1932

Abstract

Infrastructures are technical-social assemblages infused in politics and power relations. They spur public action, prompting increased scholarly reference to the practices of infrastructural publics. This article explores the normative and conceptual meanings of infrastructures, publics, and infrastructural publics. It distills from political theory traditions of Hannah Arendt, Jürgen Habermas, and Nancy Fraser a normative ideal of publics composed of the persons subject to a particular configuration of power relations that may significantly affect their autonomy. Autonomy can be seriously affected not only by existing or planned infrastructures, with their existing or anticipating users and workers and objectors, but also by the lack of an infra-structure or by the terms of infrastructural exclusions, rationings, channelings, and fiscal impositions. Legal-institutional mechanisms provide some of the means for infrastructural publics to act and be heard, and for conflicts between or within different publics to be addressed, operationalizing legal ideas of publicness. These mechanisms are often underprovided or misaligned with infrastructure. One reason is the murkiness and insecurity of relations of infrastructural publics to legal publics constituted or framed as such by institutions and instruments of law and governance. We argue that thoughtful integration of infrastructural and legal scaling and design, accompanied by a normative aspiration to publicness, may have beneficial effects.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-011521-082856
2021-10-13
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/17/1/annurev-lawsocsci-011521-082856.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-011521-082856&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abizadeh A. 2012. On the demos and its kin: nationalism, democracy, and the boundary problem. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 106:4867–82
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anand N. 2011. Pressure: the politechnics of water supply in Mumbai. Cult. Anthropol. 26:4542–64
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anand N. 2017. Hydraulic City: Water and the Infrastructures of Citizenship in Mumbai Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anand N 2018. A public matter: water, hydraulics, biopolitics. The Promise of Infrastructure N Anand, A Gupta, H Appel 155–72 Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anghie A. 2004. Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Appel H. 2012. Walls and white elephants: oil extraction, responsibility, and infrastructural violence in Equatorial Guinea. Ethnography 13:4439–65
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Appel H, Anand N, Gupta A 2018. Introduction: temporality, politics and the promise of infrastructure. The Promise of Infrastructure N Anand, A Gupta, H Appel 1–38 Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Arendt H 1968. Crisis in culture. Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought H Arendt 197–226 New York: Viking
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Arendt H. 1998 (1958. The Human Condition Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Arrhenius G 2005. The boundary problem in democratic theory. Democracy Unbound: Basic Explorations 1 F Tersman 14–29 Stockholm: Filos. Inst. Stockh. Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Baldwin R. 2016. The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalization Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bellanova R, de Goede M. 2020. The algorithmic regulation of security: an infrastructural perspective. Regul. Gov In press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Benvenisti E. 2013. Sovereigns as trustees of humanity: on the accountability of states to foreign stakeholders. Am. J. Int. Law 107:2295–333
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowker GC. 1994. Information mythology and infrastructure. Information Acumen: The Understanding and Use of Knowledge in Modern Business L Bud-Frierman 231–47 Abingdon, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bowker GC, Baker K, Millerand F, Ribes D 2009. Toward information infrastructure studies: ways of knowing in a networked environment. International Handbook of Internet Research J Hunsinger, L Klastrup, MM Allen 97–117 Dordrecht: Springer Neth.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Carse A 2017. Keyword: infrastructure. How a humble French engineering term shaped the modern world. Infrastructures and Social Complexity P Harvey, C Jensen, A Morita 27–39 Abingdon, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Chng NR 2013. Regulatory mobilization and service delivery at the edge of the regulatory state. The Rise of the Regulatory State of the South. Infrastructure and Development in Emerging Economies NK Dubash, B Morgan 163–84 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cohen J. 2019. Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Collier SJ, Mizes JC, von Schnitzler A 2016. Preface: public infrastructures/infrastructural publics. Limn 7: https://limn.it/articles/preface-public-infrastructures-infrastructural-publics/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Coutard O. 2008. Placing splintering urbanism: introduction. Geoforum 39:61815–20
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cowen D. 2014. The Deadly Life of Logistics: Mapping Violence in Global Trade Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Crawford K, Joler V. 2018. Anatomy of an AI system—the Amazon Echo as an anatomical map of human labor, data and planetary resources. AI Now Institute and Share Lab Sept. 7. https://anatomyof.ai/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. de Búrca G. 2010. The EU in the negotiation of the UN Disability Convention. Eur. Law Rev. 35:2174–96
    [Google Scholar]
  24. De Chazournes LB, Leb C, Tignino M 2013. International Law and Freshwater: The Multiple Challenges Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dewey J. 1927. The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry New York: Holt
    [Google Scholar]
  26. D'Ignazio C, Klein LF 2020. Data Feminism Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Donaldson M, Kingsbury B. 2013a. Ersatz normativity or public law in global governance: the hard case of international prescriptions for national infrastructure regulation. Chicago J. Int. Law 14:13
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Donaldson M, Kingsbury B. 2013b. The adoption of transparency policies in global governance institutions: justifications, effects, and implications. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 9:119–47
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dourish P. 2017. The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Easterling K 2017. Designing infrastructure. The SAGE Handbook of the 21st Century City S Hall, R Burdett 653–65 London: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Edwards PN. 1997. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Edwards PN 2003. Infrastructure and modernity: force, time and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. Modernity and Technology TJ Misa, P Brey, A Feenberg 185–225 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Edwards PN 2018. We have been assimilated: some principles for thinking about algorithmic systems. Living with Monsters? Social Implications of Algorithmic Phenomena, Hybrid Agency, and the Performativity of Technology U Schultze, M Aanestad, M Mähring, C Østerlund 19–27 IFIP Adv. Inf. Commun. Technol. 543 Cham, Switz: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Edwards PN, Bowker GC, Jackson SJ, Williams R. 2009. Introduction: an agenda for infrastructure studies. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10:56
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Edwards PN, Jackson SJ, Bowker GC, Knobel CP. 2007. Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, Tensions, and Design Ann Arbor, MI: Deep Blue
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Elster J 1998. Deliberation and constitution making. Deliberative Democracy J Elster 97–122 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ely JH. 1980. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Erman E 2013. Political equality and legitimacy in a global context. Political Equality in Transnational Democracy E Erman, S Näsström 61–87 London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Eslava L. 2015. Local Space, Global Life: The Everyday Operation of International Law and Development Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Eslava L, Pahuja S. 2020. The state and international law: a reading from the Global South. Humanity 11:1118–38
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Flaxman S, Goel S, Rao JM. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opin. Q. 80:S1298–320
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Flyvbjerg B. 2014. What you should know about megaprojects and why: an overview. Proj. Manag. J. 45:26–19
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Fraser N. 1990. Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Soc. Text 25–26:56–80
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fraser N. 2010. Scales of Justice. Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World New York: Columbia Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Fuller L. 1963. The Morality of Law New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Fung A 2013. The principle of affected interests: an interpretation and defense. Representation: Elections and Beyond J Nagel, R Smith 236–68 Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gargarella R. 1998. Full representation, deliberation, and impartiality. Deliberative Democracy J Elster 260–80 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Gleick PH. 1998. The human right to water. Water Policy 1:5487–503
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Goldmann M. 2016. A matter of perspective: global governance and the distinction between public and private authority (and not law). Glob. Const. 5:148–84
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Gonzalez-Ricoy I, Rey F 2019. Enfranchising the future: climate justice and the representation of future generations. WIREs Clim. Change 10:5e598
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Goodin R. 2007. Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives. Philos. Public Aff. 35:140–68
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Graham S, Marvin S 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Graham S, Thrift N. 2007. Out of order: understanding repair and maintenance. Theory Cult. Soc. 24:31–25
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Grimmelmann J. 2012. Sealand, HavenCo, and the rule of law. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2012:405–26
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Grotius H. 2005 (1625. The Rights of War and Peace 2 R Tuck, J Barbeyrac Indianapolis: Lib. Fund
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Habermas J. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Habermas J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Habermas J. 2001. The Postnational Constellation. Political Essays Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Harmes A 2014. New constitutionalism and multilevel governance. New Constitutionalism and World Order S Gill, AC Cutler 143–58 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Harvey P, Jensen C, Morita A 2017. Introduction: infrastructural complications. Infrastructures and Social Complexity P Harvey, C Jensen, A Morita 1–22 Abingdon, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hayek FA. 1948. The economic conditions of interstate federalism. Individualism and Economic Order255–72 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hilgartner S. 2017. Reordering Life: Knowledge and Control in the Genomics Revolution Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hu T-H. 2015. A Prehistory of the Cloud Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hughes TP. 1983. Networks of Power: Electric Supply Systems in the US, England and Germany, 1880–1930 Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Jacobs J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities New York: Vintage Books
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Jensen CB, Morita A. 2017. Introduction: infrastructures as ontological experiments. Ethnos 82:4615–26
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Joerges C. 2009. Sozialstaatlichkeit in Europe? A conflict-of-laws approach to the law of the EU and the proceduralisation of constitutionalisation. Ger. Law J. 10:4335–60
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Joerges C, Neyer J. 2006.. Deliberative supranationalism” revisited Work. Pap., Dep. Law, Eur. Univ. Inst., Fiesole Italy: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/6251/LAW-2006-20.pdf?sequence=1
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Kant I. 2006 (1795. Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History P Kleingeld, transl. DL Colclasure New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Kant I. 2007 (1790. Critique of Judgment Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kant I. 2017 (1797. The Metaphysics of Morals L Denis, transl. M Gregor Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Karasti H, Baker KS, Millerand F. 2010. Infrastructure time: long-term matters in collaborative development. Comput. Support. Cooperative Work 19:3–4377–415
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Khagram S. 2004. Dams and Development: Transnational Struggles for Water and Power Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kingsbury B. 2009a. International law as inter-public law. Nomos 49:167–204
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kingsbury B. 2009b. The concept of ‘law’ in global administrative law. Eur. J. Int. Law 20:123–57
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Kingsbury B. 2019. Infrastructure and InfraReg: on rousing the international law ‘Wizards of Is.’. Cambridge Int. Law J. 8:2171–86
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kingsbury B, Donaldson M 2011. From bilateralism to publicness in international law. From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma U Fastenrath, R Geiger, D-E Khan, A Paulus, S von Schorlemer, C Vedder 80–89 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Klinenberg E. 2018. Palaces for the People: How to Build a More Equal and United Society London: Bodley Head
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Korn M, Reißmann W, Röhl T, Sittler D 2019a. Infrastructuring Publics Wiesbaden, Ger: Springer Fachmedien
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Korn M, Reißmann W, Röhl T, Sittler D. 2019b. Infrastructuring publics: a research perspective. See Korn et al. 2019a11–47
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Kymlicka W. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lafont C. 2018. Neoliberal globalization and the international protection of human rights. Constellations 25:3315–28
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Larkin B. 2013. The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 42:327–43
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Latham A, McCormack DP. 2004. Moving cities: rethinking the materialities of urban geographies. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 28:6701–24
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Latour B. 1990. Technology is society made durable. Sociol. Rev. 38:S1103–31
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Latour B, Weibel P 2005. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Le Dantec CA 2016. Designing Publics Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Le Dantec CA, DiSalvo C 2013. Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Soc. Stud. Sci. 43:2241–64
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Lippmann W. 1993 (1927. The Phantom Public Piscataway, NJ: Trans. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Macdonald T. 2008. Global Stakeholder Democracy: Power and Representation Beyond Liberal States Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Maisley N. 2017. The international right of rights? Article 25(a) of the ICCPR as a Human Right to Take Part in International Law-Making. Eur. J. Int. Law 28:189–113
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Maisley N. 2019. El derecho de la sociedad civil a participar en la creación del derecho internacional PhD Thesis, Fac. Derecho, Univ. B. Aires Argent:.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Mallard G. 2014. Fallout: Nuclear Diplomacy in an Age of Global Fracture Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Mansbridge J. 2011. Clarifying the concept of representation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:3621–30
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Mansbridge J, Bohman J, Chambers S, Christiano T, Fung A et al. 2012. A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale J Parkinson, J Mansbridge 1–26 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Marres N. 2012. Material Participation: Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Marres N, Lezaun J. 2011. Materials and devices of the public: an introduction. Econ. Soc. 40:4489–509
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Martí JL. 2006. La república deliberativa. Una teoría de la democracia Madrid, Spain: Marcial Pons
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Mattli W. 2019a. Darkness by Design: The Hidden Power in Global Capital Markets Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Mattli W 2019b. Global Algorithmic Capital Markets: High Frequency Trading, Dark Pools, and Regulatory Challenges Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  101. McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 1819.)
  102. Medina E. 2011. Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende's Chile Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Merry SE. 1988. Legal pluralism. Law Soc. Rev. 22:5869–96
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Mitchell D. 1997. The annihilation of space by law: the roots and implications of anti-homeless laws in the United States. Antipode 29:3303–35
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Nagel T. 2005. The problem of global justice. Philos. Public Aff. 33:113–47
    [Google Scholar]
  106. NATO 2001. NATO Security Investment Programme Is the Sharing of Roles, Risks, Responsibilities, Costs and Benefits Brussels: NATO https://www.nato.int/structur/intrastruc/50-years.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Nino CS. 1996. The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Owen D. 2012. Constituting the polity, constituting the demos: on the place of the all affected interests principle in democratic theory and in resolving the democratic boundary problem. Ethics Glob. Politics 5:3129–52
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Perreau-Saussine A, Murphy JB 2009. The Nature of Customary Law. Legal, Historical and Philosophical Perspectives Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Peters A. 2006. Compensatory constitutionalism: the function and potential of fundamental international norms and structures. Leiden J. Int. Law 19:3579–610
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Pettit P. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Pipek V, Wulf V. 2009. Infrastructuring: toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10:5447–73
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Pistor K. 2019. The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Plantin J-C, Lagoze C, Edwards PN, Sandvig C. 2018. Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media Soc 20:1293–310
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Raso J. 2017. Displacement as regulation: new regulatory technologies and front-lines decision-making in Ontario works. Can. J. Law Soc. 32:75–95
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Reisman M. 1985. Lining up: the microlegal system of queues. Univ. Cincinnati Law Rev. 54:417–49
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Rey F. 2020. The representative system. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Political Philos. In press. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1808761
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Rial C 2019. From panopticon to panasonic: the architecture of fear in mega-events. Spaces of Security: Ethnographies of Securityscapes, Surveillance, and Control S Low, M Maguire 99–121 New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Ripstein A. 2009. Force and Freedom: Kant's Legal and Political Philosophy Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Rodríguez Garavito C, Baquero Díaz CA 2020. Conflictos socioambientales en América Latina: El derecho, los pueblos indígenas y la lucha contra el extractivismo y la crisis climática Mexico City: Siglo, XXI Ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Rosen RJ. 2012. Time and space has been completely annihilated. The Atlantic Feb. 14. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/time-and-space-has-been-completely-annihilated/253103/
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Ruppert ES. 2006. Rights to public space: regulatory reconfigurations of liberty. Urban Geogr 27:3271–92
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Russell AL, Vinsel L. 2016. Hail the maintainers. Aeon April 7. https://aeon.co/essays/innovation-is-overvalued-maintenance-often-matters-more
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Sack RD. 1986. Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Schwenkel C 2018. The current never stops: intimacies of energy infrastructure in Vietnam. The Promise of Infrastructure N Anand, A Gupta, H Appel 102–29 Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Sennett R. 2018. Building and Dwelling: Ethics for the City New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Shapin S. 1989. The invisible technician. Am. Sci. 77:6554–63
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Shvartzberg Carrió M. 2017. Complexity and contradiction in infrastructure: on the Schumacher-Trump hegemony. Avery Rev 21:77–95
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Siemiatycki M, Enright T, Valverde M. 2020. The gendered production of infrastructure. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 44:2297–314
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Somek A. 2010a. The argument from transnational effects I: representing outsiders through freedom of movement. Eur. Law J. 16:3315–44
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Somek A. 2010b. The argument from transnational effects II: establishing transnational democracy. Eur. Law J. 16:4375–94
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Somek A. 2017. The Legal Relation: Legal Theory after Legal Positivism Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Star SL 1991. Invisible work and silenced dialogues in knowledge representation. Women, Work and Computerization IV Eriksson, BA Kitchenham, KG Tijdens 81–92 Amsterdam: North-Holland
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Star SL. 1999. The ethnography of infrastructure. Am. Behav. Sci. 43:3377–91
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Star SL, Bowker GC 2005. How to infrastructure. The Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Social Consequences of ICTs L Lievrouw, S Livingstone 230–45 SAGE Publ, Updated stud. ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Star SL, Ruhleder K. 1996. Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces. Inf. Syst. Res. 7:1111–34
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States (Tecmed v. Mexico) ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2 (May 29 2003.)
  138. Therborn G 2006. Why and how place matters. The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis R Goodin, C Tilly 509–33 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Tsing AL. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Tully S. 2014. A human right to access the internet? Problems and prospects. Hum. Rights Law Rev. 14:2175–95
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Valentini L. 2011. Coercion and (global) justice. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:1205–20
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Valentini L. 2014. No global demos, no global democracy? A systematization and critique. Perspect. Politics 12:4789–807
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Valverde M, Johns F, Raso J. 2018. Governing infrastructure in the age of the “art of the deal”: logics of governance and scales of visibility. PoLAR 41:S1118–32
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Van Parijs P 2018. Hayek's trap and the European utopia we need. Reducing Inequalities: A Challenge for the European Union? RM Carmo, C Rio, M Medgyesi 213–23 London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Vinsel L, Russell AL. 2020. The Innovation Delusion: How Our Obsession with the New Has Disrupted the Work That Matters Most New York: Currency
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Vismann C. 2008. Files: Law and Media Technology Redwood City, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  147. von Schnitzler A. 2008. Citizenship prepaid: water, calculability, and techno-politics in South Africa. J. S. Afr. Stud. 34:4899–917
    [Google Scholar]
  148. von Schnitzler A 2018. Infrastructure, apartheid technopolitics, and temporalities of “transition. .” In The Promise of Infrastructure N Anand, A Gupta, H Appel 133–54 Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Waldron J. 1999. What is cosmopolitan?. J. Political Philos. 8:2227–43
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Waldron J. 2008. The concept and the rule of law. Ga. Law Rev. 43:11–61
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Waldron J. 2009. Can there be a democratic jurisprudence?. Emory Law J 58:675–712
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Waldron J. 2011. The principle of proximity Public Law Res. Pap. 11-08 NYU Sch. Law New York: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1742413
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  153. Warner M. 2002. Publics and counterpublics. Public Cult 14:149–90
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Warren ME. 2017. The all affected interests principle in democratic theory and practice Work. Pap. 145 IHS Political Sci. Ser., Inst. Adv. Stud. Vienna: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/54967/ssoar-2017-warren-The_All_Affected_Interests_Principle.pdf?sequence=1
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Weingast BR. 1995. The economic role of political institutions: market-preserving federalism and economic development. J. Law Econ. Organ. 11:11–31
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Whittuck EA. 1920. International Canals London: H.M. Station. Off.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Winner L. 1980. Do artifacts have politics?. Daedalus 109:1121–36
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Wu T. 2018. The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age New York: Columbia Glob. Rep. Illus ed .
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Young IM. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Young IM. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-011521-082856
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error