CILHR seminar: Colonialism and Legal Knowledge: An Anthropocene Judgments Experiment

Summary

In this thought-provoking presentation, Professor Fuki adisi from the University of Bristol explores the relationship between decolonization, legal knowledge, and the concept of the anthropos scene. Through the lens of law and literature, she challenges the traditional legal frameworks and questions the centrality of humanity in understanding justice. By examining historical cases such as Gregson and Gilbert, she delves into the role of law in perpetuating colonial exploitation and offers a critical perspective on environmental justice and the need for new legal imaginaries to address the challenges posed by the Anthropocene.

Takeaways

• 📚 The presentation introduces Professor Fuk, an authority on decolonization and legal knowledge from the University of Bristol, who discusses the relationship between colonialism, legal knowledge, and decolonization.
• 🌍 Professor Fuk's work challenges the traditional understanding of law and its role in perpetuating colonial structures, particularly in the context of environmental damage and climate change.
• 💡 The concept of the Anthropos, which centers human activity as the primary cause of environmental degradation, is critiqued for its failure to account for the broader implications of human relationships with nature and each other.
• 📖 The book by Professor Fuk aims to deconstruct the question of the relationship between decolonization and law, exploring the relevance of decolonization to legal education, research, and administration.
• 🌊 The paper discusses the 'Anthropocene judgments' experiment, which uses frameworks such as black African science fiction and indigenous knowledge to reimagine legal concepts and the role of non-human entities in legal processes.
• ⚖️ The case of Gregson and Gilbert is analyzed to highlight the law's historical role in perpetuating violence and exploitation, questioning whether the current legal framework can achieve environmental justice.
• 🌱 The presentation calls for a reevaluation of legal metaphors and the need to unsettle the centrality of humanity in our understanding of justice, considering the broader impacts of climate change and environmental devastation.
• 🔄 Professor Fuk emphasizes the importance of extratextual and extralegal sources in answering questions about modern law, suggesting that new thinking within the law is necessary to address contemporary challenges.
• 🌐 The discussion touches on the global impact of colonial exploitation and its ongoing effects, including racial injustice, environmental disaster, and the need for legal scholars to consider these factors in their work.
• 📚 The use of science fiction as a tool for legal analysis is proposed, allowing for the exploration of alternative legal frameworks and the imagining of different responses to environmental devastation.
• 🌿 The presentation concludes with a call to action for legal scholars to engage with indigenous jurisprudences and other alternative legal frameworks to better understand and address the challenges posed by climate change and environmental degradation.

Q & A

What is the main focus of Professor Fuk's research?

The main focus of Professor Fuk's research is the relationship between decolonization, legal knowledge, and the concept of the anthropos scene. She explores how the current legal system operates within a framework influenced by colonial history and how this impacts our understanding of justice, particularly in relation to environmental damage and the rights of marginalized groups.

How does Professor Fuk challenge the traditional understanding of law in her work?

Professor Fuk challenges the traditional understanding of law by examining its foundations in colonialism and its subsequent effects on environmental justice and the rights of indigenous peoples. She uses frameworks such as black African science fiction, indigenous knowledge, and Earth laws to imagine alternative legal systems that can better address contemporary challenges.

What is the significance of the case of Gregson and Gilbert in Professor Fuk's research?

The case of Gregson and Gilbert is significant in Professor Fuk's research as it serves as a starting point for her exploration of justice for environmental damage from the perspective of the ocean. The case highlights the law's protection of property and profit over the protection of life and nature, which she critiques as part of the broader issue of colonial exploitation and its ongoing effects.

How does Professor Fuk address the concept of the Anthropocene in her work?

Professor Fuk addresses the concept of the Anthropocene by recognizing the significant detrimental effects of human activity on the environment. She argues that the legal system's emphasis on human exceptionalism and the classification of certain groups as less than human has contributed to environmental disasters and climate emergencies. She calls for a rethinking of these concepts to better address the challenges posed by the Anthropocene.

What is the purpose of the 'anthropos judgments experiment' conducted by Professor Fuk?

The purpose of the 'anthropos judgments experiment' is to explore the use of metaphors and alternative frameworks to unsettle the centrality of humanity in our understanding of justice. By considering the perspective of the sea and its inhabitants, Professor Fuk aims to challenge the current legal imaginary and imagine new forms of jurisprudence better suited to address environmental devastation.

How does Professor Fuk's work relate to the ongoing climate crisis?

Professor Fuk's work relates to the ongoing climate crisis by examining the legal system's role in perpetuating environmental exploitation and inequality. She argues for a reevaluation of legal principles and practices that contribute to climate change and environmental disaster, advocating for a more equitable and sustainable approach to law that acknowledges the interconnectedness of all life and the environment.

What are the key themes in Professor Fuk's book on decolonization and legal knowledge?

The key themes in Professor Fuk's book include the critique of the legal system's foundations in colonialism, the exploration of alternative legal frameworks, the relationship between law and environmental justice, and the need for a reimagining of legal knowledge to better address the challenges of the Anthropocene and ongoing colonial afterlives.

How does Professor Fuk propose the use of black African science fiction and indigenous jurisprudence in legal studies?

Professor Fuk proposes the use of black African science fiction and indigenous jurisprudence as tools to unsettle and expand the traditional legal imaginary. These frameworks offer alternative perspectives on justice, humanity's relationship with nature, and the concept of personhood, which can help to challenge and reshape legal thought and practice.

What is the significance of the poem read by Professor Fuk at the end of her presentation?

The poem read by Professor Fuk at the end of her presentation serves to capture and convey her thoughts on the complex issues she discusses. It emphasizes the urgency of addressing environmental devastation and the need for a radical reimagining of our relationship with the Earth and each other. The poem also highlights the importance of using creative and emotional tools, such as poetry, to enhance our understanding and response to these critical issues.

How does Professor Fuk view the role of legal scholars in the process of decolonization?

Professor Fuk views the role of legal scholars in the process of decolonization as critical in questioning and reevaluating the terminologies and epistemologies that underpin the legal system. She believes that legal scholars should engage with indigenous jurisprudences and alternative legal frameworks to better understand and address the challenges posed by the Anthropocene and ongoing colonial legacies.

What are the limitations Professor Fuk acknowledges in her own work and in the field of legal academia?

Professor Fuk acknowledges that her work, and the field of legal academia more broadly, has limitations in terms of its ability to directly effect change, particularly in terms of physical organizing and tangible recovery of homelands. She emphasizes the importance of recognizing these limitations and focusing on the contributions that legal scholars can make, such as providing language and frameworks that support the work of those actively engaged in decolonization efforts.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction and Acknowledgements

The video begins with an introduction by James, who welcomes everyone and expresses gratitude for their participation. He introduces Professor Fukadisi, an expert in decolonization from the University of Bristol, highlighting her significant contributions to the field and her influence on the definition of colonialism. The professor, in turn, thanks James and expresses her wish to be present in person, reminiscing about her time in Lancaster and her desire to discuss the relationship between the anthropos scene, legal knowledge, and decolonization.

05:01

🌍 Decolonization and Legal Knowledge

Professor Fukadisi delves into the relevance of decolonization to legal education and practice, including research and administration. She discusses her book, which aims to deconstruct the relationship between decolonization and law, and her concerns about superficial approaches to decolonizing the university curriculum. The professor emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of how legal knowledge operates within the context of colonization and its ongoing effects on global inequality, exploitation, and environmental disaster.

10:01

🌿 Anthropos, Law, and Environmental Justice

The discussion shifts to the anthropos scene and its implications for law and environmental justice. The professor explores the concept of justice for environmental damage from the perspective of the ocean, using frameworks from law and literature, and historical cases like Gregson and Gilbert. She examines the role of law in protecting or failing to protect life and nature, and how legal interpretations often prioritize property and profit over environmental and human well-being.

15:04

🌊 Reimagining Law through Science Fiction

The professor introduces her work on using science fiction, particularly black African science fiction, as a tool to unsettle traditional legal frameworks and imagine new forms of jurisprudence. She discusses the potential of speculative fiction to provide alternative perspectives on law and justice, and to challenge the centrality of human exceptionalism in legal thought. The professor also considers the intersections of science fiction with indigenous jurisprudences and the importance of recognizing diverse indigenous legal traditions.

20:04

🌿 Indigenous Jurisprudence and Legal Personhood

The conversation continues with a focus on indigenous jurisprudence and its conflict with modern legal concepts of personhood and property rights. The professor discusses the limitations of granting nature personality rights within a Euro-centric legal system and the need to explore how indigenous principles can be integrated into law without reducing them to Western concepts. She emphasizes the importance of questioning the foundations of modern legal knowledge and the potential of imaginative thinking to reshape legal understandings of personhood and justice.

25:06

🌍 Final Thoughts and Future Directions

In the concluding segment, the professor reflects on her academic journey and the challenges of teaching and researching law in a world marked by ongoing colonial legacies. She emphasizes the need to question the language and terminology of law, to consider alternative epistemologies, and to imagine new ways of understanding and addressing environmental devastation. The professor ends with a poetic expression of her hopes for a more equitable and sustainable future, highlighting the importance of poetry as a tool for feeling, dreaming, and envisioning new legal realities.

30:07

🤝 Closing Remarks and Questions

The session concludes with a round of questions from the audience, addressing topics such as the law of the sea, the myth of the noble savage, and the role of modernization in indigenous peoples' struggles. The professor engages with these questions, offering insights into her views on the complexities of indigenous jurisprudence, the critique of romanticizing indigenous peoples, and the potential for decolonial legal efforts to challenge and transform the legal system. The session ends with a note of appreciation for the professor's contributions and a call for continued exploration of these critical issues.

Keywords

💡Decolonization

Decolonization refers to the process of undoing or dismantling colonial systems, structures, and ideologies that have historically dominated and exploited colonized peoples and their environments. In the video, the speaker discusses the relationship between decolonization and law, particularly how legal systems have been complicit in colonization and the ongoing struggle for environmental and social justice.

💡Anthropos scene

The anthropos scene refers to the concept that human activity has become a dominant force shaping the Earth's ecosystems, leading to significant environmental changes. In the context of the video, the speaker uses this term to explore the relationship between legal knowledge, decolonization, and the human impact on the environment.

💡Legal knowledge

Legal knowledge encompasses the collective understanding, principles, and practices that constitute the field of law. It includes the theories, rules, and systems that govern legal practice and decision-making. In the video, the speaker questions the relevance and sufficiency of current legal knowledge in achieving environmental justice and addressing the aftermath of colonial exploitation.

💡Colonialism

Colonialism is a policy or ideology by which a nation exercises control over another people or territory, often for the purpose of economic exploitation and cultural dominance. In the video, the speaker discusses the historical and ongoing impacts of colonialism on legal systems, environmental degradation, and social inequalities.

💡Environmental justice

Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. It aims to ensure that everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards.

💡Indigenous knowledge

Indigenous knowledge refers to the diverse and unique cultures, practices, and beliefs of indigenous peoples that have been passed down through generations. This includes their understanding of the natural world, social organization, and ways of life that are often deeply interconnected with their ancestral territories.

💡Reparations

Reparations are compensations made to individuals or communities for historical injustices or wrongs, such as slavery, colonization, or discrimination. They can take various forms, including monetary compensation, land return, or the revival of lost histories and cultures.

💡Climate justice

Climate justice is a concept that links the issues of climate change, environmental degradation, and social justice. It emphasizes the need for fair and equitable solutions to the crises of climate change that take into account the historical responsibilities of different actors and the disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities.

💡Law and literature movement

The law and literature movement is an interdisciplinary field that examines the intersection of legal studies and literary analysis. It uses literary theories and methods to interpret and critique legal texts, and also applies legal perspectives to literary works.

💡Speculative fiction

Speculative fiction is a genre of literature that explores imaginative and hypothetical scenarios, often involving alternative realities, futuristic settings, or supernatural elements. It allows for the exploration of social, political, and philosophical issues through the lens of these imagined worlds.

Highlights

Professor Fuki Adisi introduces her groundbreaking work on decolonization and legal knowledge.

Adisi's work is recognized by the Society for Legal Scholars for its impact on understanding colonialism.

The presentation focuses on the relationship between the anthropos scene, legal knowledge, and decolonization.

Adisi discusses the challenges of addressing environmental damage from the perspective of the ocean.

The case of Gregson and Gilbert in 1783 is used as a starting point to discuss justice for environmental damage.

Adisi explores the use of extratextual and extralegal sources to answer broader questions about modern law.

The concept of the Anthropocene is discussed, recognizing human activity's detrimental effect on the environment.

Adisi critiques the colonial idea of land as only private property and suggests reinstating other meanings.

The importance of centering marginalized ways of knowing and practices in addressing climate change is emphasized.

Adisi's work questions the centrality of modern law and its ability to cope with climate challenges.

The presentation discusses the need for new thinking within the law to handle environmental challenges.

Adisi's research considers the rights of climate migrants and displaced peoples, including their rights to mobility and citizenship.

The talk highlights the structural and brutal acquisition of key means of production during the European colonial project.

Adisi's work invites an unsettling of colonial ideas and a reexamination of the meaning of land and nature.

The presentation discusses the use of black African science fiction and indigenous jurisprudence to imagine alternative legal frameworks.

Adisi's work aims to push the boundaries of legal form and content to reexamine what it means to be human in this world.

The talk concludes with a reflection on the need to look beyond the language of law for survival.

Transcripts

and then uh really just just whenever

you're ready

okay and we got people uh Now sort of

coming

along okay so welcome everyone thanks

everyone for joining us uh I'm very

pleased uh to introduce Professor fuk

adisi who's uh uh from the University of

Bristol and has done uh I think sort of

groundbreaking work uh in the study of

decolonization and and has become quite

the Authority in this area um she's

quoted um in the uh Society for legal

Scholars um criteria on their website

for the the definition of of colonialism

so uh making a a real impact in this

area so she's going to um uh expand on

this point by talking today about

colonialism and legal knowledge and uh

she's going to be conducting an anthrop

anthropos judgments experiment so over

to you FL

thank you James that sounds very

scientific uh so let me attempt to share

my screen I always need to concentrate

when I do that

uh so can we see this yes we can

fabulous um so uh thank you once again

James for that introduction and also

thank you for inviting me to Lancaster I

uh I really wished I could be there uh

in person but unfortunately it does have

to be virtual and uh we were James and I

were just saying that it's a good thing

we de decided to do this online because

the trains are on strike so it would

probably have had to be cancelled or we

would have uh had to do it uh virtually

anyway um I spent a good six years in uh

Lancaster and I I still think it's one

of my favorite places in the world uh

doing a master's and a PhD at Lancaster

is one of the great joys of my life um

as James has said I want to talk about

the anthropos scene so the relationship

between uh the anthropos scene the

concept of the anthropos scene legal

knowledge and

decolonization so this particular paper

that I am given it's sort of so if you

look at the slide there I've got a

picture of uh my book which came out in

uh March I think of this year uh in

which I try and so the book itself I try

to deconstruct this answer or this

question of what does what's the

relationship between decolonization and

law uh I I have been writing about

decolonization and colonization for such

a long time uh but uh when I think this

was about 2016 2015 quite a lot of

people were talking about decolonizing

the university decolonizing the

curriculum and I was a bit unsettled

about the uh sort of almost superficial

some of the superficial answers that

were being given into this question and

so that's what led me to uh plot the

book uh as a book long monograph long uh

deconstruction of that question what's

the relevance of decolonization to the

way in which legal knowledge in law

schools operate so that is more than the

curriculum including research

Administration anything related to that

so when I finished writing sort of

drafting the book there were some things

left over

and what I'm going to be talking about

today are sort of the debris uh from

that that I questions that I felt I

hadn't answered in as much detail uh as

I would like and one of those was how do

we begin to answer the questions of the

anthropos within uh um within the law

school within the limits of what we can

do uh in law

schools um so this paper itself is part

of a series of refle ctive works that I

am trying to use to unsettle the

anthropos um the starting point of this

as I've said is is my book uh within

this paper and Within These reflective

works I use Frameworks such as black

African science fiction indigenous

knowledge Earth laws and anticolonial

Logics to imagine the sea and its

inhabitants as Central not uh outside of

the legal

imaginary uh so in this paper which is

is now a book chapter and you can see uh

on the screen the uh edited collection

to which the book chapter belongs uh

this paper relies on ideas from the law

and literature movement it also takes

the case of Gregson and Gilbert uh which

was decided in 1718 uh 1783 as its

starting point and in this uh particular

paper I consider what Justice for

environmental damage will look like from

the perspective of the ocean

um I'm going to try and talk about the

Judgment but not summarize the Judgment

because I think uh it only makes sense

in the context uh of sort of reading the

entire uh judgment and um it may sound

like it but this is not an encouragement

for you to go off and buy the book but

it's always good if you could do that

but it's I I I have tried to talk sort

of summarize the judgment and it does

just doesn't uh make any sense so I'm

I'm going to talk about the thoughts

surrounding uh the Judgment itself and

why I think it's important for us to

think in these

ways so the wider project that I'm

working on again I finished writing the

judgment and I thought well there's

things left over that I still want to

write uh I seek to explore what use uh

met metaphors are uh to unsettling the

centrality of humanity to our

understanding of justice so this very

much because I'm still working on this

uh I really particularly welcome your

thoughts on those particular questions

so the questions so one of the questions

I'm asking is if the tools we currently

have in legal knowledge are sufficient

to achieve environmental justice equally

and equitably so I am interested in

exploring the use of extratextual

sources uh and extra legal sources to

answer broader questions about the

nature of urum modern law uh as it

emerges from an ongoing project of

colonial exploitation and its entangled

afterlives to put the question

differently how does law answer the

question of what it means to live in the

devastation of time as it it is

evidenced by global inequality overe

exploitation of humanity and its

resources and continuing racial

Injustice and environmental

disaster so I consider these particular

questions in the chapter that I

submitted for the anthropocene judgments

uh as we know the concept of the

anthropocene itself recognizes that

human activity has had a significant

detrimental effect on the

environment through an unequal emphasis

of the importance and exceptionalism of

the human in the world this

exceptionalism proceeds unequally by

casting many out of the category human

through varied uh unequal

uh unjust uses of classification like

racial classifications gender

classifications class ability sexuality

indigen indigeny for instance so overex

exploitation in human relationship

relationships with each other and human

relationships with nature are managed by

what has been described by fana sulana

as Colonial uh capitalism and I

recommend uh her work very strongly in

this area one of the outcomes of the

modern Colonial uh European Colonial

project was the structural and brutal

acquisition of the key means of

production this was done by various

forms of dispossession including the

kidnap and enslavement of millions and

millions of Africans as well as the

seizure of indigenous land and natural

resources the result in destruction of

nature over consumption and false

scarcities are all implicated in

environmental disasters and climate

emergencies ultimately the anthropos

scene brings with it new challenges and

it is recognized that new thinking

within the law is necessary to handle

those

challenges so this sorry I've have gone

a slide too quickly uh this rethinking

requires a direct and engaged refusal of

colonialism's uh unequal and destru Ive

ways of living for example in my book

decolonization and legal knowledge in

relation to environmental de Devastation

I invite an unsettling of the colonial

idea of land as only private property

and ask for uh possible reinstatement of

other meanings of land and nature that

turn away from ways of living that

continue to produce climate emergency

and the destruction of the

outdoors Jennifer rice Joshua long and

Antony lender in their article against

climate apari assert that the reversal

of environmental damage requires firstly

the elimination of colonial and

capitalist understandings of private

property and land ownership that

continue to be used to justify

dispossession and exploitation secondly

they ask for a recognition of the right

the rights of climate migrants and

climate displaced peoples their rights

to Mobility citizensh ship and security

thirdly they ask for a deep commitment

to centering marginalized ways of

knowing excuse me and epistemologies and

practices in our efforts to address

climate

change and finally they ask for

reparations in various forms including

compensation repatriation and Revival of

lost

histories uh they ask for a movement for

climate Justice that seeks to pay the

climate debt owed by imperialist regimes

to historically marginalized groups and

I think it's quite apt that we're having

this conversation uh at the time cop 28

is going on um as well as the I would

say slightly hypocritical um actions

that are often taken uh at these uh

conferences so in response to what I

what what I and others see as Law's

inability to equitably cope with the

coming climate Challenge and the present

one as well uh the the entry point of

this judgment is the case of Gregson and

Gilbert uh which many people do know

about so greggson and Gilbert was

decided on appeal in

17883 uh the actual sort of summary of

The Facts of the case uh the zong was a

ship that was traveling from the British

Isles to the Americas

uh and they had way over the accepted uh

number of kidnapped uh Africans or

captive Africans on board that they were

that were being transported for

enslavement um it's also important I

think to note that the ship's Captain uh

that was his first uh voyage and had uh

previously been uh previously worked as

a ship's uh doctor on many uh voyages

as was the case in that uh in that time

the cargo of human beings was insured

against loss so as they approached the

Americas they uh believed that they were

running out of food and water supplies

and the ships Captain decided that there

was a sufficient NE necessity to throw

overboard 130 of the human beings that

They Carried uh for the purposes of

claiming insurance and so that so that

they wouldn't lose the uh advantage of

their Enterprise because if the uh

kidnapped Africans had died then they

would have not been able to make any

money uh if they had died from hunger uh

they would not have been able to make

any money but if they had thrown them

out due to this necessity they should in

their view have been able to claim uh

insurance at the trial of first instance

the claim for insurance was accepted by

the court on appeal just Mansfield

ordered a new trial due to the

presentation of new conflicting evidence

this evidence suggested that there had

been some water supplies during the

killing so during the the 130 people and

you know uh they were not thrown out all

at the same time it was over a couple of

nights that this happened so the uh

court ordered a new trial to determine

the precise course of the debts whether

they had resulted from some ex external

event so I suggest that despite the

often celebratory reading of this case

as a win for abolition uh the win for

abolition comes from things outside to

the main judgment itself as Justice

mansvi did not discount the possibility

that a sufficient necessity could

eventuate in such a case as long as they

if they had proved the necessity would

he have accepted that there was

sufficient uh reason to kill 130

people so the failure to engage

concretely with the killing of the

Africans underscores how Mansfield seem

to have foreseen exculpatory conditions

for mass murder within Euro modern legal

knowledge to protect the legal doctrine

of necessity as well as the wider

processes of insurance trade and capital

so Gregson and Gilbert I think raises

many questions about the nature of law

especially its role in the protection on

better put non protection of life and

nature as Robert cover tells us legal

interpretation takes place on a field of

pain and death ultimately the Primacy of

property and profit making operates to

perpetually put life and nature in

Jeopardy the Law's nature cannot be

divorced from the violence it eventuates

uh Dera tells us it is that law is force

it is absolute capitalization the

hyperbolic appropriation of violence

some a question that I ask is can we

really hope for human and planetary

Justice from the Corpus of law that we

have now as we have it now that has come

to us by a way of a history of producing

racialized enslavement exploitative

colonization and its afterlives

including neocolonial racial

capitalism so the Judgment I constructed

seeks to question the centrality of the

current framework of UR modern law as to

sole source of sucker for the harms of

the

anthropos it has as as its focus point

the bottom of the waters into which the

zong's souls were cast I use extra legal

and extra textual sources to provide a

comparative lens lens by Framing the

Judgment as a first-person account of a

law student who was taken in their

dreams to an underwater court to hear

the

petition the switch perspective is meant

to dislodge the curing of profit and

property making by questioning

everything we consider settled about

about the law and the Futures that we

can persit from this dislodging so what

if nature is centered and existence

under the waters is placed at the

driving seats or in the driving seat of

adjudication what questions or what

answers do we get what different

Frameworks of views of humanity and law

do we uh conceive from that so what if

the souls of the zong found new life and

new worlds Under the Sea worlds that are

currently being destroyed because human

continues to do harm to the waters in

various

ways so in writing this judgment and a

further monograph dedicated to metaphors

which is what I'm very very tiredly

attempting to do at the moment my aim is

to explore the use of other ways of

thinking to imagine forms of

jurisprudence better suited to the

volatility that environmental

Devastation

brings if the the law is unprepared for

such volatility as well as the

temporal uh of aspects of that

volatility so the laws um ideas around

around things like uh imminence

reasonable foreseeability

predictability maybe we need to think

about Frameworks beyond the law and I

think uh science fiction can provide

such a such a uh space I do often joke

with my students that it's probably just

an excuse for me to watch Doctor Who and

say that that's uh research work uh but

I think more seriously that science

fiction gives us room to uh engage or uh

sort of unsettle some of the things that

we think are settled and the law and

literature movement is a sort of wide

and settled uh movement and the science

fiction movement within legal

jurisprudence is uh has been gradually

building up and developing over the last

couple of of years uh and I think it was

at the

2021 slsa there was a whole stream

dedicated to science fiction and and law

one of course uh I was very happy to uh

join in and present at it at at it so

according to Cal death science fiction

can be useful as it has the potential to

imagine alternative worlds and imagine

radical

Alternatives within this I specifically

uh rely on black African science fiction

this I device as an umbrella term that

describes a literature genre that has

directly confronted questions of

structural racial Injustice and the

reproduction of race as a global

organizing principle in space and time

so I use the umbrella term of black

African science fiction to say uh to

describe more than afrofuturism which

has sort of received a lot of uh uh sort

of U it's more in the spotlight now but

I think it's it should be understood

within this genre that afro futurism is

only a little bit of black African

science fiction because uh one of the

reasons for that it is very much located

in the United States of America and

there lots of other uh sort of um

subgenres within this that are located

elsewhere a lot of the uh uh uh

speculative fiction for example from the

African continent the aims the Origins

do not collocate exactly with afro

futurism uh and quite a number of these

writers have suggested that they don't

write uh AFR futurism even though

sometimes are placed under the same

heading so I think black African science

fiction describes this uh genre a little

bit better and the their subgenres under

that but I don't only rely on black

African science fiction I also rely on

indigenous jurisprudences that embody

alternative ways of thinking about what

nature is and Humanity's relationship to

to it uh and I think there there's some

entanglements within black African

science fiction and Indigenous

jurisprudences but there also some

points of departure there lots of bits

of indigenous jurisprudences that are

very very old and there lots of parts of

black African science fiction that are

very relatively new and uh sort of bring

in new

technologies uh indigenous jurisprudence

often addu a personality to Nature and I

find that very interesting for example

the indigenous peoples of Colombia often

humanize the Earth as a mother character

in 2017 in New Zealand uh the country

accepted the indigenous Mari proposal

and recognized the fangu river as a

legal entity with rights and

responsibilities similar to a human

person Graham writing from uh oana so

Australia New Zealand uh T straight

Islands describes two concept ceps that

underpin jurisprudence uh from that uh

region firstly that the land is the

source of Law and secondly that no one

is alone in this world these ideas begin

to disrupt the individualism and

anthropos centricity of

law however just like the adoption of

indigenous principles in into

constitutions in South America uh

Bolivia in particular I think that

granting nature personality rights

within law comes with inherent

limitations Chief among these uh

limitations is the fact that many

indigenous jurisprudence are actually

fundamentally D diametrically distinct

from Euro modern law therefore one could

argue that granting the wanganui river

personality grants the river rights to

be a Euro modern person rather than

fully actualizing the indigenous idea of

what a person is so within my my own

work I I trouble this tendency by

exploring how far we can go practically

and imaginatively to dislodge your

modern personality as the standard

around which legal knowledge revolves

and I don't really have a clear-cut

answer to that question uh but happy to

explore that

further but my aim is to push the

boundaries of the limits of the form and

content of law to reexamine the question

what does it mean to be a person or to

put a different what does it mean to be

human in this world this is because to

question the presumptions upon which the

world making of Eur modern legal

knowledge is based the tools adopted

must have the capacity to bend the rules

of laws assumed Naturals with impunity

to go back to the question what does it

mean to be human in this world and has

the law been able across the years to

answer that question with

clarity as such we must do more more

than bend nature to fit with the demands

of law to survive at all we may have to

completely abandon our idea of law if

we're if fitting nature to foot with the

demands um or bending nature to fit with

the demands of law has not reversed has

been unable to reverse the environmental

damage that we are and and the

environmental catastrophe that is coming

then the question is how do we survive I

think speculative fiction provides us

with flexible tools to do this given us

as uh car death has says and I mentioned

earlier the potential to imagine

alternative worlds to imagine a world

where we are not destroyed and we do not

destroy each other and the Earth that we

uh currently survive on is also

preserved it is also a space within

which we can paraphrasing Patricia melza

develop new and necessary terminology to

describe our future the future that we

do need to

survive speculative fiction allows us to

depart from pre-ordained registers to

the extent of our

imagination uh in writing um these sorts

of judgments I think that phrase to the

extent of our imagination is an

important caveat in the building of

these different uh new

worlds we are restricted by our own

training in law I am particularly

restricted in by my own training as a a

previously practicing lawyer working

with an NGO and teaching a lot of

contract uh and taught law I'm also

restricted by the language in which I

write uh often writing only in English

and the structure of the story that I am

telling I have to tell WR a judgment as

a judgment is supposed to be written

with the various uh

participants uh entering into the

courtroom at the time we expect them to

enter and being able to say the things

that we only been able to say the things

we expect them to say for example using

a courtroom format flies in the face of

indigenous

jurisprudences that believe that a

person almost naturally brings with them

their ancestors into rooms that they

enter as such if we accept that this

indigenous Juris Prudence is sound is

Right a court case between the

descendants of colonizers and the

descendants of the colonized or uh

descendants of the enslaved and the

descendants of the enslavers this

writing a court case based on those uh

uh on those imaginaries throws up

certain problems in essence we would be

asking the person who is killed to be in

the room with the person who killed them

the person who was enslaved to be in the

room with their torturer and

molester and this is something that I

seek to trouble more and uh further in

my work on this theme so the like I said

this is a uh the first well not really

the first it's like 1.8 in a series of

works that I in which I'm using science

fiction to trouble how we teach

different areas of

law nevertheless I think despite these

limitations I still think it's a useful

exercise to begin to reimagine the

nature of law itself a way in which we

may begin to unsettle our acceptance of

all the structures that underpins our

realities through its

gaze like I said I I don't want to talk

about uh sort of recount the judgment to

you because it's about 6,000 words

anyway uh and that will take us all

afterno but there's certain things that

I wanted to trouble uh and I I so

initially my initial thought thought was

to rewrite uh Gregson and Gilbert but I

felt that given voice to those who had

been the victims of the zong could not

be done within the context of a

courtroom uh above ground essentially um

and beyond that it still places the

human in the driving seat if the victims

of the zong are the only people who uh

we consider so the human victims of the

zong are the only people who we consider

to be the victims of the zong we have

130 people thrown

into the the ocean uh and as uh nor Ser

uh Phillip's uh book zong tells us this

wasn't an isolated event it was common

practice at the time um and now forget

the name of the the guy who wrote this

article of um how sharks used uh during

that time changeed their uh migratory

patterns to follow the slave ships

because this was a common practice so

they would follow the slave ships

waiting for uh human cargo to be thrown

overboard so who are the victims of the

zong beyond the human victims of the

Zong and how does this practice of

throwing things into the waters and

abandoning people to the waters continue

uh and how do we conceive of this within

law is it possible to conceive of this

above ground and so uh the Judgment

itself is supposed to be a petition

brought by the

waters which raises the first question

who gets to hear this petition it cannot

be a human being who gets to hear this

petition if the petition is uh made uh

by the Waters so the water here is the

petition of the waters uh but I'm also

trying to reverse this concept of

hierarchy within that uh but also uh

have uh sort of two separate characters

uh so I resolve that uh in a way within

the Judgment but the next question then

is what's the harm how do we conceive of

harm when humanity is not in the driving

seat uh so in the writing of this

judgment we had a couple of uh seminars

where we uh sort of tried to talk

through our ideas and in one of them uh

we talked about the law of the sea and

it an interesting comment uh was made

about how the law of the sea governs

humans uh human beings authority over

the sea and not the needs of the sea and

so I Tred to conceive of harm from the

perspective of under the water uh but in

adding on in conceiving of that harm we

still need to think about the victims of

the zong so what I've try to do in that

judgment is to think through those

questions in various layers so unal this

is the human uh harm but this is the

harm to uh sort of nature in different

ways different uh aspects of nature uh

but if and if we're thinking about what

the harm to humanity is another question

would be who should speak for Humanity

based on uh the this concept of the

anthropos

scene um who is the most voiceless and I

use the uh spivak's uh question can the

abolt and speak uh we often uh to be

able to uh bring a case to court you

have to be heard by the court but what

if the court doesn't see that human

being cannot see the human being

if what if the structure of the court is

the thing that is blocking the human

being for being from being seen how do

you then begin to conceive of bringing a

claim of uh sort of narrating harm and

damage before the

court and and the final questions that I

try to answer are question of the

verdict and the sentence uh what are the

purposes of verdict and sentences within

the courtrooms that we currently operate

within and what other um uh sort of

Frameworks epistemologies around Justice

uh can we possibly conceive of and in

that sense I also sort of try and argue

that in layers from reparative Justice

to restorative justice to punitive

Justice what are those so what are the

different uh sort of outcomes that would

bring in this uh particular situation

and who gets to tell the story I think

it's always uh an important uh thing

that we need to think about especially

through the lens of the law and

literature movement uh what story is law

telling about itself and who gets to

tell that story uh often sort of gives

us a different um answer to that

question so that's a summary of the

Judgment without summarizing uh the

Judgment those are the key questions

that I try uh to answer uh so I'm going

to this is my uh final uh slide and I

want to re reiterate my central

concern as an academic within a law

school how do we teach and research law

in a world of collapsing everpresent

Colonial time how do we convey to our

students what it means to live in the

devastation of time cuz it seems that

law doesn't really have sufficient

language and uh terminology to read Life

As We Live it completely to live to read

and explain convey the meaning of the

space that we exist in to protect the

space that we exist in and to properly

account for accumulated time the effects

of human uh activity on the earth and so

to survive we may need to look beyond

the language of Law and this is uh sort

of the experiment and my sort of current

work is trying to answer in some way

that question and so that's why I end

with uh by sharing this uh short verse

so I wrote this

to capture my thoughts on these

questions it is my practice when I'm

trying to figure something out in a very

academic and almost dry way to sort of

write a poem so that I can also feel

what I'm trying to say uh in the

tradition of people like Dion Dion brand

Andrea Davis and Audrey Lord I think and

believe that poetry is not a luxury it's

a necessary tool to help us to see to

feel and to dream it helps us to think

about how we can live in relation to

each other and in relation to the Earth

that we exist that we currently only

precariously survive upon and not a in

possession of human labor human

resources or the Earth so uh reading the

poem and I'll stop um here we stand in

the ruins of time distracted as we are

by shiny steel Towers uh steel and glass

towers that kiss the sky constantly

looking away from the destruction from

which they rise away from stolen labor

depleted forests and polluted land

in these we cannot breathe from these we

cannot move in these we and the Earth

will die my friends history is coming

for us in blood soaked land in the

waters of Despair in a planet on fire

and in the devastation of time uh and

I'll stop there thank you so much for

listening than thank you very much Fuki

for an excellent presentation lots of

really interesting ideas

and what I'll do is I'll open um the uh

floor up to questions so if you'd like

to ask fuk a question then if you could

go to the uh Q&A there's a little Q&A

icon and if you click on that then uh

you can just um uh put put a question in

and we'll um we'll we'll then read them

and I'll read them uh to to fuk so uh if

you just look on the Q&A icon and you

can POS your questions uh to fuka and

will be happy to answer them um just to

sort of get going I mean this is very

much from my perspective I mean you make

you make this point about um the law of

the sea being about human needs it's um

the law of the sea convention is very

much about human needs um and and indeed

all the conservation measures actually

come with the with sort of conditions

about sustainable use so um you know we

we we wanted we want to preserve fish

because we also want to eat them um is

it possible to detach um

the sea from from these

needs all yeah I mean that's that's

essentially the question I'm trying to

answer um I don't know that it is

possible but I think we have to question

that and to keep questioning uh that I

mean uh for example I'm uh from

originally from Nigeria uh and we are

very much

canival uh it's uh you know I speak to

my vegetarian friends who visited the

country and they find it really really

difficult uh

to um sort of have their dietary needs

met because of that but over the last

couple of years for example the question

is being asked because of uh

environmental overe exploitation of uh

nature uh which is leading to conflict

because the nature of the way in which

uh cattle are raised in the country are

sort of massive grazing lands but the

those because of the uh uh what's it

called desertification the Sahara is

moving uh southwards there's fewer and

fewer grazing land so they the the

cattle raras are moving southwards which

is encroaching upon the farmlands in the

South and there's lots of quite deadly

conflict and so there's a recognition

that to stop the conflict people need to

consider uh maybe don't eat so much uh

um for for the survival of uh themselves

and once the question begins to be asked

they then consider so what about the

animal right uh you know if we don't

kill these

animals can we begin to think of them

also as life forms that need

protection uh and I think the more we

ask the questions the more we are

attuned to the needs of the sea so to

put that question back uh where you know

where you have asked it so the more I

think it's

it's it helps to begin to ask impossible

questions and I I I think the question

of possibility and you you may note from

uh my book title Reflections on Power

and possibility because a lot of the

questions about decolonization that have

been asked and a lot of the limitations

we find around what people think is

possible and I think we are only limited

by human imagination as to what is

possible uh and which is kind of why I

went from writing that sort of slightly

uh very analytical book to going into

questions of imagination and the law and

literature movement because I think we

need imagination to survive uh and that

helps us ask so rather than saying is it

possible let's try and see if it is uh

possible is that sort of answer your

question question I mean it's it's an

interesting point also I mean you sort

of raised the conflict between in

Northern Nigeria between sort of

pastoralists and and agriculturalists so

again this would be very much part of

their can we see them as indigenous

peoples their indigenous identity the

the connection that people have with

with their cattle that it's it's very

much it's very very intimate cultural

connection uh as again the The

agriculturalists Who again have a very

close connection with with their

particular source so we got two two

cultures brought into direct conflict um

through through the sort of climate um

through climate change yeah I and I

think it's it's more three cultures

because not only do you have the

agriculturalist culture and the

pastoralist culture you also have the

land as property culture uh All In

conflict on well this is my land because

I bought it and at the same time this is

my land because it was my grandfather's

land and it belongs to our family so th

those things have always been in

Conflict it's just getting you know into

sharper and uh um sharper conflict and

yes I do agree that they're sort of

indigenous epistemologies that are in

Conflict uh and being able to talk about

those in quite concrete ways about where

they come from what they do and uh sort

of the underlying underpinning ideas

behind them I think is very important to

actually find uh an answer or some sort

of

solution look at the the Q&A box still

no questions I just put a chat out if if

you'd like to if you'd like to ask for

luk here a question um please uh now

now's the CH Now's the Time why she's

here just just see if anyone's so anyone

wants to

ah there we are um yes we get yes right

um okay so we'll start with

uh with Camilo and uh let's just there's

another one coming in um I'll get to

that one in a second so Camilo asks

thank you very much for this

presentation uh more than interesting

ideas I was wondering whether uh fluk

can share um their thoughts on the

classical critique of the scholars on

the myth of the noble savage arguing

against the way in which we construct

and romanticize the idea of indigenous

peoples and their relationship with

nature yeah I I I you know I think the

the myth or the Trope of the noble

savage is a very uh interesting one uh

again it it it fits in very much with

the law and literature movement because

uh one of the ways in which the law and

literature movement is used is to

critique literary Works which include

like books but also so uh you know the

big screen uh as well as the small

screen and we see quite a lot of these

tropes here uh and I think one of the

ways to engage properly with uh

indigenous jurisprudences is to engage

with them uh and to try and put them

into practice and try and I mean when I

say put them into practice I mean engage

with them in our work and sort of put uh

uh do some analysis with them and uh

think about how they work in practice

and that that's kind of what I try and

of the things I try to do in this

particular chapter but also uh in my

work uh as a whole uh to not fall you

know under the Spell essentially of that

myth because the the idea of the noble

savage uh sort of and the uh sort of

indigenous people's relationship with

nature presupposes a sort of almost

Detachment and lack of complexity in in

their Humanity in the in the humanity of

indigenous peoples I think one of the

things that it's important to note and

we've already touched upon this is the

way in which indigenous jurisprudences

are also in conflict with each other and

that there's just there's not just one

uh sort of indigenous uh jurisprudence

the second thing is to uh and this also

applies to our thoughts or ideas on

decolonization is to think about how we

engage with them and the purposes for

which we engage with them I think one of

the primary purposes is survival which

is a forward-looking aspect not a

backward looking uh one so we're not or

let me put it this way I don't think we

should be engaging with indigenous

jurisprudences just for the purposes of

engaging with them uh I think we need to

be engaging with them for purposes of

Justice

survival into the future of every one uh

as as best as we can considering how uh

sort of uh exploited and depleted the

Earth already

is okay and we got another one uh it's

Anonymous um do you think indigenous

peoples really need the modernization to

get them close to the recovery of their

Homeland particularly related to the

environmental issues that nowadays

happening well I think that depends on

what we consider to be modernization um

uh

I think uh what's his name Walter minolo

for example Annabel kianu uh those are

two writers that talk about you know

coloniality and modernity I think um

what's his name now Nelson Maldonado

Torres also talks about that how

coloniality and modernity are

constitutive of each other so if we're

thinking about modernization in a

kiano um molo sense then what we're

saying is do they need colonizing ation

to get them to recovery of their

Homeland which is in itself

contradictory because that's how they uh

lost their Homeland so I I do struggle

with the concept of

modernization uh for uh for that reason

but I think it goes back to what I was

saying in response to the first question

how do we get to the future the future

is not necessarily modernization and I

have a whole chapter in my book where I

talk about time and how uh the concept

of Euro modern time uh often suggest

that we are rapidly that progress is

happening because we are moving sort of

forward but that's not necessarily

progress and therefore going to the

future may need us to break from certain

uh um of tropes from the past and that's

progress so modernization I think often

gets trapped in that where you know time

is passing and we're becoming more

modern and I think for that reason I

divorce most of my

uh explanation of surviving into the

future from modernization or modernity

what I think is needed for Recovery of

Homeland especially from the perspective

of legal Scholars to you know to of uh I

I often think it's important to remind

legal Scholars that we're not that

powerful H we're not we don't do that

much um uh if you think for example of

the uh indigenous movements in places

like New Zealand Australia Canada there

are people who are not in law schools

who are doing uh actual physical work in

trying to sort of uh recover uh you know

like the landback uh

movements uh that's different work from

what we're doing for especially for

lawyers academics a lot of our work is

we sit in uh a sort of a dark crowded

room like this one and do some thinking

and do some writing for me surviving

into the future means to question the

terminologies the epistemologies that we

are using so that when those who are

actually doing physical organizing work

uh when they make their move we will

have the language to understand it in

some cases to give it power or to give

it uh speed to make it easier to convey

and I think that's that is our work and

I I you know I want to be quite careful

about saying this work is going to get

people their Homeland back because I

yeah I think I I don't think we we we're

anywhere we do sometimes and you see

academics thinking of themselves as

radical activists but uh I I begin to

realize more and more the limitations of

what we're doing you know we write uh I

I wrote a book which costs about

80s like that does

unless I throw it at someone it doesn't

make much happen unless someone buys it

and reads it uh so I think there's a

limits to that it's its radical ability

to recover

homelands um just uh no no new questions

at the moment really I think Final Call

any questions give a couple of minutes

and see if we if we get any any further

questions and and then I think um we'll

leave it there there

yeah last schol any any further

questions OHA

um so we got I got a um a question from

Franchesca

who asks uh how do you think that

decolonial legal efforts interact with

the continued use of the law to uphold

colonialism colonization for example

within environmental violence cases in

North

America oh that that's a big question

I'm not sure I've got enough time um I

mean that's my

book essentially is the because I think

for

me the question is is the law as it as

we have it now and we're talking

specifically about Euro modern law and

not like indigenous jurisprudences we're

talking about not just the content but

the nature uh and that's what I examine

in uh decolonization and legal knowledge

the nature of the law uh and I examine

three main things uh around its nature

so uh I mentioned a couple of things in

my talk just now the first one how does

the law construct what it means to be

human and how does that you know how is

that in some way sometimes distinct from

the legal person so can the law see our

Humanity can the law really protect our

Humanity especially as our humanity is

uh which is a second aspect often linked

to the land we need to survive so can

the law see human beings as we are but

also human beings as we are as much as

we are connected to the land does the

law is the law actually designed for

that or does the laws just see human

beings as legal persons individuals and

the land as a property commodity and

then uh the passage of time which I

talked about is the law really equipped

to for example link uh the dispossession

of uh indigenous Landing the Americas in

the 1500s with uh uh Devastation

environmental violence to the land and

to human beings in 2023 the law doesn't

work that way right and so for me

decolonization has to recognize those

things so decolonial legal efforts

covers a wide uh so in in uh Francesca's

question covers a wide range of

different uh sort of avenues of how

people have conceived of decolonization

and how people can conceive of

decolonization uh and that's why I said

that's a whole that's a whole sort of

big big question but for me it the main

if I was going to summarize or if I was

going to attempt to summarize is to

think about the design of the law rather

than you know this is decolonization or

this is not decolonization I think we

also need to look at the law because I I

I I one of the driving forces behind

writing the book was the fear that

people were going let's decolonize this

thing but they were not thinking about

what does decolonization mean and what

does this thing mean and if you put them

together what does that mean uh and I

found that quite a number of people were

talking at Cross purposes about you know

we would say things like decolonize the

museum uh and that ended up just being

changing the plaque on a stolen artifact

to this was taken and nothing nothing

else uh but that happens uh and I uh so

to try and answer the question uh I

think we need to explore and break down

our terminology and uh question where we

want what what do we want the outcome to

be and how can we use the tools of Law

and decolonization together or

separately to get to those

outcomes I think uh I think we'll uh

leave leave things there I think U yep

um so uh just uh uh just like everyone

uh thank you very much for joining us

and thank you again fuk for an excellent

presentation uh lots and lots of

interesting ideas there so um I know you

can't give her give her a round of

applause

but thank you very much and you know um

uh we all very much appreciate uh

appreciate your talk so U and best of

luck with with your work um so thank you

thank you so much thank you James and uh

thank you everyone for turning up uh I

know it's not beautiful weather but it's

always great to to have people listen to

you thank you so much