One of the many consequences of the unexpected political events of 2016 has been a renewed focus on communities on the margins of society and of the law. In the era of Brexit and Donald Trump, refugees, economic migrants, the white working class, sexual outcasts and racial minorities, to name but a few, have dominated the headlines as the world appears to be stumbling towards a new political dispensation. While there is no shortage of discussion of particular groups that find themselves at the sharp end of recent debates – often drawing on long-standing traditions of scholarship that engage questions of sexual and racial discrimination – in this volume we seek to offer a more generalized reflection on this very question of marginalization and the critical purchase to be found in reading from the margins of legal discourse. The shifting sands in political life serve to remind us of the contingent nature of the ‘centre ground’ and ought to attune us to the forces that produce distinctions between the periphery and core, the orthodox and marginal. In some political regimes, scholars embed their criticism of government policies in endnotes and footnotes, such that their ‘core’ arguments can be discerned only by looking at the ‘margins’ of the text. Previously ignored or neglected categories of people now receive renewed attention in political and legal discourse, though the ultimate effect of such renewed attention is arguably still to be determined. Finally, the humanities are at times considered ‘marginal’ to legal studies, and the interdisciplinary turn in legal scholarship has underscored the contribution humanistic inquiry can make to the study of law. Taking a step back from the more immediate debates about marginalized communities, and drawing on a range of interdisciplinary approaches, this special issue of Law and Humanities probes more fundamental issues about the definition, formation, perpetuation and appropriation of the margin. It addresses the margin not so much as a fixed demarcation in the law, but as a concept which lies at the intersection of history, genre, identity and the philosophy of law. This collection is animated by two questions: first, by what processes – epistemological, political, cultural – does the law relegate an entity or a group to the margin, and what is at stake in the processes of

中文翻译：

---

简介：法律边际

2016年突如其来的政治事件带来的许多后果之一是，人们重新将注意力集中在社会和法律边缘的社区。在英国退欧和唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）时代，仅举几例，难民，经济移民，白人工人阶级，性流离失所者和少数族裔成为了头条新闻，因为世界似乎正踏上新的政治体制。尽管不乏对某些群体的讨论，这些群体发现自己处于最近辩论的尖锐时刻（通常借鉴涉及性别和种族歧视问题的长期学术传统），但在本册中，我们试图提供一种更为笼统的反思关于边缘化这个问题，以及从法律话语的边缘中可以找到的关键购买。政治生活中不断变化的沙粒使我们想起了“中心地带”的偶然性，并应使我们适应在外围与核心，正统与边缘之间产生区别的力量。在某些政治体制中，学者将对政府政策的批评放在尾注和脚注中，以便仅通过查看文本的“边距”才能辨别其“核心”论点。以前被忽视或被忽视的人群现在在政治和法律话语中得到了重新的关注，尽管这种重新关注的最终效果可能尚待确定。最后，人文学科有时被视为法学的“边缘”，法律学的跨学科转向强调了人文探究对法学的贡献。本期《法律与人文》特刊从关于边缘化社区的较直接辩论中退后一步，并借鉴了一系列跨学科方法，探讨了有关边缘的定义，形成，永存和挪用的更基本问题。它所涉及的空白不只是法律上的固定分界，而是作为一种概念，它位于历史，体裁，身份和法律哲学的交汇处。该集合受到两个问题的启发：首先，法律在认识论，政治，文化的哪个过程中将一个实体或一个组织放到边缘，以及在什么过程中危及生命？本期《法律与人文》特刊探讨了有关边距的定义，形成，永存和挪用的更基本的问题。它所涉及的空白不只是法律上的固定分界，而是作为一种概念，它位于历史，体裁，身份和法律哲学的交汇处。该集合受到两个问题的启发：首先，法律在认识论，政治，文化的哪个过程中将一个实体或一个组织放到边缘，以及在什么过程中危及生命？本期《法律与人文》特刊探讨了有关边距的定义，形成，永存和挪用的更基本的问题。它所涉及的空白不只是法律上的固定分界，而是作为一种概念，它位于历史，体裁，身份和法律哲学的交汇处。该集合受到以下两个问题的启发：首先，法律在认识论，政治，文化的哪个过程中将一个实体或团体放到边缘，以及在什么过程中危及生命？