This article discusses how the state’s failure to respond to the needs of a marginalized community leads to a sense of being undeserving among its members, a sense that significantly shapes their legal consciousness. Focusing on Chinese immigrants’ reluctance to discuss contracts openly and invoke the law to seek redress in Canada, this article challenges the approach of blaming culture for some immigrants’ different perceptions of and relationships with the law in the host country. Based on in-depth interviews and participant observation, this study argues that the host country’s devaluation and non-recognition of foreign credentials, its lack of intervention in predatory practices targeting vulnerable immigrants, and its failure to provide adequate legal resources accessible to immigrants with diverse language and cultural backgrounds, all work in tandem to push Chinese immigrants away from contracts and keep them from turning to law for help in Canada. Drawing on vulnerability theory and legal consciousness scholarship, it develops a multi-level legal consciousness framework to connect micro-level experiences with macro-level forces to understand how individuals who share the same marginalized identities participate in reproducing structural inequalities within their own communities due to state inaction.

Lord Asquith’s 1951 award in the Abu Dhabi arbitration is widely recalled as one of the first reasoned international decisions to apply the “General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations” to a dispute between a state and a private investor. The award is also widely reviled. Asquith is said to be a racist, and the award an embarrassment, and no other application of general principles has done more to delegitimize the concept. This Article draws on extensive archival research to show that the case exemplifies the ways in which international lawyers act as legal entrepreneurs, investing in the (re)creation of international legal precedent.

In 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria targeted the Yazidi ethno-religious minority in Sinjar, northern Iraq, abducting Yazidi boys aged 8 to 14 who endured violence, family separation and significant trauma exposure. Upon return, these children needed mental health care. This study investigates the availability of mental health services for male Yazidi former CAAFAGs (children associated with armed forces and armed groups) and discusses their rights under international legal frameworks.

The study used a convergent mixed-methods design involving male Yazidi former CAAFAGs and mental health providers in the Sinjar district and the Duhok governorate. Quantitative data were collected through a descriptive survey of thirty CAAFAGs and ten providers. Qualitative insights from semi-structured interviews with ten CAAFAGs and ten providers expanded on these findings, and the results were integrated into a joint display for interpretation.

Among the thirty CAAFAGs, 70% had not received any mental health care since their captivity. After captivity, 33% wanted (personal desire) mental health care; of those who wanted care, 80% received services through non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In contrast to this “personal desire” for care, 96.7% of male Yazidi former CAAFAGs acknowledged that they are in need of mental health care, yet only one is currently seeking it. Qualitative data revealed a gap in mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) services specifically for male CAAFAGs, as NGOs focused more on female survivors. It also identified financial, personnel and logistical challenges for NGOs, as well as discrepancies between CAAFAGs and providers regarding perceived willingness to receive mental health care.

CAAFAGs and providers recognize an urgent need for tailored, trauma-informed MHPSS and reintegration services for male Yazidi former CAAFAGs. While NGOs play an essential role in delivering mental health care, their focus is primarily on female survivors, leaving a gap in support for male CAAFAGs. International legal frameworks protecting child victims’ rights remain inadequately respected in practice. Addressing these gaps is crucial for CAAFAGs’ successful reintegration and rehabilitation.

This symposium brings together a group of legal scholars who participated in a research project called European Society. The project originates in a meeting of the two of us and a mutual engagement with our texts. In 2022, Loïc Azoulai published a short piece on ‘The Law of European Society’ in the Common Market Law Review. The same year, Armin von Bogdandy published a book under the title Strukturwandel des öffentlichen Rechts. Entstehung und Demokratisierung der europäischen Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp), translated in English as The Emergence of European Society through Public Law (Oxford University Press 2024). At the time of publication, we were unaware of each other’s work – evidence, perhaps, that the theme was in the air. Owing to our differences in orientation and style, we decided to set up a research group, with the aim of providing a new account of the experience of Europe in the current context, marked by disorientation and polarisation, but also widely shared calls for ‘more Europe’. Europe’s current condition and its future possibilities are deeply affected by what many have classified as ‘crises’ (financial and economic crisis, migration, rule of law, external threats), but also what some Europeans even experience as ‘catastrophes’ (climate change, digital revolution, pandemic, war). The original idea was that the concept of ‘European society’ might help to get a better picture of the Europeans’ situation as well as ideas for the future course.

The balance sheet of the ECB expanded greatly after the Great Crisis of 2007-9, similarly to other core central banks, but this development does not signify the adoption of a new ‘interventionist’ stance. The expansion of the balance sheet by core central banks reflects a profound change in the framework of monetary policy responding to pressures generated during and after the Crisis. In the case of the ECB, however, the expansion also resulted from attempting to cover the cracks of the fragmented European money market to protect the euro. This fragmentation persists and concern about the euro continues to shape ECB policy. The resurgence of inflation since 2022 led the ECB to contract its balance sheet, again similarly to other central banks, making a new framework necessary for monetary policy. But it is not clear what that would be, given the fragmented European money market. The monetary policy of the ECB is in a quandary reflecting the structural deficiencies of the Eurozone.

Rates of judicial dissent vary dramatically between Southern Africa’s appeal courts, even though judges frequently circulate between their benches. This variation cannot be explained by the ideological distance between judges or by their judicial philosophies. Differing institutional arrangements provide better but still incomplete explanations. These arrangements reflect dramatic transformations in the region’s judicial cultures. Analysing these diverging cultures illuminates why some forms of dissent have proved particularly contentious, and why styles of adjudication favouring dissent in some areas of the law have aroused particular hostility. There is thus no straightforward ‘norm’ that promotes or undermines judicial consensus in the region.

China’s recent expansion of Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) may influence fertility intentions among women of childbearing age. Using data from the China Labor-force Dynamics Survey (CLDS, 2014–2018) and a multi-period difference-in-differences (DID) design, we examine the effect of HCBS reforms on women’s fertility expectations and explore the channels through which these reforms operate. Our results show that HCBS expansion significantly reduces fertility intentions, with an average decline of approximately 0.12 children per woman. The effect is stronger among women with siblings, those who already have children, rural residents, and women in their prime childbearing years (aged 25–34 years). Mechanism analysis indicates that this reduction is mediated by increased perceived community safety, greater participation in pension insurance, and higher economic satisfaction. These findings suggest that elderly care policies can shape reproductive decisions, highlighting the need for integrated strategies that address both ageing and fertility concerns in China.

Premarital screening policies are increasingly adopted to prevent hereditary disorders in populations with high consanguinity. In Oman, a Middle Eastern country with significant sickle cell disease prevalence, the shift toward mandatory premarital screening emerged through a strategic policy process influenced by cultural, tribal, and religious values. In this context, premarital screening offers a critical opportunity for early detection and informed reproductive decision-making. This paper provides an explanatory analysis of the agenda-setting process that enabled the formal adoption of compulsory premarital screening for genetic disorders, using Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) as an analytical lens. The analysis demonstrates how hereditary blood disorders, in particular Sickle cell disease (SCD), transitioned from a socially normalised condition to a recognised public health and socioeconomic problem, and how a technically feasible and ethically sensitive policy solution was advanced. Oman’s case illustrates how preventive health policies targeting socially sensitive issues can gain traction through stream convergence, and incremental reframing.

This article draws a legal portrait of President Lenaerts, in an attempt to critically examine both his description of the institution to which he belongs, and his influence upon it. It is based on a comprehensive study of his public and formalised statements (published or on podcasts) since the year of his election in 2015. Based on these research materials, this article examines the contextual elements of Lenaerts’ personality, career path, and the challenges currently facing the European Court of Justice. It also illustrates that Lenaerts is an exceptionally gifted legal mind, educated from his earliest years in Community law, with a career both shaped by and devoted to the Court. The article argues that, although Lenaerts remains publicly discreet about the Court’s internal organization, he nonetheless exerts a significant influence over its functioning and reform process. Furthermore, while Lenaerts publicly defends the idea of law as apolitical, he advances a normative vision of what EU law ought to be and asserts that its current form serves the interests of European citizens. Lenaerts is an influential President who skilfully leverages his scholarly authority to defend the Court and its jurisprudence, presented as coherent. Yet, his position is not without ambiguity, as he frequently shifts roles – scholar, citizen, or President – while defending a specific point. A significant part of his influence lies in the subtle gaps between his professed positions and his concrete actions, as well as between his dual role as scholar and as President—two interstices where institutional power is exercised less visibly, but no less effectively.

In their submissions to the International Court of Justice in the context of the Policies and Practices of Israel Advisory Opinion, states assessed the legality of Israel’s prolonged occupation using various legal frameworks, including international humanitarian law. In doing so, some participants in the proceedings appear to have endorsed a doctrinal position suggesting that an occupation may become unlawful under international humanitarian law due to its prolonged character. This article demonstrates that such an interpretation of the law of occupation lacks consensus and does not fully align with the law as it currently stands. Building on this observation, and based on the language deployed by states in their most recent submissions, this article suggests an alternative argument: the protracted character of Israel’s occupation is more accurately framed as an abuse of the law of occupation, rather than a violation of this regime.

Judicial rulings on expert evidence determine which specialized knowledge enters the courtroom and, in doing so, shape the credibility of litigants and the legitimacy of their claims. This article examines how disparities in litigant status shape the judicial gatekeeping of expert evidence and how this process relates to the ideological context of the legal forum. Using data from a probability sample of 811 Daubert rulings from United States District Courts, our multinomial logistic regression models show that, overall, higher status litigants are more successful in excluding opposing evidence and in overcoming exclusionary motions. However, this aggregate relationship masks a pronounced ideological divide. Specifically, higher status litigants tend to be more successful in cases assigned to conservative judges while lower status litigants tend to be more successful in cases assigned to liberal judges. These findings illustrate how trial court decisions reflect broader institutional and ideological forces and suggest that ideological contexts can either amplify or temper structural inequalities in the courtroom.

Recent academic debate has questioned whether equitable interests should continue to be classified as proprietary, proposing instead analyses based on “rights against rights”, “modified” proprietary rights or the erosion of the proprietary/personal divide. This article, based on the text of the XXIV Old Buildings Lecture 2025, argues that these alternative frameworks, while illuminating, do not displace the enduring value of the traditional proprietary analysis. It shows that equity has long functioned as the principal means by which the law recognises ownership beyond traditional common-law categories. The proprietary characterisation of equitable interests accords with established principle, is often the simplest workable solution to the problem in hand, and corresponds to the ordinary understanding of ownership.

This festschrift essay honors the academic life and work of Douglas Laycock, one of the most important scholars and advocates in American law and religion. This essay offers tribute to a mentor from whom I took three classes and an independent study in law school, for whom I worked as a research assistant, and with whom I have remained in close conversation during my two decades in the academy. It also offers an insider’s account of Laycock’s intellectual project and influence—punctuated with stories, observations, and nuggets of wisdom drawn from a close reading of his scholarship and briefs. This essay traces Laycock’s career from his early academic work to his later role in landmark Supreme Court litigation, ultimately seeing Laycock’s deepest legacy as lying not only in the doctrines he helped shape, but in a model of intellectually serious, cross-ideological engagement that both inspires us and calls us to account.

Occupational accidents impose devastating human and economic costs worldwide, yet evidence on how judicial decisions affect workplace safety remains scarce. This study provides the first causal evidence on this relationship by examining Argentina’s landmark Aquino ruling (2004), which eliminated employers’ exemption from civil liability for workplace accidents. Using an event study design with provincial panel data (1997–2021), we exploit the differential impact of increased employer liability on workplace accidents versus commuting accidents (in itinere) as our identification strategy. Results show that workplace accidents decreased significantly by 16–27% following the judicial decision, with larger reductions in provinces with higher initial number of accidents. Importantly, we find no evidence of moral hazard effects when examining accidents that are difficult to detect and verify. The findings demonstrate that judicial decisions creating immediate economic liability can generate substantial behavioral responses even in developing country contexts with limited enforcement capacity, suggesting that liability-based approaches may effectively complement traditional regulatory strategies for improving workplace safety.