Abstract
This article addresses the conditions of possibility for the precautionary turn in legal discourse. Although the precautionary turn itself has been well-detailed in both legal and political discourse (De Goede, 2008; Van Munster, 2004), insufficient attention has been paid to what made this shift possible. By remedying this gap with an analysis of the judiciary’s use of crisis discourse, this article calls attention to crisis as a point of hegemonic struggle. This insight is relevant to all uses of crisis discourse, even after 9/11, and entails a responsibility for those engaged in legal discourse to consciously intervene in this struggle of legal meaning.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
