Through an ethnographic analysis of Hong Kong LGBT activists’ fight for a gender recognition ordinance (GRO) that would simplify the process for transgender Hongkongers to change their legal gender, a paradox emerged: Why was a human rights framing of LGBT issues problematic when human rights were central to locals’ understanding of what it meant to be Hongkongers? Local LGBT activists’ vernacularization of human rights—or the process of localization of international human rights law into culturally relevant frameworks—hinged on reframing the need for a GRO as a matter of humanity, not human rights law. Relying on citations of human rights law among “ordinary citizens” violated the existing ways in which Hongkongers talked about human rights as a method of distinguishing Hong Kong from the rest of the People’s Republic of China. Furthermore, this need to differentiate emerged from the 2014 Umbrella Movement in which prodemocracy activists occupied various urban centers in Hong Kong for seventy-nine days. The Umbrella Movement caused a shift in which ordinary citizens became responsible for each other and defending what made Hong Kong unique. Ultimately, the vernacularization process requires closer attention to the ways in which human rights are being talked about on the ground.

As conventionally understood, anti-corruption programs rely on legal rules to define and control the abuse of official power for private gain. This study explores the limits to law-based standards of corruption where state officials obscure bribery and the abuse of power beneath a veneer of legality. Drawing on an empirical study of two public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Vietnam, it asks whether the failure of anti-corruption laws to curb malfeasance in PPPs is attributable to insufficient enforcement, to targeting the wrong behavior, or to both of these issues. It argues that if anti-corruption laws are blind to the opportunistic manipulation of laws in PPPs, then we must consider other ways of conceptualizing and controlling corruption. This argument links the way in which corruption is conceptualized to the efficacy of policy instruments used to curb corruption in PPPs. In particular, it examines whether public interest corruption provides a framework that makes malfeasance in PPPs visible and thus offers a mechanism for holding officials accountable. This study concludes that public interest corruption broadens the analysis of corruption in PPPs from transgressions of legal boundaries to an examination of public inclusion and exclusion from decision making.

This inquiry explores how data analyses about US Federal sentences have transformed sentencing practice beginning in the mid-1980s. I consider this inquiry an early case of the datafication of law, a pervasive process that translates legal practice into data and embeds it in digital networks so it can be tracked and analyzed in real time. To explore datafication historically and in relation to legal practice and power, I consider it not as an objective and passive undertaking but, rather, as an ideological and performative process that encodes and enacts normative presumptions and desirable futures. The empirical inquiry traverses “levels of analysis” and thus bridges prominent perspectives in sociolegal research. In so doing, I identify four mechanisms that mediate “large-scale” processes and “local” practices: field assembly, symbolic projection, material inscription, and boundaries spanning. Substantively, I show how datafication has not simply described, but also transformed, sentencing practice according to a colorblind-carceral imaginary that strives to fix the present in place. By relentlessly translating decisions into data forms that derive from this carceral imaginary, datafication affects judicial action and partakes in sustaining legacies of oppression. Yet, like other technologies, datafication also reveals dialectic dimensions in opening up to new actors and subjecting its ideological underpinnings to contestation and change.

International courts (ICs) with human rights mandates have recently faced instances of backlash aiming to curb their authority. Taking cues from research on the functioning of ICs, we argue that ICs will be resilient—able to maintain their competences and authority in the face of backlash—to the extent that they are embedded in domestic “legal complexes.” Our framework identifies key sites of embeddedness and stresses the importance of synergies between them, including: (1) the incorporation of treaties into domestic law; (2) independent courts; (3) acceptance and use of IC jurisprudence by domestic judiciaries; (4) strong national human rights institutions; (5) incorporation of international law into legal training and research; and (6) the presence of NGOs that rely on ICs. This article explores resilience in the Inter-American System of Human Rights. First, we discuss and map the state of each source of resilience across Latin America. Second, we show how the activation of sources of resilience helped preserve the integrity of Inter-American institutions in the face of backlash orchestrated by several countries between 2011 and 2014.

The threat of negligent hiring lawsuits is thought to play an important role in the widespread use of criminal background checks among US employers. This article examines the construction of negligent hiring within the trade literature of the human resources (HR) field using a qualitative content analysis. While courts tend to view criminal record checks as unnecessary for occupations that do not carry foreseeable risks, the article finds that the HR field has broadly endorsed criminal record checks as the default practice for screening job candidates. The article argues that this divergence stems from the structured uncertainty of compliance under the common law tort of negligent hiring, which shapes organizational behavior in ways that defy the substantive clarity of relevant case law.

Through a multi-method qualitative case study, I examine the failed 2016 ballot campaign of the Committee for Professional Policing (CfPP), a police accountability group in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In attempting to make Minneapolis the first city nationwide to require police to carry professional liability insurance, the CfPP turned the logic of Malcolm M. Feeley and Jonathan Simon’s “new penology” paradigm onto police. Their thesis argues that a contemporary penal shift occurred away from rehabilitation toward managing aggregates of dangerous criminal categories through risk management approaches. I extend their thesis in a new direction by examining how—in the emerging age of “algorithmic risk governance”—social movement organizations, like the CfPP, are starting to invert the new penology onto criminal justice personnel. In flipping the script, the CfPP called for a new private insurance market using mandatory police misconduct insurance to manage aggregates of dangerous police officers. After highlighting how the CfPP developed new penological objectives, discourses, and technologies, I discuss the implications of grassroots groups adopting and redefining traditional penal logics and propose future research avenues.

How is international human rights law (IHRL) made “everyday” outside of treaty negotiations? Leading socio-legal accounts emphasize transnational civil society activism as a driver of norm change but insufficiently consider power dynamics and the legal-institutional environment. This article sheds light on these dimensions of IHRL by reconstructing how domestic violence came to be included in the prohibition of torture in five international and regional human rights institutions. Through process tracing based on interviews and a vast amount of documentation, the study reveals everyday lawmaking in IHRL as a complex, incremental process in which a wide range of actors negotiate legal outcomes. The political implications of this process are ambiguous as it enables participation while creating hidden sites of power. In addition to challenging existing models of international norm change, this study offers an in-depth empirical exploration of a key development in the international prohibition of torture and demonstrates the benefits of process tracing as a socio-legal methodology.

Why do activists employ international human rights law in domestic policy disputes and to what effect? Can international human rights law play an important role in cases where its direct application and justiciability by domestic courts is questionable? This study considers these questions in the area of socioeconomic rights by analyzing the mobilization of human rights law in the German social movement against tuition fees. Whereas legal mobilization theory is broadly concerned with the invocation of law on behalf of political demands, this article emphasizes discursive opportunity structures and vernacularization to make sense of which rights are adopted, why, and with what impact. I draw on content analysis of movement and political party documents, court decisions, and news reports as well as semi-structured interviews and participant observation. I find that activists in Germany were not naive about human rights. Instead, activists invoked human rights to resist political elites’ framing of education as a private good and students as consumers and to broaden the issue to include social inclusion and justice throughout the German education system. The mobilization of human rights law also was an effective means by which activists generated media attention and pressured politicians.

The promulgation of model laws—exemplary statutes that states can voluntarily choose to adopt—is a prominent strategy that reformers in public health agencies, the legal academy, and non governmental organizations use to improve US public health law and make it more uniform. This article applies the science and technology studies literature on standardization to the process of model lawmaking to analyze how developers negotiate between alternative forms of expertise and utilize different drafting processes to secure the techno-political legitimacy of their model statutes. Drawing on archival records and interviews with thirty-four experts involved in the development of four model public health laws produced between 1999 and 2007, I show how developers work to satisfy multiple, and, at times, competing, audiences. I observe that developers leveraged forms of legal expertise to secure their model laws’ technical legitimacy and emphasized their objectivity, representativeness, and flexibility to promote their political legitimacy. Comparing the four model laws across several indicia of legitimacy, I find that the developers experienced varying degrees of success. This study contributes to the socio legal scholarship on model laws by revealing how they are able to achieve legitimacy, albeit fragmented, even in the context of scientific uncertainty.

Based on fourteen months of ethnographic research on the central money exchange bazaar in Kabul, Afghanistan—Sarai Shahzada—this article examines the micro-dynamics of legal change within a close-knit community in a fragile setting. For most of its history, the bazaar has been governed by informal legal norms. New state-building measures after 2001 led to increased efforts by the state to regulate the bazaar, causing money exchangers to initiate internal transformations to protect their autonomy. While scholarship generally argues that state coercion substitutes for private legal norms, this study shows the centrality of the state in consolidating the bazaar legal system. Exchangers have cast their non-state legal system in the image of the state by formalizing new operating rules that have introduced a management structure and dispute resolution forum. New state licenses have also helped to safeguard the boundaries of the bazaar. This article contributes to private governance and legal pluralism scholarship by revealing that a private community, even in a fragile state, may be capable of maintaining an autonomous non-state legal system not in spite of, but rather by depending on, the state.

This review essay introduces critical race theory to the organizational analysis of diversity in the workplace. One central finding of the empirical institutionalist literature examining diversity in organizations is the apparent failure of diversity, as a value adopted by the organization, to transform practices of discrimination and exclusion in the workplace. Scholars in this field implicitly accept the narrative about diversity as a substantive civil rights value, associating its presence with racial justice ideals. A critical analysis of this legal concept inspired by the lessons of critical race theory highlights the problematic legal construction of diversity and its role in justifying and reinforcing racial hierarchies. Adding to existing neo-institutionalist literature, I suggest that, alongside an investigation into employers’ compliance practices with diversity precepts, attention should be paid to the limitations inherent in the legal standard of diversity itself.