Sophie Legros1 is an ESRC Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Methodology of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). She holds a PhD from the Department of International Development at the LSE. Her research explores changes in social norms shaping work, care and security in gang-controlled neighbourhoods in Medellín, Colombia, and the methods best suited to capture those dynamics.

If change is the only constant, how does the law keep pace with technology? Without a centralized judiciary, international law should be especially susceptible to disruption, yet it can be remarkably resilient in practice. I argue that efforts to minimize legal ambiguity, long seen as integral to compliance, can hinder its application to new technologies. Drawing on first principles from psycholinguistics, my theory differentiates between what I call convergent and divergent forms of flexibility. Unlike divergent flexibility, which gives rise to contestation, convergent flexibility tends to promote consensus, even when (1) technology is unprecedented and (2) regulatory interests sharply diverge. To test the theory, $450$ trained legal professionals were commissioned to take part in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that varied technological novelty, legal precision, and political incentives. Participants collectively contributed 280,000 words over 10,000 hours in defense of their professional legal opinions, offering a novel (agent-subjective) measure of compliance. To establish external validity, the experiment is complemented with research into the legal impact of two breakthrough chemical weapons technologies: “super tear gas” and novichok. The findings contribute a general theoretical framework for understanding when and why emerging technologies are legally disruptive.

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.

Comment les professionnels du droit et de la médecine construisent-ils, au tribunal, le statut légal et l’état mental des patients, et comment ces derniers participent-ils à ces constructions? Cet article s’appuie sur l’analyse de 300 audiences à Paris et à New York, au cours desquelles des personnes hospitalisées sans consentement demandent leur sortie. Dans les deux villes, les tribunaux rejettent la grande majorité des requêtes. Ils le font en mobilisant, selon des modalités propres à chaque système, des répertoires juridiques et des capacités de contrôle qui transforment les patients en différents types de sujets utilisables: des personnes dont les droits sont formellement pris en compte à l’audience, mais qui sont néanmoins classées comme nécessitant les interventions sans consentement que la psychiatrie a les moyens d’assurer. À Paris, les professionnels du droit insistent sur les garanties procédurales tout en s’en remettant aux évaluations médicales du consentement des patients, entendu comme une disposition sous-jacente à accepter un traitement au long cours. À New York, les avocats contestent plus directement l’expertise psychiatrique, mais négocient avec médecins et patients autour de la compliance, comprise comme une acceptation de court terme de la médication. L’article propose ainsi de déplacer le regard des figures de sujets autonomes que les dispositifs médico-légaux et sociaux hybrides prétendent produire vers des formes plus contingentes et situées de sujets utilisables, qui rendent possible la coopération professionnelle et le traitement institutionnel dans un contexte de ressources limitées et d’extension des droits des patients.

Academic research institutions using REDCap often face challenges aligning with U.S. FDA requirements for electronic records and signatures under 21 CFR Part 11 (Part 11). A National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences(NCATS) working group developed an implementation guide for Part 11 compliance in REDCap. Within six months after release, 259 individuals representing 164 institutions accessed the guide. Individuals who downloaded the guide reported reduced vendor reliance, improved documentation, and establishment Part 11-ready REDCap instances. This working group demonstrated how collaboration between technical and regulatory experts at many peer institutions is effective in improving regulatory compliance across the research enterprise.

A growing body of research theorizes that partisanship can undermine democracy as citizens prioritize their political interests over abstract norms and values. We argue that crises might counteract intense partisanship by giving citizens clarity on the threats posed by rule of law violations. Examining the differential application of a law – a breach of democratic norms – we draw on an experiment embedded in representative surveys of Germany, the United States, Hungary and Poland to examine citizens’ sense of appropriate punishment for elites’ violation of a municipal mask‐wearing ordinance. We find evidence of partisan bias in citizens’ willingness to support punishment in all four countries. But, in the two consolidated democracies, we find that concern about the Covid‐19 crisis diminishes partisan biases in punishment preferences: citizens who are most concerned about the crisis also model the most consistency in their willingness to hold copartisans into account.

How do democratic states induce citizens to comply with government directives during times of acute crisis? Focusing on the onset of the Covid‐19 pandemic in France, I argue that the tools states use to activate adherence to public health advice have predictable and variable effects on citizens’ willingness to change their routine private behaviours, both because of variation in their levels of restrictiveness but also because of differences in people's political motivations to comply with them. Using data collected in March 2020, I show that people's reports of changes in their behavioural routines are affected by the signals governments send, how they send them and the level of enforcement. I find that a nationally televised speech by President Macron calling for cooperative behaviour and announcing new restrictions elevated people's willingness to comply. Moreover, while co‐partisanship with the incumbent government increased compliance reports before the President's primetime television address, presidential approval boosted reports of compliance after.

Italy and the Italian Red Cross (ItRC) have recently developed a strong institutional partnership aimed at the promotion of international humanitarian law (IHL), both domestically and in international fora. This cooperation has been particularly evident in the last few years and culminated during the 34th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (International Conference) in 2024, when Italy and the ItRC worked side by side in the preparation of the event and actively followed up to turn commitments into concrete outcomes. Their close coordination also stands out in the participation and engagement of relevant administrations and national stakeholders in Italy’s National IHL Committee, re-established in 2021, whose role and functioning features prominently in this contribution as a concrete example of Italy and the ItRC’s renewed collaboration. Through a qualitative review of previous initiatives, including the adoption of the first IHL Voluntary Report, the cooperation on a new IHL military manual and the joint engagement in the last International Conference, this paper assesses how cooperation between States and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies influences both IHL’s implementation and its elevation as a political priority, analyzing enabling factors, suggesting avenues for further improvements and potentially illustrating an example that could inform similar efforts in other national contexts.

Compliance with court decisions is essential for the rule of law. Generally, regimes comply with decisions that serve their interests; however, compliance with decisions against government interests is less certain. In 1947–2005 and 2014–2023, the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) decided many politically important cases in favour of the prevailing authoritarian and hybrid regimes. However, between 2005 and 2013, although the SCP reached decisions against the government’s interests in politically important cases, the government still complied. Why would authoritarian and hybrid regimes, such as those in Pakistan between 2005 and 2013, comply with decisions in politically important cases that were against their interests instead of disobeying or ignoring them? Very few studies have addressed this puzzling phenomenon. This article argues that increasing public support for courts coupled with reinforcement mechanisms—supported by both the judiciary and external actors—contributes to such compliance. The article concludes that a combination of social, political, and legal factors is essential for compliance by authoritarian and hybrid regimes in politically important cases.

This Article brings together two important concepts in international law scholarship that have thus far been studied in isolation from each other: reputation and interpretation. Interesting insights lie hidden in their overlap. While interpretation is still commonly perceived as a sterile exercise in “legal logic,” the Article suggests that it is often better studied as a social practice, within which the relationships between the interpreters that are arguing with each other frequently matter as much as the arguments themselves. The Article therefore suggests a new way of looking at interpretation in international law: Interpretation as a practice of reputation management, where collective actors like states present themselves to others in the interpretations they adopt, and are evaluated by various audiences on the basis of these interpretations. The main argument can be summarized like this: If international law is relatively indeterminate, interpretation is a situated choice. By making that choice, an interpreter reveals something fundamental about itself to its audiences. Interpreters therefore carefully manage their interpretive expressions out of a desire to be well-regarded by these audiences. This phenomenon of reputation management has important implications for the practice of interpretation in international law.