Reflexivity's Potential in the Global East

{ "articleTitle": "Reflexivity's Potential in the Global East", "articleDescription": "Scholars argue that the Global East, defined by its liminal position between North and South, offers a unique perspective on international law through the concept of reflexive globalization.", "articleBody": "

Challenging Unidirectional Globalization

\n

In 1999, David Kennedy affirmed that \"international law is different in different places,\" a reality that practitioners and scholars around the world had already long experienced. This observation underscores the complex nature of legal frameworks across diverse geographies.

\n

Building on this understanding, Philipp Dann and Florian Jeßberger have proposed the idea of reflexive globalization. They argue that globalization should be understood as a multidirectional renegotiation of concepts rather than a unidirectional process of \"Westernisation.\" This perspective challenges traditional views of legal development and influence.

\n

The Global South has contributed significantly to this discourse. Practitioners and scholars of the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) have diagnosed systemic injustices in international law and devised responses using a \"local\" lens. Their work highlights the importance of regional perspectives in shaping global legal norms.

\n\n

The Liminal Space of the Global East

\n

Despite these developments, the Global East remains largely absent from debates on reflexive globalization. This absence persists despite its own history, historical genealogies, and epistemic geography of international law. The region's unique position requires specific attention in academic and policy discussions.

\n

Martin Müller defines the Global East as a liminal epistemic space in-between North and South, rather than a geographical delineation. This definition captures the region's complex identity, which does not fit neatly into existing binary categories. The significance of this liminality stems from historical factors that shaped the region's legal and political landscape.

\n

The roots of the Global East lie in the 20th-century communist project and flourished during the Cold War through the development of socialist international law. This period established distinct legal traditions and practices that continue to influence the region today. The dissolution of the Soviet Union marked a turning point, causing the significance of socialist international law to wane.

\n

Consequently, societies in the Global East were left in a shared condition of liminality that could not be easily accommodated within the dominant North–South divide paradigm. This structural ambiguity affects how the region engages with international legal institutions and norms.

\n\n

Historical Complexities and Exclusion

\n

Martin Müller notes that this liminal space includes both colonisers and colonies, aggressors and victims, with some countries being both at the same time. This dual identity complicates efforts to categorize the Global East within standard postcolonial frameworks.

\n

The region faces exclusion from multiple directions. The Global East is excluded from Global South debates and distanced from the Global North, which defined the East by its purported backwardness through a civilisational mission. This marginalization limits the visibility of Eastern perspectives in global legal discourse.

\n

Dipesh Chakrabarty termed the postcolonial condition of being relegated to the \"waiting room of history.\" This characterization reflects the experience of many societies in the Global East, which have been viewed as lagging behind Western development models.

\n

The Global East’s historical experiences do not fit the colonial/postcolonial framework. Many Eastern European states were simultaneously colonisers and colonised, imperial powers and peripheral territories. This complexity requires a nuanced approach to understanding their role in