The Path not Taken On Legal Change and its Context

Legal change must be understood in relation to its context. But how? To approach that question, the present contribution builds on studies of law’s contingency—the possibility of alternative legal developments under unchanged circumstances. What was the path not taken? This question advocates for law’s utter contextualization while keeping a critical distance from contexts. It does not stop asking why something happened until it is adequately explained, nor does it deny alternative possibilities. The chapter first situates contingency in thinking about legal developments, placing special emphasis on the travails of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL). Secondly, it expands on claims about law’s relative autonomy, and thirdly, on claims about what would make a difference, even in the long run. What has the potential to be path-breaking? The conclusions circle back to questions of what qualifies as context. Why politics?