Abstract Throughout its history, law and development has been so confined to or dominated by the economic, that a clear break with the past may be needed. The “three moments” analysis that Trubek and Santos presented in 2006 shows that, whereas law and development theory moved from law as an instrument for state power (first moment) to law as an instrument of the market (second moment), and in a third moment was conceived of as regulating the market, it never lost its primary focus on economic development and on economic law. And more fundamentally, it may never have moved beyond a market-friendly approach. Just like institutional dimensions (including law, legal institutions) were for a long time marginal in development theories, justice concerns have not taken center stage in law and development studies, although the rule of law has had some traction. This begs the question whether those studying the role of law in bringing about justice and transformative social change should claim the law and development field as their field of study too, or rather create a countervailing field. This paper examines pros and cons for claiming a fourth moment in law and development studies by those who study whether and how law (including human rights law) disciplines and tames the state, the market and other powerful actors.

中文翻译：

---

迈向法律与发展的第四步？

摘要在其历史上，法律和发展一直局限于经济或由经济主导，因此可能需要与过去有明显的突破。特鲁贝克和桑托斯在2006年提出的“三个时刻”分析表明，法律和发展理论从法律作为国家力量的工具（第一时刻）向法律作为市场工具（第二时刻）转变，第三时刻被认为是监管市场，它从未失去对经济发展和经济法律的主要关注。从根本上说，它可能永远不会超越市场友好型方法。正如制度维度（包括法律，法律制度）长期以来在发展理论中处于边缘地位一样，司法关注在法律与发展研究中并未占据中心位置，尽管法治有一定的吸引力。这就引出了一个问题，即那些研究法律在实现正义和变革性社会变革中的作用的人是否也应该将法律和发展领域作为其研究领域，还是应该创造一个反补贴领域。本文研究了那些研究法律（包括人权法）是否以及如何纪律和驯服国家，市场和其他有力行为者的人在法律与发展研究中主张第四时刻的利弊。