Global capitalism and the rule of law

Robbie Pye  - Doctoral Researcher, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield

Given its focus on how the rule of law is conceptualised and how it has become established as the common sense of global politics, it will come as little surprise that May’s research is based on a social constructivist perspective.  Drawing on the work of Charles Taylor, this conceptualises the rule of law as a social imaginary, a shared understanding interactively developed by actors as they make sense of the world they inhabit.  May’s theoretical position is developed more thoroughly in a ‘methodological interlude’ within which he outlines, among others, the work of Susan Strange, Margaret Archer and Robert Cox.  This section situates the research in a critical perspective that recognises the power dynamics and role of those social forces that underpin the production of knowledge; in this case, the forces that underpin the development and reproduction of the idea of the rule of law.

There are, however, some limitations in May’s account.  At times, it is difficult to link the theory to May’s primary argument about the rule of law.  His account of the development of this global rule of law norm in chapter 3 highlights the agency of epistemic communities of legal actors, though it is not clear what the role of these actors is when it comes to the post-conflict and economic development cases examined in chapters 4 and 5.  It may be that epistemic communities of lawyers have established the rule of law as common sense in global politics, but thicker conceptions have been driven forward and underpinned by other social forces.

Similarly, it is unclear if this global thin idea of the rule of law relates to the ideas of neoliberalism, which are outlined quite critically at various points in this book.  The neoliberal idea of the rule of law is described as a ‘thin procedural mechanism to deliver the order required for the expansion of capitalist markets’ (p. 186), whilst the global rule of law norm is also described as constituting ‘the thinnest end of the continuum’ (p. 185).  Yet a clear link between these two ideas of the rule of law is not made explicit.

This relates to another issue present in this book, something which is at times a strength and at times a weakness.  Beyond the introduction, the book relies extensively on a wide array of academic literatures, spanning economics, politics and law, to make its argument.  Whilst a strong understanding and clear account of such broad bodies of literature are provided, and the author undoubtedly does a good job in bringing together such a variety of scholarly work, it is occasionally not clear what constitutes part of his argument and what he is simply reflecting upon.

Overall, however, Christopher May provides a compelling account of the rule of law as the common sense of global politics.  This supplies a strong foundation for further research bridging political economy and law, particularly into the relationship between the idea of the rule of law and the global expansion of neoliberal capitalism.  More research in this direction would be a welcome addition to further conceptualisation on how the rule of law interacts with economics.