خلاصة:
Deconstruction, which brings to mind the name of Jacques Derrida, has a challenging relation with law and legal studies. Nevertheless, the belief in the obvious clarity of the legal text, and the concealment of the law-making violence, necessitates the deconstruction of the law, and requires consideration of this thought in legal theory. Discussions that have so far focused on the relation between deconstruction and legal studies can be divided into two general categories; The first category seeks to turn deconstruction into a technique of legal reasoning, and the other seeks to address its moral side. But merely establishing a relation between Derrida and law, if at the cost of eliminating the radical side of deconstruction and turning it into a method or moral advice, does not make much difference in status quo. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent the transformation of deconstruction in the mainstream legal theory, and to emphasize its intervening aspect. In doing so, one can seek to highlight the third and radical type of legal thinking relation with deconstruction. Accordingly, the present article, after examining the relationship between deconstruction and legal studies, seeks to critically analyze the types of legal theories influenced by Derrida's thinking with an analytical-critical method, and to emphasize the deconstruction of law as a movement which exposes and summons the hidden myths and silenced voices of law, and in this way, breaks the one and only logos of law and opens a way beyond it.
ملخص الجهاز:
Nor does he want to extract a purely ethical recommendation from Derridean thought; rather, by paying attention to the relationship between Derrida and Marx, he attempts to make full use of the radical potential of deconstruction and views it as a combative movement against the order of domination.
The most important example in this regard is Costas Douzinas, 1 a prominent professor of the philosophy of law at Birkbeck, University of London, who, through attention to the relationship between Marx and Derrida, sees the goal of critical legal thought as resistance.
In the late eighties, when it seemed that the life of the critical legal studies movement had come to an end after its excessive focus on technical issues, aesthetics, and methodical interpretation, and many supporters of this movement were reconsidering their past positions, attention to the ethical dimension of deconstruction, in addition to its methodical dimension, was for these legal scholars "a new starting point in the search for a new way to achieve 2 more constructive results.
Law against Justice and Solidarity: Rereading Derrida and Agamben at the Margins of the One and the Many, in: "Administering Interpretation", edited by Peter Goodrich and Michel Rosenfeld, New York, USA: Fordham University Press, 2019, p.
1. The Necessity of Deconstruction for Legal Thought Derrida, contrary to the dominant legal discourse, considers violence not as an exceptional matter in law, but as inherent to it.
(
, 
, 
)
