This innovative book explores the role of utopian thinking in law and politics, including alternative forms of social engineering, such as technology and architecture. Building on Levitas' Utopia as Method, the topic of utopia is addressed within the book from a multidisciplinary perspective. The book addresses central questions surrounding utopian thinking: What are its implications for law and politics? To what extent does it constitute a desirable vision? What are its risks or dangers? How is utopia related to ideology? An impressive selection of contributors reflect on the challenge of utopianism and its attraction, advancing the global public debate on social and political issues. Divided into three accessible parts, this book discusses the relationship between utopia and the law, the notion of utopian politics and utopia in architecture and technology. Addressing the topic of utopia from a variety of perspectives, this book will be an interesting read for academic scholars and students in the field of law, legal and political theory, philosophy, ethics, sociology, religious studies, technology and architecture. In particular, it is relevant for scholars who are interested in the dynamics of social, legal and political change.

This timely and engaging book examines the rise of populism across the globe. Combining insights from linguistics, argumentation theory, rhetoric, legal theory and political theory it offers a fully integrated characterization of the form and content of populist discourse. Throughout the book, eminent scholars address questions central to the topic, such as: how does populism manifest itself rhetorically; how does it relate to liberal democracy; and how can the populist challenge be confronted? Carefully selected case studies are used to examine how populist behaviour deviates from that which we would expect to be the norm in a liberal democracy, for example through the use of obnoxious language and refusal to substantiate vulgar claims. The book also provides key insights into more fundamental issues, such as the opposition between the 'real' people versus the elite and the longing for a 'Heimat'. Offering an in-depth analysis and evaluation at the intersection of language, law and politics, Vox Populi will be of great benefit to students and scholars from a range of disciplines.

What role does empirical data play in law? How can we draw normative conclusions from empirical legal research? New insights in philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities have forced the relationship between facts and norms on to the agenda. This book presents an innovative set of perspectives on the relationship between descriptive and normative elements in legal inquiry and practice. The contributors provide critical insights from a range of different disciplinary traditions and theoretical positions. They discuss topics such as the epistemic dependence of judicial decision-makers, legal doctrine as a non-normative discipline, systems-theory critique and law, and exploring the boundaries of law. This book will benefit legal academics and graduate students looking to explore issues of methodology. It will also be of great interest to researchers in law and related topics interested in discussions of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. Contributors include: R. Cotterrell, P. Cserne, W. de Been, M. Del Mar, L. Francot, J. Hage, R. Herdy, O.W. Lembcke, A.R. Mackor, A.M. Pacces, G. Samuel, S. Taekema, B. van Klin, W. van der Burg

The nature and purpose of legal education has become a topic of intense debate in recent years. This timely book calls for a critical re-evaluation of university legal education, with the particular aim of strengthening its academic nature. The contributors emphasise lecturers' responsibility to challenge the assumptions students have about law, and the importance of putting law in a theoretical and social context that allows for critical reflection and sceptical detachment. In addition, the book reports upon teaching experiences and innovations, offering tools for teachers to strengthen the academic nature of legal education, and concludes with concrete proposals for change. Students and scholars engaged in the debate regarding the re-evaluation of academic legal education will find this book invaluable to their work. It will also be of interest to practitioners, such as educational experts and administrators looking to understand the role of law schools in creating responsible citizens. Contributors include: T. Bleeker, A. Boening, L. Corrias, U. de Vries, M. Del Mar, L. Francot, S. Germain, T. Hutchinson, B. Oomen, C. Schwoebel-Patel, B. Sokhi-Bulley, G. Uygur, B. van Klink, W. van Rossum

This edited volume covers new ground by bringing together perspectives from symbolic legislation theory on the one hand, and from biolaw and bioethics on the other hand. Symbolic legislation has a bad name. It usually refers to instances of legislation which are ineffective and that serve other political and social goals than the goals officially stated. Recently, a more positive notion of symbolic legislation has emerged in legislative theory. From this perspective, symbolic legislation is regarded as a positive alternative to the more traditional, top-down legislative approach. The legislature no longer merely issues commands backed up with severe sanctions, as in instrumental legislation. Instead, lawmakers provide open and aspirational norms that are meant to change behavior not by means of threat, but indirectly, through debate and social interaction. Since the 1990s, biomedical developments have revived discussions on symbolic legislation. One of the reasons is that biomedical legislation touches on deep-rooted, symbolic-cultural representations of the biological aspects of human life. Moreover, as it is often impossible to reach consensus on these controversial questions, legislators have sought alternative ways to develop legal frameworks. Consequently, communicative and interactive approaches to legislation are prominent within the governance of medical biotechnology. The symbolic dimensions of biolaw are often overlooked. Yet, it is clear that the symbolic is at the heart of many legal-political debates on bioethical questions. Since the rise of biomedical technologies, human body materials have acquired a scientific, medical and even commercial value. These new approaches, which radically question existing legal symbolizations of the human body, raise the question whether and how the law should continue to reflect symbolic values and meanings. Moreover, how can we decide what these symbolic values are, given the fact that we live in a pluralistic society?

This edited volume covers new ground by bringing together perspectives from symbolic legislation theory on the one hand, and from biolaw and bioethics on the other hand. Symbolic legislation has a bad name. It usually refers to instances of legislation which are ineffective and that serve other political and social goals than the goals officially stated. Recently, a more positive notion of symbolic legislation has emerged in legislative theory. From this perspective, symbolic legislation is regarded as a positive alternative to the more traditional, top-down legislative approach. The legislature no longer merely issues commands backed up with severe sanctions, as in instrumental legislation. Instead, lawmakers provide open and aspirational norms that are meant to change behavior not by means of threat, but indirectly, through debate and social interaction. Since the 1990s, biomedical developments have revived discussions on symbolic legislation. One of the reasons is that biomedical legislation touches on deep-rooted, symbolic-cultural representations of the biological aspects of human life. Moreover, as it is often impossible to reach consensus on these controversial questions, legislators have sought alternative ways to develop legal frameworks. Consequently, communicative and interactive approaches to legislation are prominent within the governance of medical biotechnology. The symbolic dimensions of biolaw are often overlooked. Yet, it is clear that the symbolic is at the heart of many legal-political debates on bioethical questions. Since the rise of biomedical technologies, human body materials have acquired a scientific, medical and even commercial value. These new approaches, which radically question existing legal symbolizations of the human body, raise the question whether and how the law should continue to reflect symbolic values and meanings. Moreover, how can we decide what these symbolic values are, given the fact that we live in a pluralistic society?