Biolegality

This volume showcases emerging interdisciplinary scholarship that captures the complex ways in which biological knowledge is testing the nature and structure of legal personhood. Key questions include: What do the new biosciences do to our social, cultural, and legal conceptions of personhood? How does our legal apparatus incorporate new legitimations from the emerging biosciences into its knowledge system? And what kind of ethical, socio-political, and scientific consequences are attached to the establishment of such new legalities? The book examines these problems by looking at materialities, the posthuman, and the relational in the (un)making of legalities. Themes and topics include postgenomic research, gene editing, neuroscience, epigenetics, precision medicine, regenerative medicine, reproductive technologies, border technologies, and theoretical debates in legal theory on the relationship between persons, property, and rights.

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the empirical and theoretical problems posed by the encounter between law and biology in the twenty-first century. How does biotechnology and new bioscientific knowledge affect our legal institutions, our sense of justice, and our ways of relating to one another? To answer these questions, authors Marc de Leeuw and Sonja van Wichelen examine the complex and often contested ways in which biotechnology and biological knowledge are reworked by, with, and against legal knowledge. As this book shows, recent developments in the life sciences—including molecular biology, immunology, and the neurosciences—and their applications in forensics, medicine, and agriculture test longstanding legal forms, such as property, personhood, parenthood, and (collective) identity, ultimately constituting the current field of “biolegality.” The authors argue that these biolegal contestations represent philosophical and anthropological challenges to existing understandings of exchange, self, kinship, and community. By addressing how biology and law inform new ways of relating and knowing, the book proposes a programmatic intervention, asserting the pivotal role the study of biolegality plays in advancing social and political theory.

This book analyses the relationship between law and violence, the utility of law over violence and whether legality as an approach has an inherent disability in addressing mass violence as a crime. The study is located within international law and assesses whether prosecuting political violence would necessarily entail an abuse of the legal process. The intention is to encourage definition of criminal aggression via legal processes laid down by the International Criminal Court, rather than giving favour to political action under the United Nations Charter. Issues discussed in the book include the controversies over the location of the crime of aggression in either law or politics, taking a legal approach to the problems outlined. Using examples from Libya, the Ivory Coast, and Kenya, the work will be of interest to those working in the areas of international criminal justice, international law, legal theory, and international relations.

Rapid advances in genetics and medicine present both opportunities and threats to the advancement of human rights and public health in this era of globalization. While such advances contribute significantly to progress against disease, they may also pose profound global public policy concerns in that the ethical and policy considerations that follow from scientific advances lag far behind. In this context, the aim of this book is to present the current global efforts to develop common principles relating to biomedicine. Section I sets forth the pivotal role that the principle of human dignity plays in this domain, and identifies a number of other principles that can be drawn from the recent international policy documents on bioethics. Section II provides detailed commentaries on recent international instruments relating to biomedicine adopted by UNESCO and the Council of Europe. Section III elaborates upon specific biomedical human rights issues that are the subject of contemporary international standard-setting efforts, including biomedical research, population biobanks, genetic testing, and advance directives. Essays in each of these sections examine the extent to which promoting and protecting human rights has created a common framework for contemporary international lawmaking in the field of biomedicine and the strengths and limitations of international law as a tool for advancing biomedical human rights.

This book addresses a significant gap in the literature and provides a comprehensive overview of the sociology of forensic science. Drawing on a wealth of international research and case studies, this book explores the intersection of science, technology, law and society and examines the production of forensic knowledge. This book explores a range of key topics such as: The integration of science into police work and criminal investigation, The relationship between law and science, Ethical and social issues raised by new forensic technology including DNA analysis, Media portrayals of forensic science, Forensic policy and the international agenda for forensic science. This book is important and compelling reading for students taking a range of courses, including criminal investigation, policing, forensic science, and the sociology of science and technology.

This book configures a consistent epistemology of biolaw that distinguishes itself from bioethics and from a mere set of international instruments on the regulation of biomedical practices. Such orthodox intellection has prevented biolaw from being understood as a new branch of law with legally binding force, which has certainly dwindled its epistemological density. Hence, this is a revolutionary book as it seeks to deconstruct the history of biolaw and its oblique epistemologies, which means not accepting perennial axioms, and not seeing paradigms where only anachronism and anomaly still exist. It is a book aimed at validity, but also at solidity because the truth of biolaw has never been told before. In that sense, it is also a revealing text. The book shapes biolaw as an independent and compelling branch of law, with a legally binding scope, which boosts the effectiveness of new deliberative models for legal sciences, as well as it utterly reinforces hermeneutical and epistemological approaches, in tune with the complexity of disturbing legal scenarios created by biomedical sciences’ latest applications. This work adeptly addresses the origins of the European biolaw and its connections with American bioethics. It also analyses different biolaw’s epistemologies historically developed both in Europe and in the United States, to finally offer a new conception of biolaw as a new branch of law, by exploring its theoretical and practical atmospheres to avoid muddle and uncertainty when applied in biomedical settings. This book is suitable for academics and students of biolaw, law, bioethics, and biomedical research, as well as for professionals in higher education institutions, courts, the biomedical industry, and pharmacological companies.

This edited volume covers new ground by bringing together perspectives from symbolic legislation theory on the one hand, and from biolaw and bioethics on the other hand. Symbolic legislation has a bad name. It usually refers to instances of legislation which are ineffective and that serve other political and social goals than the goals officially stated. Recently, a more positive notion of symbolic legislation has emerged in legislative theory. From this perspective, symbolic legislation is regarded as a positive alternative to the more traditional, top-down legislative approach. The legislature no longer merely issues commands backed up with severe sanctions, as in instrumental legislation. Instead, lawmakers provide open and aspirational norms that are meant to change behavior not by means of threat, but indirectly, through debate and social interaction. Since the 1990s, biomedical developments have revived discussions on symbolic legislation. One of the reasons is that biomedical legislation touches on deep-rooted, symbolic-cultural representations of the biological aspects of human life. Moreover, as it is often impossible to reach consensus on these controversial questions, legislators have sought alternative ways to develop legal frameworks. Consequently, communicative and interactive approaches to legislation are prominent within the governance of medical biotechnology. The symbolic dimensions of biolaw are often overlooked. Yet, it is clear that the symbolic is at the heart of many legal-political debates on bioethical questions. Since the rise of biomedical technologies, human body materials have acquired a scientific, medical and even commercial value. These new approaches, which radically question existing legal symbolizations of the human body, raise the question whether and how the law should continue to reflect symbolic values and meanings. Moreover, how can we decide what these symbolic values are, given the fact that we live in a pluralistic society?