Populism in politics and policy orientations in law have thrown the jurisdiction of the academy and the disciplines of interpretation into disarray. Critique flounders in abstraction and negativity, law loses itself in particularity. Administering Interpretation brings together philosophers, humanists, and jurists from both continental and Anglophone jurisdictions to reassess the status and trajectory of interpretative theory as applied in the art of law. Tracking the thread of philosophical influences upon the community of legal interpretation, the essays move from the translation and wake of Derrida to the work of Agamben, from deconstruction to oikononmia. Sharing roots in the philological excavation of the political theology of modern law, contributors assess the failure of secularism and the continuing theological borrowings of juridical interpretation. The book brings contemporary critique to bear upon the interpretative apparatuses of exclusion, the law of spectacular sovereignty, and the bodies that lie in its wake. Contributors: Giovanna Borradori, Marinos Diamantides, Allen Feldman, Stanley Fish, Pierre Legrand, Bernadette Meyler, Michel Rosenfeld, Bernhard Schlink, Jeanne Schroeder, Laurent de Sutter, Katrin Trustedt, Marco Wan

Traditional concepts of social, political, and legal theory are increasingly at odds with current practices of warfare, while more recent poststructuralist theories tend to mimic their form. A conceptual framework for capturing the real-world phenomena is missing. In robotics and artificial intelligence, particularly in weapon systems that are constituted as man-machine ensembles, there are no longer 'agents' to whom 'responsibility' could be ascribed, making fundamental legal concepts inapplicable. These technologies become self-validating, morally blind practices. And yet, the visual systems employed in warfare, and the rhetoric surrounding them, follow the paradigm and dream of omnivoyance, a God's eye view of the world. This idea of perfect accuracy and completeness of vision (and hence knowledge) seemingly affords objectivity to the acts carried out by the systems. It is forgotten that any form of vision produces its own forms of invisibilities (and therefore ignorance). Together the three chapters and their respondents demonstrate that it is less and less possible to articulate the oppositions between knowledge and ignorance, lawfulness and lawlessness, and visibility and invisibility, leading to a stasis in which acts of war, and war-like acts continue to spread, while their precise nature becomes increasingly difficult to pin down. Closing on a manifesto, jointly authored by Liljefors, Noll and Steuer, the book draws further conclusions regarding the changing forms of violence and likely consequences of a fully digitalized world.

Populism in politics and policy orientations in law have thrown the jurisdiction of the academy and the disciplines of interpretation into disarray. Critique flounders in abstraction and negativity, law loses itself in particularity. Administering Interpretation brings together philosophers, humanists, and jurists from both continental and Anglophone jurisdictions to reassess the status and trajectory of interpretative theory as applied in the art of law. Tracking the thread of philosophical influences upon the community of legal interpretation, the essays move from the translation and wake of Derrida to the work of Agamben, from deconstruction to oikononmia. Sharing roots in the philological excavation of the political theology of modern law, contributors assess the failure of secularism and the continuing theological borrowings of juridical interpretation. The book brings contemporary critique to bear upon the interpretative apparatuses of exclusion, the law of spectacular sovereignty, and the bodies that lie in its wake. Contributors: Giovanna Borradori, Marinos Diamantides, Allen Feldman, Stanley Fish, Pierre Legrand, Bernadette Meyler, Michel Rosenfeld, Bernhard Schlink, Jeanne Schroeder, Laurent de Sutter, Katrin Trüstedt, Marco Wan

Traditional concepts of social, political, and legal theory are increasingly at odds with current practices of warfare, while more recent poststructuralist theories tend to mimic their form. A conceptual framework for capturing the real-world phenomena is missing. In robotics and artificial intelligence, particularly in weapon systems that are constituted as man-machine ensembles, there are no longer 'agents' to whom 'responsibility' could be ascribed, making fundamental legal concepts inapplicable. These technologies become self-validating, morally blind practices. And yet, the visual systems employed in warfare, and the rhetoric surrounding them, follow the paradigm and dream of omnivoyance, a God's eye view of the world. This idea of perfect accuracy and completeness of vision (and hence knowledge) seemingly affords objectivity to the acts carried out by the systems. It is forgotten that any form of vision produces its own forms of invisibilities (and therefore ignorance). Together the three chapters and their respondents demonstrate that it is less and less possible to articulate the oppositions between knowledge and ignorance, lawfulness and lawlessness, and visibility and invisibility, leading to a stasis in which acts of war, and war-like acts continue to spread, while their precise nature becomes increasingly difficult to pin down. Closing on a manifesto, jointly authored by Liljefors, Noll and Steuer, the book draws further conclusions regarding the changing forms of violence and likely consequences of a fully digitalized world.

"A sophisticated and persuasive late-modernist political
analysis that consistently draws the reader into the
narratives of the author and those of the people of
violence in Northern Ireland to whom he talked. . . .
Simply put, this book is a feast for the intellect"--
Thomas M. Wilson, "American Anthropologist"
"One of the best books to have been written on Northern
Ireland. . . . A highly imagination and significant book.
"Formations of Violence" is an important addition to
the literature on political violence."--David E. Schmitt,
"American Political Science Review"