Towards an Intercultural Legal Theory: The Dialogical Challenge

Abstract

The aim of the article is to present to a predominantly Anglophone audience current work in French/Quebecois legal anthropology. This work attempts to build an epistemology for an intercultural legal theory and is opening up a dialogical approach to Law, which goes beyond the mere project of an intercultural legal theory. In order to do so, the article presents the LAJP's (Laboratory of Legal Anthropology of Paris) move towards a non-ethnocentric science of Law followed by a presentation of Panikkar's and Vachon's contributions on the 'dialogical method' which clarify the epistemological foundations of a pluralist approach to Law and lead to a presentation of Etienne Le Roy's theory of 'multilegalism' [multijuridisme]. The whole approach and its relevance are then illustrated through examples on the local, national and global planes in the fields of youth justice, French legal cooperation, land law and human rights and international penal law.

Cross-cultural Brokering in the Legal, Institutional and Normative Domains: Intercultural Mediators Managing Immigration in Catalonia

“…Nevertheless, as Eberhard (2001) shows, the realization of the intercultural project requires a journey toward a new intercultural approach to law and legal theory. It is a journey of radical openness to the other, which seems to be incompatible with a reifying view of the law or any other rigid mono-cultural framework (Agustí-Panareda, 2004).…”

Law and Anthropology in a ‘Glocal’ World The Challenge of Dialogue

“…In order to open up to 'good governance' between the 'globals' and the 'locals' understood as the 'organization of a living together in which everybody can participate', it is paramount to move beyond the state or 'formal sector' centred approaches. Teachings such as those of the Laboratoire d'Anthropologie Juridique de Paris, that have in the 1980s modellized different 'legal archetypes', understood as fundamental perspectives on the world and of the human being's place in it, which are related to the way these human beings organize their living together (Alliot 2003) which have then been complemented by more dynamic approaches and led to the vision of a tripodic Law, a 'juridicité' based not only on general and impersonal norms and an imposed ordering of society, but also on models of conduct and behaviour and a negotiated order, and on habitus, in Bourdieu's sense, and an accepted order (Le Roy 1999) seem to provide promising paths of exploration (for a short presentation of these approaches in English see Eberhard 2001). The challenge consists in not only remaining on the level of the translation of these diverse cultural experiences into the framework of Western social and legal theory, which I have termed the move towards an intercultural legal theory, but to dare to explore the in-betweens through intercultural dialogues that accept leaving the initial framework that determined the object of the dialogue (for example, the Western culture that provides 'law' as a starting point for an intercultural dialogue on the organization of our living together).…”

“…The challenge consists in not only remaining on the level of the translation of these diverse cultural experiences into the framework of Western social and legal theory, which I have termed the move towards an intercultural legal theory, but to dare to explore the in-betweens through intercultural dialogues that accept leaving the initial framework that determined the object of the dialogue (for example, the Western culture that provides 'law' as a starting point for an intercultural dialogue on the organization of our living together). I have termed the latter an intercultural approach to Law and have located it rather on the level of mythos than of logos in reference to the work of Raimon Panikkar (see Eberhard 2001;Panikkar 1984b).…”

“…I proposed such a move almost 10 years ago in an article entitled 'Towards an Intercultural Legal Theory. The Dialogical Challenge' (Eberhard 2001). As I laid down the premises, the challenges, and the stakes of such an endeavour there, I will not develop them again here.…”

“…See alsoEberhard (2001Eberhard ( , 2002aEberhard ( , 2002bEberhard ( , and 2003.12 Please keep in mind that this presentation is written from a Francophone perspective on the field of law and anthropology.13 To get an overview of the different ways that researchers in the field of 'law and anthropology' position themselves see the special joint issue ofCahiers d'anthropologie du droit and Droit et cultures, Anthropologie et Droit. Intersections et confrontations, where around 50 researchers give their definition of the field and of their approach.…”