Supreme histories and brittle democracies: Courts, law, and contested regimes of historicity

In the introduction to this special issue, we explore the role of courts in the production of competing regimes of historicity and examine what political formations and social contestations are generated in the process. Drawing on theoretical debates in anthropology, socio-legal studies and history, we analyse how the unique spacetime of liberal law obscures the historical contingency of legal processes and judgements. We propose that the perceived a-historicity of the liberal legal form can render courts privileged sites for the pursuit of rival claims to political sovereignty. By embedding their historical interpretations within legal rules and procedures, states and political interest groups can make powerful claims about who legitimately belongs to a nation, and whose historical narrations should be validated as true. We analyse historicity as a fundamentally political concept that illuminates how the histories of nations and peoples are reproduced and contested in courtrooms as part of conflicting bids for political supremacy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
History and Anthropology
Published
2025-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2025.2562805
Primary Topic
Law in Society and Culture
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Supreme histories and brittle democracies: Courts, law, and contested regimes of historicity

Tobias Kelly, Sandhya Fuchs
History and Anthropology
Law in Society and Culture
article

Supreme histories and brittle democracies: Courts, law, and contested regimes of historicity

Tobias Kelly, Sandhya Fuchs
article en

Abstract

In the introduction to this special issue, we explore the role of courts in the production of competing regimes of historicity and examine what political formations and social contestations are generated in the process. Drawing on theoretical debates in anthropology, socio-legal studies and history, we analyse how the unique spacetime of liberal law obscures the historical contingency of legal processes and judgements. We propose that the perceived a-historicity of the liberal legal form can render courts privileged sites for the pursuit of rival claims to political sovereignty. By embedding their historical interpretations within legal rules and procedures, states and political interest groups can make powerful claims about who legitimately belongs to a nation, and whose historical narrations should be validated as true. We analyse historicity as a fundamentally political concept that illuminates how the histories of nations and peoples are reproduced and contested in courtrooms as part of conflicting bids for political supremacy.

History and AnthropologyVol. 36(5)
University of Bristol (GB), University of Edinburgh (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 60%
Law in Society and Culture
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Supreme histories and brittle democracies: Courts, law, and contested regimes of historicity — Tobias Kelly, Sandhya Fuchs · History and Anthropology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS