{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024346257889990983, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.7272727272727275, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Re-Constituting the Hegemony of Western Law in the Third World: A Postcolonial Critique of Twining's ‘General Jurisprudence’

Abstract This essay will analyse William Twining's work from a postcolonial perspective. It will be argued that Twining is constrained by the structural limitations inherent in his ‘general jurisprudence’, reflected in three aspects of his analysis: first, Twining appears to disregard the imperialistic historical roots of the Western legal tradition. Secondly, Twining's definition of globalisation, which marginalises the economic dimensions of globalisation, fails to grasp the important historical role of capitalism in the emergence of globalisation, and how this affects his very understanding of ‘space’ and ‘proximity’. Finally, the essay will end with an examination of the relationship between the attainment of knowledge and power relations in the context of the Third World. It will be shown that Twining disregards how Western representations of non-Western legal traditions could eventually develop into a discourse that ultimately perpetuates new forms of domination.