In 1782, Zhang Peifang, then serving as magistrate in Sizhou, Anhui, returned briefly to his family home in a small village in central Shanxi. While there, he visited a local temple, the Guangyu Shrine, where villagers typically made prayers concerning childbirth, and then penned an inscription in which he makes an elaborate argument about the identity of the temple goddess. Zhang’s stele inscription is an interpretive powerhouse of classical erudition, but moves to a surprising conclusion that reveals complex issues of agency imbricated into the scholar-official’s role as negotiator between the canonical values of the imperial state and the informal institutions and practices of local communities. The inscription records valuable details concerning local religious practices and gender roles, analysis of which can provide nuance to our understanding of the dynamic social tensions below the surface of Watson’s “standardization model.”

This article examines the experiential and perceptual environment in which social encounters between soldiers and civilians occurred in Allied-occupied Italy (1943–45) and its enduring impact on the lives of those who experienced it. It does so by applying Mary Louise Pratt’s theoretical framework of the ‘contact zone’ to the case of occupied Italy and by exploring it through the lens of oral history sources. The critical analysis of interviews with Antonio Taurelli, an Italian teenager in 1944 who fought with American soldiers, and Harry Shindler, a British veteran who married an Italian woman during the war, sheds light on how ordinary individuals shaped their own experience of occupation within the contact zone as well as on the life-changing impact of their encounters with ‘otherness’. This article aims to contribute to our understanding of the social experience of the Allied occupation of Italy and the impact of military-civilian encounters in occupation environments more broadly.

During the Second World War, Allied-occupied Italy became the setting for a wide range of intimate encounters between local women and the occupiers, especially American soldiers. These relationships – ranging from romantic and consensual to transactional and coercive – reflected complex interactions with perceived ‘otherness’ and exposed tensions around race, gender, and power. US authorities, concerned about its social, cultural, and political implications, monitored ‘fraternisation’ closely. This article explores these dynamics by examining US Army marriage regulations and oral history interviews with Italian women who married American soldiers. Women’s experiences – shaped by region, class, and individual circumstance – represent a spectrum ranging from disillusionment to long-term partnership. These narratives offer a complex portrait of gender relations under occupation, revealing how military policy also intersected with and shaped the everyday lives of women during occupation.

Legal waivers embedded in corporate settlement agreements are commonly framed as neutral devices of dispute resolution. They promise finality, prevent double recovery and manage litigation risk. Yet in practice, waivers function as structural tools of accountability avoidance. This article examines the use of legal waivers within operational-level grievance mechanisms, focusing on three dimensions: the UNGPs’ procedural formalism, the cost dynamics of corporate settlements, and the opacity created by confidentiality provisions. It argues that the UNGPs’ emphasis on process legitimacy neglects the substantive consequences of waivers, that cost volatility incentivises their routine use, and that confidentiality provisions entrench information asymmetry while obstructing judicial oversight. The article concludes by advancing a hybrid regulatory model which prohibits blanket confidentiality of terms governing settlement agreements and advocates for greater transparency through a differentiated disclosure regime and increased judicial scrutiny by domestic courts.

This article builds on the recommendations of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights to argue for the integration of access-to-remedy clauses into international investment agreements (IIAs). It contends that international investment law (IIL) exhibits imperialist tendencies, privileging corporate interests while neglecting rightsholders and thereby entrenching systemic injustice. Using the framework of legal imperialism, the article highlights how existing investment regimes create structural imbalances that deny victims’ meaningful redress. Moving beyond proposals limited to procedural reform within IIL, it advances a normative case for incorporating remedy clauses into IIAs, particularly to enable rightsholders to pursue claims in host states where harms occur. Drawing on examples from the Global South, it identifies persistent barriers such as jurisdictional hurdles and enforcement gaps. The article’s contribution lies in reframing IIAs not merely as instruments of investor protection but as potential vehicles for systemic correction, capable of moving transnational law towards equitable remedies.