Beyond Harmonization: Trade, Human Rights and the Economy of Sacrifice

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 179-213

  Orford, Anne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

democracy; harmonization; human rights; sacrifice; Trade

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925212014     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156505002608     Document Type: Article

References (191)

1. Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 15 April 1994, in World Trade Organization, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1999), 321 (hereinafter ‘SPS Agreement'), Preamble.
2. E. Levinas, ‘The Transcendence ofWords’, in S. Hand (ed.), The Levinas Reader (1989),144, 147.
3. For a related argument about the politics of legal form, see P. Schlag, ‘“Le Hors de Texte, C'est Moi”: The Politics of Form and the Domestication of Deconstruction’, (1989-1990) 11 Cardozo Law Review 1631.
4. For a related argument about the politics of legal form., at 1633.
5. Agreement Establishing theWorld Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, inWorld Trade Organization, For a related argument about the politics of legal form note 1, at 3.
6. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994, inWorld Trade Organization, Agreement Establishing theWorld Trade Organization note 1, at 321 (hereinafter ‘TRIPS').
7. General Agreement on Trade in Services, 15 April 1994, in World Trade Organization, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights note 1, at 284 (hereinafter ‘GATS').
8. SPS Agreement, General Agreement on Trade in Services note 1.
9. Understanding on Rules and ProceduresGoverning the Settlement ofDisputes, 15April 1994, 1004, inWorld Trade Organization, SPS Agreement note 1, at 354.
10. R. Howse, ‘From Politics to Technocracy-and Back Again: The Fate of the Multilateral Trading Regime’, (2002) 96 AJIL 94, 107; J. H. H.Weiler, ‘The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats’, (2001) 35 Journal of World Trade 191.
11. M.Moore, AWorldWithoutWalls: Freedom, Development, Free Trade and Global Governance (2003), 249-50.
12. The view of the WTO as ‘a linkage machine’, and the related notion that ‘centralized, quasi-autonomous institutions may be relatively effective vehicles for the promotion of interstate cooperation between rational, egoistic state actors’, is developed in J. E. Alvarez, ‘The WTO as Linkage Machine’, (2002) 96 AJIL 146.
13. For a discussion of messianism as the central spirit guiding cosmopolitan international lawyers of the twentieth century who assumed ‘the fallibility of present society’, ‘the fallibility of the human beings that inhabit that society and the law that they create out of their narrow vision’, see M. Koskenniemi, ‘Legal Cosmopolitanism: Tom Franck'sMessianicWorld’, (2003) 35 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 471, 486.
14. SPS Agreement, For a discussion of messianism as the central spirit guiding cosmopolitan international lawyers of the twentieth century who assumed ‘the fallibility of present society’ note 1; GATS, For a discussion of messianism as the central spirit guiding cosmopolitan international lawyers of the twentieth century who assumed ‘the fallibility of present society’ note 7.
15. On the reward of the righteous, seeMatthew, 10:34-40 (Revised Standard Version).
16. Case of Refah Partisi (TheWelfare Party) and others v. Turkey, Applications Nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98, and 41344/98, ECHR, Judgment, 13 February 2003.
17. S. George, ‘Globalizing Rights?’, in M. J. Gibney (ed.), Globalizing Rights (2003), 15, 23-4.
18. ‘Globalizing Rights?’., at 22-3.
19. ‘Globalizing Rights?’., at 24.
20. ‘Globalizing Rights?’., at 17.
21. ‘Globalizing Rights?’., at 32.
22. L. Wallach and M. Sforza, Whose Trade Organization? Corporate Globalization and the Erosion of Democracy (1999).
23. R. Nader, ‘Preface’, inWallach and Sforza, Whose Trade Organization? Corporate Globalization and the Erosion of Democracy note 24, at ix, xii. See also R. Nader and L.Wallach, ‘GATT, NAFTA, and the Subversion of the Democratic Process’, in J. Mander and E. Goldsmith, The Case Against the Global Economy and for a Turn Toward the Local (1996), 92.
24. Wallach and Sforza, ‘Preface’ note 24, at 2.
25. Wallach and Sforza., at 215.
26. Wallach and Sforza., at 222.
27. See R.Howse, ‘Adjudicative Legitimacy and Treaty Interpretation in International Trade Law: The Early Years of WTO Jurisprudence’, in J. H. H.Weiler (ed.), The EU, theWTO and the NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade (2001), 35, 37.
28. K. Bagwell, P. C.Mavroidis, and R.W. Staiger, ‘It's a Question ofMarket Access’, (2002) 96 AJIL 56, 75.
29. M. J. Trebilcock and R. Howse, The Regulation of International Trade (1995), 500.
30. Alvarez, The Regulation of International Trade note 12.
31. J. P. Trachtman, ‘Institutional Linkage: Transcending “Trade and. “’, (2002) 96 AJIL 77, 88.
32. Remarks by F.M.Abbott, ‘Human Rights, Terrorism and Trade’, (2002) 96American Society of International Law Proceedings 121, 126.
33. Howse, ‘Human Rights, Terrorism and Trade’ note 30, at 69.
34. E.-U. Petersmann, ‘Time for a United Nations “Global Compact” for Integrating Human Rights into the Law ofWorldwide Organizations: Lessons from European Integration’, (2002) 13 EJIL 621, 627.
35. ‘Time for a United Nations “Global Compact” for Integrating Human Rights into the Law ofWorldwide Organizations: Lessons from European Integration’., at 626.
36. ‘Time for a United Nations “Global Compact” for Integrating Human Rights into the Law ofWorldwide Organizations: Lessons from European Integration’., at 629.
37. ‘Time for a United Nations “Global Compact” for Integrating Human Rights into the Law ofWorldwide Organizations: Lessons from European Integration’., at 624.
38. Howse, ‘Time for a United Nations “Global Compact” for Integrating Human Rights into the Law ofWorldwide Organizations: Lessons from European Integration’ note 30, at 69.
39. Remarks of L. Fisler Damrosch, ‘Human Rights, Terrorism and Trade’, (2002) 96 American Society of International Law Proceedings 128, 130.
40. P. Alston, ‘Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann’, (2002) 13 EJIL 815, 826.
41. ‘Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann’., at 842.
42. ‘Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann’., at 844.
43. ‘Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann’., at 842.
44. I am responding here to the argument by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak that ‘the real political model’ that underlies any piece of academic writing is ‘the educational institution’. See G. Chakravorty Spivak, ‘Schmitt and Poststructuralism: A Response’, (2000) 21 Cardozo Law Review 1723, 1729. For her reading of the politics that secures the opening of texts when you talk about them to ‘clusters of alterity-groups of others’ (classes, public audiences), see G. Chakravorty Spivak, Outside in the TeachingMachine (1993), 142.
45. J. K. Gibson-Graham, The End of Capitalism (as we knew it) (1996), 261.
46. But for a reading that suggests a close relationship between capitalist exchange relations and the modern ‘long-term publiccouplearrangementbasedontheassumptionof sexual fidelity’ asan'economyof intimacy’, see L. Kipnis, ‘Adultery’, in L. Berlant (ed.), Intimacy (2000), 9, 10-11.
47. Gibson-Graham, But for a reading that suggests a close relationship between capitalist exchange relations and the modern ‘long-term publiccouplearrangementbasedontheassumptionof sexual fidelity’ asan'economyof intimacy’ note 48, at 212.
48. See the discussion of the economic grounds of fascism in J. Flower MacCannell, The Hysteric's Guide to the Future Female Subject (2000), 133.
49. E. Kosofsky Sedgwick, Tendencies (1994), 19.
50. D.Kennedy, ‘Laws and Developments’, in J.Hatchard and A. Perry-Kessaris (eds.), Law and Development: Facing Complexity in the 21st Century (2003), 17, 24.
51. SPSAgreement, ‘Laws and Developments’ note 1, preamble ('Desiring to further the use ofharmonized sanitary and phytosanitary measure between members. ) and Art. 3.
52. E. Levinas, ‘Reality and its Shadow’, in S. Hand (ed.), SPSAgreement note 2, at 132.
53. SPS Agreement, ‘Reality and its Shadow’ note 1; GATS, ‘Reality and its Shadow’ note 7.
54. Key terms including ‘sanitary or phytosanitary measure’ are defined in SPS, SPS Agreement note 1, Annex A.
55. Key terms including ‘sanitary or phytosanitary measure’ are defined in SPS.,Art. 2.Theonly exception totheobligation tobase such measuresuponscientific evidence occurswhere relevant scientific evidence is insufficient. In that situation, members can provisionally adoptmeasures on the basis of pertinent information, but must seek to obtain additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk within a reasonable period of time: Art. 5(7).
56. Key terms including ‘sanitary or phytosanitary measure’ are defined in SPS., Art. 5:1.
57. Key terms including ‘sanitary or phytosanitary measure’ are defined in SPS., Art. 3(1).
58. Key terms including ‘sanitary or phytosanitary measure’ are defined in SPS., Art. 3(3).
59. Key terms including ‘sanitary or phytosanitary measure’ are defined in SPS., Art. 5.1.
60. Key terms including ‘sanitary or phytosanitary measure’ are defined in SPS., Annex A.
61. Australia-Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon,WT/DS18/AB/R, Report of the Appellate Body, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327, para. 125 [Australia-Salmon].
62. EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, Report of the Appellate Body, adopted 13 February 1998, DSR 1998: I, 135 [EC-Hormones].
63. EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)., para. 187.
64. Even if a challenged measure is based on such a risk assessment, it may be found to be in breach of the SPS Agreement if all comparable products are not subject to similar regulatory measures based on equally detailed scientifically based risk assessments: Australia-Salmon, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) note 64.
65. EC-Hormones, Even if a challenged measure is based on such a risk assessment note 65, paras. 199-200.
66. EC-Hormones., at n. 182.
67. Japan-MeasuresAffectingtheImportationofApples,Reportof theAppellateBody,WT/DS245/AB/R,26November 2003.
68. Japan-MeasuresAffectingtheImportationofApples., para. 14.
69. Japan-MeasuresAffectingtheImportationofApples., para. 147.
70. Japan-MeasuresAffectingtheImportationofApples., para. 150.
71. Japan-MeasuresAffectingtheImportationofApples., para. 165.
72. Japan-MeasuresAffectingtheImportationofApples., para. 167.
73. S. Charnovitz, ‘Triangulating theWorld Trade Organization’, (2002) 96 AJIL 28, 38.
74. GATS, ‘Triangulating theWorld Trade Organization’ note 7, Art. 1.1
75. GATS., Art. XXVIII.
76. GATS., Art. I:3(a).
77. GATS., Art. I:3(b). In particular, thismeans that governments are bound to non-conditional obligations across all sectors, and that all sectors are subject to the ongoing negotiations mandated in Art. XIX.
78. GATS., Art. I:2.
79. GATS., Art. I:2(c).
80. European Communities-Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Report of the Appellate Body,WT/DS27/AB/R, 9 September 1997, para. 220.
81. While member states can decide which sectors will be subject to these obligations, most members have alreadymade substantial commitments.Most developed countries havemade commitments in 100 or more sectors. This is partly because member governments were under strong pressure to liberalize at the time of the Uruguay Round. The Canadian Council for Policy Alternatives notes that the ‘frenetic atmosphere at the conclusion of the UR was not conducive to sober reflection about potentially non-conforming’: S. Sinclair and J. Grieshaber-Otto, Facing the Facts: A Guide to the GATS Debate (2002), 32. Member governments remain under such pressure. This is built in to the GATS through Art. XIX, which mandates successive rounds of negotiation aimed at ‘achieving a progressively higher level of liberalization’.
82. GATS, While member states can decide which sectors will be subject to these obligations, most members have alreadymade substantial commitments note 7, Art. XVII.
83. Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto, GATS note 85, at ix.
84. Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto., at 49.
85. Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto., at 50.
86. Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto., at 33-5.
87. Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto., at 54.
88. Other international trade agreements (such as NAFTA) merely require governments to list such nondiscriminatory regulations for transparency purposes-see Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto., at 53.
89. Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto, Other international trade agreements (such as NAFTA) merely require governments to list such nondiscriminatory regulations for transparency purposes-see Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto note 85, at 34-5.
90. Sinclair and Grieshaber-Otto., at 35.
91. Matthew 6:1-4 (Revised Standard Version).
92. J. Derrida,TheGift ofDeath(tr.DavidWills) (1995), 5-6.Derridaheredevelopsthis relationship of responsibility to risk and uncertainty in his reading of the meaning of the Christian legacy for European politics.
93. R. Howse, ‘Democracy, Science, and Free Trade’, (2000) 98 Michigan Law Review 2329, 2330.
94. Derrida, ‘Democracy, Science, and Free Trade’ note 97, at 60.
95. ‘Democracy, Science, and Free Trade’ note 97., at 58. While a version of this story appears in the religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, I am interested, with Derrida, in tracing the Christian form of the story, with its strongly economic logic.
96. Genesis 22:2 (Revised Standard Version).
97. Derrida, Genesis note 97, at 57.
98. Genesis note 97., at 58.
99. Genesis note 97., at 95.
100. J. Derrida, ‘“Le Parjure,” Perhaps: Storytelling and Lying’, in C. Jacobs and H. Sussman (eds.), Acts of Narrative (2003), 195, 233.
101. Genesis 22:8 (Revised Standard Version).
102. Derrida, Genesis note 97, at 60.
103. Derrida., at 77.
104. Genesis 22:12 (Revised Standard Version).
105. Derrida, Genesis note 97, at 72. The experience of a relationship with God as distant, unknowable, other and mysterious is at the heart of the experience of sacrifice for Derrida. He explores it further through the relationship to amysteriousGod that is invoked in St Paul's letter to the Philippians: ‘Whereforemybeloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.’ See further at 56, citing Philippians 2:12 (King James).
106. Derrida., at 67.
107. See, for example, the obligations set out in the SPS Agreement, Derrida note 1, Art. 2(3) (non-discrimination), Art. 7 (transparency), and in the GATS, Derrida note 7, Art. II (most-favoured-nation treatment), Art. III (transparency), Art. XVII (national treatment).
108. M. Koskenniemi, ‘The Silence of Law/The Voice of Justice’, in L. Boisson de Chazournes and P. Sands (eds.), International Law, the International Court of Justice and NuclearWeapons (1999), 488, 510.
109. Derrida, ‘The Silence of Law/The Voice of Justice’ note 97, at 96.
110. Derrida., at 97.
111. Matthew 10:34-40: ‘The reward of the righteous. Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father ormothermore thanme is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is notworthy ofme; and he who does not take his cross and followme is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.’
112. Derrida, ‘The reward of the righteous. Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword note 97, at 107.
113. Derrida., at 99.
114. Derrida, Derrida note 97, at 76.
115. Genesis 22:2 (Revised Standard Version).
116. Derrida, Genesis note 97, at 64.
117. Derrida., at 69. In his discussion of sacrifice, Georges Bataille suggests that ‘[w]hen the offered animal enters the circle in which the priest will immolate it, it passes from the world of things which are closed to man and are nothing to him, which he knows from the outside-to theworld that is immanent to it, intimate, known as the wife is known in sexual consumption [consumation charnelle].’ See G. Bataille, ‘Sacrifice, the Festival and the Principles of the SacredWorld’, in F. Botting and S.Wilson (eds.), The Bataille Reader (1997), 210.
118. Genesis 16:1-3 (Revised Standard Version).
119. Genesis 17:4.
120. Genesis 17:15-16.
121. Genesis 21:1-3.
122. Genesis 21:10.
123. Genesis 21:11.
124. Genesis 21:2-14.
125. Genesis 21:15-19.
126. Genesis 21:1.
127. J. Grbich, ‘The Problem of the Fetish in Law,History and Postcolonial Theory’, (2003) 7 Law Text Culture 1, 19.
128. For the description of the story of Isaac in these terms, see Derrida, ‘The Problem of the Fetish in Law,History and Postcolonial Theory’ note 97, at 96.
129. The realm of art or representation has been privileged in some strands of European philosophy as one in which difference or otherness might be experienced. Yet in the second half of the twentieth century, this idealized sense of aesthetics began to face an ethical challenge by those arguing that the other is only ever represented by accommodating or assimilating it to existing economies, languages or practices. For a useful overview of this debate, see the essays collected in D. Glowacka and S. Boos (eds.), Between Ethics andAesthetics (2002).
130. Alston, The realm of art or representation has been privileged in some strands of European philosophy as one in which difference or otherness might be experienced. Yet in the second half of the twentieth century, this idealized sense of aesthetics began to face an ethical challenge by those arguing that the other is only ever represented by accommodating or assimilating it to existing economies, languages or practices note 43, at 846.
131. Case of Refah Partisi (TheWelfare Party) and others v. Turkey, Applications Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, ECHR, Judgment, 13 February 2003.
132. Case of Refah Partisi., paras. 122-5.
133. For a critical analysis of the inability of positivism to affirm universality, see G. Noll, ‘The Exclusionary Construction ofHumanRights in International Law and Political Theory’, Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper No 10, November 2003, 7.
134. G. Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (tr. D. Heller-Roazen) (1998), 51.
135. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life., citing I. Kant, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (1913), 27.
136. F. Kafka, ‘Before the Law’, inMetamorphosis and Other Stories (tr. M. Pasley) (1992), 165-6.
137. Agamben, ‘Before the Law’ note 144, at 50.
138. Agamben, Agamben note 144, at 153.
139. K. Marx, ‘On the Jewish Question’, in J. Waldron (ed.), Nonsense Upon Stilts: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights ofMan (1987), 137.
140. ‘On the Jewish Question’., at 146-7.
141. ‘On the Jewish Question’., at 139-40.
142. ‘On the Jewish Question’., at 140.
143. ‘On the Jewish Question’., at 141.
144. ‘On the Jewish Question’., at 144.
145. ‘On the Jewish Question’., at 143.
146. ‘On the Jewish Question’., at 144.
147. ‘On the Jewish Question’., at 142.
148. S.Marks, The Riddle of all Constitutions: International Law, Democracy and the Critique of Ideology (2000), 117.
149. S.Marks, ‘Democracy and International Governance’, in J.-M. Coicaud andV.Heiskanen (eds.), The Legitimacy of International Organizations (2001), 47, 66.
150. George, ‘Democracy and International Governance’ note 17.
151. George., at 4.
152. George., at 5.
153. M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960 (2001), 504. While Koskenniemi names this a ‘culture of formalism’, I have avoided this language.His use of ‘formalism’ to describe a commitment to a public practice of equal participation differs frommy use of ‘form’ as outlined in the opening paragraph of this article, and from the argument I make throughout about the need to focus attention on the politics of particular legal forms.
154. J. Klabbers, ‘The changing image of international organizations’, in Coicaud and Heiskanen (eds.), The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960 note 165, at 221, 244.
155. R.Howse, ‘The legitimacy of theWorld TradeOrganization’, in Coicaud andHeiskanen (eds.), ‘The changing image of international organizations’ note 165, at 55, 389.
156. M. Koskenniemi, ‘What is international law for?’, in M. D. Evans (ed.), International Law (2003), 89, 111.
157. Klabbers, ‘What is international law for?’ note 171, at 245.
158. For a discussion of the circumstances in which the practice of attaching conditions to the granting of preferences to developing countries by developed countries is GATT-consistent, see European Communities-Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS246/AB/R, 7 April 2004.
159. On the conventional treatment of war, human rights and international organization as outside the mainstream of public international law, seeM. Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia (1989), xxv. 177. A. Anghie, ‘Time Present and Time Past: Globalization, International Financial Institutions, and the Third World’, (2000) 32 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 243.
160. Koskenniemi, On the conventional treatment of war, human rights and international organization as outside the mainstream of public international law note 170, at 504.
161. TheWorld Bank, Governance and Development (1992), 30.
162. TheWorld Bank., at 32.
163. TheWorld Bank., at 38.
164. TheWorld Bank., at 39.
165. TheWorld Bank., at 28.
166. Foucault, TheWorld Bank note 150.
167. For a discussion of development practices as manifesting the disciplinary force of the Christian rule of law, see J. Beard, ‘Understanding International Development Programs as a Modern Phenomenon of Early and Medieval Christian Theology’, (2003) 18 Australian Feminist Law Journal 27, 43-8.
168. World Bank,World Development Report 1996: From Plan toMarket (1996), 123-31.
169. World Bank., at 124.
170. World Bank., at 125.
171. TheWorld Bank, World Bank note 180, at 10.
172. H. de Soto, TheMystery of Capital (2000).
173. TheMystery of Capital., at 54.
174. TheMystery of Capital., at 55.
175. TheMystery of Capital., at 56.
176. P. Stamp, ‘Foucault and the New Imperial Order’, (1994) 3 Arena Journal 11, 17.
177. World Bank, Human Rights and Sustainable Development: What Role for the Bank? (2002), 5.
178. M. Darrow, Between Light and Shadow: TheWorld Bank, the InternationalMonetary Fund and InternationalHuman Rights Law (2003), 156-66.
179. Foucault, Between Light and Shadow: TheWorld Bank note 150.
180. J. Forrester, Truth Games: Lies,Money and Psychoanalysis (1997), 148.
181. See further J. Gallop, Anecdotal Theory (2002), 7-8; and for a discussion of a similar use of the figure of the ellipsis in the writing of Sigmund Freud, see S. Felman, Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight (1987), 64-7.
182. C. Douzinas, R.Warrington, and S.McVeigh, Postmodern Jurisprudence: The law of texts in the texts of law (1991), 124.
183. G. Chakravorty Spivak, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present (1999), 353.
184. See further A. Orford, ‘Trade, Human Rights and the Economy of Sacrifice’, JeanMonnetWorking Paper 03/04, available at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/04/040301.html.
185. Irigaray, ‘Trade, Human Rights and the Economy of Sacrifice’ note 201.
186. L. Irigaray, ‘the crucified one: epistle to the last christians’, inMarine Lover of Friedrich Nietzsche (tr. G. C. Gill) (1991), 164, 166.
187. ‘the crucified one: epistle to the last christians’., at 167.
188. ‘the crucified one: epistle to the last christians’., at 169.
189. ‘the crucified one: epistle to the last christians’., at 171.
190. Gallop, ‘the crucified one: epistle to the last christians’ note 216, at 107. Gallop argues that this is the threat that the ‘desire for the feminine’ poses to the father in the sacrificial economy: ‘If the father were to desire his daughter, he could no longer exchange her, no longer possess her in the economy by which true, masterful possession is the right to exchange. If you cannot give something up for something of like value, if you consider it nonsubstitutable, then you do not possess it any more than it possesses you.’
191. J. Derrida, The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond (tr. A. Bass) (1987), 56.