Nuancing the conventional wisdom that informal economic activities endure by marginalizing, circumventing, or colluding with the law, we use original court data from China to reveal a counterintuitive mechanism: informal finance can endure through formal litigation. Drawing on 66,843 judicial decisions, case studies of seven top-filers, and interviews, we examine how sophisticated moneylenders, inactive debtors, and embedded courts collectively helped sustain unlicensed moneylending in China before 2020. Moneylenders—whether operating through Fintech or offline channels—leverage superior legal resources to enforce semilegal debts. Debtors facing moneylenders suffer from serious hurdles in accessing justice, especially lacking professional legal help that could potentially change case outcomes. Courts, despite concerns over debtor protection, largely tolerate the semilegal lending in alignment with the pre 2020 regulatory environment that valued the expansion of private financing, particularly through Fintech. Beyond China and the financial market, this litigation-endured mechanism of informal economy reflects a pattern in high-volume civil dockets where litigation is strategically used to bypass regulation, which has contributed to access-to-justice crises in other jurisdictions, including the USA. Theorizing these dynamics raises pressing questions about the institutional role of courts in either sustaining or remedying welfare pathologies, and in shaping a just society.

This paper introduces the concept of symbolic rule of law promotion, which consists of repeated enactments of policy and initiatives equated with advancing the rule of law despite no evidence suggesting actual progress. To demonstrate its existence, US rule of law promotion in Afghanistan is examined as a “least likely” crucial case, from the end of President Obama’s Surge in 2014 to the Taliban’s return in 2021. During this time, Afghanistan— a major foreign policy priority—received the most US rule of law aid of any country globally. Unlike earlier attempts that sought to use the rule of law policy and practice to achieve substantive goals and adapted over time, US rule of law endeavors from 2015 to 2021 were symbolic. Decision makers consistently pursued rule of law strategies, and practitioners implemented initiatives that lacked any prospect of success. Previously unsuccessful strategies and programming were replicated alongside partnerships with disinterested, uncooperative stakeholders. More broadly, symbolic rule of law promotion has potentially significant implications for understanding the persistence of underperforming long-term rule of law efforts elsewhere. To increase the prospects of success, it shows the need to engage with non state justice authorities, support robust accountability mechanisms, and take concerns about state legitimacy seriously.

Worldwide, the legal profession is grappling with how deeply to embrace the datafication of law. Drawing on interviews and the public record, this article offers a case study of how France’s 2016 Law for a Digital Republic—which promised public release of all judicial decisions—exposed divisions within the French legal profession over technology, big data, and identity. A heated debate over “predictive justice” (justice prédictive) mobilized competing coalitions, ultimately resulting in France becoming the first country to ban data analytics that reveal the identity of individual judges in 2019. For scholars of the legal profession, this episode highlights how legal professionals serve as gatekeepers of technological change and, in the process, reshape law-related cultural scripts central to national identity. For scholars interested in big data, the French case reminds us that the datafication of law is not an inexorable force, but rather a contested political process. And for those interested in court administration, France’s experience offers insight into how one early-moving jurisdiction re-negotiated the boundaries of privacy and judicial transparency for the twenty-first century.

A growing number of Medicaid programs have expanded to employ family members to provide long-term home care to individuals with disabilities, challenging the traditional wisdom that the law systematically denies the economic value of family caregiving. This article qualitatively studies a novel dataset of fair hearing records arising out of one of these programs—New York State’s Consumer-Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP)—and makes two contributions to the literature on care, disability, and the welfare state. First, this article explores the new public/private boundary of care when the state limitedly expands its public care responsibility by compensating some family caregiving, providing a more nuanced picture of how the legal system both values and undervalues care. Second, it contributes to disability law scholars’ debate about medicalization by studying how medicalization works as a state legibility project in the context of state-supported disability care. Especially for traditionally undervalued social goods such as care, medicalization provides some metrics, albeit highly constrained, to make its value visible. Meanwhile, through capturing care recipients and their families’ more expansive understandings of care’s value, this study reveals the constraints of these metrics and supports making the relational dimension of care legible to the state.

In 1915, a Denver murder case became a national story, not because of the identities of the perpetrator or victim but because of a reluctant trial witness: Judge Ben B. Lindsey. A pioneer of Progressive Era juvenile justice, Lindsey was charged with contempt of court for refusing to disclose the details that a twelve-year-old boy shared with him. His refusal led to a six-year-long battle over ideas of confidence and secrecy between a juvenile court judge and a minor. This article analyzes the murder trial and consequent contempt of court case as reflective of a clash over questions of law, justice, and public interest and highlights the role of ordinary people, including children, in debating these ideas. It argues that, as legal actors engaged in a conflict between legal formalism and socialized law, members of the public debated their own perceptions and vernacular understandings of law, justice, and the role of the juvenile court.

Across the developed world, citizens typically file many more administrative appeals than administrative lawsuits. Yet, in contrast to the rich literature on court decisions, little is known about the determinants of administrative appeals decisions. We seek to fill this scholarly gap. An important feature of administrative review panels is that typically only some of their members have professional legal training. Drawing on original data on Japanese prefectural-level Administrative Complaint Review Boards (ACRBs), we show that ACRBs with more private attorneys rule more often against agencies. Consistent with a socialization perspective, we find preliminary evidence that ACRBs with more experienced private attorneys rule more often against agencies. We also find that, consistent with insights from both political insurance theory and the literature on technocratic appointments, more recently elected prefectural governors are more likely to appoint more private attorneys to ACRBs and that governors’ ideological orientations have little effect on their choices.

Russia’s penal system was arguably the largest penal system of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, law and society and criminological research continues to neglect the subject. This article presents a new theoretical and analytical framework that seeks to understand penal development in Russia from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 until the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The new theoretical framework—penal transformation—aims to locate significant periods of penal change in diverse and disputative external, compliance-building, and bureaucratic regimes. It argues that the Council of Europe’s compliance rules, and the escalating authoritarianism of the Putin regime, have together hindered a more refined approach to the study of the prison in state-society relations. When considered alongside legacies of the Soviet Gulag penal system, this scenario has created an enduring penal structure and culture where prisoners remain acutely vulnerable to rights violations.

This article examines the connections between existing democratic deficits in law and contemporary democratic backsliding processes. To undermine the democratic process, present-day autocrats employ various legal strategies, including enacting new legal institutions (such as constitutional amendments or key statutory reforms) or manipulating existing ones. Focusing on a legal legacy of military rule in Turkey, the Specially Authorized Courts, this study argues that in consolidating power, autocrats also capitalize on pre-existing authoritarian zones within legal systems. In Turkey’s case, the AKP government has leveraged the exceptional procedures of Specially Authorized Courts to silence adversaries while simultaneously framing its reforms to the structure of these courts and the trials held at these courts as efforts to democratize the country and eradicate authoritarian legacies. As a result, the AKP masked its repressive actions behind a narrative of democratization in the early stages of Turkey’s democratic regression. Overall, the article presents both the coercive and legitimating uses of pre-existing “zones of authoritarianism” in law in contemporary processes of democratic backsliding. In doing this, it highlights how aspiring autocrats exploit the histories embedded in legal institutions to obscure their repressive actions.

Based on four years of fieldwork, including 339 interviews across 21 cities, this paper provides the first-ever ethnographic account of the political economy behind the transition from traditional taxis to Didi-style ride-hailing in China. This paper makes two contributions to the literature. First, it investigates how the seemingly disadvantaged stakeholders of an old economy resisted the progress of the platform economy and why the different levels of the Chinese government, which are not subject to Western democratic accountability regimes, respond to the resistance. Second, it demonstrates the sophisticated and various approaches the Chinese government has taken in balancing the interests of the old taxi industry and the interests of the new economy. The Chinese government’s holistic approach in seeking a balance across different industries and achieving multiple goals at the same time differs from our conventional way of considering regulating online ride-hailing as an issue of compensation between the government and taxi license holders or an issue of legalization between the government and platforms such as Didi or Uber.

Is a marriage rendered invalid in the absence of a marriage certificate? How does the absence of state recognition influence the legitimacy of a marriage across different legal and cultural systems? In Bangladesh, customary marriages—where a marriage might not be formally registered with the state—are common. This article explores how shalish (community-based courts) accept alternate evidence to prove a marriage, noting the ways in which this approach can benefit women. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in urban and rural courts in Bangladesh, archival research studying court records, and interviews with diverse interlocutors, my findings indicate that Muslim women who do not have a kabinnamma (marriage certificate) prefer to go to shalish to mediate disputes because this site is embedded within the community and attuned to the cultural context of marriage. I provide a comparative analysis on the admissible evidence used to prove a marriage in state courts and in shalish, examining the legal reasoning within each system. Shalish operates with a flexible legal reasoning, which in theory has the capacity to recognize social hierarchies, balancing power and implementing justice in more equitable ways. Noting the kinds of cases where marginalized women benefit from the decisions in shalish compared to decisions from state courts reveals the gaps in state law, challenging the claims of universality and superiority over other forms of law as well as a need to rethink evidentiary protocols from the ground up. This article highlights alternate epistemic frameworks of justice that recognize and center rural women’s positionalities, desires, and standpoints, thereby decentering thinking about law and evidentiary processes rooted in Eurocentric, patriarchal, and urban frameworks.

Traditional legal scholarship has long focused on the exercise of discretion in all its forms; however, by borrowing from the analytical toolkit of science and technology studies (STS), we begin to take an ‘ontological turn’ into the courtroom by documenting a new tool of judicial discretion invoked by criminal justice adjudicators: what we call ontological discretion. By examining three objects from our own research – sleep, death, and intoxication—we show how their lack of a universal, singular ontology may necessitate that adjudicators use their discretion to either choose a coherent ontology in a given case, or else avoid opining on ‘what things are’ altogether. We therefore start to move beyond those important but now rather mainstream sociolegal inquiries into legal knowledges, instead shifting our focus toward what legal actors say the objects of their various knowledges actually are, as well as the widespread legal effects of the court’s ontological games.

How do “novel” spaces of transnational law emerge rather than being captured within existing legal regimes? This article argues that processes driving how the subject matter of a transnational legal space is defined and framed and by whom are notable in mediating such outcomes. The article presents the empirical case study of global neurotechnology governance and examines socio-legal processes whereby individual and organizational actors have constructed and defended neurotechnology as a distinct space of transnational law. Here, I argue that this can be understood as boundary work, which examines discursive and spatial processes of demarcating social entities from one another. The article shows how attention to external and internal boundaries around and within a transnational legal domain can sensitize socio-legal analysis to the more emergent features of these spaces, including more subtle modes of exclusion, cooperation, and coordination. The article concludes by reflecting on how attention to processes of boundary work can enrich inquiry into, and critique of, the earliest stages of transnational legal ordering.

This article addresses a critical gap in the study of victimhood in historical grievance cases by examining the transformation from passive and powerless victims to active, empowered victim identities through litigation. Focusing on the aftermath of the 1947-1954 political repression and violence in Jeju Island, South Korea, known as the Jeju April 3 Incident, this study draws on archival research and in-depth interviews with survivors, bereaved family members, activists, and lawyers. It demonstrates how litigation plays a crucial role in empowering victims by allowing survivors and families to actively engage in the legal process, where they publicly perform, socialize, and symbolically mobilize their narratives. The Jeju April 3 trials show how survivors and bereaved families, once stigmatized as “rioters” or “families of rioters,” reclaimed their dignity and transitioned from passive subjects of injustice into active agents of social change. By highlighting how court proceedings serve as crucial spaces for marginalized individuals, this study contributes to the scholarship on legal mobilization and identity transformation, particularly in the contexts of state violence and historical grievances.

Analyses of the relationships between law and society often focus exclusively on domestic laws, meaning laws that emanate from domestic sources. This approach is not necessarily appropriate in contexts that involve significant cross-border flows of ideas, information, goods, services, people, or legal authority. In these cases, there are both practical and intellectual reasons to define the set of laws to be analyzed as including all of the laws, both domestic and foreign, that affect a particular aspect of a given society. In other words, the analysis ought to focus upon sets of laws that are defined in terms of their subjects rather than their sources. A case study from Jamaica illustrates this point. The legal determinants of Jamaica’s relatively high homicide rate include many foreign laws and associated enforcement practices—most notably, US laws and practices concerning trafficking in firearms and narcotics, deportation, extradition, and cross-border fraud. Consequently, it will be difficult to understand the relationship between law and society in Jamaica without taking into account all of the laws that affect Jamaicans as opposed to just the laws adopted by Jamaican legal institutions.

In times of political crisis and attacks against the foundations of political liberalism, can we put our trust in lawyers and other legal occupations to fight for our freedoms when they are under attack? The role of the legal profession in the rise, development, and resilience of political liberalism has been at the core of a body of work commonly framed as “the legal complex”: Terence C. Halliday and Lucien Karpik’s Lawyers and the Rise of Western Political Liberalism, Halliday, Malcolm Feeley, and Karpik’s Fighting for Political Freedom, Halliday, Karpik, and Feeley’s Fates of Political Liberalism in the British Post-Colony, and Feeley and Malcolm Langford’s The Limits of the Legal Complex. In view of the precariousness of political liberalism in contemporary global politics, this review essay reflects on the core ideas of the legal complex literature. By identifying connections with other strands of scholarship on legal agents, legal mobilization, and the move to law in transitional politics, I suggest rescaling the study of the legal complex to enable consideration of its relevance for the study of political liberalism at the international level of analysis and, specifically, of its importance to the resilience of the liberal international order currently in rapid decline.

When the USA entered World War I, Socialists, German immigrants, and German-Americans in southeastern Wisconsin went from being generally accepted and influential members of their communities to being marginalized and vilified. German immigrants who had been well integrated into conventional society became enemy aliens. Socialists and German-Americans faced new restrictions on their movement and speech. Scholarship on groups faced with this level of repression finds that they often either withdraw from mainstream society and acquiesce to their mistreatment or fight back through violent or other extralegal tactics. Socialists and German-Americans in Milwaukee did neither. Instead, they embraced their marginalized status and continued to use the law to advance their interests. They resisted their vilification by the law by uniting around those very shared identities that the law was used to marginalize them.

The United Nations (UN) has operated a longstanding peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), while simultaneously contributing to rule-of-law building and transitional justice processes. Sexual violence is widespread in the DRC including routine allegations against UN peacekeepers. The operation of numerous legal systems and judicial mechanisms in the DRC produces a legally plural environment that is difficult for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence to navigate, and this is especially true for survivors of peacekeeper-perpetrated sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA). In this paper, we explore justice-seeking among SEA survivors in the DRC and the challenges imposed by the complicated jurisdictions and layered legalities pertaining to SEA. Moreover, we argue that, beyond barriers to justice, we see a recession of justice for SEA produced by the United Nations and member states positioning SEA as distinct from other forms of gender-based harms and exacerbated through the legal navigational challenges faced by survivors.

The Turkish state long enforced intellectual property (IP) rights only loosely. Then, in the 1980s and 1990s, market liberalization and trade agreements drove an overhaul of the country’s copyright regime that transformed musical ownership and creativity, though music copyright stakeholders view this legal reform as ongoing. This article builds on existing accounts of legal consciousness to ethnographically document how a range of music industry actors—including legal professionals, musicians, music industry executives, and commercial users of copyrighted music—participate in IP reform. I identify a distinct set of cultural schemas that mediate such actors’ legal consciousness in this context. The internationally integrated nature of the copyright system, together with Turkey’s geopolitical positioning on the margins of Europe, has produced a reflexive aspect of legal consciousness in which Turkish citizens exhibit a heightened group status awareness as they compare their experience of domestic IP law to the imagined situation elsewhere. In a novel contribution to the literature, I observe how they often make sense of perceived dissonances between the ideals and practice of the law through culturally intimate narratives, taking the copyright system’s purported failures to typify something essential about what it means to be a citizen of Turkey.

Though formal life sentences have been abolished in Norway, forvaring (post-conviction indefinite preventive detention) – a type of informal life sentence – can be imposed on individuals convicted of certain offenses who are considered to be at high risk of future offending. While great attention has been paid to Norway as an “exceptional” penal outlier globally, there is a notable lack of comprehensive knowledge about its indefinite penal sanction. Drawing on extensive historical research and legal and policy documentary analysis as well as leveraging a unique national dataset on the total forvaring population, this article provides the first international in-depth assessment of the evolution and implementation of Norway’s ultimate penalty. In so doing, it highlights significant disparities between policy ambitions and current practice and questions the extent to which the sanction of forvaring can be considered an “exceptional” approach to life imprisonment. It is argued that the development and growth of this type of informal life sentence can be seen as the epicenter of the impact of a more punitive ideology in Norway, emphasizing the need to move away from the concept of penal exceptionalism to better understand the full spectrum and practice of Norwegian and Nordic penality.