The Differential Use of Litigation by NGOs: A Case Study on Antidiscrimination Legal Mobilization in Belgium

A. Lejeune, J. Ringelheim
{"title":"The Differential Use of Litigation by NGOs: A Case Study on Antidiscrimination Legal Mobilization in Belgium","authors":"A. Lejeune, J. Ringelheim","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2022.54","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to explain the differential use of litigation by social movements pursuing social change. While previous studies have sought to compare non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that turn to litigation with those that do not, we study organizations that have all resorted at least once to legal action. Taking Belgium and the field of antidiscrimination as a case study, our research confirms the findings of previous literature that the characteristics of the legal environment do impact on the choice of organizations whether or not to go to court. But we also find that legal action is used differentially by NGOs depending on two factors in particular: their position as an insider or outsider in the political realm and their possession of legal resources. Based on a quantitative measure of legal actions initiated by NGOs and interviews with activists, we propose a typology of civil society organizations—which we label “experienced litigants,” “occasional litigants,” and “litigants by necessity”—that could be transposed to other contexts and other types of interest groups.","PeriodicalId":168157,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Social Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2022.54","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article aims to explain the differential use of litigation by social movements pursuing social change. While previous studies have sought to compare non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that turn to litigation with those that do not, we study organizations that have all resorted at least once to legal action. Taking Belgium and the field of antidiscrimination as a case study, our research confirms the findings of previous literature that the characteristics of the legal environment do impact on the choice of organizations whether or not to go to court. But we also find that legal action is used differentially by NGOs depending on two factors in particular: their position as an insider or outsider in the political realm and their possession of legal resources. Based on a quantitative measure of legal actions initiated by NGOs and interviews with activists, we propose a typology of civil society organizations—which we label “experienced litigants,” “occasional litigants,” and “litigants by necessity”—that could be transposed to other contexts and other types of interest groups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非政府组织诉讼的差异运用:以比利时反歧视法律动员为例
本文旨在解释追求社会变革的社会运动对诉讼的不同使用。虽然以前的研究试图比较求助于诉讼的非政府组织与不求助于诉讼的非政府组织,但我们研究的组织都至少诉诸过一次法律行动。以比利时和反歧视领域为案例研究,我们的研究证实了先前文献的发现,即法律环境的特征确实影响了组织是否诉诸法院的选择。但我们也发现,非政府组织在法律行动上的运用也存在差异,这主要取决于两个因素:一是非政府组织在政治领域的局内人地位,二是非政府组织是否拥有法律资源。基于对非政府组织发起的法律行动的定量衡量和对活动人士的采访,我们提出了一种公民社会组织的类型——我们将其标记为“有经验的诉讼人”、“偶尔的诉讼人”和“必要的诉讼人”——这可以转换为其他背景和其他类型的利益团体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Legal Collusion: Legal Consciousness under China’s One-Child Policy Macro-criminology and Freedom: The Durability of Later John Braithwaite Unspectacular Atrocities and the Aesthetics of International Trials Property Markers and the Hassle of Leniency: Building Code Enforcement in the Courtroom Adminigration: City-Level Governance of Immigrant Community Members
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1