Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>By what means are legitimate legal orders maintained? Weber described legitimacy as resting, in part, upon a ‘belief’ in legal authority. Many read Weberian legitimacy as resting on an empty formality that is satisfied merely by the fact that law is correctly enacted. Others read Weber’s legitimate law as founded upon reasons that sustain the legitimacy of legality. This chapter offers up a reading of Weber that leans in the direction of a modestly normative account. In order to elucidate this aspect of Weber’s legal sociology, Weberian legitimacy is contrasted with Lon L. Fuller’s criteria of legality. This discussion sets the stage for the second half of the chapter which examines the role that the requirement of ‘generality’ plays in investment law’s universalizing tendencies. Though purporting to serve the rule of law, the generality of investment law conceals the politics underlying investment law, projects a false universality, and promotes freedom for a privileged few, concealing the regime’s particularistic ambition, to vindicate only the interests of foreign investors.</jats:p>