Sexual slavery has been an ongoing human rights issue within South Korea since World War II, yet discourse has almost exclusively centred on World War II sex slaves. Redress efforts typically focus on these survivors, their bodies symbolising the Korean nation, with post-World War II Korean sex slaves generally seen as ‘willing’ prostitutes. Nevertheless, the bodies, experiences and victimhood of all survivors remain contested. This paper discusses the connection between the ‘ideal’ victims, the World War II Korean sex slaves, and an example of ‘non-ideal’ victims, the gijichon women of the 1970s. Drawing upon recent judgments, Korean law and society, it analyses the impact of an ‘ideal’ victim construct upon survivors’ pursuit of redress in the Korean courts. In this paper I argue that, despite some success within domestic courts, the ‘ideal’ victim construct can explain why all survivors remain marginalised and have yet to receive full truth and justice.

As global crises like inequality, climate change and financial instability intensify, ‘resilience’ has emerged as a central concept in international governance and law. The appeal lies in what scholars call the ‘resilience dividend’ – the promise that systems can recover and adapt when facing external shocks. This article critically examines how resilience has been adopted in international and transnational law, with a particular focus on transnational financial regulation. The article analyses the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)’ work on the resilience of central counterparties, which represents the most extended elaboration on resilience in transnational financial regulation. Rather than accepting resilience as an unqualified good, a more cautious approach is suggested. Resilience risks perpetuating existing injustices and reinforcing neoliberal structures by emphasising survival and adaptation over addressing the root causes of crises. Accordingly, resilience needs to be seen as an ambivalent concept that only through its specification one can determine its possible impact.

This article compares paid parental leave policies across nineteen Latin American jurisdictions, examining their effectiveness in promoting equality in caregiving. Despite notable expansions in social protection, and constitutional recognition of shared parental responsibilities in countries like Ecuador and Mexico, the region has not kept pace with global trends towards equitable leave entitlements. While most countries offer paid maternity leave, paternity leave remains minimal or symbolic, with two nations – Cuba and Honduras – offering none. A persistent gender imbalance remains in leave allocation, where fathers’ entitlements are often secondary or tokenistic. Drawing on a new dataset as of January 2025, the article evaluates how current policies support or hinder the equal sharing of childcare responsibilities while emphasising the importance of legal reform to drive social change. By centring fatherhood in policy discourse, the article calls for more inclusive and equitable reforms to ensure that all parents can participate meaningfully in childcare.

Understanding how law is articulated by computer means becomes crucial amid the widespread use of algorithmic decision-making systems (ADMs) in public policies. Based on a case study of the profiling algorithm deployed in labour market policies in Poland, this article contributes to the debate on computer representation of law. Using unique data concerning ADMs and their development, we address the following questions: How is the law articulated through algorithms? Who produces, and how, what kinds of discrepancies between the law and ADMs? Our analysis revealed discrepancies that were indicative of political decision-making that go far beyond adaptations of law to the requirements of ADMs. Furthermore, contrary to what the literature suggests, these discrepancies were a product of backstage decision-making by traditional policy-makers – executive and public administration – rather than system-level bureaucrats. Thus, we argue for the need to incorporate the political dimension more systematically into the analysis of computer articulation of law.

This study examines Israeli judges’ incorporation of the Arabic language and Islamic religious sources in court rulings within Israel and the West Bank military courts. Analysing seventy-eight judicial decisions (1997–2024) and interviews with legal professionals, we identify six themes motivating this practice: persuasion, authority reinforcement, cultural bridging, mutual respect, substantiation and alternative reasoning. Both Arab and Jewish judges employ this approach across criminal, family and civil law cases. This linguistic and cultural integration enhances court decision legitimacy among Arabic-speaking litigants and fosters intercultural understanding within the legal system. The study contributes to discussions on legal pluralism, judicial behaviour and the role of language in multicultural judicial systems, illuminating how the Israeli legal system navigates its multicultural reality and the interplay between law, language and cultural identity.

This article offers a Baradian–Butlerian reading of Arendse & 42 Others v Meta, a landmark Kenyan case on outsourced content moderation. Moving beyond structural and subjection-centred framings, it theorises law as a site of ontological reconfiguration – where labour, harm and personhood are co-constituted through intra-action. Drawing on diffraction as an onto-epistemological method, the paper examines how the Kenyan courts reclassified digital labour, pierced jurisdictional separability and temporarily unsettled transnational corporate insulation. Yet, this legal aperture also generated recursive violence: moderators lost employment, residency and psychiatric care, even as their trauma became juridically legible. The paper challenges linear emancipatory or subjection-based accounts of such cases, arguing instead that law functions as a diffractive apparatus – producing patterns of recognition and exclusion without closure. It contributes to the governance of content-moderation scholarship by showing how Kenya’s legal system intra-acts with global capital to generate contradictory but generative juridical formations.

Credibility and intent are important but imprecise legal categories that need to be assessed in criminal trials as neither common nor civil legal systems provide decision-makers with clear rules on how to evaluate them in practice. In this article, drawing on ethnographic data from trials and deliberations in Italian courts and prosecution offices, we discuss the emotive-cognitive dynamics at play in judges’ and prosecutors’ evaluations of credibility and intent, focusing on cases of murder, intimate partner violence and rape. Using sociological concepts of epistemic emotions, empathy, frame and legal encoding, we show that legal professionals use different reflexive practices to either avoid settling on feelings of certainty or overcome doubts when evaluating credibility and intent. Empathy emerges as a multifaceted tool that can either generate certainty or be used deliberately to instigate or overcome doubts. We contribute to the growing body of literature addressing the emotional dynamics of legal decision-making.

The article focuses on the Ukrainian official language policies and their impact on Ukrainian people-building, claiming the state promotion of Ukrainian as an exclusive language of public life and the ethnically-based understanding of the Ukrainian people, inevitably lead to the exclusion of non-Ukrainian communities from participation in democratic processes, politicise the already problematic language situation and risk undermining the role of Ukrainian as an official language.

For such an analysis, and a conceptualisation of how the state can shape the nature of the people, the article proposes a new theoretical understanding of the people as an organisational system, based on a functional adaptation of Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory and Charles Taylor’s social imaginary.