Fundamental rights increasingly determine the balance between public and private interests within both market regulation and private law, shaping the relationship between these two forms of legal discourse. This chapter takes stock of the case law of national, international, and supranational courts on the horizontal effect of fundamental rights and explores the potential of such rights to contribute to reconciliation between market regulation and private law. It shows that fundamental rights can play a double role in this context. On the one hand, fundamental rights can reinforce the regulatory dimension of private law, prompting courts to rebalance the interests of the parties to private law relationships in the light of public virtues. On the other hand, fundamental rights can enable courts to bring regulatory measures in line with the traditional private law reasoning focused on individual preferences and interpersonal justice. In both instances, courts may step beyond what the EU or national legislators intended to achieve through public regulation in terms of reorienting private law relationships towards the common good or enhancing interpersonal justice. Fundamental rights thus serve as a two-way bridge between market regulation and private law.

This chapter addresses intimate relationships of Black populations, as well as the sociocultural and economic contexts in which they are embedded. The authors underscore the heterogeneity of Black populations both in, and outside of, the United States. How racial discrimination is experienced, and the impact of that experience, differs across Black populations – underscoring heterogeneity. While some research suggests that racial discrimination contributes to negative relationship dynamics, other work suggests that when some individuals experience racial discrimination their partners engage in supportive behaviors. Despite declines and delays in marriage, many U.S.-born Blacks are still pursuing marital unions and are happily married (Skipper & Taylor, 2021; Skipper et al., 2021). This is likely a function of relational resilience, or even the Black Advantage Vision as many U.S. Black couples adapt and strive in spite of seemingly unsurmountable stressors over which they have little control.

Chapter 6 looks at the failures of educational innovation during the Covid-19 crisis. As schools scrambled to adapt to remote learning, remote proctoring technologies rapidly expanded. They implemented surveillance systems that violated student privacy and disproportionately harmed vulnerable students. Despite claims of maintaining academic integrity, remote proctoring created a stressful, punitive environment that prioritized monitoring over genuine educational support while failing to do nearly enough to address the inequalities at the heart of accessing and using digital resources. Sadly, the rush to innovate missed crucial opportunities to upgrade core educational infrastructure and truly support students during a time of unprecedented challenge. As if this wasn’t bad enough, some schools continue to use remote proctoring software. A pandemic problem has thus become the new normal.

In the sixth chapter of the book, we use structured topic modeling to identify the number of different ways that elected officials speak about race in their press releases and tweets. This analysis allows us to explore what the most salient topics around racial rhetorical representation are in a pivotal period for racial politics (2015-2021). It also allows us to determine whether descriptive representatives engage in a more diverse array of racial outreach in terms of the number of Black centered topics they speak about in each session in press releases and on Twitter. Given that Black elected officials engage in both proactive and reactive racial representation at greater rates than non-Black elected officials, they also engage in racial rhetorical representation in significantly more categories than non-Black elected officials.

This chapter interrogates the ‘solidarity turn’ (i.e. the increased prevalence of 'solidarity' in international legal discourse or practice) and the extent to which it truly marks a break from the ideas and practices that have characterized the neoliberal age which have shaped the international legal order and arguably led to an aggravation of the very crises solidarity is now called upon to tackle. It does so by using one of the oldest legal expressions of solidarity in international law, namely the law of collective security (CS), exploring its connections to neoliberal ideas. My argument is: (a) that neoliberals made the institutionalization of the market order the only means of securing peace; (b) that they envisaged CS as a system of international policing designed to spread and secure the international market; (c) that this neoliberal vision of CS played a role in shaping the duty of solidarity in the international law of CS; and (d) that existing critiques do not provide us with sufficient tools to challenge neoliberal (market) solidarity. The conclusion sounds a note of warning to the enthusiasm that has surrounded the adoption of solidarity in international law and calls for a renewed engagement with its ideological and material underpinnings.

Chapter 1, the introductory chapter, outlines the development of psychotraumatology or traumatic stress studies, in which the author was also partly involved. It traces how it came about that the author Brave Heart and others have been presenting concepts on historical trauma since the early 2000s. An operationalized definition with two basic criteria and five consecutive criteria is presented. The following eight contexts from all parts of the world are presented and their selection justified. The first four are typical configurations of historical trauma because they fulfil all the criteria without exception. The last four historical traumas fulfil only some of the criteria, but are each particularly revealing, for example when it comes to the minimization of the victim narrative for political reasons. The method of the coupled scoping review for the book is explained and the target groups of readership are described.

Emma Stone Mackinnon considers how petitioning became a mechanism for flagging racial injustice in societies where disenfranchisement largely overlapped with racial identity. Both colonialists and those subject to colonialism understood that imperial protections of the political, civil, and economic rights of a few coinciding with their denial to a subjugated majority enabled metropolitan powers to dominate globally. The discussion of rights at the UN and in postwar NGOs became more urgent as serious violations – arbitrary arrest, emergency law, torture, summary execution, forced displacement, passbook systems, the expropriation of land, and recolonization wars – issued from territories under European administration in the Empire’s twilight. But an anti-colonial bloc comprised of newly decolonized states, with Soviet support, proposed that self-determination figure as a human right in the international covenant under preparation in the UN’s Third Committee. The contentious relationship between sovereignty, rights, and race in human rights discussions reconfigured all three in the international world order of states as the work of drafting the human rights covenants proceeded at the UN.

This chapter explores the legal frameworks that govern employment testing in Australia, including federal and state anti-discrimination legislation, and evaluates their impact on employment testing in the country. Overall, despite the existence of legal protections for individuals from diverse demographic groups (e.g., culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, sex/gender, age), judicial scrutiny of discrimination in employment testing remains limited. Practical challenges, such as difficulties in gathering evidence of discrimination, and the prospect of limited financial compensation, may discourage legal action. Moreover, statistical evidence is neither widely used nor required to demonstrate discrimination, resulting in a regulatory environment where employment testing practices are often guided more by organizational discretion and international perspectives than by legal mandates. However, as hiring technologies continue to evolve, this chapter highlights the opportunity for stronger regulatory oversight and empirical rigor to ensure employment testing remains both equitable and legally defensible.

Employment testing is routinely performed in South Africa today, but this was not always the case. Turning its back on its apartheid history of racial segregation and discrimination, South Africa has developed a progressive legal system to thwart bias and promote fairness in employment testing. This chapter explores employment-related testing in the public and private sectors, beginning with an overview of South Africa’s apartheid history, followed by a discussion of how the current legal system addresses fairness. A distinctive aspect of South African law is that preferential treatment, including lower cutoffs and within-group norming for protected groups, is not only mandated but also widely practised as the norm rather than the exception. Our review concludes that South Africa has enacted an extensive legal framework to promote equality and prevent unfair discrimination.

Susser provides a thoughtful examination of what we mean by (digital) exploitation and suggests that regulation should constrain platform activities that instrumentalize people or treat them unfairly. Using a diverse set of examples, he argues that the language of exploitation helps makes visible forms of injustice overlooked or only partially captured by dominant concerns about, for example, surveillance, discrimination, and related platform abuses. He provides valuable conceptual and normative resources for challenging efforts by platforms to obscure or legitimate those abuses.