Keith Culver

Complementing Comparison: Renewing Analytical Legal Theory to Meet the Explanatory Challenge of Globalisation

Abstract It is now beyond question that legal theory risks parochialism and diminished interest if it fails to understand the implications of globalisation for law. Historically state-focused analytical legal theory, once a dominant force in jurisprudential debate, is thought by some to be especially likely to fade into irrelevance. William Twining has been a particularly acute critic of analytical legal theory, offering arguments whose force is amplified by Twinings long history of work from within that tradition. Twining argues that analytical legal theorys state-centred approach and analytic method of conceptual analysis render it incapable of taking globalisation seriously. In response, we argue that analytical legal theorists might well take Twinings criticisms of them not as the end of their relevance, but instead as a challenge to explain how their methods and subject matter are capable of renewal and expansion. In this paper we take some initial steps towards showing how this might be done.

A Mosaic Portrait of European Integration

With the second edition of Theorizing European Integration, Dimitris Chryssochoou offers readers a wonderfully thorough and comprehensive survey of social scientific responses to the question ‘what is the nature of the European Union?’, together with his own contribution of a nuanced variety of a theory of ‘organized synarchy’ capturing the European Union as it is now, and as it might wish to be in the future. Rooted in the insights and methods of political science yet reaching beyond to international relations, sociology and other near neighbours, Chryssochoou’s exploration of European integration is essential reading for anyone concerned with the political processes of European integration. For political scientists, Theorizing European Integration will be a welcome reminder of trends; for lawyers and legal theorists the book will be an important complement to their concerns; and for students the book will serve as a treasure-trove of exegesis and pinpoint citation of key claims and evidence offered by major figures in the field of European integration. It is perhaps useful to describe Chryssochoou’s approach as something like the construction of a mosaic: the overall portrait he draws of the European Union can be seen from afar via the outlines offered by chapter titles and illustrative subheadings, but, as the reader draws nearer, it becomes clear that the portrait is composed of hundreds of deftly placed and cited paraphrases and direct quotations. The elements of the portrait share certain features even as each piece of the mosaic is distinct. While Chryssochoou draws broadly on the social sciences, most of the debates he surveys are among political scientists, and Chryssochoou and the authors he surveys largely presume a basic knowledge of the constitutive treaties, major institutions and political history of the European Union. The discussion Chryssochoou depicts tends to remain relatively distant from the empirical phenomena it is ultimately about. The book is, after all, about theorising, and it does just that, focusing particularly on ontological and epistemological (2010) 1(3) Transnational Legal Theory 475–478

The Mark of Innovation in Aquaculture: The Role of Intangible Assets

Aquaculture faces a complex future in developed states. Few doubt that aquaculture brings at least some social and economic benefits to coastal and rural communities, yet there are many reasonable worries about the social and environmental sustainability of aquaculture, and many obstacles to implementation of research-based solutions to those worries. Governments have nonetheless continued to subsidise R&D efforts in aquaculture, with special preference given to research efforts which bridge the gap between university researchers’ experimental results and solution of industry issues. Prominent organizations include the recently discontinued Canadian research network AquaNet which operated from 1999 to 2006 (www.aquanet.ca for legacy webpages) and the European consortium Seafoodplus (www.seafoodplus.org) which represent two especially sophisticated attempts to develop a new mode of R&D. These government-subsidised research bodies aim to provide researchers and end-users with incentives to collaborate in problemfocussed research generating practically relevant, near-term results for end-users, in turn accelerating and increasing production of social and economic wealth. These attempts are closely watched by governments seeking return on national investment in aquaculture R&D (OECD 1996, 1999). Here our trouble begins: what, exactly, is the mark of successful bridging of the gap, sufficient to warrant continued confidence in the ability of aquaculture to innovate in response to emerging challenges? And aside from this question regarding the conditions for successful aquaculture R&D, what about the success of aquaculture R&D marks it as especially deserving of continued national investment, as just one innovative sector amongst many seeking national investment within national and supra-national systems of innovation? I offer a two-part argument, largely in the context of the Canadian national system of innovation, but with direct relevance to similarly structured systems present in many other OECD states engaged in aquaculture. The first part argues that it