Law & Society Review最新文献

When nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) encounter state resistance to human rights accountability, how do NGOs use international courts for their human rights advocacy strategies? Considering the overlapping phenomena of shrinking civic space within authoritarian, hybrid, and democratically backsliding regimes, and state backlash against international courts, NGOs navigate two potential levels of state backlash against human rights accountability. Building on the interdisciplinary scholarship on legal mobilization, we develop an integrated framework for explaining how states' two-level (domestic and international) backlash tactics can both promote and deter NGOs' strategic litigation at international human rights courts (IHRCs). States' backlash tactics can influence NGOs' opportunities, capacities, and goals for their human rights advocacy, and thus affect whether and how they pursue strategic litigation at IHRCs. We elucidate the value of this framework through case studies of NGOs' litigation against Tanzania at the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, an understudied IHRC. Drawing on an original data set, interviews, and documentation, we process-trace how Tanzania's various backlash tactics influenced whether and how NGOs litigated at the Court. Our framework and analysis show how state backlash against human rights accountability affects NGOs' mobilization at IHRCs and, relatedly, IHRCs' opportunities for influence.

The premise of Russia's 2012 “Foreign Agents” Law, one of the first such laws restricting foreign funding for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), is that foreign monies equal foreign agendas. Since then, over 50 countries have adopted similar laws using a similar justification. This paper interrogates this claim of foreign donor influence through examining legal mobilization by human rights NGOs at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We track donor support for litigation by providing an overview of all foundation grant flows relating to strategic litigation for 2013–2014, and then matching the granting activities of two major U.S. foundations over 14 years to human rights NGO participation in cases before the ECtHR. Further, through case studies of Russian NGOs, we assess the causal role that donor support has played in facilitating their increased involvement in ECtHR litigation. The combined analysis indicates broad patterns of private foundation support to litigating NGOs, but uncovers no evidence that foreign donors were “pushing” NGOs toward litigation as a strategy, but instead more evidence suggesting that NGOs convinced donors to support human rights litigation. Despite the inaccuracy of the justification underpinning Russia's foreign agent law, the law threatens the survival of human rights organizations.

Jury service is a positive, even transformative, experience for many jurors. Prior research establishes that jurors who deliberate on a court case develop more positive views of courts in the relatively short time of jury service, but we know little about the reasons underlying why these positive changes develop. This research focuses on changes in jurors' views after serving on criminal cases because jury service is one of the few opportunities community members have to participate directly in the criminal justice system, with jurors acting as the conscience of the community regarding the extent of prosecutorial power. Unlike most work using actual jurors, this research utilizes surveys with jurors both before and after jury service to understand how jury service brings about increased trust in courts. We examine the influence of three categories of potential factors, deliberating on a case, juror satisfaction, and jurors' attitudes relating to law and justice, finding all three categories work together to significantly predict whether jurors' trust in courts increases, decreases, or stays the same. Policy suggestions include developing innovative ways to capitalize on the positive and overall legitimizing aspects of jury service in criminal cases by increasing community members' meaningful involvement in the courts.

When activists use the law to promote social change, how does the branch of law (criminal law, civil law, etc.) matter for movement outcomes? To examine this question, the article builds on legal mobilization scholarship, and on a qualitative study comparing three litigation strategies to contest racialized policing in France: mobilizing criminal law to hold officers accountable for police killings, mobilizing civil law to sue the state for racial profiling, and combining criminal and civil law to contest racialized police harassment. The findings suggest that three characteristics of legal branches matter for legal mobilization: (i) the branch's dominant paradigm (e.g., punitive vs. compensatory) determines how the problem gets framed and which actors are blamed for it; (ii) the legal provisions of each branch shape which aspects of the problem get highlighted, and which are obscured; (iii) the procedural and evidentiary rules determine the extent to which activists and victims can intervene in the fact-finding process and thus how much they can influence the strength of their claims in court. When they mobilize the law, social change actors strategize around the opportunities and constraints of various branches of law, to try influencing judicial decisions and the media coverage of cases.

How does a potential juror's association with the criminal legal system matter during jury selection? Growing scholarship examines statutory exclusions of people with felony convictions, sometimes characterizing felon-juror exclusion as a collateral consequence of mass incarceration. Less research has considered whether court officials seek to exclude potential jurors based on lower-level forms of contact or perceived association. We draw on interviews with 103 lawyers and judges in a Northeastern state to examine how court officials think about juror bias in relation to criminal legal association beyond felon status. We find that court officials often seek to remove people perceived to be offenders with lower-level forms of system association as well as people perceived to be crime victims. These exclusionary efforts extend to also exclude perceived offenders' and victims' social networks. These practices are racialized and gendered, likely contributing to the systematic exclusion of marginalized racial/ethnic groups and women. This article expands the collateral consequences literature in two ways: first, by revealing how collateral consequences can be conceptualized not just in relation to people criminalized by the law but also in relation to those whom the law constructs as victims; and second, by underscoring how collateral consequences feed back into the system to reproduce its unequal administration.

Lower state courts are the focus of both international and national access to justice policies and programs but remain understudied in Uganda. Drawing on 3 years of ethnographically informed research on citizen engagement with a busy magistrates' court in post-war northern Uganda, we show the diverse reasons why citizens appeal to the rule-of-law in places where state authority is contested. In a context of limited statehood, against a backdrop of high-levels of corruption and inefficiency in the judicial system, people turn to lower state courts for normative, pragmatic, and tactical reasons that are not well captured by conventional measures of procedural justice. Our findings extend theory on citizen-authority relations in a global context, shedding light on contextual meanings of legitimacy, trust, and corruption in places where lower state courts are deeply problematic sites for achieving justice.