ESQUIROL ARTICLE.

DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

1/13/2014 4:47 PM

Legal Latin Americanism

Jorge L. Esquirol
I. INTRODUCTION
LegalscholarsfromLatinAmericaareincreasinglypublishing,present
ingatconferencesandparticipatinginlegaldebatesintheU.S.aswellasin
LatinAmerica.Thisrelativelynewdevelopmentiseffectivelychangingle
galareastudiesfocusedontheregion.Itisenlargingthefieldwithmore
participants and potentially alternative approaches. Whereas it may have
been possible in the past for Latin Americanist legal scholars in North
Americatoaddressthemselvessolelytoahomeaudience,suchisnolonger
plausibly the case. Legal area studies specialists are quickly confronted
with the reactions and impact of their engagement in the places written
about.Inaddition,withmoretranslationsofacademicworksandscholars
workinginmultiplelanguages,venues,andpublications,theirprofessional
productionisquicklysharedfromoneforumtoanother.
Yet, there are significant differences between legal Latin Americanism
andlegaldiscourseinLatinAmerica.LegalLatinAmericanism,inthesense
usedhere,istheacademicandprofessionalpracticeofwritingaboutlawin
LatinAmericafromanexternalperspective.Itscharacteristicfeatureisnot
thephysicallocationoftheauthor,butratheradistinctepistemology.Most
ofthisliteratureisproducedinNorthAmerica,inEnglish,foraudiencesin
the global North. By contrast, legal discourse in Latin America, again as
used here, refers to the vast array of academic and societal debate about
lawinspecificnationallegalcommunitiesinLatinAmerica.Distinguished
inthisway,writingaboutLatinAmericanlawinEnglishinNorthAmerica
andengaginginspecificlegaldebatesinaparticularLatinAmericanloca
tioncantakeverydifferentforms.Additionally,thelegalpoliticsinonefo
rummaybequiteunliketheother.And,whileLatinAmericanlegalstudies
is a field unto itself in the global North, the same cannot be said for legal
discourse across Latin America as a whole. Specific locales or discursive
communities may have their own conventions, authoritative references,
shorthands,andinterpretationsofsourcesandevents.Still,despiteabroad
rangeoflocalvariation,aprimarydividecanbetracedbetweenlegaldis
course about Latin America principally generated in the U.S. and Europe,
andlegaldiscourseinspecificLatinAmericancountries.

145

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

146

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

Indeed,themodesofinterveninginlegaldebatesinthecentermaybe
quite different than legal discourse at the national level. This certainly in
cludesdifferencesovertherelevanceandemphasisoftopicsdebated.But,
more importantly, it concerns what is considered convincing argumenta
tion,credibletheoreticalframeworks,andthedisciplinesorfieldsdominant
within legal debates. Due to the differences in these distinct discursive
economies,aninterventioninthelegalpoliticalarenaatthenationallevel
maynoteasilytranslateintodiscussionsatthecenter.Alternatively,Latin
Americanistframeworksanddebatesmayonlyobliquelyengagewithlegal
discourse at the national level. While the two fields of contestation may
share a common legal thread, and presumably the same object of study,
theyarenotablynotthesame.Duetotheparticularityofdistinctinterpre
tivecommunities,eachexhibitsitsownepistemologicalcommitments,ana
lytical conventions, and political arena. Indeed, until recently, such differ
ences have made transparent exchange between legal actors in Latin
AmericaandlegalLatinAmericanistsquitelimited.
Furthermore, these two distinct fields have quite different geopolitical
impact. They clearly involve two differentalthough not mutually exclu
siveaudiences. Latin Americanists are principally involved in academic
andpoliticalcirclesintheglobalNorth.LegalscholarshipinLatinAmerica
ispredominantlysituatedinlegalcommunitieswithineachcountry.While
LatinAmericanismmaysimplyappeartobethereflectivedescriptionand
reproductionforforeignaudiencesoflegaldevelopmentsinLatinAmerica,
it actually responds to its own conventions and genealogy of knowledge
production.Indeed,acasualobserverfromLatinAmericamaybetempted
to dismiss Latin Americanism as, at best, a secondhand account of legal
eventsintheregion.Amorecriticalperspectivemayevenhighlightitser
roneous, warped, or fantasized quality, in some cases. And, indeed, there
maybeanumberofareasinwhichLatinAmericanistshavesimplygotten
itwrong,emphasizedthewrongpoints,oreveninstrumentallymischarac
terizedthesituation.
Regardless,writinginthecenteraboutLatinAmericanlawinEnglish
has,inmanyrespects,agreaterimpactonlocallawandlegalinstitutionsin
LatinAmericathandoeslocallegalscholarship.Itisthistransnationalfield
thatinformsU.S.foreignpolicyonlawintheregion,includingaidforlegal
andinstitutionalreform.Itisalsothesortofbackgroundanalysisthatgets
taken up by international organizations in the formation of their develop
ment programs, areas of assistance, and conditions on loans. Indeed, the
designofinternationallysponsoredreformprogramsandpolicyconditions
areinterconnectedwiththesedebates.Additionally,LatinAmericaexperts
arefrequentlycalledtotestifyinU.S.courtsonthestateoflegalsystemsin
specific Latin American countries. These situations arise in forum non con
veniensmotions,politicalasylumcases,U.S.enforcementofLatinAmerican
court judgments, and other such situations. The bases for these views are

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

147

generated and supported by the literature on law in Latin America in the

center,intheformofacademicscholarship,expertopinions,commissioned
reports,projectevaluations,andthelike.
Thepresentessaybeginstoexplorethedistinctionbetweenthefieldsof
legal Latin Americanism and national legal discourse in Latin American
countries.SectionIIbrieflyoutlinesthespecificityoflegaldiscourseinLat
in America at the national level. Part of this specificity derives, no doubt,
from differences in the legal issues most prominent in each context. More
importantly, though, is its distinctiveness resulting from epistemological
differences,suchasdistincthistoriesofjurisprudence,particularmodesof
readingauthoritativetexts,andcontextuallypersuasivetypesofargumen
tation.SectionIIIhighlightstheoverallcharacteristicsandrelevanceofle
gal Latin Americanism, as produced mainly in the U.S. This field of
knowledge disproportionately trains legal realist insights on law in Latin
America,whilemostlyacceptingliberallegalideologyintheglobalNorth
atfacevalue.Thisproducesapersistentimageoflegalfailureintheregion,
comparedtoanidealizedvisionofliberallawinthemoredevelopedcoun
tries.Finally,SectionIVdescribessomeoftherecentdevelopmentsinthe
fieldoflegalLatinAmericanismandexaminestheprosandconsofsomeof
theseapproaches.
II. LEGAL DISCOURSE IN LATIN AMERICA
ThedifferencesbetweenlegalLatinAmericanismatthecenterandna
tionallegaldiscourseinLatinAmericaaresignificant.Locallegalwritingis
inthelocallanguageandmorefinelyfocused,inmostcases,onnationalle
galquestions.Thisincludesthegamutofdiscussionsaboutlaw,legislative
reform,judiciallydecidedcases,administrativeregulationandthelike.Itis
produced both within and outside of formal institutions. In some cases, it
revolvesaroundtheopinionsofhighlyregardedjuristsandthejudiciary.1
In other cases, it involves arguments and explanations in legal textbooks,
expertcommentary,andthepress.2Inbrief,locallegaldiscourseisahighly
importantandoftenundervalueddimensionofthelegalsystem.Onecan
perceive it as an informal legal institution. It generates societal engage
mentanddebateovernationallegalarrangements.
Ofcourse,locallegaldiscourseinLatinAmericaisalsowiderthanthat.
Itcanextendtophilosophicaldebates,internationallaw,andthelike.Addi
tionally,thereissignificanttransnationalexchangeinmostcountriesofthe

1.SeegenerallyJOHNHENRYMERRYMAN&ROGELIOPREZPERDOMO,THECIVILLAW
TRADITION:ANINTRODUCTIONTOTHELEGALSYSTEMSOFEUROPEANDLATINAMERICA57,60
(2007).
2.See,e.g.,IsabelC.Jaramillo,TheSocialApproachtoFamilyLaw:ConclusionsfromtheCanonical
FamilyLawTreatisesofLatinAmerica,58AM.J.COMP.L.843(2010).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

148

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

region.3AmainexampleisLatinAmericashistoricalrelationtoEuropean
legalsources,authoritiesanddevelopments.4Additionally,specificsubject
areasormethodologicalandpoliticalaffinitygroupscrossbordersinsignif
icant ways. Dezelay and Garth have demonstrated that increased contact
withU.S.lawschoolsandlegalscholarshasbeentranslatedintocloutand
influencebyLatinAmericanlegalactorsintheirhomecontexts.5Thishas
alsobeenamodeforincreasedSouthSouthexchange,possiblytriangu
latedwithU.S.orforeignassistance.6Alas,thisisnottheplacetoexplorein
any great detail the particularities of locallegal discoursein specific Latin
Americanlegalcommunities.
Still,locallegaldiscourseintheaggregatemaybeseenasquitedistinct
fromlegalLatinAmericanism.Thisdifferencedoesnotmeanthatthetwo
fields never connect. In fact, as noted already, the preponderant geo
politicalpoweroflegalLatinAmericanismhasverydirectandsubstantial
effects on law and legal institutions in Latin America. For the most part,
though,itisarticulatedasadiscourseofpolicyandsocialscience,external
to juristiclegal debate.7 Still, it has underwritten broadscaledevelopment
projects,theredesignofnationalinstitutions,andeffortstotransformthe
locallegalculture.Ithasnot,however,significantlyengagedwiththesub
stanceofmainstreamlocallegaldebateinparticularLatinAmericancoun
tries. However, as is the premise of this essay, with more Latin America
based legal scholars participating in Latin Americanist legal debate in the
center, this is likely to change. It remains to be seen, however, in which
ways different local legal debates may be transformed through such in
creasing interaction, especially as relates to dominant conceptual frame
works,thedisciplinesemphasized,andtheactualsubstanceofdebates.
III. LATIN AMERICAN LEGAL STUDIES
The field of Latin American legal studies proper is a relatively recent
development.8 Its origins are inseparable from the lawanddevelopment

3.SeegenerallyAlejandroGarro,ShapingtheContentofaBasicCourseonLatinAmericanLegal
Systems,19U.MIAMIINTERAM.L.REV.595(1988).
4.SeeRENDAVID&J.E.BRIERLY,MAJORLEGALSYSTEMSINTHEWORLDTODAY(1985);PHANOR
J.EDER,ACOMPARATIVESTUDYOFANGLOAMERICANANDLATINAMERICANLAW4(1950);
MERRYMAN&PREZPERDOMO,supranote1;DIEGOLPEZMEDINA,LATEORAIMPURADEL
DERECHO:LATRANSFORMACINDELACULTURAJURDICALATINOAMERICANA(2004):JorgeL.
Esquirol,TheFictionsofLatinAmericanLaw(PartI),1997UTAHL.REV.425(1997).
5.YVESDEZELAY&BRYANTGARTH,THEINTERNATIONALIZATIONOFPALACEWARS(2007).
6.SeeMximoLanger,RevolutioninLatinAmericanCriminalProcedure:DiffusionofLegalIdeas
fromthePeriphery,54AM.J.COMP.L.617(2007).
7.Ondifferentlegalinterpretivecommunities,seeWilliamS.Blatt,InterpretiveCommunities:
TheMissingElementinStatutoryInterpretation,95NW.U.L.R.629(2001).
8.ForhistoricalcontextonLatinAmericanstudiesingeneral,seeRichardM.Morse,The
StrangeCareerofLatinAmericanStudies,356ANNALSAM.ACAD.POL.&SOC.SCI.106(1964).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

149

projectsofthe1960sand1970s.9Assuch,themainframeworkforthistype
ofintellectualworkhasbeentheefforttopromoteeconomicdevelopment
through law.10 This model suffers from the many shortcomings that have
beenamplydiscussedinthelawanddevelopmentliteratureaswellasthe
literaturecritiquingthatfield.11Inessence,ithasbecomeevidentthatthere
is no clear blueprint for how law can be aligned to produce either devel
opmentordemocracy.
Scholarshavenotedthreeseparatephasesofthelawanddevelopment
movement:theinitialsocialdemocraticvarietyofthe1960sand1970s,the
neoliberal version of the 1980s and 1990s, and the more recent chastened
neoliberalismcumsocialjusticerhetoricoftheearlytwentyfirstcentury.12
Though the policy prescriptions changed over time, the underlying para
digmforLatinAmericanlegalstudiesremainedthe same.Itstoodtorea
son that if development and democracy were lacking, and law was as
sumed to have something to do with it, then there must be something
seriously wrong with Latin American law. Essentially, it aimed lawand
society type critiques on the regions national legal systems.13 Moreover,
thisbodyoftransnationalwriting,overall,repeatedlysuggeststheconclu
sionthatLatinAmericanlawisafailedversionofWesternliberallaw.14
Bycontrast,averydifferentparadigmforlegalstudiesrelatedtoLatin
AmericahasbeentheEuropeannessapproach.15IntermsofU.S.writing,
thisisarelativelymarginalstream.Itisfilledbytheranksofclassicalcom
parativists who group Latin America together with Europe.16 In terms of
engagement with juristic discourse in specific Latin American locales, the
Europeannessstreamhaspotentiallyamuchgreaterconnection.Indeed,its
mainpointonnationallawinLatinAmericaisthecloserelationtoitsEu
ropeansources.However,muchofthiscomparativelawwritingtypically
9.SeegenerallyKennethKarst,TeachingLatinAmericanLaw,19AM.J.COMP.L.685(1971);Jorge
L.Esquirol,WritingtheLawofLatinAmerica,40GEO.WASH.INTLL.REV.693(2009).
10.SeegenerallyThomasM.Franck,TheNewDevelopment:CanAmericanLawandlegalInstitu
tionsHelpDevelopingCountries?1972WIS.L.REV.767(1972);LawrenceM.Friedman,OnLegal
Development,24RUTGERSL.REV.11(1969).
11.SeeJAMESGARDNER,LEGALIMPERIALISM:AMERICANLAWYERSANDFOREIGNAIDINLATIN
AMERICA(1980);DavidTrubek&MarcGalanter,ScholarsinSelfEstrangement:SomeReflections
ontheCrisisinLawandDevelopmentStudiesintheUnitedStates,1974WIS.L.REV.1062(1974);
THOMASCAROTHERS,THEMANYAGENDASOFTHERULEOFLAWREFORMINLATINAMERICA,IN
RULEOFLAWINLATINAMERICA:THEINTERNATIONALPROMOTIONOFJUDICIALREFORM(Pilar
Domingo&RachelSiedereds.,2001);BrianTamanaha,ThePrimacyofSocietyandtheFailureof
LawandDevelopment,44CORNELLINTLL.J.209(2011).
12.DavidTrubek&AlvaroSantos,Introduction:TheThirdMovementinLawandDevelopment
TheoryandtheEmergenceofaNewCriticalPractice,inTHENEWLAWANDECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT1,59(DavidTrubek&AlvaroSantoseds.,2006).
13.JohnHenryMerryman,ComparativeLawandSocialChange:OntheOrigins,Style,Declineand
RevivaloftheLawandDevelopmentMovement,25AM.J.COMP.L.457(1977).
14.JorgeL.Esquirol,TheFailedLawofLatinAmerica,56AM.J.COMP.L.75(2008).
15.MERRYMAN&PREZPERDOMO,supranote1,at57,60.
16.MERRYMAN&PREZPERDOMO,supranote1;seealsoEsquirol,supranote4.

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

150

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

only adds a few examples from Latin America to works principally about
civillawsystemsinEurope.Theviewitperpetuatesaboutlawintheregion
is, in fact, that it is simply a secondrate copy of European models.17 As
such,thisscholarshipdownplaystheimportanceorinterestofengagingthe
law in Latin America. It would be better and more enlightening, so this
thinkinggoes,tostudytheoriginalEuropeansources.
Notably,theEuropeannessapproachtoLatinAmericacontributestothe
constructionandmaintenanceofaparticularformoflegalideology.Itfur
therjustifiesLatinAmericansinbelievingthattheirlawandlegalpractices
arepartofatransnational,Europeanpractice.18Inbroadstrokes,itassistsin
legitimating the legal system overall, even at the expense of Latin Ameri
cans being labeled unoriginal imitators. Additionally, lawand
development practitioners incorporated this Europeanness strain of
comparativescholarshipintotheirthinking.Itfiguresasanotheroneofthe
elementsofthelegalfailurediagnosis.19LawsqualityinLatinAmericaasa
copy, borrowed from other societies, and from models not generally con
sideredidealeitheraddstothelawanddevelopmentdiagnosisofdysfunc
tionwhichisbelievedtoleadtobadeconomiesandlimiteddemocracies.
Finally,thedominantformsoflegalLatinAmericanismhavealsosignif
icantly influenced the socialsciences concerned with law. Thus, for exam
ple,theexpansivelegalpluralismliteraturealsoindirectlyadoptsthegap
premise,i.e.thenotionthatthereisanexceptionalgapbetweenlawandso
cietyinLatinAmerica.20Thistypeofworkisusuallyconsideredquitedif
ferent from development scholarship.21 However, it draws on the same
background understanding of law in the region.22 The effect, for most
commentators,istosidelinestatelawaltogether.Alternativelegalorders
closertosocietybecomethecentralfocusand,itcommonlyfollows,leadto
callsfortheirequalstandingwith,oroutrightreplacementof,formalstate
law.PrimaryexamplesareindigenouspeopleslawandtheinterAmerican
human rights regime.23 A different but related example is the more recent
judicialization of politics literature.24 This latter scholarship is primarily
17.SeeGarro,supranote3.
18.MEDINA,supranote4.
19.Esquirol,supranote15.
20.BOAVENTURADESOUZASANTOS,ESTADO,DERECHO,YLUCHASSOCIALES(1991);RAQUEL
YRIGOYENFAJARDO,PAUTASDECOORDINACINENTREELDERECHOINDGENAYELDERECHO
ESTATAL(1999).
21.SeealsoMAURICIOGARCAVILLEGAS,LAEFICACIASIMBLICADELDERECHO(1993)
22.MULTICULTURALISMINLATINAMERICA:INDIGENOUSRIGHTS,DIVERSITYANDDEMOCRACY
(RachelSiedered.,2002).
23.See,e.g.,LillianAponteMiranda,UploadingtheLocal:AssessingtheContemporaryRelationship
betweenIndigenousPeoplesLandTenureSystemsandInternationalHumanRightsLawRegarding
theAllocationofTraditionalLandsandResourcesinLatinAmerica,10OREGONR.INTLL.419
(2008).
24.LINNA.HAMMERGREN,THEPOLITICSOFJUSTICEANDJUSTICEREFORMINLATINAMERICA:
THEPERUVIANCASEINCOMPARATIVEPERSPECTIVE(1998);WILLIAMC.PRILLAMAN,THE

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

151

produced by political scientists and legal scholars working with them. It

capitalizes on the recent expansion of constitutional courts and constitu
tionaljurisdictioninLatinAmerica.25Theseworksgenerallytrackhowpol
icydecisionsandpoliticsthatwerepreviouslythedomainofotherbranch
es of government are now being transacted in the courts. This literature
predominantlyviewslocallegaldiscourse,ifanything,asposthocrational
izations for prevailing political interests. The real meaning, following this
lineofthinking,istobediscoveredinthebackgroundorderthatproduces
thesedecisions.
A. The Dominant Forms
ThemainliteratureinthefieldofLatinAmericanlegalstudiesinEng
lish, and principally in the U.S., has thus taken one or both of these two
dominantforms:(1)itdevaluesformallawasirrelevantinthefaceofdif
ferent and more determinative social factors; and (2) official law is exam
ined through an ideological lens searching for dysfunction, under the as
sumption that Latin American law has played a key role in producing
economic underdevelopment and weak democracies. 26 Indeed, much of
this work generally follows in the lawandsociety or the lawand
development type perspectives.27 While much of this scholarship is quite
usefulandshedssignificantlightondevelopmentsinLatinAmerica,italso
leavesoutasignificantpartofthepicture.Indeed,thisomissionoftenleads
toadisappointinglypredictableconceptionoflegalfailureinLatinAmerica.
Commontobothofthesemainapproachesisthattheyignoretheconsti
tutive politics of local legal debate. This is not to say that law in Latin
America is insufficiently understood as political. In fact, official law is
JUDICIARYANDDEMOCRATICDECAYINLATINAMERICA:DECLININGCONFIDENCEINTHERULE
OFLAW(2000);THEJUDICIALIZATIONOFPOLITICSINLATINAMERICA(RachelSiederetal.eds.,

2005);CULTURESOFLEGALITY:JUDICIALIZATIONANDPOLITICALACTIVISMINLATINAMERICA
(JavierCousoetal.eds.,2010);GRETCHENHELMKE&JULIOROSFIGUEROA,COURTSINLATIN
AMERICA(2011).
25.See,e.g.,THEJUDICIALIZATIONOFPOLITICSINLATINAMERICA(RachelSiederetal.eds.,
2005);GRETCHENHELMKE&JULIOROSFIGUEROA,COURTSINLATINAMERICA(2011);CULTURES
OFLEGALITY:JUDICIALIZATIONANDPOLITICALACTIVISMINLATINAMERICA(JavierCousoetal.
eds.,2010).
26.See,e.g.,KENNETHKARST&KEITHROSENN,LAWANDDEVELOPMENTINLATINAMERICA:A
CASEBOOK(1975);KeithRosenn,TheJeito:BrazilsInstitutionalBypassoftheFormalLegalSystem
anditsDevelopmentalImplications,19AM.J.COMP.L514(1971);KennethL.Karst,RightsinLand
andHousinginanInformalLegalSystem:TheBarriosofCaracas,19AM.J.COMP.L550(1971);Jo
sephThome,Elderechocomoinstrumentodecambiosocial:Comentariossobreunmodelodederechoy
desarrollo,12BOLETNDELINSTITUTODEDOCENCIAEINVESTIGACINJURDICA(Chile,May
1972).
27.SeegenerallyJohnHenryMerryman,supranote13,atApp.A;DavidM.Trubek,Backtothe
Future:TheShort,HappyLifeoftheLawandSocietyMovement,18FLA.ST.U.L.REV.1(1991);Bri
anTamanaha,TheLessonsofLawandDevelopmentStudies,89AM.J.INTLL.470(1995);Esquirol,
supranote9.

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

152

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

widelyperceivedasnothingbutbadfaithrationalizationsofdominantpo
liticalinterests.28Bycontrast,thepointhereisthatthewaylegaldiscourse
isstructuredalsomatters.Viewsonthenatureoflaw,standardargumenta
tiveconventions,thelevelofpersuasiveabstraction,commonunderstand
ings of specific concepts and references, and the general consensus on
commonsensicalreasoningallshapethetypeandslantoflegalpolitics.
Thereareanumberofreasonswhythislatterlineofinquirytendstobe
quickly truncated when turning to Latin America. Analysis often ends at
theobservationthatstatelawintheregionpenetratesimperfectlythrough
outallofsocietyorthatlawismainlyagamefortherichandtheelite.29In
fact,alloflegalliberalismselusiveobjectivessuchasdecisionalneutrali
ty, legal objectivity, equal application of the laws, judicial independence,
andthelikehavebeenrepeatedlyfoundlackinginLatinAmerica.30These
conclusionsessentiallyencapsulatethesumoftheliteratureontheregion.
Indeed,theverytermLatinAmericanLawasgivencontentbycompar
ative legal studies, the social sciences, and ultimately popular reference
reflectstheskewedunderstandingsproducedbylegalLatinAmericanism.
Thesametermcouldpotentiallybeused,bycontrast,tosimplycapturethe
sum of contemporaneous developments or similar features in more than
one Latin American country.31 In reality, though, it hasacquired the more
limited, dominant understanding described above. Its use chiefly denotes
theultimatemeaningsproducedbylegalLatinAmericanismlawsirrele
vanceanddysfunction.32
However,critiquesofirrelevanceordysfunctioncanbeapplied,insome
degree,toanysystemofliberallaw.33Moreover,theyarenotsufficientrea
sonstodenytheimportanceofstatelaw,locallegalanalysis,andnational
legaldiscourse.Infact,itisaseriousomissioninourunderstandingofthe
stakesinLatinAmericanlegalsystems.Itshouldbenotedthatthisdoesnot
meanthatinformationaboutothersocialsystems,legalpluralism,andthe
politicalcontextoflawarenotimportantendeavors.34ButinthecaseofLat
28.Seee.g.STEPHENHABERETAL.,THEPOLITICSOFPROPERTYRIGHTS:POLITICALINSTABILITY,
CREDIBLECOMMITMENTS,ANDECONOMICGROWTHINMEXICO,18761929(2003);seegenerally,
THE(UN)RULEOFLAWANDTHEUNDERPRIVILEGEDINLATINAMERICA(JuanE.Mendezet
al.eds.,1999).
29.Seee.g.JohnLinarelli,AngloAmericanJurisprudenceandLatinAmerica,20FORDHAMINTL
L.J.50(1996).
30.Seee.g.KeithRosenn,TheSuccessofConstitutionalismintheU.S.anditsFailureinLatinAmer
ica:AnExplanation,22U.MIAMIINTERAM.L.REV.1(1990);seegenerallyDanielBrinks,Judicial
ReformandIndependenceinBrazilandArgentina:ThebeginningofaNewMillennium?40TEX.
INTLL.J.595(2005).
31.ANGELOQUENDO,LATINAMERICANLAW(2006).
32.SeeJorgeEsquirol,HaciadndevaLatinoAmerica?in,DERECHOYSOCIEDADENAMERICA
LATINA:UNDEBATESOBRELOSESTUDIOSJURDICOSCRTICOS(M.GarciaVillegas&C.Rodriguez
Garavito,eds.2003).
33.See,e.g.,BRIANTAMANAHA,ONTHERULEOFLAW:HISTORY,POLITICS,THEORY(2004).
34.SeeTamanaha,supranote11.

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

153

in American legal studies, these have been emphasized at the expense of

muchifanyanalyticalworkontheofficiallaw.Indeed,LatinAmericanle
galstudieshasbeennotablylimitedinitsrepertoireofintellectualtools.For
themostpart,itsmajorinsightasafieldisthatthereiswidegapbetween
law in the books and law in action in Latin America.35 The failure to
meetpolicygoalssatisfactorilyasevidencedbythiswellnotedgaphas
beenthesinglemostimportantdriveroflegalcommentaryontheregion.
B. Rationale for Development Reform
Furthermore, much Latin Americanist legal scholarship directly sup
portslawanddevelopmentprojectsofreform.Itpavesthewayforthere
jectionandreplacementofentireareasoflawinLatinAmerica.Initsplace,
alternativemodelsaremoreeasilyintroduced.Thesemay,insomecases,be
framedasmoredirectlyconnectedtosociety.AgoodexampleisHernando
de Sotos efforts, widely supported by the World Bank and the Inter
American Bank for Development, to formalize various informal sectors of
theeconomy,whichsimplyamountsto,inessence,anargumentinfavorof
deregulation.36 For him, the state should formalize and universalize the
defactomodeloftheinformaleconomy,closertothepeopleorinformals
ashecallsthem.Inhistheoreticalanalysis,deSotocondemnsthestates
formal law as impeding economic development. Instead, he lauds the in
formalsectorasafontofentrepreneurshipandlockedupwealth.Howev
er, these informal sectors are nothing other than lax regulatory environ
ments produced by official tolerance of legal noncompliance, whether or
notoneagreeswiththeunderlyingsituationofnonenforcement.Elevating
theinformalassomehowmoreauthentictolocalpeople,however,simply
clothestheargumentforderegulationinthenarrativeofaculturalgapbe
tweenlawandsociety.
Inturn,thedevelopmentrelateddiagnosisoflawsfailureiscommonly
followed by advocacy for simply a different liberal legal model. Thus, for
example, the criminal law procedure throughout Latin America has been
comprehensively transformed through the introduction of the adversarial
system.37Allpriorcriminalproceduresystems,regardlessoftheirvariation
across the region, were effectively characterized, in a blanketlike way, as
undemocratic, inefficient and inquisitorial with all the connotations
that these terms imply, and then convincingly rejected and replaced
wholesale.38Whetherthecountryinquestionfacedsuchdifferentproblems
35.SeeMATTHEWMIROW,LATINAMERICANLAW:AHISTORYOFPRIVATELAWAND
INSTITUTIONSINSPANISHAMERICA(2004)
36.HERNANDODESOTO,THEMYSTERYOFCAPITAL(1968).
37.Langer,supranote6.
38.SeegenerallyMichaelR.Paul,Wanted:CriminalJusticeColombiasAdoptionofaProsecutorial
SystemofCriminalProcedure,16FORDHAMINTLL.J.608(199293);CarlosRodrigodelaBarra

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

154

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

aseitherinsufficientcriminalenforcementor,ontheotherendofthespec
trum,insufficientregardfordefendantsrights,thesolutionwasthesame:
the adoption of the adversarial model promoted by United States Agency
forInternationalDevelopment.
It is useful to recall that legal Latin Americanism is not dependent on
the nationality of the expositor or the physical location from where he or
shewrites.Indeed,inthetwoexamplesabove,bothcanbeclaimedaspro
jectschampionedbylegalscholarsfromLatinAmerica.HernandodeSoto
worksfromPeru,closelytiedtolocalissues,althoughhisinspirationisself
professedlytracedtolegaldevelopmentsinEurope.Additionally,theintel
lectual leaders of the switch to adversarial criminal procedure throughout
LatinAmericahavebeenconvincinglyshownbyMximoLangertobeAr
gentineans.39 Thus, rather than any requiredauthenticity or locationalfac
tors, legal Latin Americanism as described here is best understood as a
combinationofaconceptualframeworkbasedonWesternliberallegalide
ology, a set of analytical techniques, certain dominant ideas about law in
theregion,anditsaudienceprincipallyintheglobalNorth.
C. Impact of Latin American Legal Studies in Latin America
As noted above, it may have been possible in the past for legal Latin
Americanists,locatedintheglobalNorth,tothinkoftheiraudiencesaslim
itedtotheirhomecontexts.40Becauseoflanguagedifferences,separateaca
demiccircuits,andmorelimitedcommunications,itcouldbethatonlythis
audienceappearedtoberelevant.Anauthorhadtoappealtoandconvince
thisreferencegroup,andhadtopresentthematerialinawaywhichwould
makesensetothem,wouldfitwithinacceptedintellectualparadigms,and
express acceptable political interests (albeit in a veiled way). What was
writtenaboutLatinAmericamayhavenotbeenconsciouslyconsideredin
terms of how the text intersected with the regions own legal intellectual
traditionsandparadigmsorhowitimpactedcertaingroupsorindividuals
withinthatcommunity.
Ofcourse,evenifourerstwhileLatinAmericanistsnevercontemplated
theirowncontributiontonationalorinternationallegalpolitics,theirwork
canstillbeanalyzedforitsimpactonthoseareas.41Insomecases,itseffects
mightevenbequitesubstantial.Inthecenter,ithelpsformtheopinionswe
haveaboutthestudiedgroup.Itmighteveninfluenceweightydecisionsof
foreignpolicy,internationalinstitutions,andtheproductionofknowledge.
Cousio,Adversarialvs.InquisitorialSystems:TheRuleofLawandProspectsforCriminalProcedure
ReforminChile,5SW.J.L.&TRADEAM.323(1998).
39.Langer,supranote6.
40.SeegenerallyRobertMorse,supranote8.
41.SeegenerallyDAVIDKENNEDY,THEDARKSIDESOFVIRTUE:REASSESSINGINTERNATIONAL
HUMANITARIANISM(2004).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

155

Inaddition,itmayinfluencetheselfperceptionofthestudiedgroup.Opin
ions from centers of power may induce a sort of selffulfilling internaliza
tion.42 The studied may come to see themselves through the eyes of their
observers.
Additionally, the connection of Latin American legal studies to legal
politicsinspecificLatinAmericanstatessurelyvaries.Untilrecently,ithas
had little conscious impact on the class of jurists, at least as many have
themselves reported.43 Most legal scholars in Latin America have been in
sufficiently aware of its operational reach, specifically in the form of law
anddevelopmentprojectsasanorganizedeffort.Itisonlynowbeingas
similated as a significant paradigm with past and continuing concrete ef
fects.44 This is not to say that the legal reforms advanced by lawand
development had a negligible impact.45 Many projects have been imple
mentedthroughtheforceofsuchlawanddevelopmentwritingsandper
spectives.Theywere,forthemostpart,howevernotsignificantlymetabo
lized through mainstream local legal discourse. They predominantly
operatedatthepoliticallevelandbeyondthestuffoffinegrainedlegalde
bate.Asaresult,theimpactoflegaldevelopmentassistancewasmostly
tobulldozecompetingpositionsthatinonewayoranothersupportedex
istinglawsorchangeswithinthem.Inthefaceoflawsradicalfailure,en
gaging in mainstream legal debate in Latin America no doubt appeared
from an external perspective on local legal discourse such as legal Latin
Americanismanditslawanddevelopmentstrainliketheproverbialrear
rangingofdeckchairsontheTitanic.
As such, thefields of nationallegal politics in Latin America and legal
geopolitics in the center have proceeded in somewhat different registers.
Theirdifferences,tobesure,areamovingtarget,limitedonlybythechang
ing dynamics of discourse.46 A challengefor progressives in these shifting
discursivecommunitiesisindeedproducinginterventionsthatadvancecol
lective objectives across different epistemic locales. This presents some
uniquedifficulties.Beyondspecificintellectualcommitmentsanddemands
forcoherenceandconsistency,thereistheadditionalfactorofasignificant
power differential between the two fields. Intervening in debates in the
global North in a way that does not simply reproduce this hierarchy may
make it more difficult to be included and to be heard there. That is, at
tempting to write about Latin America in the global North in a way that
42.ANTONYANGHIE,IMPERIALISM,SOVEREIGNTY,ANDTHEMAKINGOFINTERNATIONALLAW52
100(2006).
43.SeeELDERECHOENAMRICALATINA(CesarRodriguezGaravitoed.,2012).
44.OSCARVILHENAVIEIRAANDDIMITRIDIMOULIS,OESTADODODIREITOEODESAFIODO
DESENVOLVIMENTO(2011)
45.SeegenerallyTHENEWLAWANDECONOMICDEVELOPMENT(DavidTrubek&AlvaroSantos
eds.,2006).
46.SeeWilliamS.Blatt,InterpretiveCommunities:TheMissingElementinStatutoryInterpretation,
95NW.U.L.R.629(2001).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

156

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

doesnotreinforcetheglobalhegemonyoftheNorthisadifficultfeat,be
causethefieldisstructuredthatway.Conversely,interveninginactualju
ristic debates in Latin America in a way that does not simply transfer the
hegemony of legal Latin Americanism wholesale is also quite difficult to
resist.47Thelatterenjoystheintellectualvalidationofatransnationalcom
munityandlegalauthoritiesintheglobalNorth.
D. The Geo-Politics of Legal Latin Americanism
LegalLatinAmericanismhasshownitselftobe,onthewhole,theaca
demiccounterparttoU.S.andmainstreaminternationalpolicytowardLat
inAmerica.Thishastranslatedforthemostpartintoeconomicandpoliti
calreformismtocontainmoreradicalandrevolutionarychange.Itsmode
ofoperationhasbeentodiagnoseLatinAmericanlegalsystemsandtoin
troduce alternative models. Usually, however, the level of analysis is con
ductedatthesystemwidelevelwithexternaldiagnosesandcritiques.48As
such,legalareastudiesoftheregionhaveapredominantlyinstitutionalfo
cus, whether they relate to the 1960s developmental state or in the 1990s
neoliberalversion.Thus,forexample,acentralquestionintheearlyperiod
was getting the right type of administrative agencies and law schools. In
theneoliberalversion,itwastherighttypeofcourts,criminalprocedure,
andpropertyandcontractrights.
At a basic level, legal area studies focus on law in Latin America. As
such,theypurporttobeaboutthesamesubjectmatterasnationallegaldis
course, if at a level removed. Yet, considering the close connection with
lawanddevelopment, Latin American legal area studies easily assumed
theroleofdiagnosticianofnationallegalsystems.Thus,thefieldhasbeen
closelytiedtotheinternationalpoliticalarenaofcompetinglegalmodels.49
Inthiscontext,participantsinthefieldcompeteonthebasisofevermore
convincing assertions of laws breakdown in the region, frequently fol
lowed by alternative, preferable models for law reform. In the aggregate,
thistypeofwritinghasgeneratedanumberofbaselineperceptionsabout
lawintheregion.Asalreadynoted,themainpictureproducedisoneofthe
recurrentfailureoflawandlegalinstitutionsintheregion.Thisgeneraldi
agnosis is not only the product of faulty analysis as discussed below; it is
alsoquiteusefultotheobjectiveofadvocatinglegalreforms.Onceexisting
legal arrangements are convincingly shown to have failed, introducingal
ternativelegalinstitutionscanbemoreeasilyachieved.Theelementsofthis

47.SeeELDERECHOENAMRICALATINA,supranote44..
48.Onthedifferencebetweenexternalandinternalcritique,seeWilliamJosephSinger,The
PlayerandtheCards:NihilismandLegalTheory,94YALEL.J.1(1984).
49.See,e.g.,JamesM.Cooper,CompetingLegalCulturesandLegalReform:TheBattleforChile,29
MICH.J.INTLL.501(2008).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

157

failurediagnosis,however,aregenerallybasedinwholeorinpartby
highlighting the regions inadequacy in fulfilling liberal legalisms practi
callyunattainablemyths.
My critique of the discourse of Latin American legal failure has been
presentedinotherwork.50Forpurposeshere,however,itismoreimportant
tonotethattheseimagesoffailurearenotmerelytheserendipitousprojec
tion of legal academics. No doubt, this is indeed one dimension of it. The
projectionofthedarksideofliberallegalismontoLatinAmericacontrast
ed to its successful operation in the West is quite likely an unconscious
projectionoflegalacademicsintheWest.51Thisisaphenomenondescribed
by Edward Said regarding how the Orient was constructed out of the
suppressed images and fantasies of the West.52 And, I have argued else
where, the common images of Latin American law mirror the general cri
tiquesofliberallegalismintheWestoverthecourseofthetwentiethcentu
ry. However, the orientalization of Latin American law is not merely a
productofacademicfancy.Norcanitsimplybeascribedtoanunconscious
projection of our own suppressed knowledge about legal systems in the
West.Thereisanactivedemandfortheseimagesanddiagnoses.Indeed,
thehierarchicalorderingofdifferentnationallegalsystemshasalonghis
tory.Itisnotanewphenomenonorarecentobservation.Itrespondstoa
hostofdifferentobjectives.
In Latin America, it can be traced back to the early formation of inde
pendentstates.53Theformofinterventionthenbypowerfulstatesonbehalf
oftheinterestsoftheirnationalslivingordoingbusinessinLatinAmerica
wasbasedontheinjusticesorperceivedinjusticessufferedinthesere
gions.54Earlyinthenineteenthcentury,directmilitaryordiplomaticinter
ventionwasunproblematicallythenormforredress.OnceLatinAmerican
leadersgainedsometractionwithinternationallawargumentsagainstthe
seincursions,interventionwasonlyadmittedatleastintheoryincases
wheretherehadbeenadenialofjustice.55Suchanassertioncouldtrigger
direct interference in the sovereign affairs of Latin American states. Of
course,ithadtobesupportedinsomeway.Repeatedaccountsofthemal
50.Esquirol,supranote15.
51.See,e.g.,TeemuRuskola,LegalOrientalism,101MICH.L.REV.179,209(2002);LamaAbu
Odeh,ThePoliticsof(Mis)Recognition:IslamicLawPedagogyinAmericanAcademia,52AM.J.
COMP.L.789(2004).
52.EDWARDSAID,ORIENTALISM(1979).
53.SeeJorgeL.Esquirol,LatinAmerica,inTHEOXFORDHANDBOOKOFTHEHISTORYOF
INTERNATIONALLAW553(BardoFassbenderetal.eds.,2012).
54.Id.
55.SeeLilianaObregon,TheColludingWorldsoftheLawyer,theScholar,andthePolicymaker:A
ViewofInternationalLawfromLatinAmerica,23WIS.INTLL.J.145(2005);ArnulfBeckerLorca,
InternationalLawinLatinAmericaorLatinAmericanInternationalLaw?Rise,Fall,andRetrievalofa
TraditionofLegalThinkingandPoliticalImagination,47HARV.INTLL.J.283(2006);JorgeL.Es
quirol,AlejandroAlvarezsLatinAmericanLaw:AQuestionofIdentity,19LEIDENJ.INTLL.931,
955(2006).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

158

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

functioningand corruption ofall Latin American courtsand governments

madethisjustificationforinterventionmoreeasilyacceptable.
The active demand for negative accounts of law in Latin America has
manycontemporarysourcesaswell.Someofthemareevendisciplinesand
approaches generally considered to promote social justicegoals.The most
emblematicnodoubtishumanrightsdiscourse.Manyoftheremediespro
videdataninternationalleveldependonquitenegativerenditionsofentire
segmentsoflawandlegalinstitutionsinindividualcountries.Forexample,
politicalasylumclaimsbyindividualsinfirstworldcountriesoftendepend
oncountryreportsdescribingthegrossviolationsofhumanrightsandna
tionallegalsystemsincapableofaddressingthem.
Therearemanyotherintereststhatalsocallforthistypeofaccount.In
anylawsuitconnectedtoaLatinAmericanjurisdictionbroughtintheUnit
edStates,theplaintiffmighthavetodefendagainstanattempttotransfer
jurisdictionbypresentingevidencethatthelegalsysteminthealternative
Latin American forum lacks the capacity to handle the case. Claiming the
impossibilityof achieving justicein Latin America willguaranteethe case
remains in the United States. Likewise, in actions for the enforcement of
judgmentsenteredbynationalcourtsinLatinAmerica,thejudgmentdebt
ormayclaimalackofdueprocess,corruption,incompetenceofthedecid
ing court. Several significant money judgments against U.S. corporations,
fordoingenvironmentalandotherharminLatinAmerica,havebeenevad
edinjustthisway.AllofthesemotionsinU.S.courtsaresupportedbyex
pert witness testimony on the ineffectiveness of the legal systems in Latin
American countries. These opinions are buttressed by scholarship and
commentaryonthelawintheregionthatechoesthesesameviews.Moreo
ver,thelackofanysignificantcontraryviewsaboutlawinLatinAmerica,
inthisliterature,isalsoasourceofsupportinconvincingtheU.S.judgesof
thetruthoftheseclaims.
Asaresult,thesenarrativeswithrespecttolawinLatinAmericaarekey
piecesinthegeopoliticsofnationallegalsystems.Theyarenotonlyhap
hazard social constructions produced by the limitations of comparative
study in the center. Nor are they necessarily just the sum of idiosyncratic
perspectives of transnational commentators. Overall, they can be seen to
respond to realinterestsand stakes. These significantly shape the interna
tional hierarchy of authoritative decisionmaking. In the cases highlighted
above, they pertain especially to the jurisdiction and judgments of Latin
American courts. However, this ordering also impacts the political priori
ties of different national communities.In any process of harmonization or
globalizationoflaws,legalsystemsperceivedtobeinferiorandthepoliti
cal options enshrined within them are much easier to disregard, if not
outright reject. This exclusionary process can affect Latin American coun
tries ability to uphold certain national legal positions in the context of
globalizationandtreatynegotiations,forexample.Someofthesepositions

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

159

mayincludeparticularlynotablelegaldevelopmentsintheregionsuchas
socialrights,laborlaw,thesocialfunctionofproperty,andothers.Notall
of the examples need be from the political left either. The whole jurispru
denceonstatesofemergency,andextraordinaryexecutivepowers,arean
other example of a body of law common to many Latin American states
thatisnotgenerallyappreciated.Inshort,thepointisthatthegeopolitics
oflawjustifiedbyjustthesortofareastudiesdescribedhereinfluences
therelativeweightthatdifferentsocietieshaveindecidingtheirownfate.
IV. TOWARD A NEW SCHOLARSHIP ON LAW IN LATIN AMERICA
Recently,newscholarshiphasbeguntoaddressthegeopoliticsofLatin
Americanlaw.56Theunderlyingparadigmsandimageshavebeencritically
examined.Theworkingsofthesediscursiveeconomieshavebeenidentified
and debated. Additionally, as already noted, new generations of scholars
fromtheregionandelsewherehaveenteredthefray.57Thesedevelopments
are surely transfiguring the field. However, this is not to say that the old
paradigmsarenolongerentrenchedorthatscholarsdonotstilleasilyde
faultintoreproducingthem.Farfromit,establishedpatternsofwritingand
thinking are still quite compelling for many. For some, they are also still
quiteconvincing.
Nevertheless,itisnowmoredifficulttodismissthemultipleaudiences
andimpactoftransnationallegalwriting.Assuch,itwouldbeintellectual
lyirresponsibletoignoretheeffectsofinterveninginonearenaontheoth
er. A wellintentioned intervention in debates on comparative law at the
centercouldifdirectlytransferredtodebatesinLatinAmericahavepo
tentially quite negative effects on equally important concerns. Likewise,
welltargetedcritiquesin,say,localdebatesinMexicoorPerucouldprove
terribly detrimental to the geopolitics of, for example, global labor law.58
Forscholarsinterestedinatransnationalacademicpractice,thequestionof
intellectual perspective takes on added importance. This does not mean
thatdifferentforumsmaynotrequiredifferentformsandstylesofanalysis
andargument.Itdoeshoweverforcethesequestionstothefore.Atamin
imum,decisionsaboutcriticaltoolscanbepursuedwhilerecognizingtheir
multipleandpossiblyconflictingimpacts.

56.SeeRIVISTACRITICADELDIRITTOPRIVATO,AnnoXXIX(2011)(specialeditiononpostcoloni
allawinLatinAmerica);seealsoRenewingLatinAmericanLegalStudies,HARVARDLAWSCHOOL
(Nov.13,2010),http://www.harvardiglp.org/uncategorized/november13renewinglatin
americanlegalstudies/
57.Seegenerally,TEXASLAWREVIEW,CONSTITUTIONALISMINLATINAMERICA(2011);FORDHAM
LAWREVIEW,LAWINLATINAMERICA(2011).
58.See,e.g.,AlvaroSantos,MexicanLaborLaw(onfilewithauthor).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

160

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

A. Law-and-society
ManylegalscholarsinLatinAmericancountriesaredrawntolawand
society approaches.59 This orientation has generally been associated with
theprogressiveleft.Itappearstoofferanalternativetothemuchmaligned
legalformalismunderstoodtobedominantinLatinAmerica.Additionally,
itoffersawaytospeakabouttheactualrealityofinequality,maldistribu
tionofresources,racialandotherformsofdiscrimination,lackoflegalen
forcement, and other ills prevailing in the country. For those focused on
theseissues,itiscertainlyapowerfultool.Atthesametime,thetraditional
field of legal Latin Americanism has primarily drawn on these same law
andsocietyinsights:thegapbetweenlawonthebooksandlawinaction,
theseparateoperationofsocialnorms,thepoordegreeoflegalpenetration
insociety,theprevalenceofonlypaperrules,theinsufficientrecognition
oflegalpluralism,etc.
Asdiscussedabove,emphasizingtheseimagesoflawintheregioncan
havesomeverypracticaleffects.Ithasservedastheoversizeddiagnosisof
Latin American law and the characteristic mode of lawanddevelopment
discourse. Relatedly, it has been quite effective in ushering in new legal
models,internationalbestpractices,andthelike.Intheend,LatinAmeri
cans and others find it quite easy to believe that that their legal systems
dont work and that developed societies legal systems do work. The par
ticular elements typically shown to demonstrate failure, however, are ra
therdisingenuous.Asnotedabove,theyareinmanyinstancestheendemic
shortcomings of liberal legal systems, only amplified. This tool for reform
comesatahighprice,however.ItscontinualusewhetherbylegalLatin
Americanists or legal scholars in Latin America perpetuates the view of
permanentfailure.
Thus,totheextentthatthismethodologyisindiscriminatelytrainedon
thelegalsystemasawholeratherthanonspecificissuesitreplicatesthe
samelegalfailurediagnosis.Intheirmostsystematicform,lawandsociety
critiquessurelyshowthatmodernliberallawcannotsatisfyitsownpreten
sions. Thesecritiques emphasize that law does notfully penetrate society,
andthatitcannotachievepurelegalobjectivityandjudicialindependence,
among other arguments. Still, by amplifying these insights of lawand
societyprimarilyonLatinAmericainparticular,thesecritiquescontinually
undermine those national legal systems in the broader global economy of
legalforms.

59.See,e.g.,DERECHOYSOCIEDADENAMRICALATINA:UNDEBATESOBRELOSESTUDIOS
JURDICOSCRTICOS(MauricioGarcaVillegas&CesarRodrguezGaravitoeds.,2003).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

161

Andyet,awelldirectedlawandsocietycritiquemaybequitepowerful
on an issue of local legal politics.60 Thus, such an approach remains no
doubt appealing to local legal political actors. Moreover, the dominant
forms of legal reasoning in much of Latin America further provoke these
broadrangingcritiquesoflawsoveralldisconnectiontosociety.Thedom
inantmodesoflegalreasoningorlegaldogmaticsappearquiteinsulat
edfrommoretransparentweighingofcompetinglocalinterestsandconse
quential effects.61 Thus, in the absence of a more routine representation of
theseelementswithinthestandardformsoflegalreasoning,theimageofa
systemwide gap critique remains very compelling. Its local deployment,
however, would be better informed if conducted with an eye toward its
impactintherealmofinternationallegalpolitics.Thatis,itsrepeatedusein
thelocaldomainatleastinitsformasasystemwidecritiquereinforces
thelegalLatinAmericanistviewofformallawsgeneralirrelevanceinLat
in America, with all the attendant negative consequences already dis
cussed.62 In brief, as a common systemwide critique, it has the negative
consequence of continually discrediting the whole of the legal system. In
thisway,itunderminestheverysocietalconfidenceneededtoimplement
theveryreformsbroughtaboutinthisway.
B. Distributional Analysis
Reducing all of law to distributional analysis is another direction for
LatinAmericanistlegalscholarship.Thisisapopularformofcriticalanaly
sisbylegalprogressivesintheU.S. 63ItisinspiredbyAmericanlegalreal
ism and looks to identify the real political and economic interests in any
givenlegalposition.Thistypeofanalysisgoesdirectlytothepoint.Itsat
tractivenessasatoolisunderstandable.Legaldebateisoftenshroudedin
terminologicalandconceptualobfuscationandconfusionastotherealin
terestsatplay.Asjustoneexample,someseeminglyegalitarianproposals
championingabstractconceptsofpersonallibertycanactuallyturnout,in
reality,tobenefittherichdisproportionatelyandtofurtherdisenfranchise
thoselesscapableofrealizingitspromises.Asaresult,intheoftenopaque
worldoflegaldiscourse,pointingoutthewinnersandlosersisapowerful
antidote.And,indeed,thispathiswelltroddenandquitepersuasive,espe
ciallyinleftleaningcircles.Inessence,ittreatslawassimplyanotherway
60.See,e.g.,MauricioGarcaVillegas,Noslodemercadovivelademocracia:elfenmenodel
(in)cumplimientodelderechoysurelacinconeldesarrollo,lajusticia,ylademocracia,6REVISTADE
ECONOMAINSTITUCIONAL95(2004).
61.SeeJorgeL.Esquirol,TheTurntoLegalInterpretationinLatinAmerica,26AM.U.INTLL.R.
1031(2011).
62.JorgeL.Esquirol,supranote15.
63.SeegenerallyLAW,STATE,ANDDEVELOPMENTINLAWINLATINAMERICA(DavidTrubek&
AlvaroSantoseds.,forthcoming)(onfilewithauthor).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

162

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

of doing politics and cuts through metaphysical, culturalist, economicist,

andothermystificationsofthelawandlegaldiscourse.Clearly,ithasmuch
to commend it. It gets to the heart of what we are all interested in who
winsandwholoses.
Asitiscommonlyperformedinlegalanalysis,distributionalanalysisis
mostlybasedonagutintuition,oranimpressionisticsenseofboththeef
fectsoflegalrulesandtheirultimateconsequencesondifferentconstituen
cies.64Butbothofthesefutureforecastsabouthowthelawwillworkitself
out,andhowitsconsequenceswillimpactthoseaffected,arehighlytenu
ous. Projections about winners and losers are based on rough approxima
tions,guesses,andintuitionaboutruleimplementation,intheshortorlong
term.Moreover,theseassertionsaboutwinnersandlosersinanygivencase
can also be further questioned. The analyst can be shown to be misin
formed,mistaken,ormisapprisedofthetrueinterestsofthoseaffectedor
the likely consequences of a rule change (although there may certainly be
someinstancesinwhichtherelevantinterestsandhowtheycutmayseem
quite clear.) As such, distributional analysis of this type can be endlessly
questionedbyskepticsdemandingevermorepreciseinformation.Granted,
gut impressions are likely at the base of all legalpolitical interventions in
anydebate.Onecouldnotdefendathesisifitwerenotforasenseorpref
erenceforonethingoveranother,likelyinformedbyroughestimatesabout
their outcomes. But, by putting these guesses upfront as the reason for a
decision,distributionalanalysishighlightsthiskindofqueryingasthebasis
ofdebate.
Thus, the distributional analysis discussed here consists of openly and
explicitlyarticulatingthelikelydistributionofpowerandresourcesresult
ingfromarule,withrespecttodifferentconstituencies,forthepurposeof
evaluatingitsdesirability.Thisdiscursiveshiftisclearlyappealinginmany
instances, especially in cases where those who stand to lose would get to
seetheirinterestsmoreclearly.However,whentransposedtocertainpolit
ical contexts, this approach may potentially have some quite counterpro
ductive effects. It may be that systematically making societal decisions
basedonaperceptionofwinnersandlosers,decidedbyamajorityvotefor
example,couldhavenegativeconsequencesfortheverypositionsprogres
sivesfavor.Indeed,thisrealist/criticalmovemayunderminetheverylegal
constructsthatcouldmostdirectlyadvanceprogressiveinterests(whatever
thosemaybeonagivenpoint).Thisisthecasebecausethisanalyticcon
tributestounderminingtheatleastmarginalconfidencethatisneededfor
lawtooperateasaviablesocialsystem.
Nonetheless,fromapurelydistributionalperspective,someoralloflaw
may be seen as pernicious, as it locks in certain earlier choices under the
64.SeeDanDanielsen,EconomicApproachestoGlobalRegulation:ExpandingtheInternationalLaw
andEconomicsParadigm,10J.INTLBUS.&L.23(2011).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

163

guiseoflegalrights.Inanyparticularpartyshand,legalrightscanthen
serveastrumpcardsofsortsincontemporarylegalpoliticalcontests.But,
for purposes of decisionmaking based on distributional analysis, every
thing should always be potentially up for grabs, with ultimate decisions
presumablymadebasedonpoliticaloreconomicpreferencesformedelse
where,outsideoflaw.Andyet,alllegalsystemsstrivefortheproperbal
ance between the need for legal certainty and legal flexibility. While legal
flexibility is undoubtedly needed, legal certainty is also important. And,
someofthatdesiredlegalcertaintyisprovidedbyholdingcertaininterests
constant,atleastinsomeareasforsomeperiodsoftime.Thesearegeneral
lymaintainedashumanrights,constitutionalguarantees,recognizedforms
of property, or other legal rights. (They may also be claimed on extra or
quasilegalnotionssuchaslegitimateexpectationsorhistoricalsocialgains,
amongotherthings.)Ofcourse,theseconceptsarenolesssubjecttocritique
and deconstruction. Their durability is based, no doubt, on impermanent
discursive consensuses produced through the medium of legal and other
societaldebates.
Withtheaboveinmind,onecouldthusspeakofthedistributionalanal
ysis of doing distributional analysis. That is, doing distributional analysis of
lawinaparticularlegalpoliticalcontextmayhavenegativeeffectsonones
ultimategoal,andthusevendistributionalanalysisselfconsciouslypur
suedwoulddirectagainstitsownuse.Moreover,anunrelentingdistribu
tional approach societywide would reject otherwise desirable objectives
arrivedatthroughthelogicoflegalguarantees.Thisisnottosaythatdis
tributional arguments cannot be a valuable intervention. However, for
purposesofconsideringitsinternationallegalpoliticaldimension,asismy
intenthere,reducinglegalanalysisinLatinAmericadowntoonlypolitical
andeconomicchoicesreinforcestheviewoflegalfailureintheregion.In
deed,asmentionedabove,acommonperceptionisthatdecisionalchoices
arenotactuallyprocessedthroughanalysisoflegalmaterialsandtheintel
lectual work that legal reasoning implies. Rather, political and economic
choicesaremadeelsewherebasedonotherdecisionalmodesandsimp
ly dressed up in the language of law. Thus, distributional analysis as the
onlylegitimateanalyticalengagementforprogressivesoratleasttheonly
onenotsubjecttoimmediatecynicaldisbeliefbycriticalcolleaguesrein
forcestheview,andthepractice,ofmarginalizinglegalreasoninginLatin
America.
C. Essentialism
Anotherexamplerelatestotheinternationalhierarchyofnationallegal
systems. The predominant picture left by lawanddevelopment is one of
inferior,ifnotaltogethermarginal,nationallegalsystemsinLatinAmerica.

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

164

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

This has a number of deleterious effects, already noted. Not least is the
backgrounditsetsforreformproposals,internationalagencyaction,nego
tiations of trade treaties (especially when national law becomes relevant)
andthelike.Ifthesecharacterizationsoffailureweretoberejected,aquite
differentinterventioninlegalgeopoliticscouldtaketheformofcountering
suchimagesbypresentingandengagingafullerrangeofparticularLatin
Americanlegalcommunities.
Recently,anumberofprogressivescholarshavebeguntocontributein
this very way. Some have shown the actual agency of Latin Americans in
theprocessofinternationallegalreform,suchasadversarialcriminalpro
cedure,pleabargaining,ornewlegalformssuchascollectiveconstitutional
actions.65 Latin Americans are shown in the role of producing and imple
menting law. Alternatively, scholars have also described the creative pro
cess of legal theorizing in Latin America.66 This combats the generalized
perceptionproducedbytheEuropeanstrainofcomparativismthatLat
in American legal consciousness is merely mimetic of European legal
thought. Additionally, my own work has critiqued the faulty diagnosis of
legalfailureundergirdinglegaldevelopmentreform.67Specifically,thatdi
agnosischieflyreflectsendemicshortcomingsofmodernliberallaw,which
are not particular to Latin America but which are amplified on to the re
gion.FacedwiththegeneralperceptionoflawlessnessinLatinAmerica,I
have also sought to highlight the existing legal capital (or acquis lgaux).
This latter term refers to the sum of societal investment, institutions, cul
ture,andeducationinlawinLatinAmerica,whichissignificant.
Insuchdebates,however,theseinterventionsmayproducedifferentre
actionsacrossthedistinctarenasoflegalpoliticaldiscourse.Fromtheper
spective of a progressive scholar in the center, all of these proposals may
seemtosharethemistakenbeliefthatthereissomethingrealaboutnational
identity. In other words, all of these interventions seeking to combat the
dominant and harmful image of Latin American legal inferiority may ap
peartomakethemistakeofassertingthereissuchathingasLatinAmeri
canorColombian,Mexican,Argentineanlegalityatall.Pointingtothe
agency, creativity, or accumulation of resources of legal actors in Latin
America could be seen as making a nationalist argument highlighting the
local identity of law. Certainly, anything of the sort sounds like another
one of the unbelievable mystifications that critical legal scholars in the
globalNorthwouldquicklyeschew.

65.MximoLanger,FromLegalTransplantstoLegalTranslations:TheGlobalizationofPleaBargain
ingandtheAmericanizationThesisinCriminalProcedure,45HARV.INTLL.J.1(2004);Angel
Oquendo,UppingtheAnte:CollectiveLitigationinLatinAmerica,47COLUM.J.TRANSNATLL.248
(2009).
66.MEDINA,supranote4.
67.Esquirol,supranote15.

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

165

Fromtheperspectiveofnationallegaldebate,nationalistargumentsfor
legalreformhave,theworldover,beenatriedandtrueelementintherep
ertory of legal political argument. While it may not have any determinate
politicalvalence,inanyonelocaleitmaybethatthenationalistpositionat
anyonetime,sayforexamplethedominantMexicanlaborlaw,mayactual
lyprovequiteregressive.Inturn,aprogressivelegalscholarmaythenno
doubt want to advance the critique of identity construction against it.
Moreover,suchalegalscholarmaywanttoshowthatsustainingthisiden
tificationwiththenationalessencemayprovedisadvantageoustomanyin
thenation.
Taking these scenarios together, critiquing Mexican labor law and
demonstratingLatinAmericanlegalcapital,presumablypresentamethod
ologicalconundrum.Thefirstrejectsessentialistargumentsinlaw.These
condapparentlyrequiresthem.Ofcourse,theresolutionofthisquandary
maysimplybetopointoutthatagency,creativityandresourcesinlawin
LatinAmericacanbedefendedwithoutmakinganessentialistclaim.These
featuresarenotuniquelyorespeciallyLatinAmerican,buttheyarepresent
thereasinmanyotherplaces.Yet,thepointstillremainsthatthemethodo
logical tactics in one arena may play out very differently in another and
may,onanyoneissueorsetofissues,presentscholarswithacontradiction
of approaches, if not politics. It is in these junctures, especially, that con
temporaryprogressivescholarsaredevelopingthemostinterestingwork.
D. Latin Americans as the new Latin Americanists
For progressives, legal Latin Americanism presents a real conundrum.
Thereisforemosttheissueofrelativepowerdynamicsthatcomeintoplay
betweentraditionallymindedLatinAmericanistsandLatinAmericabased
legal scholars.68 Specifically, Latin American scholarswriting about law in
theirhomecountries,inthecenter,arequicklydrawntothedominantex
istingframeworks forspeaking about the topic. In this regard,the discus
sion and reflection has gotten to the point where Latin Americanbased
scholarsquestionthepossibilityofamorehorizontalengagement,oreven
theexpressionontheirowntermsoflegalrealitiesinLatinAmericaforau
diencesintheglobalNorth.69Thisapprehensionisexpressedintheworry
that Latin Americans must become Latin Americanists in order to be
heardintheNorth.70Asnotedabove,thisrelatestothemodesofdiscourse
thought to be convincing and the types of concerns that are deemed rele
vant.
68.DanielBonilla,LegalClinicsintheGlobalNorthandSouth:BetweenEqualityandSubordina
tionAnEssay,16YALEHUM.RTS.&DEV.L.J.176(2013).
69.Id.
70.ELDERECHOENAMRICALATINA,supranote44.

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

166

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

OneapproachtocounterthishegemonyofLatinAmericanistsoverin
formationaboutLatinAmericaistorevindicatealocalepistemologyofLat
in American concerns.71 In this vein, the mere fact of Latin Americans
speaking in the global North about issues in their particular locations
wouldprovideanantidote.Simplyexpressinganddescribingissuesoflaw,
in whatever vocabulary or theoretical mode is prevalent in specific local
debates, would then be privileged over the competing accounts and
worldviewsofLatinAmericanists.Thismovewouldsimplyattempttoflip
the hegemonic relationship of Latin Americanist discourse and local dis
courseaboutlaw.
Thisfliphasanumberofimmediatedrawbacks,however.Intermsof
engagingLatinAmericanistdiscourse,itmerelyattemptstosubstituteone
for the other. And, this move is, in my view,already prefigured and dis
missedwithinlegaldiscourseinthecenter.Merelydisplayingasampleof
local legal discourse for transnational audiences is typically viewed as a
sort of irrelevant exoticism. The issues and questions raised are likely not
connectedtoongoingdebatesinthecenterortosharedperspectivesonfor
eign relations and international politics in the global North. Moreover, it
maybedifficultforactorsinthecentertodecipherthewayinwhichlocal
debatesareconducted,theparticularanalyticsemployed,andtheinterpre
tations given to sources and events. Local legal debates in Latin America
may operate on a different plane of argumentation and evoke different
modesofpersuasion.Indeed,localdiscursiveroutinesandtechniquesmay
be viewedfrom the outside with some skepticism, not equallyconvincing
to transnational audiences of the truth or logic of their assertions. Rather,
theymayandinfact,withrespecttosomeLatinAmericanstylesoflegal
reasoningare commonly viewed as part of a mistaken or anachronistic
repertoireofargumentativetechniques.
Thus resurfaces the complaint of Latin American scholars that to be
heardintheglobalNorththeymustbecomeLatinAmericanists.Thisinef
fectmeansthattheymustemploytherangeofargumentativeconventions
andadopttheliketheoreticalbaggageofscholarsintheglobalNorth.Only
inthiswaycantheybeeffectivelyheardthere.Thisofcoursemeansview
ingLatinAmericathroughtherefractedprismthatlegalareastudiesschol
arshaveconstructed.Toavoidthis,insistingonaseparateLatinAmerican
epistemology of law may, at first, seem like alogical objective. One could
say that the Latin Americanists in the global North have simply gotten it
wrong.Duetotheirinsufficientunderstandingoftheregion,andthevast
ness of the intertextuality of sources and conventions in local legal dis
course, area studies scholars have not been sufficiently able to penetrate
and understand the questions and modes of analysis addressed by Latin
71.BOAVENTURADESOUZASANTOS,REFUNDACINDELESTADOENAMRICALATINA:
PERSPECTIVASDESDEUNAEPISTEMOLOGADELSUR(2010).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

167

Americans.Assuch,LatinAmericanlegalscholarscouldsimplyturntheir
backsonlegalLatinAmericanismalltogetherandparticipateinanalterna
tivenetworkandfieldoftheirowncreation.Thisapproachwouldcertainly
addtoLatinAmericanlegalareastudiesbyprivilegingtheepistemological
frames of legal discourse in Latin America. Latin Americanists, in turn,
wouldthenhavetomasterthisdiscoursetoremainrelevant.Thisshiftmay
introducemoreoftheactualconcernsofpeoplelivinginLatinAmerica,or
internationalizelocaldebatesinparticularLatinAmericancountries.These
wouldreproduceforforeignaudiences,anddemandthatthelatteraccept,
locallegaldiscourseasanauthoritativeexpressionandpresentationoflocal
legalknowledge.
However, simply reproducing local Latin American legal discourse for
transnationalaudiencesfailstoengagetheexistingcommitmentsofthein
tellectualcommunityinthecenter.LegalLatinAmericanismexistsbecause
thereisanactualdemandforinformationandanalysisofthelegalsystems
intheregionfromtheperspectiveandcapacitytocomprehendoftransna
tionalaudiences.Indeed,possiblymoreprominentlyinthelegalfieldthan
in other disciplines, the different discursive communities have different
conventions,theoreticalguideposts,andrepertoiresofargumentation.Thus
not all local legal discourse is transparently transferable to debates in the
centerinawaythatwouldmakesense.Infact,duetotheemphasisoflegal
realismwithinlegalLatinAmericanismmanylinesoflocalargumentation
may seem excessively formalistic or nonconvincing. Additionally, many
references to European or doctrinal authorities could seem quite esoteric.
Thesemaynodoubtbeincrediblysophisticated,andmaydemonstratesig
nificant theoretical insights, but may not be easily recognizable in main
streamdebatesinthecenter.Andstill,knowledgeaboutlawinLatinAmer
ica in the center is crucially important. It is equally important that this
informationbepresentedanddebatedinwaysthatareactuallypersuasive
and authoritative. Thus, legal Latin Americanism cannot be simply re
placed by ignoring its particular jurisprudential history, conventions, and
deepseatedbeliefs,whileattemptingtocreatearivaltransnationalSouth
South legal Latin Americanism. Rather, the field must be confronted with
different methodological and conceptual tools. It is this promise that the
expandedranksoflegalscholarsfromLatinAmericamighthelpfulfill.
E. Critical in the Center
More relevant than the difference between Latin Americans and Latin
Americanistsis,infact,themethodologicalapproachesagivenscholarem
ploys. Latin Americans more newly participating in debates in the center
may quite unexceptionally adopt the same analytical frameworks as their
Latin Americanist counterparts. Indeed, this is commonly the case. In an

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

168

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

effort to continue the conversation and to engage international audiences,

scholarsfromtheregionmayautomaticallyadoptandrefracttheirobserva
tions through the existing conventions. As such, adding Latin American
based scholars to the ranks of Latin Americanists may do little to change
thecentralparadigms.Theformermayindeedmorefirmlyentrenchtheex
istingframeworks,withtheaddedauthorityofthesescholarslocalconnec
tionsandauthenticity.
Thus,inordertoevaluatethedifferentcontributionsthatLatinAmerica
based scholars may make to legal area studies, it is necessary to consider
thevaryingintellectualapproachestheymaybring.Indeed,itisnotthatin
the past Latin Americanists and Latin Americans have operated in com
pletelydifferentworlds.Therearemanypointsofconnection.Infact,this
essay has sought to highlight them. Thus, the idea here is not one of dis
connection.Rather,itisthattherearesubstantialdifferencesbetweenlegal
LatinAmericanismandnationallegaldiscourseinLatinAmerica.Thesein
cludetheemphasesofthesefieldswhetherlegal,political,orsocialscience;
andthedifferentmethodsandconventionsofengagementwithinparticu
larfields.
Certainly, some analytical approaches are shared rather seamlessly, as
thediscussionaboveoflawandsocietyabovedemonstrates.Thisparticu
larmethodisaverycommonapproach.Yet,itfunctionssomewhatdiffer
entlythanlawandsocietyargumentsintheU.S.Inthelatter,theseargu
ments are frequently used to update existing laws in response to actual
conditions, or to consider the consequences of legal alternatives in opera
tion.Theymayprovidetheargumentsforlegalreform,achangeinalineof
judicialdecisions,andthelike.InLatinAmerica,though,thismodeofar
gumenthasbecomemostlyanindictmentoftheentirelegalsystemforits
inconsistencywiththelocalculture.Anotherexampleistheeconomicanal
yses of law.72 Deferring to economics, in this regard, offers a common
bridge of communication. Again, this methodology is often deployed to
makewholesalechangesinlegalinstitutionsandtosupplantlocallawwith
internationalbestpracticesandforeignmodels.
Bywayofanotherexample,criticallegalanalysisintheU.S.isaveryef
fectivetoolforshowingtheincoherenceinalineofcasesordoctrinalarea
ofthelaw.73Thecontradictionsofreasoningarethencommonlyshownas
supportingapoliticallyregressiveoutcome.Itisquiteeffectiveinshowing
thatsuchanoutcomeisnotanecessaryoutgrowthofmerelegalreasoning.
In fact, quite the contrary, it is not determinatively supported by it. The
same may be said about arguments based on cultural norms or national
identity. The objective is much the same, showing the incoherence of the
72.SeeEdgardoBuscaglia&ThomasS.Ulen,AQuantitativeAssessmentoftheJudicialSectorin
LatinAmerica,17INTLREV.L.&ECON.1275(1997).
73.See,e.g.,DUNCANKENNEDY,ACRITIQUEOFADJUDICATION:FINDESICLE(1998).

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

2013

Legal Latin Americanism

DAVID

169

constructedentitytomakewayforarethinkingorrearrangementoflegal
norms. In Latin America, by contrast, a dominance of critical analysis of
this type may simply add to the already existing picture of the pretextual
natureoflaw,understoodascoveringovereliteinterestsandarbitrariness.
Transposed unthinkinglyand in this single formto legal Latin Ameri
canism,itmayhavesomeratherunintendedeffects.Appliedsystemwide,
itcouldsimplyreinforcetheexistingdiagnosisthatlawandlegaldiscourse
areirrelevantinLatinAmerica.
This is not to say these analytical tools are inherently suspect for pro
gressivesworkingonLatinAmerica.Itmerelyshowshowboththetarget
of critique and the surrounding general ideology about law significantly
influencethemeaningandimpactofspecificinterventions.Thesamecriti
caltechniquesmayhavequitedifferenteffectswhendirectedatlawinthe
global North. No doubt, these differences are due to contextual or inter
textualfactorssuchastherelativestrengthoftheideologysupportingthe
legalsysteminplace,indifferentlocations.Additionally,theytendtodiffer
astothelevelatwhichthesecritiquesaredirected.Whereascriticalattacks
intheglobalNorthoftenfocusonparticularlawsorinstitutions,theclaims
ofLatinAmericanistsoftenextendtothelegalsystemaswholeandnotto
individuallegislationorlinesofjudicialprecedent.
V. CONCLUSION
It is important to recall that legal Latin Americanism cannot be simply
dismissedasjustirrelevantorcompletelymissingthemark.Quitethecon
trary:itsmostcommonpositionsareoftenbackedandadoptedbyinterna
tional agencies and the U.S. government. As a result, internationally sup
ported legal reform is often produced and justified entirely within these
circuits.And,thesehaveadirecteffectinLatinAmerica.Theymaybein
troducedpredominantlyinpoliticalways,withthesupportofgovernment
officials and the main actors in important legal institutions rather than
throughbroadjuristicdebate,butstilltheyhavethepowertochangebroad
sectorsofnationallegalinstitutionality.Untilrecently,juristsintheregion
weremostlyunattunedtothisbodyofscholarship,despitetheirextensive
awareness of European and U.S. legal scholarship. Nonetheless, despite
theirrelativedisengagementwiththeselawanddevelopmentdebatesand
theprojectstheydirectlyorindirectlysupport,allthoselivingintheregion
have experienced the changes these internationally funded reforms have
wrought.
As such, the discourse of Latin Americanists has had a very tangible
impact on Latin America. As noted this discourse has been mainly at the
policyandpoliticallevel.Thesedebateswerenotsignificantlytakenupby
thelocallegaldiscoursenorwidelyassimilatedbylocaljurists.Now,how
ever,withincreasingparticipationofLatinAmericansand,inturn,increas

ESQUIROL ARTICLE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE)

170

YALE HUMAN RIGHTS & DEVELOPMENT L.J.

DAVID

Symposium

ing penetration of Latin Americanist discourse in Latin America, these

frameworksaremoredirectlybecomingapartoflocallegaldebate.Again,
thishasledsomelocalscholarstoconsidertheneedtobecomeLatinAmer
icanists themselves in order to effectively participate in this changing dis
cursive environment. The dividing line, however, is not so much between
LatinAmericansandLatinAmericanistsasitisbetweenthemethodsthese
adopt and where those methods are focused. Some methodological ap
proaches are already widely shared. Lawandeconomics and lawand
societyaretwomainexamples.Theobjectivestowhicheachareputinthe
globalNorthandinLatinAmericacanbequitedifferent,however,asnoted
above. The same is true for more progressive scholarship. These face par
ticular challenges in straddling the Latin America and Latin Americanist
divide. A certain form of systematic radical critique has already been the
hallmarkoflegalLatinAmericanismanditsoverlydismissiveviewoflaw
intheregion.
Myobjectivehere,intheend,isnottopromoteanyparticularuniformi
tyindiscursivefieldsortoargueforaparticularnotionoforthodoxyorco
herence in anyones scholarly practices. Rather, a mark of contemporary
progressivethoughtisarecognitionofthechangingnatureofmethodolog
icalapproachesandcommitmentsinlightofcontextualcircumstances.Asa
result, it would come as no surprise to anyone that todays critique of a
dominantsocialconstruction,sayrightstalk,canbecometomorrowstaking
abreakfromcritiquesofrightstalk.Furthermore,thisessayisnotanexhor
tationtoalifelongormultipleissuecommitmenttoanysortofmethodo
logical checklist. However, it is intended as a call to cognizance of the ef
fects that thinking in solely one legalpolitical frame may produce in
another.Animportantstartingpoint,Iwouldsuggest,isinjectinglegalLat
inAmericanismwiththespecificcriticalinsightsthatlocallegaldebatesin
LatinAmericamayprovide.