Since the first Asian Law and Society Conference (ALSA) was held at the National University of Singapore (NUS) in 2016, a number of special sessions have been organized to focus on the deconstruction of the Westphalian transnational order based on the concept of the “nation-state.”1 This dominant hegemony was predicated on the congruence of the geo-territorial boundaries of both the state and the nation, as well as the “assumed integration” of state-defined “citizenship” and another distinctly layered “membership” based on culture, ethnic, religious, and indigenous affiliations. The “nation-state” ideology has thus masked a history of tensions and conflicts, often manifested in the form of oppression, persecution, and genocide directed at the nation and its peoples by the state and its predatory institutions. Our studies have shown that such conflicts between the nation and the state have been observed in multiple regions in Asia, including Kashmir in India; Moro and Islamic communities of Mindanao in the Philippines; Karen, Kachin, and other autonomous nations in Myanmar; West Papua, Aceh, Kalimantan, South Moluccas, Minahasa, and Riau in Indonesia; Kurds in multiple state systems of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran; and Palestine in Israel, among many other culturally autonomous nucleated communities in Asia and across the world.2 The phrase “the nation and the state” was specifically chosen to distinguish and highlight the unique conflictual histories of two geo-political entities and to provide a fundamentally differing interpretation of history, geography, the role of law, and global affairs from the perspectives of nation peoples, rather than from that of the state or international organizations, as traditional analyses do. The Westphalian “nation-state” hegemony led to the inviolability of the state’s sovereign control over the nation and peoples within a state-delimited territory. The state then began to engage in another predatory project: to strengthen and extend its international influence over other states and, thus, the nations within these states, by adopting new constitutional provisions to offer cross-border “citizenship” to diasporic “ethnic-nationals” and descendants of “ex-migrants” who now inhabit foreign states. The nations have similarly capitalized on constitutional activism by erecting their own Constitutions to explore collaboration with other nations, as well as diasporic populations of their own, in order to carve out a path toward the nations’ independence within, and even beyond, the respective state systems. The “constitutional” activism sought by the state and the nation has become an important political vehicle with which to engage in possible collaboration with diasporic “ethno-nationals” and ex-migrant communities, in order to further assert political influence and strengthen trans-border politics of the state and the nation. Three articles included in this issue investigate such constitutional activism of cross-border politics and transnational collaborations in Asia, the Americas, Europe, and other regions across the globe.

中文翻译：

---

国家与国家的脱钩：在亚洲及其他地区将跨国国家、跨境连接、侨民和“国家”身份归属宪法化

自 2016 年首届亚洲法律与社会会议（ALSA）在新加坡国立大学（NUS）召开以来，已组织了多场专题会议，重点关注基于“民族国家。”1这种主导霸权基于国家和民族的地理领土边界的一致性，以及国家定义的“公民身份”和基于文化、民族、宗教和土著关系。因此，“民族国家”意识形态掩盖了紧张和冲突的历史，通常表现为国家及其掠夺性机构针对国家及其人民的压迫、迫害和种族灭绝。我们的研究表明，在亚洲多个地区，包括印度的克什米尔地区，都观察到了这种民族与国家之间的冲突；菲律宾棉兰老岛的摩洛和伊斯兰社区；克伦、克钦和缅甸的其他自治民族；西巴布亚、亚齐、加里曼丹、南摩鹿加群岛、印度尼西亚的 Minahasa 和廖内；伊拉克、叙利亚、土耳其和伊朗多个国家体系中的库尔德人；和以色列的巴勒斯坦，以及亚洲和世界各地的许多其他文化自治的核心社区。2“民族与国家”一词是为了区分和突出两个地缘政治实体独特的冲突历史，并从不同的角度对历史、地理、法律的作用和全球事务提供根本不同的解释。民族人民，而不是像传统分析那样来自国家或国际组织的人民。威斯特伐利亚“民族国家”霸权导致国家对国家划定领土内的民族和人民的主权控制不可侵犯。然后国家开始从事另一个掠夺性项目：加强和扩大其对其他国家的国际影响力，从而影响这些国家内的国家，通过通过新的宪法条款，为现在居住在外国的散居“族裔国民”和“前移民”的后代提供跨境“公民身份”。这些国家同样利用宪法激进主义，制定自己的宪法，探索与其他国家以及本国侨民的合作，以便在各自国家内部甚至之外开辟一条通往国家独立的道路系统。国家和民族所寻求的“宪法”行动主义已成为重要的政治工具，可以与散居的“民族-国民”和前移民社区进行可能的合作，以进一步发挥政治影响力并加强跨境国家和民族的政治。