The Jurisprudence of the Threshold
Relational Legal Pluralism and the Politics of the Wound
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14296/ac.v7i2.5884Abstract
This article advances Relational Legal Pluralism (RLP), arguing that the foundational crisis in contemporary jurisprudence stems from a temporal-ontological bias, the “temporal cage”, which prioritizes what law is over the urgent ethical demand of what law does. This fixation renders conventional law conceptually mute and actively complicit in a mobile mode of governance: the Jurisprudence of Foreclosure, that operates by producing spatial abandonment and legitimized harm. This failure is sustained by Relational Hegemony, a power that structurally enforces institutional deafness and shatters “knowledge parity” by retreating into “closed epistemic resources”.
RLP offers a spatial-ethical inversion, grounding law’s genesis not in sovereign decree, but in the accusative demand: the juris-generative “wound” that emerges from relational harm. Drawing on Watsuji Tetsurō’s conceptual triad, fūdō, aidagara, and kū (emptiness as reflexive negation), RLP translates this ethical demand into a methodology, “Law in the Accusative,” designed to diagnose injustice and articulate a symmetrical counter-praxis: Relational Repair.
Relational Repair is a contested political project that insists on cultivating institutional “receptivity” and procedural rigour (Reason Test), while the philosophy of kū functions as the critical safeguard, perpetually opening the framework to the decolonial politics of refusal. Positioned as a “jurisprudence of the threshold”, RLP does not seek to resolve law’s fractures, but to transform jurisprudence into a global method for the creative, ongoing practice of mending our wounded relations.
Keywords: Relational Legal Pluralism (RLP); jurisprudence of foreclosure; relational hegemony; abyssal thinking; temporal cage; Relational Repair.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Those who contribute items to Amicus Curiae retain author copyright in their work but are asked to grant two licences. One is a licence to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, enabling us to reproduce the item in digital form, so that it can be made available for access online in the open journal system, repository, and website. The terms of the licence which you are asked to grant to the University for this purpose are as follows:
'I grant to the University of London the irrevocable, non-exclusive royalty-free right to reproduce, distribute, display, and perform this work in any format including electronic formats throughout the world for educational, research, and scientific non-profit uses during the full term of copyright including renewals and extensions'.
The other licence is for the benefit of those who wish to make use of items published online in Amicus Curiae and stored in the e-repository. For this purpose we use a Creative Commons licence (http://www.creativecommons.org.uk/); which allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to your entry in Amicus Curiae and/or SAS-SPACE; but they can't change them in any way or use them commercially.
