Journal of Law and Society最新文献

Over the course of the past 40 years, neoliberalism has all but destroyed the institutions that once civilized labour markets. In the wake of that destruction, labour law reform is being driven in some jurisdictions by a new kind of right-wing populist politics. What does this hold in store for work relations? Our investigation of contemporary labour law begins with a brief look backwards to the pre- and post-war decades and to the ostensible depoliticization of the law under neoliberalism. We then consider the possible emergence of a distinctly right-wing populist approach to labour law in countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Poland, drawing comparisons with the German experience after neocorporatism. Finally, we take a normative turn and consider what steps ought to be taken by a government intent on addressing class inequalities and restoring the kind of rights that post-war democracies once conferred on workers understood to be industrial citizens.

The article examines epistemic emotions as part of the emotive-cognitive processes of prosecutors’ knowledge seeking and decision making in preliminary investigation and court proceedings. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, interviews, and shadowing of prosecutors in Sweden, we show how emotions motivate and orient prosecutors’ inquiries and the fundamental role of the ‘certainty–doubt spiral’ for ‘doing objectivity’. In conclusion, we discuss the centrality of emotions for conscientious and well-considered decisions in legal work. The study contributes to the field of law and emotion by exploring the epistemic quality of emotions, notably the certainty–doubt spiral, in legal work.

This article constitutes the first account of sexual minority barristers’ experience of and relation to professionalism at the Bar. Drawing on survey and interview data, it presents the Bar as a site of heteronormativity, where masculinist heterosexuality is pervasively assumed and publicly valorized. The ‘credible’ barrister – authoritative, respected, competent – is constructed as heterosexual. In this context, sexual minority barristers risk a loss of credibility in coming out or being out in the workplace. Our data presents mechanisms by which these individuals manage the public expression of their sexuality. Some – in contrast to heterosexual colleagues – deny entirely the professional relevance of their sexuality. Others adopt assimilationist strategies, curating a ‘credible’ public persona: out, but otherwise conforming to heteronormative expectations and values. While the data includes exceptions that give cause for hope, many sexual minority barristers experience professionalism as pressure to render their sexuality effectively invisible, at significant cost personally and professionally.

Models of individual accountability for algorithms’ actions fail when a human–algorithm association comes to be viewed as a collective actor. In some situations, human and algorithmic actions are so closely intertwined that there is no longer a linear connection between the emergent collectivity and the complex interactions of humans and algorithms. In such collective decision-making sequences, individual accountability can no longer be attributed. Therefore, a new perspective on human–algorithm associations that captures their emergent properties and organizational qualities is needed to develop appropriate models of collective accountability. This article seeks to answer a number of questions. How can the encounter between humans and algorithms within such a socio-technical configuration be adequately theorized? Can the configuration itself be understood as a hybrid collectivity? Can actions be attributed to the configuration as a personified collective actor? How will accountability be institutionalized for human–algorithm associations – in centralized or distributed collective forms?

The pre-dispute phase, during which justiciable problems may or may not emerge and transform into legal cases, is complex. Based on a meta-ethnography of 572 articles, all of which apply or refer to Felstiner et al.’s pioneering linear framework of naming, blaming, and claiming, we analysed the many sorting mechanisms that are at play in the pre-dispute phase. We identified the institutional, political, cultural, and legal environments of various action arenas and the involvement of negotiating audiences as particularly important elements. Moreover, we found that the injured party's experiences and handling of a justiciable problem do not necessarily follow a predetermined chronology. Rather, we suggest that the process is dynamic and iterative, where the justiciable problem is repeatedly (re)named, (re)blamed, and (re)claimed, before it transforms into a legal case, develops in an alternative direction, or remains unchanged.

To address the legacies of colonialism, several former colonial states have implemented a range of initiatives commonly considered to belong to the domain of transitional justice (TJ). These contexts are, however, very different from those for which TJ was initially conceptualized. As such, the implementation of elements from the TJ toolbox in these decolonization struggles raises several questions, which this article seeks to address. One of these questions relates to how diverging temporalities affect central normative objectives of TJ, such as accountability. The Belgian case is used to explore how a more pertinent approach to transitional temporalities enables a ‘thicker’ understanding of accountability that re-centres the debate around accountability's normative objectives in ways that are aligned with the objectives of decolonization struggles. I call this encompassing approach to accountability ‘disruptive accountability’ to underline the normative objective of disrupting harmful social structures and relations.

Legal consciousness is not a monolithic concept even in the minds of individual actors. Invoking the law is sometimes viewed positively and at other times not. My study reveals that ordinary people in China consider lawsuits seeking divorce to be acceptable but strongly disapprove of lawsuits seeking intergenerational support. My detailed analysis of this sharp contrast suggests that people consider legal mobilization favourably when claims are brought by the ‘right’ people in the ‘right’ cases, but that they bitterly oppose it when the ‘wrong’ people bring the ‘wrong’ kinds of cases. In this article, I explain how these categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ legal claims and plaintiffs come into being and how they shape the legal consciousness of potential litigants in China.