The Politics of Rule of Law Reform: From Delegation to Autonomy

How can we understand the delegation of power and authority – for example, from a polity to an administrator - in a world of fragmented governance? In this paper, I introduce the practices of contemporary ‘rule of law’ and ‘governance’ reform, which reframe this question in politically powerful ways. These practices are increasingly important in development contexts, and beyond. Practitioners begin with the assumption that some sort of administration occurs in the development contexts in which they work. They then focus on how to convene a political community in which to embed – and potentially legitimate - that administration. They thereby reconfigure the question of delegation into one of autonomy – or managing the extent to and ways in which the administrative legal system self-produces. In doing so, I argue that contemporary rule of law practitioners wield constitutional power under the rubric of workaday administrative reform. At the same time, they efface their political accountability.     

From faith to race? ‘Mixed marriage’ and the politics of difference in Imperial Germany

ABSTRACT

Intermarriage was a key site for testing politics of difference within the multicultural German Empire. Across the German states in the mid-nineteenth century, marriage between members of different religions frequently proved impossible. Until various civil marriage laws were introduced between the 1840s and 1870s, marriage remained within the remit of the church. As a consequence, marrying across confessional lines was rarely permitted. The implications were clear: marriage was seen as the embodiment of one’s culture – defined primarily in confessional (alongside socio-economic) terms, and it was also viewed as a key transmitter of culture by producing new generations of faithful observers of particular denominations. As a country divided between three confessions, religion in mid- to late nineteenth-century Germany proved an important aspect of difference within the new German nation state. By the end of the nineteenth century, following the introduction of civil marriage, mass waves of migration, the growth of urbanization and the expansion of the German overseas empire, the connotation of ‘mixed marriage’ in Germany appeared to have shifted. It remained a code for crossing confessional lines, but its resonance had changed. By the late nineteenth century, ‘mixed marriage’ had come to characterize another kind of cultural mixing as well: that between races, both at home within Germany and abroad within its colonies and diasporic outposts. And, between 1905 and 1912, ‘mixed marriage’ between Germans and ‘natives’ had been banned in German Southwest Africa, East Africa and Samoa. Why and how was intermarriage a flashpoint in debates on German identity politics at the turn of the twentieth century? As this article shows, intermarriage in the German Empire mattered to families, broader communities, and legislators because it was a pivotal means through which social groups formed, interacted and maintained boundaries at a time when visions of Germany were expanding.     

Of ‘Landmark’ or ‘Leading’ Cases: Salomon's Challenge

This article seeks to question the two dominant conceptions of ‘landmark’ or ‘leading’ cases in English legal scholarship, using the House of Lords decision in Salomon v. Salomon Co Ltd. – the most famous case in corporate law – as a case study. It argues that neither the first dominant conception of ‘leading’ or ‘landmark’ cases, characterized by the analysis of the intrinsic merits of a case, nor the second, which looks at the historical contexts in which cases were decided, appears sufficient by itself to determine whether a case is landmark or canonical. Rather, we have to look at how the canonicity of a case is constructed by subsequent courts. The article seeks to advance the debate concerning the formation of landmark cases and aims to challenge certain prevailing views on the canonicity of corporate law's arguably most significant case.     

A four-phase process for translating research into police practice

ABSTRACT

This article presents a framework that extends the discussion of translational criminology and the dynamic process of translating research to practice. The goal is to provide an explicit dissection of the translation process into four phases to help outline a structured way of thinking about how to incorporate research into police practice. The four-phases include: Phase I: ‘Does it Work?’ Research and Evaluation; Phase II: ‘What Works?’ Synthesis and Dissemination; Phase III: ‘How to Make it Work?’ Implementation and Evaluation; and Phase IV: ‘Make it Work!’ Institutionalization and Sustainability. The process is founded in implementation science and the ‘Knowledge to Action’ model (KTA) used in the medical and public health fields, as well as current translation activities for policing, and the authors’ experience as practitioners, researchers, and ‘translators’ over the last 25 years. It is the hope that parsing out four distinct phases for the translation of research to practice will assist researchers and police leaders to identify and fill gaps in current and future translation activities.     

Measuring Perceptions of Economic Inequality and Justice: An Empirical Assessment

Social Justice Research - How should we measure people’s perceptions of—and attitudes about—economic inequality? A recent literature seeks to quantify the level of...     

Marital cruelty: reconsidering lay attitudes in England,c. 1580 to 1850

The mid-eighteenth century is seen as a turning point after which English legal and lay attitudes to cruelty expanded from life-threatening violence to include a wider range of behaviours. This article reconsiders this chronology of changing ideas about marital cruelty. It follows the lead of recent scholarship that challenges the thesis of a ‘civilising’ process in attitudes towards state-violence and inter-personal violence and draws on new conclusions about marital relationships, spouses' gendered roles, and early modern manhood, which complicate simplistic views of patriarchal unions. Focusing upon the full array of acts – not just life-threatening ones – discussed in cruelty cases from c. 1580 onwards, this article questions the convention that social toleration for husbands' use of violence against their wives declined from the 1750s as part of an overall civilising process.     

On The Outside Looking In: Reflections on the Role of Inspection in Driving Up Quality in the Criminal Justice System

This article examines the role of external inspection in enhancing the quality of a criminal justice system. It seeks to answer six foundational questions: how should we understand the nature and purposes of criminal justice inspection? what methodologies ought it to employ? who should do it? what values should it respect? how much does it cost? and does it ‘work'? The article reveals that the difference between inspection and other forms of scrutiny activity is largely a matter of emphasis; that the same is true of the difference between inspection and research; that ‘lay’ involvement in inspection can be beneficial; that independence is a core value for inspection, albeit one that is best understood as independence of judgement; that transparency is a further key value but not always honoured; and that evidence that inspection improves service delivery and hence justifies its costs is weak and further research is needed.     

Vesting Agent-Relative Permissions in a Proxy*

We all have agent-relative permissions to give extra weight to our own well-being. If you and two strangers are drowning, and you can save either yourself or two strangers, you have an agent-relative permission to save yourself. But is it possible for you to ‘vest’ your agent-relative permissions in a third party – a ‘proxy’ – who can enact your agent-centered permissions on your behalf, thereby permitting her to do what would otherwise be impermissible? Some might think that the answer is ‘no’; it is definitive of agent-centered permissions that they apply only to the individuals ineliminably referenced in the content of that reason, which means that they lack reason-giving force for any ostensible proxy. The purpose of this paper is to (i) show that vesting agent-relative permissions is indeed possible, (ii) provide an account of how agent-relative permissions are vested by considering the structure of rights more generally, and (iii) show that we have a right to vest such permission in this way.     

Digital humanities and the history of working women: a cascade

In this introduction to the special issue on ‘Women's work in changing labour markets’, we argue that a combination of digital advances, notably the digitization of individual- and contextual-level data, the creation of internationally comparable occupation-based classifications, and the development of statistical models allowing for contextually informed analysis, has brought us to the brink of new developments in the field of women's work. Census and vital registration data contain more information on occupations of women than previously thought, and when used in combination with other digitized sources they allow one to assess the possible under-registration of women's work, as illustrated by some of the contributions to this special issue. Other contributions show how standardizing occupation-based classifications allows for temporal and regional comparisons of women's work and makes it feasible to study how community or regional characteristics influence that work. None of these developments – large-scale digitization of individual-level data, standardization of occupational titles and measures of stratification, and contextually informed analyses – is completely new; in some cases they are actually rooted in a venerable research tradition. However, in combination they might well constitute a cascade in the history of working women.     

Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs

Although principal investigators are key actors in scientific fields, there is little focus on what they actually do in shaping new scientific directions. This paper studies PIs practices to better understand their roles. Our central contribution is to identify the different ways in which PIs engage themselves in science, in implementing four main practices: ‘focusing in scientific discipline’, ‘innovating and problem solving’, ‘shaping new paradigms and models’ and ‘brokering science’. While ‘focusing’ and ‘innovating’ remain close to project management, ‘shaping’ and ‘brokering’ look more like entrepreneurial activities, shaping new horizons, reshaping boundaries between subfields and among organizations. External orientations to how they engage in different practices shapes PIs roles to articulate different worlds and to reshape the boundaries of organizations, knowledge and markets. Studying PIs’ practices and their combinations advances our knowledge about their roles in managing the interplay between science policies and scientific agendas more effectively highlighting their role as scientific entrepreneurs.     

The Origins of the ‘Nonmarket Economy’: Ideas,Pluralism & Power in EC Anti‐dumping Law about China

‘Market’ and ‘market economy’ exercise a powerful, even magnetic grip on our collective imagination. But what do we mean by ‘market economy’? Does it make sense to speak of a ‘nonmarket economy’, and if so, what does it mean? How are the ideas of ‘market economy’ and ‘nonmarket economy’ related? Focusing on EC anti‐dumping law, this article seeks to answer these questions. It argues that the legal concept of ‘nonmarket economy’ in EC anti‐dumping law has been socially constructed, by means of relations among a plurality of institutional and normative sites, as part of a changing configuration of legal ideas in specific historical circumstances, and in contexts of political, economic, social, and symbolic power. This argument is articulated in three parts. First, the concept of ‘nonmarket economy’ in EC anti‐dumping law, though drawing on earlier elements, had its main roots in the early Cold War. Second, starting in the 1960s, the GATT multilateral negotiating rounds began to define more specific international rules of the game, but a variety of more localised processes played essential roles as forces of change. Of special importance were, first, the tension between legislative rules and administrative discretion in the United States, and, second, the Europeanisation of foreign trade law in the course of European integration. Third, the EC law concept of ‘nonmarket economy’ was born in the late 1970s. The main reasons were changes in the international anti‐dumping law repertoire, specific ideas in Europe about comparative economic systems, and the perceived emergence of new economic threats, including exports from China.     

Ignorance is bliss: self-regulation and Ag-Gag laws in the American meat industry

Abstract

In America, we like to say that we live in a democracy. Yet, it is difficult to believe that the majority would allow current practices to continue if citizens knew how the food animals they eat are treated – both during their short lives and during slaughter. The problem is that the citizens don’t know, and it is not a case of willful blindness. Take a moment to recall what you know about our meat industry. Can’t think of much? That is the goal of the meat industry: out of sight, out of mind. In several states, so called ‘Ag-Gag’ laws are designed to keep the truth from the public. In those states, it is a felony to obtain a job with the intent of being a whistle blower. The meat industry knows that if it were to be exposed, the public would demand better treatment of animals, a demand that would decrease profits for the meat industry. This paper will explain these ‘Ag-Gag’ laws in detail, explore their effect on our society, shed light on the practices that the meat industry tries – very successfully – to hide from voters and consumers, and examine the scary results that can occur when an industry is allowed to regulate itself.     

No way out: crime,punishment and the capitalization of power

The United States is often hailed as the world’s largest ‘free market’. But this ‘free market’ is also the world’s largest penal colony. It holds over seven million adults – roughly 5 % of the labour force – in jail, in prison, on parole and on probation. Is this an anomaly, or does the ‘free market’ require massive state punishment? Why did the correctional population start to rise in the 1980s, together with the onset of neoliberalism? How is this increase related to the upward redistribution of income and the capitalization of power? Can soaring incarceration sustain the unprecedented power of dominant capital, or is there a reversal in the offing? The paper examines these questions by juxtaposing the ‘Rusche thesis’ with the notion of capitalism as a mode of power. The empirical analysis raises an enigma: it suggests that the Rusche thesis holds under the normal circumstances of ‘business as usual’, but breaks down during periods of systemic crisis. During the systemic crises of the 1930s and the 2000s, unemployment increased sharply, but crime and the severity of punishment, instead of rising, dropped perceptibly.     

A Gramscian Approach to Studying the Judicial Decision-Making Process

This paper applies a Gramscian analytical framework to scrutinise the judicial decision-making process. Based on two distinct research projects, the article explores how, on one hand judges in criminal courts can be identified as part of the bureaucratic machinery of the state, as ‘technicians of repression’; whereas, on the other hand, human rights judges can be distinguished as providing ‘moral and intellectual leadership’ in their production and reproduction of certain values. Some of the key questions this article seeks to answer are: What is the role of hegemony in the judicial decision-making process? To what extent are legal actors both ‘technicians of repression’ and ‘moral and intellectual leaders’? This paper uses examples from empirical research conducted at courts in Argentina and at the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights to identify and explore this dual role of judges as both repressive technicians and moral and intellectual leaders in neo-liberal capitalist societies.     

QUESTIONS ABOUT FAMILY COURT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT

Increasingly, family courts are seeking ways to focus limited resources on cases that require the most intervention, tailor court responses and dispute methods to each case, and account for the real differences among domestic violence cases. One of the means to that end may be the triaging or screening of cases. This article raises a number of questions about screening and urges that they be addressed by courts and communities that are considering whether and how to design a screening protocol. Issues include: How should we define domestic violence for the purposes of screening? Who should carry out the screening? How can we maximize the likelihood that we will fully assess the context of the violence in each case? How should we assess the risks or dangers inherent in the parties’ situation? How should a screening effort account for changing circumstances as a case proceeds through the courts? How can information gathered in a screening effort improperly impact subsequent decisions of the court?     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">It’s Right,It Fits,We Debated,We Decided,I Agree,It’s Ours,and It Works</Emphasis>: The Gathering Confluence of Human Rights Legitimacy

How should we understand human rights and why might we respect them? The current literature – both philosophical and historical – presents a barrage of conflicting accounts, including moral, functional, deliberative, legal, consensual, communitarian and pragmatic approaches. I argue that each approach captures a unique, common-sense – and, in principle, compatible – insight into why human rights warrant respect. Acknowledging this compatibility illuminates the myriad different avenues for legitimacy human rights enjoy, and provides a historical window into explaining how human rights rose to become the international community’s ethical lingua franca. The depth and spread of convergence on human rights proved possible precisely because myriad people the world over found a wealth of disparate reasons for rallying under its banner. But even as human rights enjoy seven distinct sources of legitimacy, I argue that they are thereby opened for normative challenge on seven distinct fronts.     

Privacy regulation cannot be hardcoded. A critical comment on the ‘privacy by design’ provision in data-protection law

‘Privacy by design’ is an increasingly popular paradigm. It is the principle or concept that privacy should be promoted as a default setting of every new ICT system and should be built into systems from the design stage. The draft General Data Protection Regulation embraces ‘privacy by design’ without detailing how it can or should be applied. This paper discusses what the proposed legal obligation for ‘privacy by design’ implies in practice for online businesses. In particular, does it entail hard-coding privacy requirements in system design? First, the ‘privacy by design’ provision in the proposed Regulation is analysed and interpreted. Next, we discuss an extreme interpretation – embedding data protection requirements in system software – and identify five complicating issues. On the basis of these complications, we conclude that ‘privacy by design’ should not be interpreted as trying to achieve rule compliance by techno-regulation. Instead, fostering the right mindset of those responsible for developing and running data processing systems may prove to be more productive. Therefore, in terms of the regulatory tool-box, privacy by design should be approached less from a ‘code’ perspective, but rather from the perspective of ‘communication’ strategies.     

Towards a global ‘child friendly’ juvenile justice?

The impact of globalisation on juvenile justice is increasingly conceptualised with reference to neo-liberal governance and the intensification of ‘new punitiveness’. Whatever the merits of such analyses, they have the effect of marginalising, if not completely overlooking, the extent to which international human rights instruments might serve to neutralise and/or mediate punitive currents. Indeed, it might be argued that the commitment – repeatedly expressed in official discourse – to both protect and promote the human rights of children in conflict with the law has itself come to comprise a discursive and tangible dimension of global child governance. Key signifiers of this phenomenon – at the global level – include a corpus of interrelated human rights conventions, standards, treaties and rules, formally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, whilst at the European level authoritative rights-informed guidelines on ‘child friendly justice’, ratified by the Council of Europe, are similarly representative. Against this backdrop, this article seeks to investigate the degree to which individual nation states receive and respond to their human rights and ‘child friendly justice’ obligations. Whilst recognising the mediating capacities of formal human rights instruments, we aim to critically interrogate the relations between globalised rhetoric and localised reality; between the promise of international rights discourse on the one hand and the limitations of territorial jurisdictional implementation on the other.