LAUSR

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.