ABSTRACT
The analysis of tourism clearly involves a number of disciplines and is thus likely to involve inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary engagement. This engagement occurs at a time of challenge to the construct of knowledge within certain disciplines and associated contexts of meaning. As elsewhere, globalisation creates a sense of dynamism; in general see, for example, Held and McGrew (2003). Such a challenge may both facilitate and distort interaction. Certain disciplines may have key contributions to make. But there is no guarantee that this will transpire. Obviously, law should be one of many parts of tourism discourse. Even if there is awareness of the need to comprehend it, there are still great issues to be addressed. Jurists will approach tourism with the benefits and weaknesses of their disciplinary approach and philosophy. Likewise, other disciplines may have set views of law, which can be mistaken, impaired or out-dated. Accordingly, there should be a necessary awareness of the relationship between law and tourism in the overall unfolding of events and forces. Ultimately the relationship is a complex, reflexive one that is prone to dynamism and where the construct of knowledge is evolving rapidly. The jurist wanting to contribute, communicate and engage in tourism discourse and those coming from other disciplines wishing to engage in such dialogue, need to be aware of both the pitfalls and the possibilities. Epistemological constructs create difficulties. For example, there is evidence that knowledge of law is assumed to be merely knowledge of rules and then an atomistic rather than an holistic approach may be taken, as jurists like Samuel (2003) argue. Many legal academics may be accused of being too insular and ignore the rich 62philosophical base of their own discipline. Lawyers, who do get involved in travel and tourism contexts, may be self-interested, overcautious and may magnify and exaggerate risk in a negative constraining way. This may have already happened in relation to school trips for example, where the pendulum seemed to shift from ignorance of liability to exaggerated sensitivity and may be moving somewhere in between (especially in view of recent judicial statements about voluntary assumption of risk). Nevertheless, legal awareness is operationally crucial. It is part of a philosophically pragmatic response.
