Explore the vast range of titles available.

Criminalization of solidarity towards migrants at the external and internal borders of Europe is in full swing. It roots into the wider process of criminalisation of racialised foreigners and their mobility towards and within Europe, as well as into the increasing judicialization of direct activism and grassroots social movements on the ground of anti-terrorism. Law and society scholarship has grasped the complex relationship between legal institutions or tools and social movements, and how these latter can use Law as an offensive or defensive weapon to protect themselves and enhance their cause. Activists can also turn the weapon of Law against the State, when using repressive measures and trials as mediatic and political stages to launch general statements and denounce the State's inconsistency and law violations. Aiming at contributing to the understanding of the room and conditions to transform judicialization into a political weapon, the article investigates a peculiar case of criminalization of solidarity, namely the territorial bans issued by Italian police against \"No Border\" activists on the French-Italian border of Ventimiglia since 2015. It points out that, in spite of the annulment of the bans obtained by the defendants and their lawyers in court, the peculiar features of the repressive tool, of the social movement itself and of the context in which they occurred, strongly limited the possibility of a political reversal of judicialization. Crossing a legal opportunities framework with a legal consciousness perspective, the article also shows the plurality of activists' attitudes towards law and the effects of criminalization on activists' life paths.

The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) is a civil society organization that was created in 1985 to advance women's substantive equality. Political science scholarship in the early 2000s focused significant attention on LEAF—unanimously characterizing the organization as among the most successful groups involved in legal mobilization in the post-Charter era. However, we know very little about the organization's advocacy outside of the courts. To address this limitation, we provide an analysis of all the advocacy-related activities undertaken by LEAF between 1985 and 2022. The findings illustrate that beginning approximately in 2006, LEAF diversified its “collective action repertoire” to undertake more political mobilization, while also dedicating greater attention to issue areas such as Indigenous rights. Our study challenges the judicial-centric approach adopted in previous studies of LEAF and underscores the importance of studying advocacy through a longitudinal lens and with approaches that account for the dynamism of civil society. Le Fonds d'action et d’éducation juridique pour les femmes (FAEJ) est une organisation de la société civile créée en 1985 pour faire progresser l'égalité réelle pour les femmes. Au début des années 2000, les études en sciences politiques ont accordé une grande attention au FAEJ—caractérisant unanimement l'organisation comme l'un des groupes les plus performants en matière de mobilisation juridique dans l'ère post-Charte. Cependant, nous ne savons que très peu de choses sur les activités de plaidoyer de l'organisation en dehors des tribunaux. Pour remédier à cette lacune, nous présentons une analyse de toutes les activités de plaidoyer entreprises par le FAEJ entre 1985 et 2022. Les résultats montrent qu'à partir de 2006 environ, le FAEJ a diversifié son « répertoire d'action collective » pour entreprendre une mobilisation plus politique, tout en consacrant une plus grande attention à des domaines tels que les droits des peoples autochtones. Notre étude remet en question l'approche centrée sur le judiciaire adoptée dans les études précédentes sur le FAEJ et souligne l'importance d'étudier la défense des droits dans une optique longitudinale et avec des approches qui tiennent compte du dynamisme de la société civile.

Our article offers an in-depth account of the role of the transnational practices of collaboration, storytelling, and learning in the diffusion of rights-based climate litigation (RBCL). Drawing on semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and quantitative data, we trace how the performance of these practices by lawyers, litigants, communities, scholars, and NGOs have fostered and sustained the transnational generation, exchange, and flow of resources, relationships, narratives, and knowledge underlying the field of RBCL. We argue that all three practices have fostered the diffusion of RBCL by influencing the local determinants of legal mobilization through enabling, discursive, and relational pathways. Finally, we show that these practices have had structural effects that have shaped the ideas and identities of the practitioners in the field of RBCL. Over time, the discursive and relational dimensions of practices have given rise to and have been strengthened by the formation of multiple communities of practice. The emergence of distinct communities provides the possibility for deeper forms of socialization and acculturation among their members, but they also make conflict and competition between different communities more likely. Overall, our article emphasizes the importance of understanding legal mobilization for climate justice as a set of practices that are shaped by the transnational social-legal context in which they are performed.

As societies grapple with mitigating or adapting to climate change, law plays a prominent role in the social relations that constitute a response. In this essay, we briefly review of the many different perspectives on law and climate change offered by the authors in this special issue of Law and Society Review. From transnational human rights activism to constitutional litigation to local practices and all around the globe, both the powerful and the marginalized draw on legal institutions and actors in multiple arenas and at multiple scales to address the consequences of climate change. Together, these articles show that law is not confined to courtrooms or judicial systems or regulations; rather, law offers both limitations and opportunities in the ongoing struggle over climate change.

Critics point to increasing private lawsuits filed by students accused of campus sexual assault as evidence that Obama-era Title IX guidance overcorrected and favored victims at the expense of the due process rights of the accused. This overcorrection narrative powerfully reshaped the debate surrounding campus sexual assault and ultimately contributed to the rescinding of the guidance. Existing analytical tools from legal mobilization scholarship – emphasizing the deployment of litigation by social movement actors – are not equipped to identify the origins and dissemination of this political narrative. Drawing from legal complaints, media coverage and interviews with lawyers, we show how private practice attorneys with no visible movement ties helped craft the overcorrection narrative from individual lawsuits by (1) embedding political claims in legal filings, (2) amplifying the narrative in media and (3) collaborating with advocates in quantifying the litigation trend. We extend prior scholarship and illustrate how lawsuits can be both a vehicle of political storytelling and the story itself. We further argue that the ideology of liberal legalism can mask the politics of private lawsuits, making litigation a useful tool for social movement efforts to mobilize support for legal reform.

Bringing critical race theory and settler colonial theory to bear on legal mobilization scholarship, this article examines the ongoing campaign to strike down the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). ICWA sought to end the forced removal of American Indian children from their tribes. If successful, the challenges to ICWA’s constitutionality stand to undermine tribal sovereignty writ large. Drawing on a content analysis of documents from 17 major court cases (2013–2023) and a unique dataset of public-facing documents from the leading ICWA challengers, I interrogate the argumentative architecture of this legal mobilization. I find that the campaign to strike down ICWA is structured around three ideological maneuvers: erasure, settler normativity, and reclassification. These maneuvers scaffold a fourth – colorblindness – and the claim that ICWA is an unconstitutional race-based statute. I show how ICWA adversaries use these ideological maneuvers to legitimate white possession of Indigenous children and delegitimize tribal sovereignty. While existing work tends to treat colorblind racism and settler colonialism as analytically distinct, these findings shed light on the linkages between the two. They also marshal empirical analysis to illustrate how the embeddedness of settler colonialism and racism in the law enables broad claims to and defense of whiteness as property.

In 2016, Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognized the Atrato River as the first water body in Latin America to have its own rights. This article interrogates the historical roots of the judicial decision declaring the river a rights holder. Drawing on my long-term engagement with social organizations as an activist, lawyer, and then researcher, I illuminate the influence of Black people from the Atrato River in the transformation of law in at least three areas: ethnic territorial rights, transitional justice, and river rights. To do so, I combine interdisciplinary theoretical critique with socio-legal research using community-based and autoethnographic approaches to trace the community methods and historical practices of political contestation deployed along the rivers. Thus, I conceptualize how an organic and distinctive style of claiming and creating rights has been constructed in the basin. Moreover, by listening to the voices of the riverine representatives, I argue that the river is a nonhuman existence that has participated in the processes of rights-making in conjunction with local communities and a broader mosaic of allied actors. However, I also outline how legal systems still function to overlook crucial socio-legal claims of marginalized and resistant communities.

IntroductionThis article addresses the processes that led to the recognition of LGBT rights in Brazil, the role played by civil society mobilization, and the interaction between the Federal Supreme Court and the National Congress in these processes.MethodsThe study’s primary method is document analysis. Our sample was established in 2021 and includes four court decisions and 93 law proposals presented from 2011 to 2020 by 83 legislators whose profiles are also analysed (data collected in 2021). Moreover, the article references secondary source interviews conducted in 2017 and 2018.ResultsThe Federal Supreme Court was responsible for all the LGBT rights recognized at the federal level in Brazil. Our data shows that federal legislators, on the other hand, have been unable to make bills focused on LGBT rights (pro or against) pass. Some highlights from the results show that 46.2% of the proposals on the matter are contrary to those rights, and 48.2% of the legislators who mobilize the matter are affiliated with the Evangelical Bench, an influential conservative institution in the Brazilian National Congress. Although not yet able to make law proposals pass, those legislators with a conservative profile tend to use LGBT rights as political currency by presenting bills or making speeches against these rights. They also play a role in not allowing pro-LGBT rights achievements in the legislative arena. Aware of the legislators’ profile, civil society organizations tend not to focus all their efforts on this arena and to take or create legal opportunities, even though the path through courts still represents several obstacles. Moreover, although the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court has shown a willingness to decide on LGBT rights, the outcomes of the rulings depend on the composition of the body, which is influenced by nominations made by the president. That is, the same court Brazil has relied on to recognize LGBT rights could be responsible for denying them had it had the same powers but different members.ConclusionsWhile the deadlock in the Federal Congress persists, and the judicial decisions that recognized LGBT rights remain effective, LGBT persons continue to exercise their conquered rights. However, the conservative wave in Brazil places the country in a context of uncertainty and vulnerability with regard to LGBT rights.Policy ImplicationsThis study’s contribution lies in showing why Brazil is an unpaired case when it comes to LGBT rights recognition and how vulnerable these conquered rights are in the country. The article provides an overview of the recognition processes taking multiple arenas and actors into account. Therefore, the analyses and the database of law proposals fill a gap in the literature and can contribute to future work from both scholars (for example, other studies from the database) and practitioners (for example, the development of legal mobilization frames and strategies).

This article serves as an introduction to the special issue on ‘Populism and Right-Wing Legal Mobilization in Europe’. We point to the dependence of populists in power on non-state actors: populist governments have ideological and political reasons to need the support of civil society’s right-wing representatives and have the financial and institutional means to strengthen those organizations. We then map right-wing legal mobilization in Europe based on the analyses in the special issue. By right-wing legal mobilization, we understand the organized efforts, resources, and strategies employed by individuals, groups, or organizations with conservative or right-leaning ideologies to embody their values in positive law and its interpretation. The text concludes with a dynamic normative framework to assess this type of mobilization. Drawing on recent contributions from comparative constitutional law, human rights, and socio-legal studies, we argue that the analysis and evaluation of right-wing legal mobilization could be based on a comprehensive analysis of three bundles of issues: (1) the relationship between mobilizing actors and the courts, as well as the local standard of judicial independence, (2) the relation of right-wing argumentation to systemic linkages and historical trajectories of human rights, (3) the redistributive effect (economic and symbolic) and the potential success of such mobilization on the legal capacities of other actors who may have opposing interests. From this perspective, the problematic part of right-wing legal mobilization in the context of populism is, therefore, not its ideological, conservative character but its influence on the rule of law to gain strategic advantage. In the process, the very idea of the rule of law and the related issue of civic agency may be compromised.

The toolbox for resisting illiberalism is quite diverse. It includes high-level diplomatic negotiations concerning sanctions to enforce democracy and citizens’ mobilisation for local causes. This article focuses on strategic litigation as legal mobilisation, relying on the language of rights and the rule of law and addressing courts as defenders of liberal democracy. Such mobilisation leads to litigation before national and European courts concerning issues such as media freedom, judicial independence, minority rights or the rights of migrants. In order to be authoritative, however, courts need support from political institutions at national and EU levels from the transnational judicial community and from civil society. The embeddedness in structured civil causes and organisations seems particularly relevant in the context of strategic litigation. This article aims to map out particular factors in the EU legal and institutional systems that directly affect the prospects of strategic litigation against illiberal reforms using EU law. On the one hand, the EU legal system does not provide direct access to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The multilevel system of judicial protection in the EU means that litigation aimed at resisting illiberalism mostly needs to start before national courts, making it vulnerable to political capture of national judiciary. On the other hand, the EU law system is based on the purposive constitutional framework of the Treaties. The tendency to follow a teleological interpretation of the CJEU makes it a promising ground for advocating for new interpretations of the law in light of a changing social context. Finally, EU law is a system with a particular legal culture and a field of experts who are well-versed in applying that culture. This field does not directly overlap with the specialised lawyers who often initiate strategic litigation; who tend to be experts in the fields of migration, transparency or the environment; and who do not have a broader understanding of EU law and its integration logic.