book, it is unsurprising that no contributing author is entirely against the uniting of theory and history. Certainly, a range of considerations and practical difficulties bringing theory and history together are well problematized and explored in a number of chapters. The reader finishes this book with a sense of the potential for interdisciplinary research both between theory and history, and with wider disciplines. One is left with the feeling that interdisciplinary researchers now have some additional material to add to their arsenal, and should feel bolstered in their belief that legal theory and history are excellent bedfellows. However, sceptics of interdisciplinary approaches are far less likely to read this book at all and where they do, there is enough counter material in later chapters of the book to enforce the belief that theory and history are essentially incompatible, or that one serves the other rather than being equal partners. Certainly, legal history is presented time and again as a useful contributor to legal theory. What this book does very well is to highlight the spaces within which there is potential for research. It is too soon to say whether this book will initiate a more substantial intellectual movement, bringing together legal theory and legal history, but it is certainly a very good start. One way Lobban and Del Mar may effectuate such a movement might be through greater inclusivity in any future editions of this book, or future events in the field. Pirie and Douglas-Scott are the only two female contributors to this book which continues a trend in recent legal history collections of female colleagues being notably absent. Given that one of the aims of this book is to bring researchers together, the dearth of female contributors is worthy of consideration. This book provides well-researched and well-written weapons for the arsenal of the interdisciplinary researcher, but the long-term effectiveness of this collection will very much depend on how many sceptics of interdisciplinary research the book reaches. I shall certainly be recommending it to my legal theorist colleagues.

中文翻译：

---

亚洲的宪法制定：大英帝国之后的非殖民化和国家建设

本书，毫不奇怪，没有一位撰稿人完全反对理论与历史的统一。当然，将理论和历史结合在一起的一系列考虑和实际困难在许多章节中都得到了很好的问题化和探讨。读者在阅读本书时，会感觉到在理论和历史之间以及更广泛的学科之间进行跨学科研究的潜力。一种感觉是，跨学科研究人员现在有一些额外的材料可以添加到他们的武器库中，并且应该相信法律理论和历史是优秀的同床异梦。然而，跨学科方法的怀疑者根本不太可能阅读这本书以及他们在哪里阅读，本书后面的章节中有足够多的反面材料来强化这样一种信念，即理论和历史本质上是不相容的，或者一个为另一个服务而不是平等的伙伴。当然，法律史作为对法律理论有用的贡献者一再出现。这本书做得很好的是突出了具有研究潜力的空间。现在说这本书是否会引发一场更实质性的思想运动，将法律理论和法律史结合起来还为时过早，但这无疑是一个很好的开始。Lobban 和 Del Mar 实现这种运动的一种方式可能是在本书的任何未来版本或该领域的未来事件中实现更大的包容性。Pirie 和 Douglas-Scott 是这本书中仅有的两位女性撰稿人，这延续了近期女性同事法律史合集中明显缺席的趋势。鉴于本书的目标之一是将研究人员聚集在一起，女性贡献者的缺乏值得考虑。这本书为跨学科研究人员的武器库提供了经过充分研究和精心编写的武器，但是这本书的长期有效性将在很大程度上取决于这本书所涉及的跨学科研究怀疑论者的数量。我肯定会向我的法律理论家同事推荐它。这本书为跨学科研究人员的武器库提供了经过充分研究和精心编写的武器，但是这本书的长期有效性将在很大程度上取决于这本书所涉及的跨学科研究怀疑论者的数量。我肯定会向我的法律理论家同事推荐它。这本书为跨学科研究人员的武器库提供了经过充分研究和精心编写的武器，但是这本书的长期有效性将在很大程度上取决于这本书所涉及的跨学科研究怀疑论者的数量。我肯定会向我的法律理论家同事推荐它。