Democracy in contested territory: on the legitimacy of global legal pluralism

References

• Arendt, H. (1976 [1951]). The origins of totalitarianism. San Diego: Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, H. (1998 [1958]). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents, and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. (2009). Claiming rights across borders: international human rights and democratic sovereignty. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 691-704. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benton, L. (2002). Law and colonial cultures: Legal regimes in world history, 1400–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benton, L. (2010). A search for sovereignty: Law and geography in european empires, 1400–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, P. S. (2007). Global legal pluralism. Southern California Law Review, 80, 1155–1238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. (2007). Democracy across borders: From demos to demoi. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carens, J. (2013). The ethics of immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (2012). Globalization and sovereignty: Rethinking legality, legitimacy, and constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, E. (1936). Fundamental principles of the sociology of law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fassbender, B. (2009). The United Nations charter as the constitution of the international community. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. (1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism, volume I: Power, property and the state. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, J. (1986). What is legal pluralism? Journal of Legal Pluralism, 24, 1–55.
   Google Scholar
• Gundogdu, A. (2015). Rightlessness in an age of rights: Hannah and the contemporary struggles of migrants. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. (2009). Cosmopolitanism and the geographies of freedom. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Honig, B. (2017). Public things: Democracy in disrepair. New York: Fordham University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huber, J. (in press). Side by side: Global proximity and Kant’s cosmopolitan state. Contemporary Political Theory.
   Google Scholar
• Ingram, J. (2013). Radical cosmopolitics: The ethics and politics of democratic universalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (1997). The Haitian centre for human rights et al. v. United States, No. 10.675.
   Google Scholar
• Isiksel, T. (2013). Global legal pluralism as fact and norm. Global Constitutionalism, 2(2), 160–195.
   Google Scholar
• Kant, I. (1992). The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy. P. Guyer & A. Wood (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krisch, N. (2006). The pluralism of global administrative law. The European Journal of International Law, 17(1), 247–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond constitutionalism: The pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lafont, C. (2015). Human rights, sovereignty and the responsibility to protect. Constellations, 22(1), 68–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, M. D. (2013). Divided rule: Sovereignty and empire in French Tunisia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal pluralism. Law and Society Review, 22(5), 869–896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merry, S. E. (2008). International law and sociolegal scholarship: Toward a spatial global legal pluralism. In A. Sarat (Ed.), Studies in law, politics, and society: Special issue, law and society reconsidered (pp. 149–168). Oxford: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, S. F. (1973). Law and social change: the semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study. Law and Society Review, 7(4), 719–746.
   Google Scholar
• Moyn, S. (2012). The last Utopia: Human rights in history. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, E. (2013). Worldly ethics: Democratic politics and care for the world. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ochoa-Espejo, P. (2014). People, territory, and legitimacy in democratic states. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 466–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osiander, A. (2001). Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian myth. International Organization, 55(2), 251–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pistor, K. (2013). Towards a legal theory of finance. European Corporate Governance Institute Working Paper Series in Law, 196, 1–52.
   Google Scholar
• Rafanelli, L. (2018). Promoting Justice Across Borders. Thesis (PhD). Princeton University. Retrieved from http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01c534fr69b
   Google Scholar
• Rajagopal, B. (2003). International law from below: Development, social movements and third world resistance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rajagopal, B. (2005). The role of law in counter-hegemonic globalization and global legal pluralism: Lessons from the Narmada valley struggle in India. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18(3), 345–387.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Garavito, C., & De Sousa Santos, B. (ed). (2005). Law and globalization from below: Towards a cosmopolitan legality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sahlins, P. (1991). Boundaries: The making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schlecht, J. (2016, November 10). 1851 treaty resonates in DAPL discussion. The Bismarck Tribune. Retrieved from http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/treaty-resonates-in-dapl-discussion/article_e9bd6a47-e14e-507e-bb0a-8ee29eb30c9e.html
   Google Scholar
• Schutter, H. D. (2015). Non-territorial jurisdictional authority: A radical possibility in need of a critique. In J. F. Gregoire & M. Jewkes (Eds.), Recognition and redistribution in multinational federations (pp. 35–56). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sikkink, K., & Keck, M. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, A. (2014). Mohawk interruptus: political life across the borders of settler states. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822376781
   Google Scholar
• Song, S. (2016). The significance of territorial presence and the rights of immigrants. In S. Fine & L. Ypi (Eds.), Migration in political theory: The ethics of movement and membership (pp. 225–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stilz, A. (2009). Liberal loyalty: Freedom, obligation, and the state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Teubner, G. (1997). Global Bukowina: Legal pluralism in the world society. In G. Teubner (Ed.), Global law without a state(pp. 3-28). Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderbilt, T. (2009, June 8). Data center overload. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14search-t.html
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. (2011). The principle of proximity. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, Paper 255, 1–26. Retrieved from http://lsr.nellco.org/nyu_plltwp/255
   Google Scholar
• Walker, N. (2010). Out of place and out of time: Law’s fading co-ordinates. Edinburgh Law Review, 14, 13–46.
   Google Scholar