IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v67y2013i04p725-757_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lost in Translation? Nonstate Actors and the Transnational Movement of Procedural Law

Author

Listed:
  • Brake, Benjamin
  • Katzenstein, Peter J.

Abstract

In recent years U.S. legal norms and practices reconfigured important elements of how law is thought of and practiced in both common and civil law countries around the world. With specific focus on the spread of American procedural practices (class action and pretrial discovery), this article applies a transactional view of law that emphasizes the private practice of law and nonstate actors. Such an approach highlights important aspects of world politics overlooked by traditional analyses of international legalization, conventionally understood as the direct spread of law by and among states. We find that the movement of law is a dynamic process involving diffusion, translation, and the repeated transnational exchanges of legal actors. Through our examination of this process, we offer insights into how aspects of American law moved into unlikely jurisdictions to reshape legal theory, pedagogy, procedure, and the organizing structure of the legal profession.

Suggested Citation

  • Brake, Benjamin & Katzenstein, Peter J., 2013. "Lost in Translation? Nonstate Actors and the Transnational Movement of Procedural Law," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 725-757, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:67:y:2013:i:04:p:725-757_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S002081831300026X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher A. Whytock, 2022. "Transnational Litigation in U.S. Courts: A Theoretical and Empirical Reassessment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 4-59, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:67:y:2013:i:04:p:725-757_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.