Journal of Law and Society最新文献

In this article, we begin to address the relative lack of scholarship on philanthropic engagement with environmental law. It is clear that big philanthropy exercises significant power in and over our discipline, in a variety of ways that extend beyond the granting (and, importantly, withholding) of funds for projects and activities. Power merits scrutiny. Building on a multi-disciplinary literature, we identify the plausible ways in which philanthropic organizations frame problems and solutions, and build networks. This is not an ‘exposé’ of wealthy philanthropists, nor do we think that an exposé is necessary. Foundations are diverse organizations doing a range of interesting and important work. We do, however, want to understand better this community that is so crucial for the development of environmental law.

On 17 March 2022, P&O Ferries summarily dismissed 786 seafarers without notice or consultation in a clear and openly admitted transgression of legality, but two months later its parent company's chief executive officer claimed that ‘nobody was hurt’. Drawing on the work of Zygmunt Bauman and Alain Supiot, this article offers a critical account of the scandal based on three main arguments. First, it develops the new concept of an ‘authoritarian liquid transgression’ (ALT), defined as a transgression of a democratic legal norm that seeks to leave no trace or excess (that which resists immediate liquefaction), thus aiming at complete erasure. Second, it argues that the P&O event is a paradigmatic example of an attempted ALT by dissecting three main steps in the business strategy (liquefaction, effacement, and simulation) but also traces competing privatized and politicized narratives of its excess. Third, the article suggests that the event will be viewed as a liminal event for the United Kingdom's authoritarian neoliberalism since it acted as a window that offered a brief glimpse of the brutal nature of authoritarian neoliberalism at work but also of an alternative solid construction of labour law and its remedial framework.

This article examines the application of the intersectionality framework to the Indian statutory institutional environmental public hearing (EPH) process that seeks to promote environmental justice. Intersectionality provides a framework to capture the processes of gender marginalization and exclusion. It critically demonstrates how the required gender participation in the regulatory EPH process is failing rural women in the state of Gujarat, India, thereby exacerbating discrimination and inequality. Building on the researchers’ mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) data, the article creates an evidence-based ‘fresh dossier’ reflecting the non-existent or limited participatory involvement of women as valuable stakeholders in the EPH process. Drawing on the evidence of lived experiences creates spaces for women's voices that are excluded from the social system due to dominant powers and institutional structures. We argue that respecting the diversity of interests and identities of rural Gujarati women within the institutionalized public sphere would promote participation and recognition of their knowledge and role as crucial stakeholders.

This ethnographic study examines how Chilean family courts adjudicate domestic violence (DV) cases, highlighting a paradoxical shift away from their intended flexibility towards rigid bureaucratic procedure by examining the undue influence of psychological reports, which are expensive and difficult-to-obtain documents, on case outcomes. This research explores the role of these reports as ‘legal technicalities’, serving as both products and catalysts of specific social relations and tensions, and reveals an earnest yet unsuccessful effort to establish judicial authority amid poorly conceived DV reform. The article contributes to an empirical, bottom-up analysis of authority construction techniques used in recent widespread judicial reforms in Chile, providing fresh insights into the complexities of institutional changes within these contexts.

This article examines the recent proliferation of gendered narratives underpinning and shaping counter-terrorism laws, policies, and practices. Looking specifically at the United Kingdom, there has been shift in the place of women and gender within international and national security discourses and practices, from historic absence to contemporary presence and influence. The article identifies and critiques some of the gendered and racialized tropes through which Muslim women involved in or associated with Islamist terrorism have been represented since the advent of the ‘War on Terror’. Gendered narratives that oscillate between infantilizing and demonizing Muslim women underline, and are manifested in, two particularly important shifts in the global counter-terrorism landscape: the familialization of (Islamist) terrorism and the securitization of the (Muslim) family. These changes – which foreground the importance of the private realm in understanding and countering terrorism, and have turned the attention of the security state to the relationship between private intimacies and public threats – rest on gendered assumptions and have gendered implications. Their power is most clearly seen in the rhetoric of the family judiciary in cases that have recently emerged in the English family courts dealing with the radicalization of children and their construction of three discursive figures: the radicalized girl, the radicalized woman/wife, and the radicalized mother.