Readings of the history of penal expertise trace its rise to the late nineteenth century and its decline to the late twentieth century, with the crumbling of the welfare state. Despite stark differences along Whiggish and Foucauldian lines in evaluations of that history, a consensus has emerged that the penal-welfare complex peaked around mid-century, dependent on correctional experts. Most studies of that phenomenon have focused on the institutionalization and “treatment” of “problem” populations while neglecting the role of penal expertise in critiques of capital punishment. When Britain and Canada undertook major inquiries into the death penalty in the 1950s, they turned to the world’s foremost expert on the subject: sociologist Thorsten Sellin. Yet, these government-appointed studies devalued his academic capital in favor of the lived expertise of police. By examining the contestation of Sellin’s sources, methods, and conclusions, this paper puts the chronology of penal welfarism and its experts into question. Not simply a case of ill-informed opinion prevailing over criminological evidence, the dismissive treatment of this penal expert highlights the need to apply a more capacious understanding of contending forms of expertise at numerous points in penal history, rather than setting the devaluation of penal expertise in the recent past.

This paper explores how unrecognised separatist entities in Eurasia – de facto regimes such as Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics – engage with international law. It examines whether, and to what extent, these regimes comply with international law, analysing court decisions and legislation to move beyond simplistic views of non-recognition or assumed legality. The findings reveal that de facto regimes tend to mirror the international law approaches of the states they are most closely connected to – whether the territorial state (e.g. Ukraine) or an outside state exercising effective control over the entity (e.g. Russia or Armenia). This pattern is explained by the theory of “acculturation to statehood”: through sustained legal and institutional interaction, these regimes internalise and replicate the legal systems of their reference states. The study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the role of de facto regimes in the international legal order.

Critical minerals are at the centre of divergent state interests defined by developmental objectives, security objectives, energy transition, and sustainability imperatives. Unlike non-critical commodities, they exhibit heightened strategic importance but suffer from significant concentration of supply chains, notably in China. As securitization of trade reshapes global supply chains, governments are looking beyond traditional experiences with international commodity agreements, towards modernized tools of trade and investment cooperation to secure reliable critical mineral supplies. This article offers descriptive and analytical insights into the consequent non-binding international instruments on critical minerals, concluded by the most active participants in this topic: the United States, the EU, Japan, Canada, and Australia, who are amongst the largest demanders and suppliers of these minerals and are all economically developed. It finds that such instruments bear several potential systemic and institutional implications for rulemaking and governance in international trade, which include their ability to divert agency away from the resource rich, the concentration of norm creation and standard creation amongst a few, the phenomenon of ‘selective de-legalization’, and lack of transparency. By highlighting several trends and sources of potential concerns for commodity-dependent countries, this article urges a reassessment of this emerging framework advocating for the need to better balance state interests.

Although democracy is at the core of the U.S.’s self-image, the laws granting civic rights have long been designed to exclude some Americans, highlighting a fundamental tension between the democratic ideal and group interest. Echoing past racial exclusions, contemporary felony disenfranchisement policies and a racially unjust criminal legal system combine to continue to disenfranchise Black Americans disproportionately. Public opinion on these policies presents opportunities for or barriers to reform, so we seek to understand public opposition to ending felony disenfranchisement. Using two recent national surveys from the American National Election Studies, we explore two explanations rooted in the social contexts from which relational civic rights consciousness emerges: one reflecting varied commitments to democratic norms and one rooted in racial threat. Even after controlling for politics, a commitment to democracy is associated with support for allowing those convicted of a felony to vote, while concerns about threats to White privilege are associated with opposition. Critically, the relationship appears conditional: commitments to democracy fail to produce support for voting rights among those who are preoccupied with maintaining White privilege. Implications for people’s support for the legal rights of others, for democracy and for legal change are discussed.

The rights of Deaf persons need to be respected in order to prevent discrimination and ensure equality in Kenya’s criminal courts. Inclusive communication in the country’s criminal justice system is key and can only occur when information that is passed and received is understood by both the Deaf and hearing parties. The aim of this article is to determine how Deaf people can be supported and accommodated in order to ensure their effective participation at all levels of Kenya’s criminal justice system. With the backdrop of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the author contends that the State has an obligation to put in place reasonable accommodation and other accessibility measures that go beyond the provision of mere sign language interpretation, if the right to participation of Deaf witnesses is to be fully realized in the country’s criminal justice system.