This book focuses on the paradoxical character of law and specifically concerns the structural violence of law as the political imposition of normative order onto a "lawless" condition. The paradox of law which grounds and motivates Christoph Menke's intervention is that law is both the opposite of violence and, at the same time, a form of violence. The book develops its engagement with the paradox of law in two stages. The first shows why, and in what precise sense, the law is irreducibly characterized by structural violence. The second explores the possibility of law becoming self-reflectively aware of its own violence and, hence, of the form of a self-critique of law in view of its own violence. The Book's philosophical claims are developed through analyses of works of drama: two classical tragedies in the first part and two modern dramas in the second part. It attempts to illuminate the paradoxical nature of law by way of a philosophical interpretation of literature. There are at least two normative orders within the European ethical horizon that should be called "legal orders" even though they forego the use of coercion and are thus potentially nonviolent. These are international law and Jewish law. Understanding the relationship between law and violence is one of the most urgent challenges a postmodern critical legal theory faces today. Self-reflection, the philosophical concept that plays a key role in the essay, stands opposed to all forms of spontaneity.
question whether a particular punishment (such
as the death penalty) is “cruel and unusual” remain contentious: even
the most liberal and humanitarian reform of penal law cannot resolve
the fundamental doubt whether the counter-violations law inflicts in
the name of political equality are justified or in fact execute the rule of
existing social and economicinequalities. The formal difference of law,
in which alone its legitimacy consists, is forever liable to be perceived
as merely formal; law can always be seen as class justice or the victor’s
But as Walter
studies from the 1950s include P. A. Baran, The Political Economy
of Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957 ), and G. Myrdal, Development and Underdevelopment:
A Note on the Mechanism of National and International EconomicInequality (Cairo: National Bank of Egypt, 1956 ).
The Group of G-77 would declare that theirs