Law and Colonialism: Epistemology, In/justice, Oppression and Emancipation

SW 81-Law and Colonialism: Epistemology, In/justice, Oppression and Emancipation

Convenors: Kiwako MURATA; Lena Foljanty; Keisuke KONDO

Contact: ivr2026.sw.6105621@gmail.com

1. Subject and Scope The scope of this workshop covers the intricate relationship between law and colonialism from philosophical, sociological, and historical perspectives, aiming at exploring how modern Western legal systems have been fundamentally intertwined with colonial projects and, through different forms of colonial domination, how they have shaped the matrix of what is widely conceived as law today.
2. Core Hypothesis: Colonialism as an Internal Epistemic ElementColonialism is not merely a historical event external to legal institutions or ideals. Rather, it is the epistemic framing internal to law that defines how law perceives and evaluates the world. Colonialism has shaped who are entitled as speaking subjects, what count as legal interests, and which experiences and events are recognized as legal problems. In this sense, colonialism has inscribed into the epistemic framework of law itself．
3. Imperial Governance and the Institutionalization of SilenceHistorically, colonial governance has been deeply connected to the organization of epistemic condition. Through apparatus such as classification, translation, recording, and procedure, law has functioned at the frontline of constructing social order and legal subjects. Key routes for institutionalizing silence include the design of property rights, labor contracts, family law, the exercise of discretionary power in policing, and the formation of administrative archives. What is silenced here is not only particular voices, but also the possibility that the objections and experiences of oppressed subjects are recognized as legally relevant claims. In this way, colonial governance institutionalize a structure in which domination persists by rendering resistance difficult to articulate in legally intelligible form. Furthermore, colonial rule has systematically marginalized indigenous knowledge and “customary law” by demoting them from normative legal systems to mere facts or customs. We examine how experiences are invalidated during the process of subsuming pluralistic legal realities into a single, centralized legal knowledge.
4. The Iteration of Colonialism in Contemporary LawThese　colonial epistemic structures persist even in post-colonial or non-colonial contexts. While colonial rule may have ended in its formal sense, silencing and epistemic injustice directly or indirectly derived from the experiences of colonial rule still persist today. In the cases of immigration control, national security, environmental policy, public health, and algorithmic decision-making, law determine which issues are prioritized and which are rendered invisible. Thus, colonialism can be understood as a repeatable condition embedded within the vocabulary and procedures of modern law.
5. Critical Traditions and Global PerspectivesLegal theory has accumulated the ways to uncover and criticize the colonialism inherent to modern law. Critical Legal Studies and related traditions have long visualized how the myths of legal neutrality and determinacy serve as ideological tools for reproducing social hierarchies. Furthermore, Feminist Legal Theory and CRT have demonstrated that “evidence” and “rationality” are not neutral measures but are constructed through gendered and racialized judgments. Postcolonial legal theory expands these insights globally, illustrating how international law and “Rule of Law” discourses continue to be generated within colonial power relations.
6. Epistemic Injustice and Institutional IgnoranceOutside legal theory, inquiries have been conducted for debunking the colonial elements of modern law. For example, recent debates on epistemic injustice provide a common language for analyzing how cognition—and strategic ignorance—operates within legal systems. Beyond the mere dismissal of testimony (testimonial injustice), it is crucial to address the lack of interpretive resources (hermeneutical injustice), where legal systems refuse the vocabulary necessary to conceptualize certain experiences. This structural ignorance is vital for grasping the “silence” produced at the intersection of law and colonialism.
7. Aims of the Workshop　By positing that law maintains an internal relationship with colonialism, this workshop seeks to create a cross-disciplinary space to debate the validity and normative implications of this hypothesis from diverse viewpoints, ultimately seeking paths toward repair and emancipation.

Possible Topics for Discussion

• The Epistemic Foundations of Legal Authority and Interpretation
• Legal Structures that Produce and Maintain Ignorance, Silence, and Exclusion
• Imperial histories and the organization of legal knowledge
• Institutionalized Ignorance and Pre-adversarial Conditions (Conditions for Issues to Emerge)
• The Iteration of Coloniality in Contemporary Governance Technologies
• Epistemology and Power in the Formation of the International Legal Order
• Decolonial Epistemic Repair and the Possibilities of Emancipation

The topics above are not exhaustive. We welcome submissions from philosophical, sociological, historical, and related perspectives on any subject within the broad scope of the workshop.

If you are interested, please send an abstract to Kiwako MURATA by May 31. ivr2026.sw.6105621@gmail.com