ABSTRACT
Our increasingly cosmopolitan discipline needs to be underpinned by a revival of the idea of general jurisprudence, in which generalisations — conceptual, normative, empirical, legal — about legal phenomena are treated as problematic. This paper argues that, as part of this, analytical jurisprudence should broaden its focus not only geographically, but also in respect of the range of concepts, conceptual frameworks, and discourses that it considers. How far is any of our current stock of concepts adequate for talking meaningfully across legal traditions and cultures? Which concepts ‘travel’ relatively well or badly and why? Such questions are illustrated with reference to discourses about legal rights, the treatment of prisoners, and corruption.
