An incredibly disturbing trend has surfaced recently in local American politics: cities are forbidding citizens from feeding homeless people. My focus is on how this has been created in tandem with shifts in public discourse. Although I recognise the similarities between the new ordinances and previous anti-homeless laws, I want to point to something new that is happening in the legal treatment of street people. City governments, somewhat dependent on the non-profit sector to give material aid while government services are cut, are now vigorously targeting charities/citizens. I will argue that this trend relates to a shift in the framing of the homeless issue – more specifically, a shift in the very definition of the homeless.

The Hartian tradition of jurisprudence utilises linguistic philosophy to examine legal communications, most particularly those made by judges, and seeks to reach conclusions about the commitment of legal actors towards legal systems, the part played by morality, and what aspects of law involve the exercise of discretion. But this approach fails to take account of the nature of communication within modern society. If one approaches these issues through the application of communication theory, applying Niklas Luhmann’s concept of redundancy, our understanding alters radically. Systems theory explains how and why the communication resources available to legal actors are both limited and system specific. Whilst one can accept that actors use communications to achieve particular legal operations, one cannot attribute the meaning of these communications to their intentions, motivations or commitments. This conclusion and reasons for it change our understanding of long-standing and unresolved jurisprudential debates about the nature of judicial discourse.

The principal aim of gender mainstreaming is to achieve gender equality by implementing gender as a central component at all levels within the UN system. Previous work has focused on gender mainstreaming as an abstract concept, whereas this paper empirically examines efforts to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) and by doing so evaluates the process of mainstreaming. This paper suggests that gender mainstreaming has limited potential to achieve gender empowerment and equality. A lack of benchmarks and targets within UNSCR 1325 undermines the Security Council’s commitment to women’s experiences of armed conflict. Gender mainstreaming has largely not been implemented at a macro-level (within the UN), although at a micro-level, civil society organisations have made some attempts to use UNSCR 1325 to achieve gender empowerment. Ultimately, however, UNSCR 1325 is not radical enough to be used as a transformative gender mainstreaming tool.

This review essay draws on a recently edited handbook by Esin Örücü and David Nelken to reflect on the methodological concerns and challenges of comparative law and sociolegal research. It argues that the contextualisation of laws should be regarded as the indispensable methodological characteristic of all comparative studies of law that aspire to transcend the understanding of law as a body of rules and doctrine. It further argues that although the cultural perspective facilitates contextualisation of the law, a cultural understanding is neither a precondition for undertaking comparative legal research nor necessarily the correct approach under all circumstances; for certain aspects of law and legal behaviour need not be conceptualised in cultural terms. The essay concludes by proposing that the combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches could provide a meta-methodological framework within which specific comparative techniques can be employed. Such a framework will enable comparatists and sociolegal researchers to account for how law interacts with, and simultaneously manifests itself at, the macro-, micro- and the intermediary meso-levels of society over time.

In recent years, universal principles and, in turn, the universalistic discourse of human rights, have fallen under critical review by feminist scholars. This is part of a more general suspicion of a search for universalism and abstraction in law: feminist legal scholars have highlighted and critiqued the gendered dimension of such an approach.1 Particular concepts fundamental to political, legal and social theory such as justice,2 equality,3 freedom4 and rights5 have been under the spotlight to see if their structure leads to detrimental consequences for women. Criticisms of rights have taken a variety of forms with rights being seen as too individualistic, reinforcing existing power imbalances, failing to account for women’s experiences and focusing too much on the public sphere.