In contrast to liberal democracy, which translates constituent power into processes and institutions of representation and government, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri place a premium on constituent power: inspired by social movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, they argue that the constituent power of a multitude should not be translated into the constituted powers of a state. Doing so would deprive the multitude of its revolutionary and radically democratic potential. Pure constituent power seeks to repeat in perpetuity the exception of the revolutionary founding moment of democracy. That Hardt and Negri rely on increasingly theological models in their account of constituent power and revolution highlights the antidemocratic tendency of their conception of “constituent governance.” A political theology that seeks to make the exception permanent is not compatible with democracy. The enactment of pure constituent power in the democracy of the common inevitably leads to what Carl Schmitt described as “sovereign dictatorship.” Hardt’s and Negri’s “constituent governance” is an arbitrary form of governance without any checks and balances.

This chapter introduces the reader to how the oil industry mobilizes political support from publics. It argues that historically, the sector has shied away from grassroots politics, or employed short-lived, financially secretive front groups. However, today this is changing. Oil firms’ contemporary outreach is apt to take the form of visible, far-reaching, and long-term campaigns that openly tout partnership between companies and citizens. This style of organizing troubles the neat binary between grassroots politics and corporate public relations. To address this, the chapter suggests we think of all political mobilization as “manufactured publics,” emphasizing the strategizing, labor, and mixture of interests inherent in all contentious political efforts. This theoretical lens allows us to explore both the affective realities of people who join pro-oil groups and the corporate interests that shape these campaigns.

This chapter revisits David Collier’s “Trajectory of a Concept,” challenging the view that corporatism has faded as an empirical phenomenon or scholarly framework. Despite major political, economic, and social shifts since the mid twentieth century, the concept of corporatism continues to offer valuable insights into contemporary modes of interest intermediation in Latin America. The chapter makes four central arguments. First, corporatism now operates across a wider range of domains, extending beyond traditional class-based state-society relations. Second, the core features of corporatism – structure, subsidy, and control – persist but have adapted to contexts shaped by neoliberal reforms and democratic governance. Third, scholars have refined the concept in ways that preserve its definitional integrity while making it more applicable to changing empirical realities. Finally, using corporatism to analyze new settings reveals continuity in causal patterns, linking past and present dynamics of interest representation. Rather than being obsolete, corporatism remains a productive concept for understanding how states and organized groups interact in Latin America. This analysis underscores the importance of revisiting conceptual frameworks in light of empirical change and demonstrates that earlier models can retain explanatory power when appropriately updated.

The Introduction outlines the role of Syrian intellectuals in shaping meaning around the 2011 revolution and its aftermath. It traces how early hope and discursive agency among intellectuals gave way to political fragmentation, repression, and exile, leading many to reassess their roles. It explores how exiled intellectuals engaged in a war of ideas, navigating pressures from authoritarian regimes, shifting public expectations, and host society constraints. Drawing on cultural sociology, intellectual positioning, and social movement theory, the Introduction situates Syrian intellectuals within global debates on public intellectualism, examining how political upheaval transforms their influence. The book investigates how exiled intellectuals’ work – once invested in revolutionary hope – became dominated by trauma narration, reshaping their discursive impact but weakening political efficacy. Through qualitative research, it examines how their meaning-making processes evolved, with broader implications for intellectuals in failed, or stalled, revolutionary movements.

The Conclusion reflects on the shifting role of Syrian intellectuals in the revolution, arguing that while they initially gained influence, their authority quickly declined due to state repression, public scrutiny, and strategic misalignments with their audiences. Intellectuals struggled to sustain political impact, as their discourses became disconnected from on-the-ground realities, particularly in navigating religiosity, extreme violence, and the absence of charismatic leadership. As the revolution stalled, many turned from mobilisation and critique to trauma work, constructing a Syrian Cause aimed at international audiences rather than shaping domestic political change. This shift was complicated by postcolonial anxieties about foreign intervention. The chapter also examines how exile fostered a paradigm shift – from a politics of being perceived to a politics of perceiving, where intellectuals repositioned themselves as global critics rather than local leaders. Ultimately, the chapter concludes that hopeless perseverance has become the defining ethos of Syrian intellectuals – persisting in narrating trauma and critiquing injustice, even as their political agency remains constrained.

Chapter 1 introduces the book’s central questions: Why have labor activists in Europe turned to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to claim trade union rights, and what impact does this international litigation have on labor movements? While organized labor has historically relied on collective action rather than courts, this chapter situates that shift within broader transformations, including the erosion of union power under neoliberalism and the expanding authority of international courts. Yet the limited reforms states often undertake in response to ECtHR rulings rarely meet activists’ expectations. To explain how international litigation became a resource for workers, the chapter introduces the concept of strategic mobilization of human rights: an instrumental approach in which activists deploy human rights law to pursue concrete goals without necessarily embracing its ideals. Even pending or unsuccessful cases can catalyze social movements and shift political dynamics. The chapter also outlines the book’s methodological approach, which combines an original database of ECtHR labor rulings (StrasLab) with fieldwork on labor movements in Turkey and the UK. Situating the book’s contribution to debates on legal mobilization, labor revitalization, and international courts, it argues that the transformative potential of human rights courts ultimately depends on mobilization from below.

This chapter reflects on what international human rights litigation has achieved for labor movements in an era of growing repression and backlash against international courts. Focusing on the experiences of Turkish public sector unions and blacklisted workers in the UK, it addresses a central question: Can international courts meaningfully support workers’ rights in the face of neoliberal restructuring and authoritarian resurgence? The chapter argues that while human rights law is no substitute for rank-and-file mobilization, it has provided activists with tools to contest repression, demand accountability, and carve out political space in hostile environments. Legal victories have not reversed the long-term weakening of organized labor, but they have enabled fragile gains – moments of visibility, legitimacy, and mobilization – that matter both symbolically and materially. Labor’s engagement with human rights remains pragmatic, and hence potentially tenuous; but the resources, aspirations, and alliances this engagement leaves behind can seed future movements. Drawing out both the limits and possibilities of international legal mobilization, the chapter closes by emphasizing the enduring struggles and adaptive strategies of labor in hard times.

This chapter shifts attention to the indirect effects of international litigation, specifically, how grassroots mobilization can be shaped in the shadow of official law. It examines the case of the Blacklist Support Group (BSG), a network of construction workers in UK who were blacklisted for their union activism. Even without favorable rulings from the ECtHR, BSG activists used the litigation process to amplify their claims, attract media attention, and apply political pressure. The chapter introduces the concept of “on-stage” and “off-stage” mobilization to describe how workers adopted an instrumental approach to human rights, invoking them in public campaigns while continuing to ground their internal discourse and solidarity ties in class-based themes. Drawing on interviews, participant observation, media coverage, and parliamentary debates, the chapter shows how BSG’s strategic mobilization of human rights yielded concrete victories – including major settlements, exclusion of blacklisting firms from public contracts, and formal investigations into police surveillance – that reshaped the political terrain for labor activism.

“This chapter develops a theoretical framework to explain why grassroots activists pursue litigation at international courts and how these efforts can reshape domestic social movements. It begins by situating the turn to international litigation within a context of domestic constraint and transnational opportunity, emphasizing the critical role of lawyers in identifying viable venues and guiding activists through strategic litigation. Moving beyond conventional, state-centered assessments of compliance, the chapter argues that international courts can shape domestic politics in more indirect but transformative ways. Even before a ruling is issued, litigation can embolden activists, legitimize their claims, and expand the repertoire of mobilization by attracting new allies, resources, and tactics. Drawing on sociolegal and social movement scholarship, the chapter develops the concept of “strategic mobilization of human rights” to describe how activists deploy rights language pragmatically to advance preexisting goals. Rather than transforming group identity or legal consciousness, rights frameworks often serve as tactical tools – mobilized when useful, discarded when not. The chapter concludes by identifying the conditions under which international litigation is more likely to catalyze domestic mobilization.”

This chapter continues the book’s focus on the indirect effects of international litigation, examining how pending cases can help spur social movements at the domestic level. It analyzes the case of KESK, Turkey’s public sector union confederation, which mobilized international human rights law to carve out space for union organizing amid post-coup repression in the 1990s. Even before favorable rulings were issued, KESK activists invoked the authority of ratified treaties and the threat of ECtHR litigation to legitimize their demands, attract new members, and challenge state restrictions. In the post-2000 period, however, the AKP government shifted to more covert tactics, cultivating a clientelist relationship with a pro-government union to marginalize KESK and stifle dissent. As its organizing strength weakened, KESK increasingly turned to litigation, but ECtHR rulings proved ineffective at disrupting the structural constraints unions faced. Drawing on in-depth fieldwork data and archival material, the chapter shows how litigation evolved from a dynamic tool of mobilization into a strategy of documentation and symbolic resistance. KESK’s trajectory underscores a key insight of the book: the transformative potential of international courts depends less on their enforcement power than on the strength, strategy, and mobilization capacity of grassroots actors.

In Colombia, the category of ‘victim’ constitutes a significant legal and political identity, granting access to truth, justice, and reparation measures. Yet transitional justice processes often reinforce hegemonic narratives of ‘ideal victimhood’, reproducing gendered, racial, and political-military stereotypes that marginalise those who deviate from these norms. Focusing on conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), this chapter examines how social movements, particularly women’s and LGBTQI+ groups, contest dominant imaginaries of the ‘ideal SGBV victim’ as a passive, cisgender, heterosexual civilian woman. These groups advocate for inclusive approaches within Colombia’s Truth Commission and Special Jurisdiction for Peace. The chapter contrasts their efforts with the case of Corporación Rosa Blanca, former FARC women combatants who strategically embrace the ‘ideal victim’ narrative to secure legitimacy. This group contrasts with more progressive victims’ groups and illustrates how they navigate between complex identities and traditional victimhood narratives in Colombia’s transitional justice.