Whilst sexual violence has been an offence associated both with war- and peacetime throughout history, its rise to the tables where international peace and security are negotiated, represents a significant shift. This article continues the scholarly conversation about conflict-related sexual violence and its emergence as a “hot topic” on academic, political, and activist agendas. Specifically, we ask how and why criminal law constitutes the ultimately meaningful response to such violence. Building on frame analysis, we address how the fight against conflict-related sexual violence has become the fight against impunity. We examine what imageries of victims and perpetrators, causes and consequences key actors within interstate diplomacy and human rights advocacy evoke to drive this development. We argue that these narratives shape the political discourse on conflict-related sexual violence, which may in turn influence the perceived political maneuverability in the face of such harms.

This paper revisits the sociology of international commercial arbitration on the basis of unexploited archives and data. This material casts new light on the competition between “grand old men” and “young technocrats” in the 1980s and 1990s, a theme that has structured the analysis of international commercial arbitration since the pioneering work of Yves Dezalay and Bryant G. Garth (Dealing in Virtue). In contrast, the data show that the crucial transformative period actually took place between the 1950s and 1970s, when a relatively well-defined group of individuals emerged as the leading arbitrators at the International Chamber of Commerce. These individuals— the “secant marginals”—succeeded in constructing a cooperative interface (rather than competition) between otherwise separate legal systems and professions. In doing so, they created the conditions necessary for the emergence of a new transnational legal profession. At a more general level, the article proposes an alternative narrative of globalization, wherein actors operating at the intersection of various systems, create new arenas of governance on the basis of inter-system cooperation.

The continued relevance of customary law for the regulation of the daily lives of Africa's citizens poses serious governance challenges to sovereign states, such as how best to regulate customary dispute settlement. While confronted with largely similar problems, the South African government proposed to enhance and regulate the position of its traditional courts, whereas Malawi has opted for the creation of hybrid local courts that combine characteristics of regular state courts and customary fora to be the main avenue of customary law cases. This paper analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches and displays how the two countries’ historical and political contexts enable and constrain their regulatory choices in the field of customary dispute settlement, as well as influence the risk and benefits of the various options. In this respect, the political power of the traditional leaders is a significant determinant.

General amnesty is an extraordinary policy mostly used in the aftermath of civil wars or regime transition to maintain political stability. In Turkey, however, amnesties have historically been used to resolve the chronic problems of the criminal justice system. This radically changed after the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002, which has taken a sharp anti-amnesty position. This shift should be understood as part of AKP's neoliberal orientation in criminal justice policies that has increased the dose of punitiveness, emphasized individual responsibility of offenders, and enhanced the organizational efficiency of institutions. Central to this neoliberal penal orientation is the party's neopopulist ideology constructed on an image of a strong state that (i) is capable of dealing with structural problems without having to recourse to extraordinary measures, (ii) no longer sees criminals as “victims of fate”, (iii) prioritizes victims’ rights. Our analysis contributes to the mounting literature on neoliberal penalty in two ways: first is by bringing the question of why states forgive at center stage when most work focuses exclusively on how and why states punish; second is by paying closer attention to how developing country governments with limited financial, logistical, and administrative resources manage the tensions and contradictions that neoliberal penal policies bring forth. Our arguments are based on official reports; in-depth interviews with legal professionals; and descriptive statistics on the criminal justice system.

Immigration detention is formally not a punishment, but governments do use it to deter illegal residence. This study examines whether and how immigration detention affects detainees’ decision-making processes regarding departure, thereby possibly resulting in de facto “specific deterrence.” Semistructured face-to-face interviews were conducted in the Netherlands with 81 immigration detainees, and their case files were examined. Evidence is found for a limited, selective deterrence effect at the level of detainee's attitudes: most respondents considered immigration detention a painful and distressing experience, but only a minority—mostly labor migrants without family ties in the Netherlands—developed a preference to return to their country of citizenship in hopes of ending their exposure, including repeated exposure, to the detention. In line with defiance theory, we find that eventual deterrent effects mostly occurred among detainees who also attributed some measure of legitimacy to their detention. Among some detainees, the detention experience resulted in a preference to migrate to a neighboring European country.

How and why do groups employ law strategically in different venues? This article combines theoretical and methodological insights from sociolegal and interest-group studies to investigate how and why nonfederally recognized Indian groups used administrative and legislative strategies for federal recognition from 1977 to 2012. By detailing the circumstances leading Indian groups to employ varying strategies, it provides a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic interplay among the goals, motivations, and constraints influencing groups to use administrative and legislative processes over time.

Individuals’ choices about whether to resolve disputes via litigation can be affected by their relationship with the potential defendant. I explore whether gender also plays a role, with women being less aggressive in legal tactics than men as their connection to the potential defendant becomes closer. The study uses a survey design with vignettes to explore decisions across the legal process, including the willingness to sue, responses to settlement offers, and whether or not to appeal. The survey varies the extent of the relationship between the potential plaintiff and defendant and includes two types of injuries—a “slip and fall” and pay discrimination. The findings reveal that once litigation has begun, women have a greater preference than men for mediation in both types of cases, but they are more resistant than men to settlement in discrimination disputes. Neither men nor women's legal strategies seem to be affected by relational distance.