeed,thisomissionoftenleadstoadisappointinglypredictableconceptionoflegalfailureinLatinAmerica.

Commontobothofthesemainapproachesisthattheyignoretheconstitutive politics of local legal debate. This is not to say that law in LatinAmerica is insufficiently understood as political. In fact, official law is JUDICIARYANDDEMOCRATICDECAYINLATINAMERICA:DECLININGCONFIDENCEINTHERULEOFLAW(2000);THEJUDICIALIZATIONOFPOLITICSINLATINAMERICA(RachelSiederetal.eds.,2005);CULTURESOFLEGALITY:JUDICIALIZATIONANDPOLITICALACTIVISMINLATINAMERICA(JavierCousoetal.eds.,2010);GRETCHENHELMKE&JULIOROSFIGUEROA,COURTSINLATINAMERICA(2011).25.See,e.g.,THEJUDICIALIZATIONOFPOLITICSINLATINAMERICA(RachelSiederetal.eds.,2005);GRETCHENHELMKE&JULIOROSFIGUEROA,COURTSINLATINAMERICA(2011);CULTURESOFLEGALITY:JUDICIALIZATIONANDPOLITICALACTIVISMINLATINAMERICA(JavierCousoetal.eds.,2010).26.See,e.g.,KENNETHKARST&KEITHROSENN,LAWANDDEVELOPMENTINLATINAMERICA:ACASEBOOK(1975);KeithRosenn,TheJeito:BrazilsInstitutionalBypassoftheFormalLegalSystemanditsDevelopmentalImplications,19AM.J.COMP.L514(1971);KennethL.Karst,RightsinLandandHousinginanInformalLegalSystem:TheBarriosofCaracas,19AM.J.COMP.L550(1971);JosephThome,Elderechocomoinstrumentodecambiosocial:Comentariossobreunmodelodederechoydesarrollo,12BOLETNDELINSTITUTODEDOCENCIAEINVESTIGACINJURDICA(Chile,May1972).27.SeegenerallyJohnHenryMerryman,supranote13,atApp.A;DavidM.Trubek,BacktotheFuture:TheShort,HappyLifeoftheLawandSocietyMovement,18FLA.ST.U.L.REV.1(1991);BrianTamanaha,TheLessonsofLawandDevelopmentStudies,89AM.J.INTLL.470(1995);Esquirol,supranote9.



widelyperceivedasnothingbutbadfaithrationalizationsofdominantpoliticalinterests.28Bycontrast,thepointhereisthatthewaylegaldiscourseisstructuredalsomatters.Viewsonthenatureoflaw,standardargumentativeconventions,thelevelofpersuasiveabstraction,commonunderstandings of specific concepts and references, and the general consensus oncommonsensicalreasoningallshapethetypeandslantoflegalpolitics.

Thereareanumberofreasonswhythislatterlineofinquirytendstobequickly truncatedwhen turning toLatinAmerica.Analysisoften endsattheobservationthatstatelawintheregionpenetratesimperfectlythroughoutallofsocietyorthatlawismainlyagamefortherichandtheelite.29Infact,alloflegalliberalismselusiveobjectivessuchasdecisionalneutrality, legal objectivity, equal applicationof the laws, judicial independence,andthelikehavebeenrepeatedlyfoundlackinginLatinAmerica.30Theseconclusionsessentiallyencapsulatethesumoftheliteratureontheregion.Indeed,theverytermLatinAmericanLawasgivencontentbycomparative legal studies, the social sciences,andultimatelypopular referencereflectstheskewedunderstandingsproducedbylegalLatinAmericanism.Thesametermcouldpotentiallybeused,bycontrast,tosimplycapturethesum of contemporaneousdevelopments or similar features inmore thanoneLatinAmericancountry.31 Inreality, though, ithasacquired themorelimited,dominantunderstandingdescribedabove. Itsuse chieflydenotestheultimatemeaningsproducedbylegalLatinAmericanismlawsirrelevanceanddysfunction.32

However,critiquesofirrelevanceordysfunctioncanbeapplied,insomedegree,toanysystemofliberallaw.33Moreover,theyarenotsufficientreasonstodenytheimportanceofstatelaw,locallegalanalysis,andnationallegaldiscourse.Infact,itisaseriousomissioninourunderstandingofthestakesinLatinAmericanlegalsystems.Itshouldbenotedthatthisdoesnotmeanthatinformationaboutothersocialsystems,legalpluralism,andthepoliticalcontextoflawarenotimportantendeavors.34ButinthecaseofLat 28.Seee.g.STEPHENHABERETAL.,THEPOLITICSOFPROPERTYRIGHTS:POLITICALINSTABILITY,CREDIBLECOMMITMENTS,ANDECONOMICGROWTHINMEXICO,18761929(2003);seegenerally,THE(UN)RULEOFLAWANDTHEUNDERPRIVILEGEDINLATINAMERICA(JuanE.Mendezetal.eds.,1999).29.Seee.g.JohnLinarelli,AngloAmericanJurisprudenceandLatinAmerica,20FORDHAMINTLL.J.50(1996).30.Seee.g.KeithRosenn,TheSuccessofConstitutionalismintheU.S.anditsFailureinLatinAmerica:AnExplanation,22U.MIAMIINTERAM.L.REV.1(1990);seegenerallyDanielBrinks,JudicialReformandIndependenceinBrazilandArgentina:ThebeginningofaNewMillennium?40TEX.INTLL.J.595(2005).31.ANGELOQUENDO,LATINAMERICANLAW(2006).32.SeeJorgeEsquirol,HaciadndevaLatinoAmerica?in,DERECHOYSOCIEDADENAMERICALATINA:UNDEBATESOBRELOSESTUDIOSJURDICOSCRTICOS(M.GarciaVillegas&C.RodriguezGaravito,eds.2003).33.See,e.g.,BRIANTAMANAHA,ONTHERULEOFLAW:HISTORY,POLITICS,THEORY(2004).34.SeeTamanaha,supranote11.



inAmerican legal studies, thesehavebeen emphasizedat theexpenseofmuchifanyanalyticalworkontheofficiallaw.Indeed,LatinAmericanlegalstudieshasbeennotablylimitedinitsrepertoireofintellectualtools.Forthemostpart,itsmajorinsightasafieldisthatthereiswidegapbetweenlaw in thebooksandlaw inaction inLatinAmerica.35The failure tomeetpolicygoalssatisfactorilyasevidencedbythiswellnotedgaphasbeenthesinglemostimportantdriveroflegalcommentaryontheregion.

B. Rationale for Development Reform

Furthermore, much Latin Americanist legal scholarship directly supportslawanddevelopmentprojectsofreform.ItpavesthewayfortherejectionandreplacementofentireareasoflawinLatinAmerica.Initsplace,alternativemodelsaremoreeasilyintroduced.Thesemay,insomecases,beframedasmoredirectlyconnectedtosociety.AgoodexampleisHernandode Sotos efforts, widely supported by the World Bank and the InterAmericanBank forDevelopment, to formalizevarious informalsectorsoftheeconomy,whichsimplyamountsto,inessence,anargumentinfavorofderegulation.36 Forhim, the state should formalize anduniversalize thedefactomodeloftheinformaleconomy,closertothepeopleorinformalsashecallsthem. Inhistheoreticalanalysis, deSotocondemnsthestatesformal lawas impedingeconomicdevelopment. Instead,he lauds the informalsectorasafontofentrepreneurshipandlockedupwealth.However, these informal sectors are nothing other than lax regulatory environmentsproducedbyofficial toleranceof legalnoncompliance,whetherornotoneagreeswiththeunderlyingsituationofnonenforcement.Elevatingtheinformalassomehowmoreauthentictolocalpeople,however,simplyclothestheargumentforderegulationinthenarrativeofaculturalgapbetweenlawandsociety.

Inturn,thedevelopmentrelateddiagnosisoflawsfailureiscommonlyfollowedbyadvocacy forsimplyadifferent liberal legalmodel.Thus, forexample, the criminal lawprocedure throughoutLatinAmericahasbeencomprehensively transformed through the introductionof theadversarialsystem.37Allpriorcriminalproceduresystems,regardlessoftheirvariationacross the region,wereeffectivelycharacterized, inablanketlikeway,asundemocratic,inefficientandinquisitorialwithall theconnotationsthat these terms imply, and then convincingly rejected and replacedwholesale.38Whetherthecountryinquestionfacedsuchdifferentproblems 35.SeeMATTHEWMIROW,LATINAMERICANLAW:AHISTORYOFPRIVATELAWANDINSTITUTIONSINSPANISHAMERICA(2004)36.HERNANDODESOTO,THEMYSTERYOFCAPITAL(1968).37.Langer,supranote6.38.SeegenerallyMichaelR.Paul,Wanted:CriminalJusticeColombiasAdoptionofaProsecutorialSystemofCriminalProcedure,16FORDHAMINTLL.J.608(199293);CarlosRodrigodelaBarra



aseitherinsufficientcriminalenforcementor,ontheotherendofthespectrum,insufficientregardfordefendantsrights,thesolutionwasthesame:theadoptionof theadversarialmodelpromotedbyUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment.

It isuseful to recall that legalLatinAmericanism isnotdependentonthenationalityof theexpositoror thephysical location fromwhereheorshewrites.Indeed,inthetwoexamplesabove,bothcanbeclaimedasprojectschampionedbylegalscholarsfromLatinAmerica.HernandodeSotoworksfromPeru,closelytiedtolocalissues,althoughhisinspirationisselfprofessedlytracedtolegaldevelopmentsinEurope.Additionally,theintellectual leadersof theswitch toadversarialcriminalprocedure throughoutLatinAmericahavebeenconvincinglyshownbyMximoLangertobeArgentineans.39Thus,rather thananyrequiredauthenticityor locationalfactors, legal Latin Americanism as described here is best understood as acombinationofaconceptualframeworkbasedonWesternliberallegalideology,a setofanalytical techniques, certaindominant ideasabout law intheregion,anditsaudienceprincipallyintheglobalNorth.

C. Impact of Latin American Legal Studies in Latin America

Asnoted above, itmayhavebeenpossible in thepast for legalLatinAmericanists,locatedintheglobalNorth,tothinkoftheiraudiencesaslimitedtotheirhomecontexts.40Becauseoflanguagedifferences,separateacademiccircuits,andmorelimitedcommunications,itcouldbethatonlythisaudienceappearedtoberelevant.Anauthorhadtoappealtoandconvincethisreferencegroup,andhadtopresentthematerialinawaywhichwouldmakesensetothem,wouldfitwithinacceptedintellectualparadigms,andexpress acceptable political interests (albeit in a veiled way). What waswrittenaboutLatinAmericamayhavenotbeenconsciouslyconsideredintermsofhow the text intersectedwith the regionsown legal intellectualtraditionsandparadigmsorhowitimpactedcertaingroupsorindividualswithinthatcommunity.

Ofcourse,evenifourerstwhileLatinAmericanistsnevercontemplatedtheirowncontributiontonationalorinternationallegalpolitics,theirworkcanstillbeanalyzedforitsimpactonthoseareas.41Insomecases,itseffectsmightevenbequitesubstantial.Inthecenter,ithelpsformtheopinionswehaveaboutthestudiedgroup.Itmighteveninfluenceweightydecisionsofforeignpolicy,internationalinstitutions,andtheproductionofknowledge. Cousio,Adversarialvs.InquisitorialSystems:TheRuleofLawandProspectsforCriminalProcedureReforminChile,5SW.J.L.&TRADEAM.323(1998).39.Langer,supranote6.40.SeegenerallyRobertMorse,supranote8.41.SeegenerallyDAVIDKENNEDY,THEDARKSIDESOFVIRTUE:REASSESSINGINTERNATIONALHUMANITARIANISM(2004).



Inaddition,itmayinfluencetheselfperceptionofthestudiedgroup.Opinions fromcentersofpowermay induceasortofselffulfilling internalization.42The studiedmaycome to see themselves through theeyesof theirobservers.

Additionally, the connection of Latin American legal studies to legalpoliticsinspecificLatinAmericanstatessurelyvaries.Untilrecently,ithashad little conscious impact on the class of jurists, at least asmany havethemselvesreported.43Most legalscholars inLatinAmericahavebeen insufficientlyawareof itsoperational reach,specifically in the formof lawanddevelopmentprojectsasanorganizedeffort.It isonlynowbeingassimilatedasa significantparadigmwithpastand continuing concreteeffects.44 This is not to say that the legal reforms advanced by lawanddevelopmenthad anegligible impact.45 Manyprojectshave been implementedthroughtheforceofsuch lawanddevelopmentwritingsandperspectives.Theywere,forthemostpart,howevernotsignificantlymetabolized through mainstream local legal discourse. They predominantlyoperatedatthepoliticallevelandbeyondthestuffoffinegrainedlegaldebate.Asaresult,theimpactoflegaldevelopmentassistancewasmostlytobulldozecompetingpositionsthat inonewayoranothersupportedexistinglawsorchangeswithinthem.Inthefaceoflawsradicalfailure,engaging inmainstream legaldebate inLatinAmericanodoubtappearedfrom an external perspective on local legaldiscourse such as legalLatinAmericanismanditslawanddevelopmentstrainliketheproverbialrearrangingofdeckchairsontheTitanic.

Assuch, thefieldsofnational legalpolitics inLatinAmericaand legalgeopolitics in thecenterhaveproceeded in somewhatdifferent registers.Theirdifferences,tobesure,areamovingtarget,limitedonlybythechangingdynamicsofdiscourse.46Achallengeforprogressives in theseshiftingdiscursivecommunitiesisindeedproducinginterventionsthatadvancecollective objectives across different epistemic locales. This presents someuniquedifficulties.Beyondspecificintellectualcommitmentsanddemandsforcoherenceandconsistency,thereistheadditionalfactorofasignificantpower differential between the two fields. Intervening in debates in theglobalNorth inaway thatdoesnotsimplyreproduce thishierarchymaymake itmoredifficult tobe included and tobeheard there. That is, attempting towriteaboutLatinAmerica in theglobalNorth inaway that 42.ANTONYANGHIE,IMPERIALISM,SOVEREIGNTY,ANDTHEMAKINGOFINTERNATIONALLAW52100(2006).43.SeeELDERECHOENAMRICALATINA(CesarRodriguezGaravitoed.,2012).44.OSCARVILHENAVIEIRAANDDIMITRIDIMOULIS,OESTADODODIREITOEODESAFIODODESENVOLVIMENTO(2011)45.SeegenerallyTHENEWLAWANDECONOMICDEVELOPMENT(DavidTrubek&AlvaroSantoseds.,2006).46.SeeWilliamS.Blatt,InterpretiveCommunities:TheMissingElementinStatutoryInterpretation,95NW.U.L.R.629(2001).



doesnotreinforcetheglobalhegemonyoftheNorth isadifficultfeat,becausethefieldisstructuredthatway.Conversely,interveninginactualjuristicdebates inLatinAmerica inaway thatdoesnotsimply transfer thehegemonyof legalLatinAmericanismwholesale is alsoquitedifficult toresist.47ThelatterenjoystheintellectualvalidationofatransnationalcommunityandlegalauthoritiesintheglobalNorth.

D. The Geo-Politics of Legal Latin Americanism

LegalLatinAmericanismhasshownitselftobe,onthewhole,theacademiccounterparttoU.S.andmainstreaminternationalpolicytowardLatinAmerica.Thishastranslatedforthemostpartintoeconomicandpoliticalreformismtocontainmoreradicalandrevolutionarychange.ItsmodeofoperationhasbeentodiagnoseLatinAmericanlegalsystemsandtointroducealternativemodels.Usually,however, the levelofanalysis isconductedatthesystemwidelevelwithexternaldiagnosesandcritiques.48Assuch,legalareastudiesoftheregionhaveapredominantlyinstitutionalfocus,whether they relate to the 1960sdevelopmental stateor in the 1990sneoliberalversion.Thus,forexample,acentralquestionintheearlyperiodwasgetting the right typeofadministrativeagenciesand law schools. Intheneoliberalversion,itwastherighttypeofcourts,criminalprocedure,andpropertyandcontractrights.

At abasic level, legal area studies focuson law inLatinAmerica.Assuch,theypurporttobeaboutthesamesubjectmatterasnationallegaldiscourse, if at a level removed.Yet, considering the close connectionwithlawanddevelopment, Latin American legal area studies easily assumedtheroleofdiagnosticianofnationallegalsystems.Thus,thefieldhasbeencloselytiedtotheinternationalpoliticalarenaofcompetinglegalmodels.49Inthiscontext,participants inthefieldcompeteonthebasisofevermoreconvincing assertions of laws breakdown in the region, frequently followedbyalternative,preferablemodels for law reform. In theaggregate,thistypeofwritinghasgeneratedanumberofbaselineperceptionsaboutlawintheregion.Asalreadynoted,themainpictureproducedisoneoftherecurrentfailureoflawandlegalinstitutionsintheregion.Thisgeneraldiagnosis isnotonly theproductof faultyanalysisasdiscussedbelow; it isalsoquiteusefultotheobjectiveofadvocatinglegalreforms.Onceexistinglegalarrangementsareconvincinglyshown tohave failed, introducingalternativelegalinstitutionscanbemoreeasilyachieved.Theelementsofthis 47.SeeELDERECHOENAMRICALATINA,supranote44..48.Onthedifferencebetweenexternalandinternalcritique,seeWilliamJosephSinger,ThePlayerandtheCards:NihilismandLegalTheory,94YALEL.J.1(1984).49.See,e.g.,JamesM.Cooper,CompetingLegalCulturesandLegalReform:TheBattleforChile,29MICH.J.INTLL.501(2008).



failurediagnosis,however,aregenerallybased inwholeor inpart byhighlighting the regions inadequacy in fulfilling liberal legalismspracticallyunattainablemyths.

My critique of thediscourse ofLatinAmerican legal failurehas beenpresentedinotherwork.50Forpurposeshere,however,itismoreimportanttonotethattheseimagesoffailurearenotmerelytheserendipitousprojectionof legalacademics.Nodoubt, this is indeedonedimensionof it.TheprojectionofthedarksideofliberallegalismontoLatinAmericacontrasted to itssuccessfuloperation in theWest isquite likelyanunconsciousprojectionoflegalacademicsintheWest.51ThisisaphenomenondescribedbyEdward Said regarding how the Orientwas constructed out of thesuppressed images and fantasies of theWest.52And, I have argued elsewhere, thecommon imagesofLatinAmerican lawmirror thegeneralcritiquesofliberallegalismintheWestoverthecourseofthetwentiethcentury.However, theorientalizationofLatinAmerican law isnotmerelyaproductofacademicfancy.Norcanitsimplybeascribedtoanunconsciousprojection of our own suppressed knowledge about legal systems in theWest. Thereisanactivedemandforthese imagesanddiagnoses.Indeed,thehierarchicalorderingofdifferentnationallegalsystemshasalonghistory.Itisnotanewphenomenonorarecentobservation.Itrespondstoahostofdifferentobjectives.

InLatinAmerica, itcanbe tracedback to theearly formationof independentstates.53TheformofinterventionthenbypowerfulstatesonbehalfoftheinterestsoftheirnationalslivingordoingbusinessinLatinAmericawasbasedontheinjusticesorperceivedinjusticessufferedintheseregions.54Earlyinthenineteenthcentury,directmilitaryordiplomaticinterventionwasunproblematicallythenormforredress.OnceLatinAmericanleadersgainedsometractionwithinternationallawargumentsagainsttheseincursions,interventionwasonlyadmittedatleastintheoryincaseswheretherehadbeenadenialofjustice.55Suchanassertioncouldtriggerdirect interference in the sovereign affairs of Latin American states. Ofcourse,ithadtobesupportedinsomeway.Repeatedaccountsofthemal 50.Esquirol,supranote15.51.See,e.g.,TeemuRuskola,LegalOrientalism,101MICH.L.REV.179,209(2002);LamaAbuOdeh,ThePoliticsof(Mis)Recognition:IslamicLawPedagogyinAmericanAcademia,52AM.J.COMP.L.789(2004).52.EDWARDSAID,ORIENTALISM(1979).53.SeeJorgeL.Esquirol,LatinAmerica,inTHEOXFORDHANDBOOKOFTHEHISTORYOFINTERNATIONALLAW553(BardoFassbenderetal.eds.,2012).54.Id.55.SeeLilianaObregon,TheColludingWorldsoftheLawyer,theScholar,andthePolicymaker:AViewofInternationalLawfromLatinAmerica,23WIS.INTLL.J.145(2005);ArnulfBeckerLorca,InternationalLawinLatinAmericaorLatinAmericanInternationalLaw?Rise,Fall,andRetrievalofaTraditionofLegalThinkingandPoliticalImagination,47HARV.INTLL.J.283(2006);JorgeL.Esquirol,AlejandroAlvarezsLatinAmericanLaw:AQuestionofIdentity,19LEIDENJ.INTLL.931,955(2006).



functioningandcorruptionofallLatinAmericancourtsandgovernmentsmadethisjustificationforinterventionmoreeasilyacceptable.

Theactivedemand fornegativeaccountsof law inLatinAmericahasmanycontemporarysourcesaswell.Someofthemareevendisciplinesandapproachesgenerallyconsidered topromotesocial justicegoals.Themostemblematicnodoubtishumanrightsdiscourse.Manyoftheremediesprovidedataninternationalleveldependonquitenegativerenditionsofentiresegmentsoflawandlegalinstitutionsinindividualcountries.Forexample,politicalasylumclaimsbyindividualsinfirstworldcountriesoftendependoncountryreportsdescribingthegrossviolationsofhumanrightsandnationallegalsystemsincapableofaddressingthem.

Therearemanyotherintereststhatalsocallforthistypeofaccount.InanylawsuitconnectedtoaLatinAmericanjurisdictionbroughtintheUnitedStates,theplaintiffmighthavetodefendagainstanattempttotransferjurisdictionbypresentingevidencethatthe legalsystem inthealternativeLatinAmerican forum lacks thecapacity tohandle thecase.Claiming theimpossibilityofachieving justice inLatinAmericawillguaranteethecaseremains in theUnited States.Likewise, in actions for the enforcement ofjudgmentsenteredbynationalcourtsinLatinAmerica,thejudgmentdebtormayclaimalackofdueprocess,corruption,incompetenceofthedeciding court.Several significantmoney judgmentsagainstU.S. corporations,fordoingenvironmentalandotherharminLatinAmerica,havebeenevadedinjustthisway.AllofthesemotionsinU.S.courtsaresupportedbyexpertwitness testimonyon the ineffectivenessof the legalsystems inLatinAmerican countries. These opinions are buttressed by scholarship andcommentaryonthelawintheregionthatechoesthesesameviews.Moreover,thelackofanysignificantcontraryviewsaboutlawinLatinAmerica,inthisliterature,isalsoasourceofsupportinconvincingtheU.S.judgesofthetruthoftheseclaims.

Asaresult,thesenarrativeswithrespecttolawinLatinAmericaarekeypiecesinthegeopoliticsofnationallegalsystems.Theyarenotonlyhaphazard social constructions produced by the limitations of comparativestudy in thecenter.Norare theynecessarily just thesumof idiosyncraticperspectives of transnational commentators.Overall, they can be seen torespond toreal interestsandstakes.Thesesignificantlyshape the internationalhierarchyofauthoritativedecisionmaking. In thecaseshighlightedabove, they pertain especially to the jurisdiction and judgments of LatinAmericancourts.However, thisorderingalso impacts thepoliticalprioritiesofdifferentnationalcommunities.Inanyprocessofharmonizationorglobalizationoflaws,legalsystemsperceivedtobeinferiorandthepolitical options enshrinedwithin them aremuch easier todisregard, ifnotoutright reject.ThisexclusionaryprocesscanaffectLatinAmericancountries ability to uphold certain national legal positions in the context ofglobalizationandtreatynegotiations,forexample.Someofthesepositions



may includeparticularlynotable legaldevelopmentsintheregionsuchassocialrights,laborlaw,thesocialfunctionofproperty,andothers.Notallof theexamplesneedbe from thepolitical lefteither.Thewhole jurisprudenceonstatesofemergency,andextraordinaryexecutivepowers,areanother exampleof abodyof law common tomanyLatinAmerican statesthatisnotgenerallyappreciated.Inshort,thepointisthatthegeopoliticsoflawjustifiedbyjustthesortofareastudiesdescribedhereinfluencestherelativeweightthatdifferentsocietieshaveindecidingtheirownfate.IV. TOWARD A NEW SCHOLARSHIP ON LAW IN LATIN AMERICA

Recently,newscholarshiphasbeguntoaddressthegeopoliticsofLatinAmericanlaw.56Theunderlyingparadigmsandimageshavebeencriticallyexamined.Theworkingsofthesediscursiveeconomieshavebeenidentifiedanddebated.Additionally,asalreadynoted,newgenerationsof scholarsfromtheregionandelsewherehaveenteredthefray.57Thesedevelopmentsaresurely transfiguring the field.However, this isnot tosay that theoldparadigmsarenolongerentrenchedorthatscholarsdonotstilleasilydefaultintoreproducingthem.Farfromit,establishedpatternsofwritingandthinking are stillquite compelling formany.For some, theyarealso stillquiteconvincing.

Nevertheless,itisnowmoredifficulttodismissthemultipleaudiencesandimpactoftransnationallegalwriting.Assuch,itwouldbeintellectuallyirresponsibletoignoretheeffectsofinterveninginonearenaontheother.Awellintentioned intervention indebates on comparative law at thecentercouldifdirectlytransferredtodebatesinLatinAmericahavepotentially quite negative effects on equally important concerns. Likewise,welltargetedcritiquesin,say,localdebatesinMexicoorPerucouldproveterriblydetrimental to thegeopoliticsof, forexample,global labor law.58Forscholarsinterestedinatransnationalacademicpractice,thequestionofintellectual perspective takes on added importance. This does not meanthatdifferentforumsmaynotrequiredifferentformsandstylesofanalysisandargument.Itdoeshoweverforcethesequestionstothefore.Ataminimum,decisionsaboutcriticaltoolscanbepursuedwhilerecognizingtheirmultipleandpossiblyconflictingimpacts.

56.SeeRIVISTACRITICADELDIRITTOPRIVATO,AnnoXXIX(2011)(specialeditiononpostcoloniallawinLatinAmerica);seealsoRenewingLatinAmericanLegalStudies,HARVARDLAWSCHOOL(Nov.13,2010),http://www.harvardiglp.org/uncategorized/november13renewinglatinamericanlegalstudies/57.Seegenerally,TEXASLAWREVIEW,CONSTITUTIONALISMINLATINAMERICA(2011);FORDHAMLAWREVIEW,LAWINLATINAMERICA(2011).58.See,e.g.,AlvaroSantos,MexicanLaborLaw(onfilewithauthor).



A. Law-and-society

ManylegalscholarsinLatinAmericancountriesaredrawntolawandsociety approaches.59 This orientation has generally been associatedwiththeprogressiveleft.ItappearstoofferanalternativetothemuchmalignedlegalformalismunderstoodtobedominantinLatinAmerica.Additionally,itoffersawaytospeakabouttheactualrealityofinequality,maldistributionofresources,racialandotherformsofdiscrimination,lackoflegalenforcement, and other illsprevailing in the country. For those focused ontheseissues,itiscertainlyapowerfultool.Atthesametime,thetraditionalfieldof legalLatinAmericanismhasprimarilydrawnon thesesame lawandsocietyinsights:thegapbetween lawonthebooksandlaw inaction,theseparateoperationofsocialnorms,thepoordegreeoflegalpenetrationinsociety,theprevalenceofonlypaperrules,theinsufficientrecognitionoflegalpluralism,etc.

Asdiscussedabove,emphasizingtheseimagesoflawintheregioncanhavesomeverypracticaleffects.IthasservedastheoversizeddiagnosisofLatinAmerican lawand the characteristicmodeof lawanddevelopmentdiscourse.Relatedly, it has been quite effective in ushering in new legalmodels, internationalbestpractices,andthe like.Intheend,LatinAmericans andothers find itquite easy tobelieve that that their legal systemsdontworkand thatdevelopedsocieties legalsystemsdowork.Theparticular elements typically shown todemonstrate failure,however, are ratherdisingenuous.Asnotedabove,theyareinmanyinstancestheendemicshortcomingsof liberal legalsystems,onlyamplified.This tool forreformcomesatahighprice,however.ItscontinualusewhetherbylegalLatinAmericanistsor legalscholars inLatinAmericaperpetuates theviewofpermanentfailure.

Thus,totheextentthatthismethodologyisindiscriminatelytrainedonthelegalsystemasawholeratherthanonspecificissuesitreplicatesthesamelegalfailurediagnosis.Intheirmostsystematicform,lawandsocietycritiquessurelyshowthatmodernliberallawcannotsatisfyitsownpretensions.Thesecritiquesemphasize that lawdoesnotfullypenetratesociety,andthatitcannotachievepurelegalobjectivityandjudicialindependence,among other arguments. Still, by amplifying these insights of lawandsocietyprimarilyonLatinAmericainparticular,thesecritiquescontinuallyundermine thosenational legalsystems in thebroaderglobaleconomyoflegalforms.

59.See,e.g.,DERECHOYSOCIEDADENAMRICALATINA:UNDEBATESOBRELOSESTUDIOSJURDICOSCRTICOS(MauricioGarcaVillegas&CesarRodrguezGaravitoeds.,2003).



Andyet,awelldirectedlawandsocietycritiquemaybequitepowerfulon an issue of local legal politics.60 Thus, such an approach remains nodoubt appealing to local legal political actors. Moreover, the dominantformsof legal reasoning inmuchofLatinAmerica furtherprovoke thesebroadrangingcritiquesoflawsoveralldisconnectiontosociety.Thedominantmodesoflegalreasoningorlegaldogmaticsappearquiteinsulatedfrommoretransparentweighingofcompetinglocalinterestsandconsequentialeffects.61Thus, in theabsenceofamoreroutinerepresentationoftheseelementswithinthestandardformsoflegalreasoning,theimageofasystemwide gap critique remains very compelling. Its localdeployment,however,would be better informed if conductedwith an eye toward itsimpactintherealmofinternationallegalpolitics.Thatis,itsrepeateduseinthelocaldomainatleastinitsformasasystemwidecritiquereinforcesthelegalLatinAmericanistviewofformallawsgeneralirrelevanceinLatin America, with all the attendant negative consequences already discussed.62 In brief, as a common systemwide critique, it has the negativeconsequenceof continuallydiscrediting thewholeof the legal system. Inthisway, itunderminestheverysocietalconfidenceneededto implementtheveryreformsbroughtaboutinthisway.

B. Distributional Analysis

Reducing all of law to distributional analysis is another direction forLatinAmericanistlegalscholarship.ThisisapopularformofcriticalanalysisbylegalprogressivesintheU.S.63ItisinspiredbyAmericanlegalrealism and looks to identify the realpolitical and economic interests in anygivenlegalposition.Thistypeofanalysisgoesdirectlytothepoint.Itsattractivenessasatool isunderstandable.Legaldebate isoftenshrouded interminologicalandconceptualobfuscationandconfusionastotherealinterestsatplay.As justoneexample,someseeminglyegalitarianproposalschampioningabstractconceptsofpersonallibertycanactuallyturnout,inreality,tobenefittherichdisproportionatelyandtofurtherdisenfranchisethoselesscapableofrealizingitspromises.Asaresult,intheoftenopaqueworldoflegaldiscourse,pointingoutthewinnersandlosersisapowerfulantidote.And,indeed,thispathiswelltroddenandquitepersuasive,especiallyinleftleaningcircles.Inessence,ittreatslawassimplyanotherway 60.See,e.g.,MauricioGarcaVillegas,Noslodemercadovivelademocracia:elfenmenodel(in)cumplimientodelderechoysurelacinconeldesarrollo,lajusticia,ylademocracia,6REVISTADEECONOMAINSTITUCIONAL95(2004).61.SeeJorgeL.Esquirol,TheTurntoLegalInterpretationinLatinAmerica,26AM.U.INTLL.R.1031(2011).62.JorgeL.Esquirol,supranote15.63.SeegenerallyLAW,STATE,ANDDEVELOPMENTINLAWINLATINAMERICA(DavidTrubek&AlvaroSantoseds.,forthcoming)(onfilewithauthor).



ofdoing politics and cuts throughmetaphysical, culturalist, economicist,andothermystificationsofthelawandlegaldiscourse.Clearly,ithasmuchtocommend it. Itgets to theheartofwhatweareall interested inwhowinsandwholoses.

Asitiscommonlyperformedinlegalanalysis,distributionalanalysisismostlybasedonagutintuition,oranimpressionisticsenseofboththeeffectsoflegalrulesandtheirultimateconsequencesondifferentconstituencies.64Butbothofthesefutureforecastsabouthowthelawwillworkitselfout,andhowitsconsequenceswillimpactthoseaffected,arehighlytenuous.Projectionsaboutwinnersand losersarebasedonroughapproximations,guesses,andintuitionaboutruleimplementation,intheshortorlongterm.Moreover,theseassertionsaboutwinnersandlosersinanygivencasecan also be further questioned. The analyst can be shown to be misinformed,mistaken,ormisapprisedofthetrueinterestsofthoseaffectedorthe likelyconsequencesofarulechange (although theremaycertainlybesomeinstancesinwhichtherelevantinterestsandhowtheycutmayseemquiteclear.) Assuch,distributionalanalysisof this typecanbeendlesslyquestionedbyskepticsdemandingevermorepreciseinformation.Granted,gut impressionsare likelyat thebaseofall legalpolitical interventions inanydebate.Onecouldnotdefendathesisifitwerenotforasenseorpreferenceforonethingoveranother,likelyinformedbyroughestimatesabouttheiroutcomes. But,byputting theseguessesupfrontas thereason foradecision,distributionalanalysishighlightsthiskindofqueryingasthebasisofdebate.

Thus, thedistributionalanalysisdiscussedhereconsistsofopenlyandexplicitlyarticulatingthelikelydistributionofpowerandresourcesresultingfromarule,withrespecttodifferentconstituencies,forthepurposeofevaluatingitsdesirability.Thisdiscursiveshiftisclearlyappealinginmanyinstances,especially incaseswhere thosewhostand to losewouldget toseetheirinterestsmoreclearly.However,whentransposedtocertainpolitical contexts, this approachmaypotentiallyhave somequite counterproductive effects. It may be that systematically making societal decisionsbasedonaperceptionofwinnersandlosers,decidedbyamajorityvoteforexample,couldhavenegativeconsequencesfortheverypositionsprogressivesfavor.Indeed,thisrealist/criticalmovemayunderminetheverylegalconstructsthatcouldmostdirectlyadvanceprogressiveinterests(whateverthosemaybeonagivenpoint).This isthecasebecausethisanalyticcontributestounderminingtheatleastmarginalconfidencethatisneededforlawtooperateasaviablesocialsystem.

Nonetheless,fromapurelydistributionalperspective,someoralloflawmaybe seenaspernicious,as it locks in certainearlier choicesunder the 64.SeeDanDanielsen,EconomicApproachestoGlobalRegulation:ExpandingtheInternationalLawandEconomicsParadigm,10J.INTLBUS.&L.23(2011).



guiseoflegalrights.Inanyparticularpartyshand,legalrightscanthenserveastrumpcardsofsorts incontemporarylegalpoliticalcontests.But,for purposes of decisionmaking based on distributional analysis, everything should always be potentiallyup for grabs,with ultimatedecisionspresumablymadebasedonpoliticaloreconomicpreferencesformedelsewhere,outsideof law.Andyet,all legalsystemsstrivefortheproperbalancebetween theneed for legalcertaintyand legal flexibility.While legalflexibility is undoubtedly needed, legal certainty is also important.And,someofthatdesiredlegalcertaintyisprovidedbyholdingcertaininterestsconstant,atleastinsomeareasforsomeperiodsoftime.Thesearegenerallymaintainedashumanrights,constitutionalguarantees,recognizedformsofproperty,orother legal rights. (Theymayalsobeclaimedonextraorquasilegalnotionssuchaslegitimateexpectationsorhistoricalsocialgains,amongotherthings.)Ofcourse,theseconceptsarenolesssubjecttocritiqueanddeconstruction.Theirdurability isbased,nodoubt,on impermanentdiscursive consensusesproduced through themediumof legalandothersocietaldebates.

Withtheaboveinmind,onecouldthusspeakofthedistributionalanalysisofdoingdistributionalanalysis.That is,doingdistributionalanalysisoflawinaparticularlegalpoliticalcontextmayhavenegativeeffectsononesultimategoal,andthusevendistributionalanalysisselfconsciouslypursuedwoulddirectagainstitsownuse.Moreover,anunrelentingdistributional approach societywide would reject otherwise desirable objectivesarrivedatthroughthelogicoflegalguarantees.Thisisnottosaythatdistributional arguments cannot be a valuable intervention. However, forpurposesofconsideringitsinternationallegalpoliticaldimension,asismyintenthere,reducing legalanalysis inLatinAmericadowntoonlypoliticalandeconomicchoicesreinforcestheviewoflegalfailureintheregion.Indeed,asmentionedabove,acommonperceptionisthatdecisionalchoicesarenotactuallyprocessedthroughanalysisoflegalmaterialsandtheintellectualwork that legal reasoning implies.Rather, political and economicchoicesaremadeelsewherebasedonotherdecisionalmodesandsimplydressedup in the languageof law.Thus,distributionalanalysisas theonlylegitimateanalyticalengagementforprogressivesoratleasttheonlyonenotsubjecttoimmediatecynicaldisbeliefbycriticalcolleaguesreinforcestheview,andthepractice,ofmarginalizinglegalreasoninginLatinAmerica.

C. Essentialism

Anotherexamplerelatestotheinternationalhierarchyofnationallegalsystems.Thepredominantpicture leftby lawanddevelopment isoneofinferior,ifnotaltogethermarginal,nationallegalsystemsinLatinAmerica.



This has a number of deleterious effects, already noted.Not least is thebackgrounditsetsforreformproposals,internationalagencyaction,negotiationsof trade treaties (especiallywhennational lawbecomes relevant)andthelike.Ifthesecharacterizationsoffailureweretoberejected,aquitedifferentinterventioninlegalgeopoliticscouldtaketheformofcounteringsuch imagesbypresentingandengagingafullerrangeofparticularLatinAmericanlegalcommunities.

Recently,anumberofprogressivescholarshavebeguntocontributeinthisveryway.Somehaveshown theactualagencyofLatinAmericans intheprocessof international legalreform,suchasadversarialcriminalprocedure,pleabargaining,ornewlegalformssuchascollectiveconstitutionalactions.65LatinAmericansareshown in the roleofproducingand implementing law.Alternatively,scholarshavealsodescribed thecreativeprocess of legal theorizing inLatinAmerica.66This combats the generalizedperceptionproducedbytheEuropeanstrainofcomparativismthatLatin American legal consciousness is merely mimetic of European legalthought.Additionally,myownworkhascritiqued the faultydiagnosisoflegalfailureundergirdinglegaldevelopmentreform.67Specifically,thatdiagnosischieflyreflectsendemicshortcomingsofmodernliberallaw,whicharenotparticular toLatinAmericabutwhichareamplifiedon to the region.FacedwiththegeneralperceptionoflawlessnessinLatinAmerica,Ihavealso sought tohighlight the existing legal capital (or acquis lgaux).This latter term refers to the sumof societal investment, institutions, culture,andeducationinlawinLatinAmerica,whichissignificant.

Insuchdebates,however,theseinterventionsmayproducedifferentreactionsacrossthedistinctarenasoflegalpoliticaldiscourse.Fromtheperspectiveofaprogressivescholar in thecenter,allof theseproposalsmayseemtosharethemistakenbeliefthatthereissomethingrealaboutnationalidentity. Inotherwords, allof these interventions seeking to combat thedominantandharmful imageofLatinAmerican legal inferioritymayappeartomakethemistakeofassertingthereissuchathingasLatinAmericanorColombian,Mexican,Argentineanlegalityatall.Pointingtotheagency, creativity, or accumulation of resources of legal actors in LatinAmericacouldbeseenasmakinganationalistargumenthighlighting thelocal identityof law.Certainly,anythingof the sort sounds likeanotherone of the unbelievable mystifications that critical legal scholars in theglobalNorthwouldquicklyeschew.

65.MximoLanger,FromLegalTransplantstoLegalTranslations:TheGlobalizationofPleaBargainingandtheAmericanizationThesisinCriminalProcedure,45HARV.INTLL.J.1(2004);AngelOquendo,UppingtheAnte:CollectiveLitigationinLatinAmerica,47COLUM.J.TRANSNATLL.248(2009).66.MEDINA,supranote4.67.Esquirol,supranote15.



Fromtheperspectiveofnationallegaldebate,nationalistargumentsforlegalreformhave,theworldover,beenatriedandtrueelementintherepertoryof legalpoliticalargument.While itmaynothaveanydeterminatepoliticalvalence,inanyonelocaleitmaybethatthenationalistpositionatanyonetime,sayforexamplethedominantMexicanlaborlaw,mayactuallyprovequiteregressive.Inturn,aprogressive legalscholarmaythennodoubt want to advance the critique of identity construction against it.Moreover,suchalegalscholarmaywanttoshowthatsustainingthisidentificationwiththenationalessencemayprovedisadvantageoustomanyinthenation.

Taking these scenarios together, critiquing Mexican labor law anddemonstratingLatinAmericanlegalcapital,presumablypresentamethodologicalconundrum.Thefirstrejectsessentialistargumentsinlaw.Thesecondapparentlyrequiresthem.Ofcourse,theresolutionofthisquandarymaysimplybetopointoutthatagency,creativityandresourcesinlawinLatinAmericacanbedefendedwithoutmakinganessentialistclaim.ThesefeaturesarenotuniquelyorespeciallyLatinAmerican,buttheyarepresentthereasinmanyotherplaces.Yet,thepointstillremainsthatthemethodological tactics inone arenamayplayoutverydifferently in another andmay,onanyoneissueorsetofissues,presentscholarswithacontradictionofapproaches, ifnotpolitics. It is in these junctures, especially, that contemporaryprogressivescholarsaredevelopingthemostinterestingwork.

D. Latin Americans as the new Latin Americanists

Forprogressives, legalLatinAmericanismpresentsa realconundrum.ThereisforemosttheissueofrelativepowerdynamicsthatcomeintoplaybetweentraditionallymindedLatinAmericanistsandLatinAmericabasedlegalscholars.68Specifically,LatinAmericanscholarswritingabout law intheirhomecountries,inthecenter,arequicklydrawntothedominantexistingframeworks forspeakingabout the topic. In thisregard,thediscussion and reflection has gotten to the point where Latin Americanbasedscholarsquestionthepossibilityofamorehorizontalengagement,oreventheexpressionontheirowntermsoflegalrealitiesinLatinAmericaforaudiencesintheglobalNorth.69Thisapprehensionisexpressedintheworrythat Latin Americans must become Latin Americanists in order to beheardintheNorth.70Asnotedabove,thisrelatestothemodesofdiscoursethought tobeconvincingand the typesofconcerns thataredeemedrelevant. 68.DanielBonilla,LegalClinicsintheGlobalNorthandSouth:BetweenEqualityandSubordinationAnEssay,16YALEHUM.RTS.&DEV.L.J.176(2013).69.Id.70.ELDERECHOENAMRICALATINA,supranote44.



OneapproachtocounterthishegemonyofLatinAmericanistsover informationaboutLatinAmericaistorevindicatealocalepistemologyofLatin American concerns.71 In this vein, the mere fact of Latin Americansspeaking in the global North about issues in their particular locationswouldprovideanantidote.Simplyexpressinganddescribingissuesoflaw,inwhatever vocabulary or theoreticalmode is prevalent in specific localdebates, would then be privileged over the competing accounts andworldviewsofLatinAmericanists.Thismovewouldsimplyattempttoflipthe hegemonic relationship ofLatinAmericanistdiscourse and localdiscourseaboutlaw.

Thisfliphasanumberofimmediatedrawbacks,however.IntermsofengagingLatinAmericanistdiscourse,itmerelyattemptstosubstituteonefor theother.And, thismove is, inmyview,alreadyprefiguredanddismissedwithinlegaldiscourseinthecenter.Merelydisplayingasampleoflocal legal discourse for transnational audiences is typically viewed as asortof irrelevantexoticism.The issuesandquestionsraisedare likelynotconnectedtoongoingdebatesinthecenterortosharedperspectivesonforeign relations and internationalpolitics in theglobalNorth.Moreover, itmaybedifficultforactorsinthecentertodecipherthewayinwhichlocaldebatesareconducted,theparticularanalyticsemployed,andtheinterpretationsgiven to sourcesandevents.Local legaldebates inLatinAmericamay operate on a different plane of argumentation and evoke differentmodesofpersuasion.Indeed,localdiscursiveroutinesandtechniquesmaybeviewedfrom theoutsidewithsomeskepticism,notequallyconvincingto transnationalaudiencesof the truthor logicof theirassertions.Rather,theymayandinfact,withrespecttosomeLatinAmericanstylesoflegalreasoningare commonly viewed as part of amistaken or anachronisticrepertoireofargumentativetechniques.

Thus resurfaces the complaint of Latin American scholars that to beheardintheglobalNorththeymustbecomeLatinAmericanists.ThisineffectmeansthattheymustemploytherangeofargumentativeconventionsandadopttheliketheoreticalbaggageofscholarsintheglobalNorth.Onlyinthiswaycantheybeeffectivelyheardthere.ThisofcoursemeansviewingLatinAmericathroughtherefractedprismthatlegalareastudiesscholarshaveconstructed.Toavoidthis,insistingonaseparateLatinAmericanepistemologyof lawmay,at first,seem likea logicalobjective.Onecouldsay that theLatinAmericanists in theglobalNorthhavesimplygotten itwrong.Duetotheirinsufficientunderstandingoftheregion,andthevastness of the intertextuality of sources and conventions in local legal discourse, area studies scholars have not been sufficiently able to penetrateandunderstand thequestions andmodesof analysis addressedbyLatin 71.BOAVENTURADESOUZASANTOS,REFUNDACINDELESTADOENAMRICALATINA:PERSPECTIVASDESDEUNAEPISTEMOLOGADELSUR(2010).



Americans.Assuch,LatinAmericanlegalscholarscouldsimplyturntheirbacksonlegalLatinAmericanismalltogetherandparticipateinanalternativenetworkandfieldoftheirowncreation.ThisapproachwouldcertainlyaddtoLatinAmericanlegalareastudiesbyprivilegingtheepistemologicalframes of legal discourse in Latin America. Latin Americanists, in turn,wouldthenhavetomasterthisdiscoursetoremainrelevant.ThisshiftmayintroducemoreoftheactualconcernsofpeoplelivinginLatinAmerica,orinternationalizelocaldebatesinparticularLatinAmericancountries.Thesewouldreproduceforforeignaudiences,anddemandthatthelatteraccept,locallegaldiscourseasanauthoritativeexpressionandpresentationoflocallegalknowledge.

However,simplyreproducing localLatinAmerican legaldiscourse fortransnationalaudiencesfailstoengagetheexistingcommitmentsoftheintellectualcommunityinthecenter.LegalLatinAmericanismexistsbecausethereisanactualdemandforinformationandanalysisofthelegalsystemsintheregionfromtheperspectiveandcapacitytocomprehendoftransnationalaudiences.Indeed,possiblymoreprominentlyinthelegalfieldthanin other disciplines, the different discursive communities have differentconventions,theoreticalguideposts,andrepertoiresofargumentation.Thusnotall local legaldiscourse is transparently transferable todebates in thecenterinawaythatwouldmakesense.Infact,duetotheemphasisoflegalrealismwithinlegalLatinAmericanismmanylinesoflocalargumentationmay seem excessively formalistic or nonconvincing.Additionally,manyreferences toEuropeanordoctrinalauthorities could seemquite esoteric.Thesemaynodoubtbeincrediblysophisticated,andmaydemonstratesignificant theoretical insights, butmay not be easily recognizable inmainstreamdebatesinthecenter.Andstill,knowledgeaboutlawinLatinAmerica in the center is crucially important. It is equally important that thisinformationbepresentedanddebatedinwaysthatareactuallypersuasiveand authoritative. Thus, legal Latin Americanism cannot be simply replacedby ignoring itsparticular jurisprudentialhistory,conventions,anddeepseatedbeliefs,whileattemptingtocreatearivaltransnationalSouthSouth legalLatinAmericanism.Rather, the fieldmustbeconfrontedwithdifferentmethodological and conceptual tools. It is thispromise that theexpandedranksoflegalscholarsfromLatinAmericamighthelpfulfill.

E. Critical in the Center

More relevant than thedifferencebetweenLatinAmericansandLatinAmericanistsis,infact,themethodologicalapproachesagivenscholaremploys.LatinAmericansmorenewlyparticipating indebates in the centermayquiteunexceptionallyadopt the sameanalytical frameworksas theirLatinAmericanist counterparts. Indeed, this is commonly the case. In an



effort tocontinue theconversationand toengage internationalaudiences,scholarsfromtheregionmayautomaticallyadoptandrefracttheirobservations through the existing conventions.As such, addingLatinAmericanbasedscholars to the ranksofLatinAmericanistsmaydo little tochangethecentralparadigms.Theformermayindeedmorefirmlyentrenchtheexistingframeworks,withtheaddedauthorityofthesescholarslocalconnectionsandauthenticity.

Thus,inordertoevaluatethedifferentcontributionsthatLatinAmericabasedscholarsmaymake to legalareastudies, it isnecessary toconsiderthevaryingintellectualapproachestheymaybring.Indeed,itisnotthatinthe pastLatinAmericanists andLatinAmericans have operated in completelydifferentworlds.Therearemanypointsofconnection.Infact,thisessayhassought tohighlight them.Thus, the ideahere isnotoneofdisconnection.Rather,itisthattherearesubstantialdifferencesbetweenlegalLatinAmericanismandnationallegaldiscourseinLatinAmerica.Theseincludetheemphasesofthesefieldswhetherlegal,political,orsocialscience;andthedifferentmethodsandconventionsofengagementwithinparticularfields.

Certainly,someanalyticalapproachesaresharedratherseamlessly,asthediscussionaboveoflawandsocietyabovedemonstrates.Thisparticularmethodisaverycommonapproach.Yet,itfunctionssomewhatdifferentlythanlawandsocietyargumentsintheU.S. Inthelatter,thesearguments are frequently used to update existing laws in response to actualconditions,or toconsider theconsequencesof legalalternatives inoperation.Theymayprovidetheargumentsforlegalreform,achangeinalineofjudicialdecisions,andthe like.InLatinAmerica,though,thismodeofargumenthasbecomemostlyanindictmentoftheentirelegalsystemforitsinconsistencywiththelocalculture.Anotherexampleistheeconomicanalyses of law.72 Deferring to economics, in this regard, offers a commonbridge of communication. Again, this methodology is often deployed tomakewholesalechangesinlegalinstitutionsandtosupplantlocallawwithinternationalbestpracticesandforeignmodels.

Bywayofanotherexample,criticallegalanalysisintheU.S.isaveryeffectivetoolforshowingtheincoherenceinalineofcasesordoctrinalareaofthelaw.73Thecontradictionsofreasoningarethencommonlyshownassupportingapoliticallyregressiveoutcome.Itisquiteeffectiveinshowingthatsuchanoutcomeisnotanecessaryoutgrowthofmerelegalreasoning.In fact, quite the contrary, it is notdeterminatively supported by it.Thesamemay be said about arguments based on cultural norms or nationalidentity.Theobjective ismuch the same, showing the incoherenceof the 72.SeeEdgardoBuscaglia&ThomasS.Ulen,AQuantitativeAssessmentoftheJudicialSectorinLatinAmerica,17INTLREV.L.&ECON.1275(1997).73.See,e.g.,DUNCANKENNEDY,ACRITIQUEOFADJUDICATION:FINDESICLE(1998).



constructedentitytomakewayforarethinkingorrearrangementoflegalnorms. InLatinAmerica,by contrast,adominanceof criticalanalysisofthis typemaysimplyadd to thealreadyexistingpictureof thepretextualnatureoflaw,understoodascoveringovereliteinterestsandarbitrariness.Transposedunthinkinglyand in this single formto legalLatinAmericanism,itmayhavesomeratherunintendedeffects.Appliedsystemwide,itcouldsimplyreinforcetheexistingdiagnosisthatlawandlegaldiscourseareirrelevantinLatinAmerica.

This isnot to say theseanalytical toolsare inherently suspect forprogressivesworkingonLatinAmerica.Itmerelyshowshowboththetargetof critique and the surrounding general ideology about law significantlyinfluencethemeaningandimpactofspecificinterventions.ThesamecriticaltechniquesmayhavequitedifferenteffectswhendirectedatlawintheglobalNorth.Nodoubt, thesedifferences aredue to contextualor intertextualfactorssuchastherelativestrengthofthe ideologysupportingthelegalsysteminplace,indifferentlocations.Additionally,theytendtodifferastothelevelatwhichthesecritiquesaredirected.WhereascriticalattacksintheglobalNorthoftenfocusonparticularlawsorinstitutions,theclaimsofLatinAmericanistsoftenextendtothelegalsystemaswholeandnottoindividuallegislationorlinesofjudicialprecedent.V. CONCLUSION

It is important torecall that legalLatinAmericanismcannotbesimplydismissedasjustirrelevantorcompletelymissingthemark.Quitethecontrary:itsmostcommonpositionsareoftenbackedandadoptedbyinternationalagenciesand theU.S.government.Asa result, internationallysupported legal reform is often produced and justified entirelywithin thesecircuits.And,thesehaveadirecteffectinLatinAmerica.Theymaybe introducedpredominantlyinpoliticalways,withthesupportofgovernmentofficials and the main actors in important legal institutions rather thanthroughbroadjuristicdebate,butstilltheyhavethepowertochangebroadsectorsofnationallegalinstitutionality.Untilrecently, juristsintheregionweremostlyunattunedtothisbodyofscholarship,despitetheirextensiveawareness of European and U.S. legal scholarship. Nonetheless, despitetheirrelativedisengagementwiththeselawanddevelopmentdebatesandtheprojectstheydirectlyorindirectlysupport,allthoselivingintheregionhave experienced the changes these internationally funded reforms havewrought.

As such, thediscourse ofLatinAmericanists has had a very tangibleimpactonLatinAmerica.Asnoted thisdiscoursehasbeenmainlyat thepolicyandpoliticallevel.Thesedebateswerenotsignificantlytakenupbythelocallegaldiscoursenorwidelyassimilatedbylocaljurists.Now,however,withincreasingparticipationofLatinAmericansand,inturn,increas



ing penetration of Latin Americanist discourse in Latin America, theseframeworksaremoredirectlybecomingapartoflocallegaldebate.Again,thishasledsomelocalscholarstoconsidertheneedtobecomeLatinAmericanists themselves inorder toeffectivelyparticipate in thischangingdiscursiveenvironment.Thedividing line,however, isnotsomuchbetweenLatinAmericansandLatinAmericanistsasitisbetweenthemethodstheseadopt and where those methods are focused. Some methodological approaches are already widely shared. Lawandeconomics and lawandsocietyaretwomainexamples.TheobjectivestowhicheachareputintheglobalNorthandinLatinAmericacanbequitedifferent,however,asnotedabove.Thesame is true formoreprogressivescholarship.These faceparticular challenges in straddling theLatinAmerica andLatinAmericanistdivide.A certain formof systematic radical critiquehasalreadybeen thehallmarkoflegalLatinAmericanismanditsoverlydismissiveviewoflawintheregion.

Myobjectivehere,intheend,isnottopromoteanyparticularuniformityindiscursivefieldsortoargueforaparticularnotionoforthodoxyorcoherence in anyones scholarly practices.Rather, amark of contemporaryprogressivethoughtisarecognitionofthechangingnatureofmethodologicalapproachesandcommitmentsinlightofcontextualcircumstances.Asaresult, itwould come asno surprise to anyone that todays critique of adominantsocialconstruction,sayrightstalk,canbecometomorrowstakingabreakfromcritiquesofrightstalk.Furthermore,thisessayisnotanexhortationtoalifelongormultipleissuecommitmenttoanysortofmethodologicalchecklist.However, it is intendedasacall tocognizanceof theeffects that thinking in solely one legalpolitical frame may produce inanother.Animportantstartingpoint,Iwouldsuggest,isinjectinglegalLatinAmericanismwiththespecificcriticalinsightsthatlocallegaldebatesinLatinAmericamayprovide.

legal latin americanism

Documents