The primary aim of this article is to present the rule of law universalism as a relevant theoretical and socio-political issue that critical legal thought needs to contend with. In order to do so, this issue is described through a Marxist theoretical framework, which aids in identifying the consequences of this universalism. Furthermore, the Marxist theoretical framework is suggested as a countermeasure that allows for going beyond it. The rule of law universalism is analysed as a process connected to establishing (...) hegemony and status quo that affects both the way the law is thought of and practiced. The post-communist context serves in fleshing out some of these consequences. Although the transition is not the main subject of inquiry, it is a starting point to a set of philosophical questions directed towards the rule of law universalism, mainly regarding historical embeddedness and socio-political dependency of the rule of law. The transitional context illustrates the tension between the rule of law treated as a generalized blueprint and the reality it is introduced to. The method of approach to this tension argued for in this paper is Marxian theorization of concept as an interplay between concrete and abstract that underlies historical materialism. This movement within concept is juxtaposed to the universalism. The philosophical investigations are followed by findings from Marxist legal theory that pinpoint the importance of concrete interventions into the legal theory that abate its ever-growing abstractness. In particular, the import of knowledges and practices divorced from the capitalist system is brought into focus. The paper concludes with a brief assessment of the possibility of overturning the rule of law universalism and a discussion on the emancipatory potential of law. (shrink)

Constitutional pluralism has become a principal model for understanding the legal and political structure of the European Union. Yet its variants are highly diverse, ranging from moderate “institutional” forms, closer to constitutionalist thinking, to “radical” ones which renounce a common framework to connect the different layers of law at play. Neil MacCormick, whose work was key for the rise of constitutional pluralism, shifted his approach from radical to institutional pluralism over time. This paper reconstructs the reasons for this shift—mainly concerns (...) about political stability that also underlie many others' skepticism vis-à-vis radical pluralist ideas. It then seeks to show why such concerns are likely overdrawn. In the fluid, contested space of postnational politics, a common, overarching frame is problematic as it might inflame, rather than tame, tensions. Leaving fundamental issues open along radical pluralist lines may help to work around points of highly charged contestation and provide opportunities for resistance from less powerful actors. (shrink)

The main claim of this chapter is that planetary defense against asteroids cannot be implemented under a decentralized model of democratic global governance, as espoused elsewhere in this book. All relevant indices point to the necessity of establishing a centralized global political authority with legitimate coercive powers. It remains to be seen, however, whether such a political system can be in any recognizable sense democratic. It seems unconvincing that planetary-wide physical-threat, all-comprehensive macrosecuritization, coupled with deep transformations of international law, global (...) centralization of core decision-making powers, de-stigmatization of nuclear weapons and the like can proceed, succeed, and be implemented in a non-hierarchical international system where planetary defense constitutes only one regime among many, and where states basically remain the decisive actors. Although rationally and scientifically robust, the project suffers from oversimplification, as well as naivety with respect to how both international and domestic politics works. Among other topics, this chapter discusses problems associated with the rule of law and constituent powers, political representation and sources of legitimacy, conditions of multilevel collective action, or limits of theoretical idealization. The general message is that the planetary defense community needs to be more aware of the social and political context of its own enterprise. (shrink)