It is a common observation that the theory and practice of international law are far apart. Richard Falk, for example, begins his 1970 book by chastising international legal theorists for failing to “provide adequate guidelines for evaluating particular decisions”.2Likewise, Louis Henkin asserts that, “Lawyer and diplomat are engaged in a dialogue de sourds. Indeed, they are not even attempting to talk to each other, turning away in silent disregard.”3

No abstract

In this article, I draw on ethnography in the particular zone of engagement between anthropologists, on the one hand, and human rights lawyers who are skeptical of the human rights regime, on the other hand. I argue that many of the problems anthropologists encounter with the appropriation and marginalization of anthropology's analytical tools can be understood in terms of the legal character of human rights. In particular, discursive engagement between anthropology and human rights is animated by the pervasive instrumentalism of legal knowledge. I contend that both anthropologists who seek to describe the culture of human rights and lawyers who critically engage the human rights regime share a common problem—that of the “iron cage” of legal instrumentalism. I conclude that an ethnographic method reconfigured as a matter of what I term circling back—as opposed to cultural description—offers a respite from the hegemony of legal instrumentalism.

The ethnographic subjects of this article are UN‐sponsored international conferences and their legal documents. Drawing upon fieldwork among Fiji delegates at these conferences, in this article I demonstrate the centrality of matters of form, as distinct from questions of “meaning,” in the negotiation of international agreements. A parallel usage of documents and of mats among Fijian negotiators provides a heuristic device for exploring questions of pattern and scale in the aesthetics of negotiation, [documents, institutions, knowledge, aesthetics, law, transnationalism]

No abstract