Thailand in the late 19th and early 20th centuries transformed its legal and administrative structure from one based on the principles of sacred kingship to one based on the symbols of a constitutional monarchy in a Western-style nation-state. This transformation had important implications for the status of the Muslim minority population residing primarily in the four southernmost provinces of Thailand. Traditionally, one of the most important responsibilities of the Thai king was to uphold and protect Thai Buddhism and to oversee and purify the Buddhist clergy. In the new nation-state, these governmental responsibilities were generalized to some extent to include other religions of Thai citizens, such as Islam. This process of generalization, however, was associated with certain conceptual and political problems, whose analysis in this article sheds light not only on the status of the Muslim minority in contemporary Thailand but also on modern concepts of religion, law, and kingship in the Thai polity.

Recent years have seen a rapprochement between research on organizations and research on law. One goal of such research is a better understanding of how the structures of complex organizations and the normative and cognitive structures of law interact within different cultures. This article is part of that enterprise. We report results from surveys conducted in Moscow, Tokyo, and Washington in 1993 that asked respondents to judge acts of wrongdoing within corporate hierarchies and then asked them to propose sanctions for the wrongdoers. Most important, respondents' views of sanctioning reflect cultural differences in conceptions of the individual, the organization, and the rule of law. The discussion locates this research within the larger context of normative-cultural approaches to the study of organizations and indicates how this research tradition can be enriched by studying the attribution of responsibility.

One definition of the “proletarianization of the professional” is that the professional loses “control over policy and value objectives” in his or her work (Derber 1982b: 17). Proletarianization is normally explained as resulting from workplace labor process control (ibid., p. 31). A compatible, but quite different, explanation relates proletarianization to changes in the social practices and ideological orientations of professional careers. In this research note, I present this different explanation and suggest avenues for empirical research.

Through a detailed examination of PARK(ing) Day, a loosely organized international event to reclaim street space from cars, this article reveals the intimate connection between property and its social and material context. Private claims to public streets are not uncommon. In some cases, such claims are swiftly rejected. In others, they receive recognition and respect. Focusing on the particular set of proprietary claims within PARK(ing) Day, this article examines the ways in which property on city streets is claimed and contested. Drawing primarily on fieldwork in Sydney, Australia, the analysis emphasizes the degree to which property depends on the networks in which it is situated. PARK(ing) Day was based on a creative rereading of the property producible by paying a parking meter, and this link with legality plays a key role in the event. Yet the property at issue is based on much more than that simple transaction. A more emergent and socially constructed conception of ownership is central in understanding both the making of claims to city streets on PARK(ing) Day and the range of responses they generate.

The judge in a jury trial is charged with excusing prospective jurors who will not be impartial. To assess impartiality, prospective jurors are typically asked whether they can be fair. Using an experimental paradigm, we found that small changes in jurors' self-reported confidence in their ability to be fair affected judges' decisions about bias but did not affect the judgments of either attorneys or jurors. We suggest why a judge's role and unique relationship with jurors is likely to foster a decision strategy based on reported juror confidence, and we discuss the implications of our analysis for current legal debates over jury selection practices. Unexpected patterns in our results also highlight the ways in which perceptions of impartiality are affected, in part, by the social characteristics of the observer.

How do police explain their support for torture? Findings from 12 months of fieldwork with police in India complicate previous researchers’ claims that violence workers tend to morally disengage and blame circumstances for their actions. The officers in this study engage in moral reflection on torture, drawing on their beliefs about human nature and justice to explain their support for it. They admit that they use torture more widely than their own conceptions of justice allow, but see this as an imperfect implementation of their principles rather than as a violation of them. Previous research on the spread of human rights norms has focused on how these norms can be adapted to the local beliefs that support them, rather than on understanding the beliefs that conflict with human rights. I argue that illuminating the self-understanding of state actors who support or engage in torture is crucial to building theory on why such violence occurs, as well as to designing interventions to prevent it.

The nondiscrimination clause of the Affordable Care Act, known as Section 1557, formally expanded patients' civil rights in nearly every healthcare setting in the United States in 2010. Regulations required healthcare organizations to name a person to handle grievances and set up an internal grievance process for resolving them. Drawing on interviews with 58 healthcare grievance handlers, this study examines how healthcare organizations respond to patients' discrimination complaints. We find that organizations incorporated the new right into preexisting complaint and grievance procedures, treating possible patient civil rights violations as patient experience problems. Grievance handlers smooth over problems using customer service strategies. These procedures diminish the efforts of policymakers to expand civil rights protections in healthcare. For civil rights to provoke real organizational change, discrimination complaints would need to be handled by professionals attuned to rights consciousness.

With each step forward, with each problem that we solve, we not only discover new and unsolved problems, but we also discover that where we believed we were standing on firm and safe ground, all things are, in truth, insecure and in a state of flux.

Karl Popper

(Popper, 1976: 87)

Civil protection orders are one of the most widely used legal interventions for intimate partner violence. Every American state has legislation that allows victims to seek legal remedies through protection orders such as preventing abusers from contacting them, requiring perpetrators to stay away from specific locations, and ordering removal of firearms. However, judges do not grant every petition for a protection order. This study analyzed over 1000 civil protection order cases from Nebraska to identify how factors not prescribed in the legal statute contribute to a determination of whether victims receive protection. The results suggest that victims' gender and the counties in which they file influence victims' chances of obtaining a protection order. Male victims, victims with children with their abuser, and married victims are significantly less likely to receive protection orders, even after controlling for the severity, recency, and type of abuse. Both male and female victims who file their cases in metropolitan counties are more likely to receive protection orders than their nonmetropolitan counterparts.

The Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Dutch Supreme Court), founded in 1838, has grown from an insignificant body to a politically important institution in Dutch society. Partisan politics, however, does not influence appointments of justices, although the formal procedure of appointments gives the lower house of Parliament ample opportunity to exercise such influence. This nonpolitical appointment to a highly politically active highest court is unique among highest courts in Western democracies. In this article, I examine the history of both the decisionmaking of the Court and the appointments of justices and suggest explanations for the disparity between the political role of the Court and the nonpolitical appointments. I also compare the Dutch exception to the practice of highest courts in other Western democracies, concluding that there is evidence that partisan political interference in appointments to the Dutch Supreme Court will grow in the future.

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, one Muslim-majority country after another adopted constitutional provisions meant to incorporate Islam into the legal order. In what is now a familiar pattern, leaders sought to harness the legitimating power of Islamic symbolism. But rather than shore up state legitimacy, these provisions opened new avenues of contestation. In countries where judicial institutions are robust, religion of the state clauses have helped to catalyze a “judicialization of religion,” wherein courts were made to authorize an “official” religion and/or render judgment on the appropriate place for religion in the political order. This study theorizes one aspect of the judicialization of religion through the illustrative case study of Malaysia. The study examines how shifting political context provided opportunities for activist lawyers to advance sweeping new interpretations of Malaysia's Religion of the Federation clause and, with it, a new vision for state and society.

Little is known about the factors influencing the frequency of civil litigation. Courts do not seek their clientele actively. Rather, they wait for litigants to bring cases to them. The determinants of litigation thus have to be sought primarily outside the courts: they have to be sought by analysis of the frequency of all conflicts which are relevant to legal regulation. Conflict of itself does not produce a civil suit: there has to be some initiative to bring the issue before the court. Although we do not know the total population of all law-relevant conflicts (that is, all conflicts which might possibly be regulated by law), we may safely assume that there is a selection process which sifts out all but a small proportion of all potential conflicts. Here, conditions within the courts (among others) enter: the more expeditiously civil suits are handled, the less costly, the more accessible courts are to lay people, the more readily they will take their issues to court.

Members of the Muslim minority in the Philippines have a distinctive legal culture whose rules and customs are grounded in Islam. To address this situation of legal pluralism, the government in 1977 enacted a Code of Muslim Personal Laws, which stands alongside the Philippines Family Code and Civil Code and officially recognizes the principle of plural legal regimes for at least one minority cultural and religious group within the general population. This article, written by a participant in the legislative process, explores the complexities of conceptualizing and drafting the Code. These complexities include the use of ethnographic descriptions of customary law within the Muslim community, the selection of rules from among the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and the harmonization of conflicts between the laws now applicable to Muslims and non-Muslims in the Philippines.

This paper investigates the role of “relational distance” between complainant and offender as a determinant of legal sanctions in juvenile status offender cases. After reviewing evidence suggesting that greater relational distance is associated with harsher sanctioning, I develop the case for an alternative “relational resource” hypothesis, which emphasizes that conflicts among proximate parties entail an intrinsic loss of resources for the accused. This hypothesis is supported by status offense data from four decision points in the juvenile justice system which show, with some variation across decision points, that youth who are the subject of parent-initiated complaints fare consistently worse than youth accused by the police. The available evidence suggests that this is not explained by the possibility that parental accusations only occur when behavior is especially serious. Analyses of temporary detention and court disposition data reveal higher-order interactions that suggest that the impact of the complainant's identity is partially contingent on the formality of agency procedures and on the family's circumstances.

In 1821 the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a white person could be indicted for the common law crime of murder when the victim was a slave:

The author examines the persistence of discriminatory inheritance practices that exclude daughters from inheriting land, houses, and other unmovable property from their parents among urban Toba Batak people in Indonesia. These practices persist in spite of national legal policy mandating equal rights for men and women. Drawing on Sally Falk Moore's concept of the semi-autonomous social field, the essay argues that traditional forms of inheritance are maintained through the marga-association, which brings together people who share the same name and affirms principles of patrilineal descent as the defining characteristics of Batak identity in contemporary urban settings. Both men and women voluntarily affirm these principles, arguing that because a woman becomes part of her husband's lineage at the time of marriage, she is not entitled to her father's estate. The marga-association thus acts as an insulating mechanism between state law and traditional (adat) law, protecting the latter from the legal transformations imposed by the state.

Sociolegal theorists since Weber have postulated that state law operates by interacting with and responding to nonstate legal orders. This article, examining conceptions of injury and compensation in Thailand, analyzes two ways of mapping law onto the landscape. The first is associated with state law and legal institutions established at the turn of the twentieth century. The state legal system imagines space from the outside in, drawing a boundary line and applying law uniformly throughout the jurisdiction it has enclosed. A second type of mapping, which has been more familiar over the centuries to ordinary Thai people, imagines space from the inside out. Nonstate legal orders are associated with sacred centers and radiate outward, diminishing in intensity and effectiveness with distance. This article, based on extensive interviews with injured persons and other actors and observers in northern Thailand, examines the interconnections between these two ways of imagining the landscape of law. It suggests that recent transformations of Thai society have rendered ineffective the norms and procedures associated with the law of sacred centers. Consequently, state law no longer interacts with or responds to nonstate law and surprisingly plays a diminished role in the lives of ordinary people who suffer injuries.

The perception that a high court's decision is binding and final is a crucial prerequisite for its ability to settle political conflicts. Under what conditions are citizens more likely to accept controversial judicial rulings? Mass acceptance is determined, in part, by how rulings are framed during public debate. This paper takes a broad view of the strategies and actors that influence the discursive environment surrounding judgments, calling attention to hitherto unexamined determinants of mass acceptance. We theorize that third parties can boost acceptance by pledging compliance, and that courts can moderate opposition by compensating losers. We also look at how populist attacks on judiciaries, common in contemporary democracies, affect acceptance. We test these propositions using a survey experiment conducted in the aftermath of the UK Supreme Court's Brexit decision, the most salient judgment handed down by this court to date. The paper moves the literature on courts and public opinion beyond the United States, and presents evidence backing largely untested assumptions at the heart of models of judicial behavior regarding the benefits of crafting rulings with an eye on the preferences of key audiences.

Scholars often argue that whereas unanimous rulings should boost public support for court decisions, dissents should fuel public opposition. Previous studies on public responses to U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that unanimity does in fact bolster support. However, a recent study has also found that dissents may increase support among opponents of a court decision by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. By examining how individuals react to dissents from the Supreme Court of Norway, this article is the first study outside the U.S. context of the public's reaction to unanimity and dissent. Breaking with the common notion of the negative effects of dissent on public support, the article shows that when the Supreme Court handles cases of higher political salience, the formulation of dissenting opinions can be a meaningful way of securing greater support for its policy outputs by suggesting evidence of procedural justice. Contrary to recent studies, however, this positive influence of dissent is irrespective of individuals' ex ante policy views.

Theory linking litigation onset, process, and outcome in jail reform lawsuits has been scarce. The author proposes a four-stage, comparative model: (1) conditions of surrounding legal and political environments, in concert with contextual factors (e.g., type of legal representation), set the stage for litigation in the trigger stage; (2) specific legal claims, defendants named, and litigation strategies shape litigation process at the liability stage; (3) the nature and degree of remedies crafted is shaped by complex interactions between litigants and judges at the remedy stage; and (4) judicial methods and litigant behavior shape negotiations, modifications, and compliance efforts in the postdecree stage. Using qualitative and quantitative research methods, the researcher examined hypotheses linking the four stages. All general-conditions lawsuits against California county jails between 1975 and 1989 (N=43) were coded and analyzed. Critical factors identified at each stage significantly influenced litigation incidence, process, and legal outcomes. The author discusses implications of a multimethod, comparative approach for studying court-ordered reform of public institutions.