1932

Abstract

Global scripts—the rules, norms, and standards in international texts, and the tacit assumptions that surround and give meaning to them—exist on numerous issues (finance, trade, economic development, climate change, education, human rights, and gender equality), at every level of engagement (international, national, local), and at every phase of recursive norm construction and contestation. Case studies involving global scripts appear across a wide range of scholarship—considering sociological, anthropological, or sociolegal perspectives, or on international political economy, international organizations, international relations, or law and development—but because they are focused on one piece of the puzzle at a time, variation exists regarding the definition of global scripts, the distinction between legal and policy scripts, and how explicitly scripts get articulated through and with reference to law. Enhanced theorization of global scripts holds promise for connecting legal to sociolegal scholarship precisely because global scripts and scriptwriting extend beyond the realm of law and lawmaking; it would enable deeper exploration of whether, how, and why a broad range of texts and practices influence behaviors.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111621-125416
2022-10-18
2024-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/18/1/annurev-lawsocsci-111621-125416.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111621-125416&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbott KW, Snidal D. 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. Int. Organ. 54:3421–56
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abebe D, Chilton A, Ginsburg T. 2021. The social science approach to international law. Chic. J. Int. Law 22:11–23
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ali SF. 2021. Forming Transnational Dispute Settlement Norms: Soft Law and the Role of UNCITRAL's Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Babb S. 2012. The Washington Consensus as transnational policy paradigm: its origins, trajectory and likely successor. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 20:2268–97
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Babb S, Kentikelenis A. 2021. Markets everywhere: the Washington Consensus and the sociology of global institutional change. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 47:521–41
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ballestero A. 2019. A Future History of Water. Raleigh-Durham, SC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barnett M, Finnemore M. 2001. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Beckfield J. 2010. The social structure of the world polity. Am. J. Sociol. 115:41018–68
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Beer CT. 2016. Expansive and complex pathways to world society: the global connections of Kenyan environmental organizations and their support for climate change scripts. Sociol. Perspect. 59:2419–40
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Berger PL, Luckmann T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge New York: Anchor Books
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Berry K. 2003. Developing women: the traffic in ideas about women and their needs in Kangra, India. Regional Modernities: The Cultural Politics of Development in India K Sivaramakrishnan, A Agrawal 75–98 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Block-Lieb S. 2019. Soft and hard strategies: the role of business in the crafting of international commercial law. Mich. J. Int. Law 40:3433–77
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Block-Lieb S, Halliday TC. 2016. Contracts and private law in the emerging ecology of international lawmaking. Contracting Beyond Borders: The Law of International Markets in the Twentieth Century G Mallard, J Sgard Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Block-Lieb S, Halliday TC. 2017. Global Lawmakers: International Organizations and the Crafting of World Markets Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Block-Lieb S, Halliday TC. 2022. The macropolitics and microeconomics of global financial crises: bankruptcy as a point of reference. Sovereign Insolvency: Possible Legal Solutions J Garasic, N Bodiroga-Vukobrat New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bodansky D, Brunnée J, Hey E, eds. 2007. The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Boli J, Thomas GM. 1999. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875 Stanford, UK: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Braithwaite J, Drahos P. 2000. Global Business Regulation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Broome A, Seabrooke L. 2021. Recursive recognition in the international political economy. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 28:236981
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Campbell JL. 2004. Institutional Change and Globalization Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Canfield M. 2018. Banana brokers: communicative labor, translocal translation, and transnational law. Public Cult. 31:169–92
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Carruthers BG, Halliday TC. 2006. Negotiating globalization: global scripts and intermediation in the construction of Asian insolvency regimes. . Law Soc. Inq. 31:3521–84
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chorev N. 2012. The World Health Organization: Between North and South Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chua LJ. 2015. The vernacular mobilization of human rights in Myanmar's sexual orientation and gender identity movement. Law Soc. Rev. 49:2299–332
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Davis S, Shaffer G. 2020. Theorizing transnational fiduciary law. UC-Irvine J. Int. Transnatl. Comp. Law 5:1–53
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Djelic M-L, Sahlin-Andersson K. 2006. Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics of Regulation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dobbin F, Simmons BA, Garrett G. 2007. The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning?. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 33:449–72
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Drori I, Honig B, Sheaffer Z. 2009. The life cycle of an Internet firm: scripts, legitimacy, and identity. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice 33:3571–92
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Drori GS, Meyer JW 2006. Global scientization: an environment for expanded organization. Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change GS Drori, JW Meyer, H Hwang 50–68 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Drori GS, Meyer JW. 2009. Scientization: making a world safe for organizing. See Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson 2006 31–52
  31. Durkee MJ. 2019. Recent books on international law: Global Lawmakers: International Organizations in the Crafting of World Markets. Am. J. Int. Law 113:2422–28
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fiss PC, Zajac EJ. 2006. The symbolic management of strategic change: sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Acad. Manag. J. 49:61173–93
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Foster LA. 2014. Critical cultural translation: a socio-legal framework for regulatory orders. Indiana J. Glob. Legal Stud. 21:179–105
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gillespie JS. 2012. Relocating global legal scripts in local networks of meaning. Law and Development and the Global Discourses of Legal Transfers J Gillespie, P Nicholson 9–55 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gillespie JS, Peerenboom R, eds. 2009. Regulation in Asia: Pushing Back on Globalization Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hale T, Held D. 2011. The Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions and Innovations Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Halliday TC. 2009. Recursivity of global normmaking: a sociolegal agenda. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 5:263–89
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Halliday TC, Block-Lieb S. 2012. Global duelists: the recursive politics of the text in international trade law. See Perry-Kessaris 2012 77–97
  39. Halliday TC, Block-Lieb S, Carruthers BG. 2010. Rhetorical legitimation: global scripts as strategic devices on international organizations. Socio-Econ. Rev. 8:177–112
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Halliday TC, Carruthers BG. 2007. The recursivity of law: global norm making and national lawmaking in the globalization of corporate insolvency regimes. Am. J. Sociol. 112:41135–202
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Halliday TC, Carruthers BG. 2009. Bankrupt: Global Lawmaking and Systemic Financial Crisis Stanford, UK: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Halliday TC, Osinsky P. 2006. Globalization of law. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 32:447–70
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Halliday TC, Pacewicz J, Block-Lieb S. 2013. Who governs? Delegations in global trade lawmaking. Regul. Gov. 7:279–98
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Halliday TC, Shaffer G, eds. 2015. Transnational Legal Orders Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Halliday TC, Zilberstein S, Espeland W. 2021. Protecting basic legal freedoms: international legal complexes, accountability devices, and the deviant case of China. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 17:159–80
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Halme-Tuomisaari M. 2016. Toward a lasting anthropology of international law/governance. Eur. J. Int. Law 27:1235–43 [Review of Eslava L 2014. Local Space, Global Life: the Everyday Operation of International Law and Development Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press ]
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Held D, Koenig-Archibugi M, eds. 2005. Global Governance and Public Accountability Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Helleiner E. 2015. Regulating the regulators: the emergence and limits of the transnational financial legal order. See Halliday & Shaffer 2015 231–57
  49. Hetherington K. 2014. Regular soybeans: translation and framing in the ontological politics of coup. Indiana J. Glob. Legal Stud. 21:155–78
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hironaka A. 2014. Greening the Globe: World Society and Environmental Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hughes MM, Peterson L, Harrison JA, Paxton P. 2009. Power and relation in the world polity: the INGO Network Country Score, 1978–1998. Soc. Forces 87:41711–42
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Igelsböck J, Schüßler E. 2019. New directions for the concept of the institutional script Pap. 9, Nano-Papers: Institution—Organization—Society, Ger. Res. Netw. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331960272_New_Directions_for_the_Concept_of_the_Institutional_Script
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Jupille J, Jolliff B, Wojcik S. 2013. Regionalism in the world polity Work. Pap., Univ. Colo., Boulder. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2242500
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kaplan S. 2008. Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty. Organ. Sci. 19:5729–52
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kaye D, Shaffer G. 2021. Transnational legal ordering of data, disinformation, privacy, and speech. UC-Irvine J. Int. Transnatl. Comp. Law 6:1–7
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kentikelenis AE, Seabrooke L. 2017. The politics of world polity: script-writing in international organizations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:51065–92
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Kim RE. 2020. Is global governance fragmented, polycentric, or complex? The state of the art of the network approach. Int. Stud. Rev. 22:903–31
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Koenig-Archibugi M, Zürn M, eds. 2006. New Modes of Governance in the Global System: Exploring Publicness, Delegation and Inclusiveness London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Levi-Faur D 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Governance Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Liu LJ. 2021. The rules of the (belt and) road: how lawyers participate in China's outbound investment and infrastructure initiatives. Yale J. Int. Law Online 46:168–96
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Lloyd P, Simmons BA. 2015. Framing for a new transnational legal order: the case of human trafficking. See Halliday & Shaffer 2015 400–38
  62. Lopez-Claros A, Dahl AL, Groff M, eds. 2020. Global Governance and the Emergence of Global Institutions for the 21st Century Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Lounsbury M, Glynn MA. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy and the acquisition of resources. Strateg. Manag. J. 22:6–7545–64
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Luckmann T. 2002. Moral communication in modern societies. Hum. Stud. 25:119–32
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Merry SE. 2003. Rights talk and the experience of law: implementing women's human rights to protection from violence. Hum. Rights Q. 25:2343–81
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Merry SE. 2005. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law in Local Justice Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Merry SE. 2006a. Anthropology and international law. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:99–116
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Merry SE. 2006b. Transnational human rights and local activism: mapping the middle. Am. Anthropol. 108:138–51
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Meyer JW, Boli J, Thomas GM, Ramirez FO. 1997. World society and the nation-state. Am. J. Sociol. 103:1144–81
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Meyer JW, Rowan B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. Am. J. Sociol. 83:2340–63
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Paiement P. 2020. Urgent agenda: how climate litigation builds transnational narratives. Transnatl. Legal Theory 11:1–2121–43
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Paiement P, Melchers S. 2020. Finding international law in private governance: how codes of conduct in the apparel industry refer to international instruments. Indiana J. Glob. Legal Stud. 27:2303–45
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Perry-Kessaris A 2012. Socio-Legal Approaches to International Economic Law: Text, Context, Subtext Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Peters A, Köchlin L, Zinkernagel GF. 2010. Non-State Actors as Standard Setters Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pierotti RS. 2013. Increasing rejection of intimate partner violence: evidence of global cultural diffusion. Am. Sociol. Rev. 78:2240–65
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Rajamani L, Peel C, eds. 2021. The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Rautalin M, Syväterä J, Vento E. 2021. International organizations establishing their scientific authority: periodizing the legitimation of policy advice by the OECD. Int. Sociol. 36:13–24
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Roger C, Dauvergne P. 2016. The rise of transnational governance as a field of study. Int. Stud. Rev. 18:415–37
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Rosenau JN. 1995. Governance in the twenty-first century: global governance. Glob. Gov. 1:113–43
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Seabrooke L, Sending OJ. 2020. Contracting development: managerialism and consultants in intergovernmental organizations. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 27:4802–27
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Shaffer GC 2012. Transnational Legal Ordering and State Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Shaffer GC, Aaronson E 2020. Transnational Legal Ordering of Criminal Justice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Shaffer GC, Ginsburg T. 2012. The empirical turn in international legal scholarship. Am. J. Int. Law 106:1–47
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Shaffer GC, Ginsburg T, Halliday TC, eds. 2019. Constitution-Making as Transnational Legal Ordering Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Shaffer GC, Pollack MA. 2010. Hard versus soft law: alternatives, complements and antagonists in international governance. Minn. Law Rev. 94:706–99
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Shaffer GC, Waibel M 2015. The rise and fall of trade and monetary legal orders: from the interwar period to today's global imbalances. Contractual Knowledge: One Hundred Years of Legal Experimentation in Global Markets G Mallard, J Sgard 1–58 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Sheng A. 2009. From Asian to Global Financial Crisis: An Asian Regulator's View of Unfettered Finance in the 1990s and 2000s. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Spence M. 2021. Some thoughts on the Washington Consensus and subsequent global development experience. . J. Econ. Perspect. 35:367–82
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Suchman MC. 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20:3571–610
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Suddaby R, Greenwood R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Adm. Sci. Q. 40:135–67
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Tan C. 2019. Beyond the ‘moments’ of law and development: critical reflections on law and development scholarship in a globalized economy. Law Dev. Rev. 12:2285–321
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Teixeira RG. 2021. The role of international organizations in the development of international environmental law: adjusting the lenses of analysis. Case Western Reserve J. Int. Law 53:1237–68
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Zumbansen P. 2012. Defining the space of transnational law: legal theory, global governance, and legal pluralism. Indiana J. Glob. Legal Stud. 21:1–26
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Zwingel S. 2012. How do norms travel? Theorizing international women's rights in transnational perspective. Int. Stud. Q. 56:1115–29
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111621-125416
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111621-125416
Loading

Data & Media 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