This symposium firmly covers the impacts of human rights law on penal, prison, (police) custodial, immigration, and psychiatric policies in diverse jurisdictions, including Russia, Australia, Japan, Israel, the United States, and Europe, that have been understudied and neglected in comparison with the United States and Europe. It also raises socio-legal debates about accountability, operational complexities, transparency, the ability to either limit or increase the state’s right to punish, the efficacy of oversight bodies, the limits of human rights “law” in this context, access to justice and legal aid for detainees and prisoners, and the persistence of violations in the face of reform. In particular, this symposium offers an opportunity to analyze the way in which the United Nations, the European Court of Human Rights, national courts, the monitoring bodies, and detainees are able to challenge penal and detention policies as well as to soften them through the lens of human rights. This symposium intends therefore to demonstrate an engagement with existing scholarship in human rights, penal, detention, immigration and prison policies, and punishment. It relies on theoretical and empirical socio-legal work that addresses these issues from a local, national, and global perspective. It also challenges traditional socio-legal boundaries by taking into account and integrating the intersection of policy and subdiscipline spheres that cover criminal and penal justice, immigration, psychiatric institutions, and human rights. In this way, this symposium combines the study of these socio-legal fields and all places of detention in very contrasting jurisdictions with a view to analyzing the nature of relations between human rights and detention.

The United Nations (UN) has operated a longstanding peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), while simultaneously contributing to rule-of-law building and transitional justice processes. Sexual violence is widespread in the DRC including routine allegations against UN peacekeepers. The operation of numerous legal systems and judicial mechanisms in the DRC produces a legally plural environment that is difficult for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence to navigate, and this is especially true for survivors of peacekeeper-perpetrated sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA). In this paper, we explore justice-seeking among SEA survivors in the DRC and the challenges imposed by the complicated jurisdictions and layered legalities pertaining to SEA. Moreover, we argue that, beyond barriers to justice, we see a recession of justice for SEA produced by the United Nations and member states positioning SEA as distinct from other forms of gender-based harms and exacerbated through the legal navigational challenges faced by survivors.

Mexico’s 1917 Constitution has gone through 737 reforms; no other codified constitution has been subjected to such a constant pattern of renewal through amendment. We argue that the study of Mexican patterns offers important theoretical insights for the study of constitutional change by calling into question the generalizability of the thesis—articulated by Donald Lutz and currently endorsed by most specialists in the field—according to which amendment and interpretation are substitute means of constitutional updating. Based on two original data sets containing all constitutional amendments and all Supreme Court precedents on constitutional matters from 1917 to 2020, we find that in Mexico hyper-reformism is correlated to a steep increase in the number and diversity of binding constitutional precedents. Quantitative and qualitative analysis shows that these precedents not only apply the Constitution, but substantively revise it, suggesting that, in Mexico, amendment and interpretation are not alternative but complementary channels of constitutional change. Our account suggests that, in Mexico, hyper-reformism has actually led to innovative constitutional interpretation as a mechanism to cope with its effects. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and comparative insights this case offers for better understanding the nature, causes, and effects of the different modalities of constitutional change.

The law is commonly described as one of the major forces shaping contemporary correctional institutions. However, we still lack a satisfactory understanding of how it has affected power relations behind bars. Drawing from two ethnographies of French correctional facilities, this article finds that changes to the material environment where incarcerated people and correctional staff interact have altered the relational economy of prisons and jails more than legal actions have. To avoid litigation, prison administrators design and use countless graphic artifacts, which has further reshaped the adversarial nature of social relations in prisons and jails. This bureaucratic approach has introduced the form of the law into the most banal of everyday communications between prisoners and authorities, replacing the informal asymmetrical interpersonal negotiations that have traditionally maintained order. Building on Robert Kagan’s typology of modes of policy making and dispute resolution, I re-examine power relations in contemporary French prisons and jails as a tension between formal and informal framings as well as hierarchical and participatory organizations of authority. I call this hybrid relational economy, where the force of the law lies mostly in its formal shadow, adversarial formalism.

Business courts can function as loci of privilege, both institutional and substantive, expressing a clear privileging of business as a sphere of social action. Using an original case study, we show how the establishment of a new business court privileged businesspersons in two ways: by providing them with expert judicial services and by receiving into law a rule that gives them unique protection from liability—the Delaware Business Judgment Rule. We did not find that this reception reflected court capture by businesspersons. It did reflect a conviction that Delaware law is best, inculcated by US-educated academics, and inter-jurisdictional competitive aspirations. Our case study demonstrates how business courts express the structured power of business and businesspersons.

When the USA entered World War I, Socialists, German immigrants, and German-Americans in southeastern Wisconsin went from being generally accepted and influential members of their communities to being marginalized and vilified. German immigrants who had been well integrated into conventional society became enemy aliens. Socialists and German-Americans faced new restrictions on their movement and speech. Scholarship on groups faced with this level of repression finds that they often either withdraw from mainstream society and acquiesce to their mistreatment or fight back through violent or other extralegal tactics. Socialists and German-Americans in Milwaukee did neither. Instead, they embraced their marginalized status and continued to use the law to advance their interests. They resisted their vilification by the law by uniting around those very shared identities that the law was used to marginalize them.

In this examination of domestic violence protection orders in two lower-level Chinese courts, the interpretation of gender violence with respect to political concerns for social stability plays an essential role in the law’s effectiveness. In an urbanized coastal area court, judges see gender violence as a direct threat to social stability. To maintain stability, they facilitate claims against gender violence. Conversely, in a rural court, judges view gender violence as a direct threat to family stability. To maintain family stability, which is closely linked to social stability, they suppress claims against gender violence. This study proposes that, when global discourses are reformulated, new forms of cultural and political appropriation emerge. It highlights the complexities that arise when law, culture, and politics intermingle in the process of law and globalization. Understanding these complexities is crucial for addressing challenges in implementing global legal reforms at the local level and ensuring protection against gender violence.

A decade ago, it seemed that America’s punitive system of mass incarceration was on the precipice of a transformation, stimulated by a legitimacy crisis as great as any in a century. A decade later, far more modest steps toward reform have been accomplished, and mass incarceration in the United States has proven stubbornly resilient. While overall imprisonment rates are modestly lower, there is little evidence of improving prison conditions or a fundamental reorientation of the use of prolonged incarceration. This prompts a deeply historical question, to which answers, of necessity, must be speculative. What makes the carceral state so resilient, not just in recent decades but also across centuries? Following recent law and society scholars, who have brought together the literature on the historical political-economy of punishment with new institutionalist accounts of the role of myth and ceremony in formal organizations and the bureaucratization of modern societies, this article identifies five “legal-rational myths” about crime and punishment that have perennially delayed a reckoning with its lack of alignment with central public values like respect for human dignity and racial justice. The article turns to California as the epicenter of this most recent legitimacy crisis to chart how myths work to bolster the carceral state against efforts to shrink or abolish it.

Across the globe, people who mobilize to protect their rights in highly oppressive contexts may have to navigate government institutions that not only fail to implement protections but also engage in discriminatory practices. This article introduces the term “circumventive legal resistance” to describe practices of making legally grounded claims but facilitating relief through processes of expression and negotiation that are distinct from explicit mechanisms of legal enforcement. Based upon a study of twenty-seven rural, semi-rural, and urban areas across the north and north-west regions of India, this article documents how Dalit women—from the most marginalized groups at the base of the caste pyramid—mobilize to protect their rights in contexts where local institutions do not enforce laws prohibiting caste discrimination and instead perpetrate caste-based forced labor practices. In particular, I focus on a campaign to end manual scavenging—a form of caste-based forced labor that is one of the worst surviving symbols of untouchability. With local channels to legal relief largely foreclosed, Dalit women who leave manual scavenging engage in circumventive legal resistance: they draw on law to make claims but win relief through avenues distinct from those envisioned within the parameters of the law.

This article examines what happens when plural normative ideas and arrangements to address an issue reach local settings through transnational networks. Using anti-corruption reforms in East Timor as the lens, I show the diverse normative aspirations of international and local actors involved in transferring and receiving new regulatory arrangements. By proposing compromise as another possible outcome of transnational legal transfers, the study examines how compromises shape the scope and limits of adopted regulations. The anti-corruption reforms case study from East Timor allows us to identify when and how translocal compromises occur, who is part of such compromises, and how they influence the legal transfer and adoption process. Drawing on insights from comparative law, law and society, and regulation studies scholarship, the article provides a bottom-up perspective of transnational legal reforms, illustrating the entanglements of these initiatives with the local politics, conflicts, and power struggles. The findings underscore the need for more qualitative studies on legal transfers where multiple international and local actors are involved, capturing how their power struggles shape the scope and limits of regulatory arrangements that are ultimately adopted. By illustrating the interactions between local, national, and international actors, the article contributes to understanding the complexities, possibilities, and limits of transnational legal reform initiatives in specific contexts.

In recent years US prisons have failed to meet legally required minimum standards of care and protection of incarcerated people. Explanations for the failure to protect prisoners in the United States focus on the effects of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and lack of adequate external oversight. However, very little scholarship empirically examines how different systems of accountability for prisoners’ rights work (or do not work) together. In this article, we introduce an accountability framework that helps us examine the prisoners’ rights “accountability environment” in the United States. We then compare two post-PLRA case studies of failure to protect incarcerated women from sexual assault in two different states. We find that the prisoners’ rights accountability environment is a patchwork of legal, bureaucratic, professional, and political systems. The patchwork accountability environment consists of a web of hierarchical and interdependent relationships that constrain or enable accountability. We argue that ultimately the effectiveness of prisoners’ rights accountability environments depends on whether protecting prisoners’ rights aligns with the priorities of dominant political officials. Our argument has implications for efforts to improve prison conditions and incarcerated people’s well-being.

Analyses of the relationships between law and society often focus exclusively on domestic laws, meaning laws that emanate from domestic sources. This approach is not necessarily appropriate in contexts that involve significant cross-border flows of ideas, information, goods, services, people, or legal authority. In these cases, there are both practical and intellectual reasons to define the set of laws to be analyzed as including all of the laws, both domestic and foreign, that affect a particular aspect of a given society. In other words, the analysis ought to focus upon sets of laws that are defined in terms of their subjects rather than their sources. A case study from Jamaica illustrates this point. The legal determinants of Jamaica’s relatively high homicide rate include many foreign laws and associated enforcement practices—most notably, US laws and practices concerning trafficking in firearms and narcotics, deportation, extradition, and cross-border fraud. Consequently, it will be difficult to understand the relationship between law and society in Jamaica without taking into account all of the laws that affect Jamaicans as opposed to just the laws adopted by Jamaican legal institutions.

This article uses the theoretical framework of “performative sovereignty” to analyze the role of sovereignty in the Palestinian Authority’s interactions with human rights treaty bodies and to the judicial decisions of the Palestine Supreme Constitutional Court. We argue that, in contrast to dominant views of sovereignty as a threshold, sovereignty is performed through a series of discrete (yet related) interactions and practices that—when accepted by their designated audience—result in rights and privileges being granted, accompanied by sovereign status. Analyzing both Palestinian communications with human rights treaty bodies and cases brought before the Palestinian Supreme Constitutional Court, we argue that the drive to perform sovereignty helps explain states’ actions in joining and reporting to human rights treaty bodies and the responses those actions have elicited. We also find that sovereignty operates as an iron cage—an almost ubiquitous framework—that structures (both constrains and enables) the possible actions of different actors in the field of human rights. The inquiry deepens our understanding of the development and operation of human rights and the role of statehood in shaping the global legal order.

The need to protect the rights of children and young people in detention is the subject of a recent United Nations study (Nowak 2019) and is highlighted by national and international controversies. This article examines the role of external monitoring in preventing the ill-treatment of children and young people in detention. Australia has until recently shown limited interest in protecting the rights of people in detention, but, in 2017, it finally ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment (OPCAT). This article examines Australia’s steps to ensuring the effective monitoring of the rights of people in detention, specifically the rights of children and young people in criminal justice detention. As a federal state, Australia must establish a comprehensive network of monitoring bodies constituting OPCAT’s National Preventive Mechanism across nine jurisdictions and with a range of existing monitoring bodies. This article highlights the importance of the “monitoring of monitoring” to ensure the fair treatment of children and young people in correctional detention. It identifies factors relevant to the effectiveness and credibility of child-centered monitoring processes and analyzes the opportunities for maximizing both in the Australian context and globally.

This article addresses a critical gap in the study of victimhood in historical grievance cases by examining the transformation from passive and powerless victims to active, empowered victim identities through litigation. Focusing on the aftermath of the 1947-1954 political repression and violence in Jeju Island, South Korea, known as the Jeju April 3 Incident, this study draws on archival research and in-depth interviews with survivors, bereaved family members, activists, and lawyers. It demonstrates how litigation plays a crucial role in empowering victims by allowing survivors and families to actively engage in the legal process, where they publicly perform, socialize, and symbolically mobilize their narratives. The Jeju April 3 trials show how survivors and bereaved families, once stigmatized as “rioters” or “families of rioters,” reclaimed their dignity and transitioned from passive subjects of injustice into active agents of social change. By highlighting how court proceedings serve as crucial spaces for marginalized individuals, this study contributes to the scholarship on legal mobilization and identity transformation, particularly in the contexts of state violence and historical grievances.

Law school students are encouraged frequently to “network.” However, depending on demographic categories, they may have access to differently resourced social networks in law school. In this article, we draw from our mixed-methods research to explore this diversity of experience, its limitations of access, and the possible network inequalities that may limit the value of legal education to diverse students across different institutional contexts. Using survey and network data (N = 744), collected during the fall of 2019 from three law schools, as well as supplementary interview data (N = 55), we examined students’ social networks, the structures of these relationships, and their associations with law school satisfaction. We find that, while students tended to cluster based on shared characteristics (that is, race, gender, sexual identity, political orientation, religion, and age) and contexts (that is, type of program, section assignments), these emergent clusters produced disparities in satisfaction across racial categories. Homophilous networks were tied to satisfaction for Black and White students, but the same embeddedness was associated with lower satisfaction with law school for Asian and Latinx students. These results provide grounds for rethinking how diversity matters in law school and its implications for marginalized students’ experience and success.

The relationship between law and autocratization is usually discussed with reference to the judiciary and how a powerful executive can encroach on the domain of the judicial branch. In this article, I suggest that the legal profession also needs to be brought into the discussion on autocratic legalism. Taking Turkey as my case, I put forward two main arguments: first, that, in national contexts where the legal profession is perceived to be originally and organically tied to the state—the “ancien regime” that aspiring autocrats try to dismantle—autocratic legalism involves efforts to overtake not only the judiciary but also such legal professional institutions as bar associations and their umbrella organizations and, second, that legal autocratization is made possible not only through such conscious/targeted attacks but also through processes and policies that are intended for other goals. In Turkey, the neoliberalization of legal education through a populist discourse and the consequent massive increase in the lawyer population has created heterogeneity and multiple fault lines within the profession. Such dynamics have created not only apathy, particularly on the part of young(er) lawyers, but also a weakening of the profession as a whole, preparing the groundwork for the more intentional attacks of the autocratic government. The result, I argue, is “professional liquidation.”

Russia’s penal system was arguably the largest penal system of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, law and society and criminological research continues to neglect the subject. This article presents a new theoretical and analytical framework that seeks to understand penal development in Russia from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 until the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The new theoretical framework—penal transformation—aims to locate significant periods of penal change in diverse and disputative external, compliance-building, and bureaucratic regimes. It argues that the Council of Europe’s compliance rules, and the escalating authoritarianism of the Putin regime, have together hindered a more refined approach to the study of the prison in state-society relations. When considered alongside legacies of the Soviet Gulag penal system, this scenario has created an enduring penal structure and culture where prisoners remain acutely vulnerable to rights violations.

This article examines the idea of introducing a comprehensive reward program for whistleblowing on violations of environmental laws. The common criticism that rewards for external reporting considerably discourage employees from internal reporting is unjustified. This argument overlooks both legal practices of whistleblowing and prior research on social preferences. We argue that prosocial motivations are a crucial determinant of both internal and external reporting. Prosocial individuals are predominant in society. They respond to monetary incentives for external reporting while maintaining their commitment to internal reporting driven by prosocial motives. By combining a vignette-based survey and a measurement of social value orientation, we find that the effect size of prosociality on the likelihood of whistleblowing is comparable to, or greater than, the effect sizes of established predictors like demographic and contextual variables. We also find that the discouragement effect is less pronounced for prosocial individuals than for proself individuals. Based on these findings, we discuss how to design legal frameworks that balance the discouragement effect and the incentive effect of whistleblower rewards.

Over the past several years, socio-legal researchers have focused attention on the phenomenon of eviction, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color. One major aspect of the eviction phenomenon has been largely overlooked: how and why certain eviction filings result in forced, legally compelled tenant moves and others do not. Through coding of the legal documents associated with eviction filings and multi-level regression analysis, this article advances the analysis of evictions in two crucial ways. First, it identifies and describes the frequency of the distinct legal procedural pathways that result in forced tenant moves once an eviction case has been filed. Second, it identifies the case, tenancy, neighborhood, and property correlates of forced tenant moves and of distinct procedural pathways to forced tenant moves. The article demonstrates that move-out agreements are the primary procedural pathway by which tenants are forcibly moved, yet they have been largely overlooked in previous eviction research because they are not easily analyzable in administrative datasets. The regression analyses advance the growing work examining the role of landlord characteristics in shaping tenants’ housing stability and break new ground in identifying the characteristics of the different pathways through which tenants are forced out of their homes following eviction filing.