Jump to content

Talk:Critical legal studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 6 June 2014 (Signing comment by Human fella - "Only a past movement?: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
WikiProject iconLaw Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There are a number of problems with this article: Firstly, it is still quite biased towards the American Academy. While this is where CLS began, it is now a global phenomenon. It is of the utmost importance that this page reflect the diversity of the movement, especially when it is once more growning in importance, with many of the most important International Journals publishing CLS (EJIL, AJIL, Human Rights Quarterly, etc, etc). Secondly, perhaps even worse, the summary of its main points almost entirely come from the 80s and early 90s, with little or nothing about the Lacanian insights, the engagements with Derrida, Agamben, Habermas, Badiou, Lefebvre, etc. I think it is really important to start to rework this article to make it more current. (Illanwall (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm curious as to why Jurgen Habermas is excepted from having an influence on CLS when Mark Tushnet, one of the founders and most prominent members of CLS, in one of the most influential CLS writings, directly applies Habermas's theories on human interests. See Tushnet, Mark, An Essay on Rights, 62 Tex. L. Rev 1363, 1394 (citing to a section called "Habermas and Human Interests"). In other words, god wikipedia is worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.29.71 (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect habermas is not included precisely because he is an influence rather than a major figure. Derrida, Rawls, Badiou equally are all influences and have written critical texts on law, but don't frame themselves as CLS. However, a good suggestion might be to start an influences section, dealing with Marx (and marxism), the French 1968 authors, the split with the Frankfurt school, the shift from the early heavily Marxist 'all law is politics' to the deconstructive school of the 80s and 90s (everyone from Cornell, Douzinas, etc).(Illanwall (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Having come to this page to try and understand what CLS is actually about, I was confused by the ambiguity of the closing lines in the intro. Are those two final sentences supposed to be examples? Much of the rest of the article feels heavily POV and unclear. 71.79.24.115 15:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I was reviewing the Critical legal studies page for research, and found that the external link to Koskenniemi's writings on CLS and international law was outdated. I updated it to http://www.helsinki.fi/eci/Staff/JULKAISUT_ENG-11b-1.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.202.34 (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation of Roberto Unger

The lead here emphasizes the role of Roberto Unger in the CLS movement. Numerous articles on CLS say as much, citations of which have been added for emphasis, and can only be taken seriously (see esp. Hutchinson and Smolin).

For anyone in the field of legal scholarship, this should be no surprise, and will know that Unger was tenured at the Harvard Law School in the 1970s (the height of the movement) and is now a chaired professor there. (I emphasize this point only in response to the critique of him as a Brazilian politician--we would not call JS Mill a politician while ignoring his works in philosophy.) Archivingcontext (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first version you wrote (I recently began to rewrite the lead and add necessary references to the article. In the course of doing so I emphasized... and then replaced under a deceptive edit summary [1]) was more accurate William M. Connolley (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

The refs are rubbish. None of the body of the article is referenced. This has been true since 2010. it needs to be fixed, or cut William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs serious work and I have not had the time to do so. I started with the lede in the hopes of at least getting something down, but have not had a chance to revist. The references cited in the lede are substantial articles in major law reviews that discuss the movement and can be drawn upon to fill out the rest of the article. But more useful would be the CLS reader, the CLS journal, as well as Unger's book on CLS. Archivingcontext (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only a past movement?

Why does the article open with the claim that this was a movement of the 1970s and 1980s? I have met young people actively pursuing study and research in this field in this decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human fella (talkcontribs) 17:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]