Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2024
1. For purposes of comparative mapping of these phenomena, we prefer “dispute” to “law” to frame the subject of discourse, avoiding the ethnocentric and value-laden boundary controversies which attend the latter (see Abel 1974:221) and “processing” to “settlement” or “resolution” to avoid the imputation that the process necessarily leads there.
2. Represented recently in these pages by inter alia Richard Abel's theoretical analysis of dispute institutions (Vol. 8, No. 2), by Craig Wanner's survey of patterns of court use (Vol. 8, No. 3), and by June Starr and Jonathan Pool's study of the use and impact of local courts in Turkey (Vol. 8, No. 4).