Introducing our Special Issue on marginalisation, this paper considers some of the challenges that this topic poses for legal scholars. The paper identifies that these challenges arise principally from the ambivalence of ‘marginalisation’ itself: at once an idea so broad that it arguably underpins the bulk of legal research (and socio-legal research in particular), but at the same time an idea that in practice too often quickly gives way to various other neighbouring ones: disadvantage, discrimination, disempowerment, exclusion, inequality, silencing, stigmatisation, victimisation and so on. This paper considers this ambivalence and traces etymological roots (and routes) by which we understand the margin, the marginalised and marginalisation.

Over the last several decades, states have demonstrated significant political commitment towards advancing protection and assistance for internally displaced persons. A notable form in which this commitment has been reflected is in the emergence of normative standards, with the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (UNGP) as the guiding text. The fact that the UNGP framework has found expression in the landscape on internal displacement is evidenced at various levels of governance. Within the African context, the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention) draws on pertinent normative frameworks, with the UNGP as the leading framework. While this point is often made in general terms, this article focuses on the extent to which the norm on internal displacement has diffused and expanded within the African context.

In Canada, there are persistent allegations and some empirical evidence suggesting racialized police bias; certain (non-White) groups appear to face over-enforcement as criminal suspects and under-enforcement as victims. Yet, it is challenging to prove or disprove these claims. Unlike other countries, where governments routinely publish police-reported crime and criminal court data identifying the race/ethnicity of criminal suspects and victims, Canada maintains a ban on the publication of such data. In this article, using an intersectional and critical analysis, we examine 127 prosecuted (predominantly domestic sex) trafficking cases and explore related claims of racial and gender bias together with sensationalism in the enforcement of Canadian anti-trafficking in persons laws. Our findings align with other empirical research observing the racially selective identification and prosecution of sex trafficking cases through a heteronormative and gender binary lens. Whether real or perceived, racial—alongside gender, sexuality, economic, citizenship, and occupational—bias has significant adverse consequences for the equality, liberty, security, mobility, labour, and access to justice rights of the Indigenous, Black, Arab/Muslim and other racialized communities being policed. Our data reveal a clear and pressing need to publish race-disaggregated crime and criminal court data and to challenge deeply ingrained stereotypes using various means.

Despite the high density and sheer volume of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), there is considerable indeterminacy within its structure. Understanding the interpretive space generated through the rules/standards dichotomy as well as through the policy/law interface resident within this indeterminacy permits greater appreciation of how LOAC is used to advance strategic goals. The purpose of this article is to examine various interpretive approaches to LOAC and to reveal the significance of such approaches to questions of both legal validity and broader considerations of legitimacy. Positivism remains the dominant interpretive idiom, but it contains vulnerabilities in its assumptions, not least is the wide malleability of language. In the current operating environment, within the counter-insurgency (COIN) context in particular, it is becoming evident that standard canons of LOAC interpretation may not be sufficient to achieve the desired military and political goals sought. Indeed recent COIN guidance concerning interpretation of LOAC reflects an approach reminiscent of the US legal realist style of the early to mid 20th century. This results in a more overt demand for greater social and political appreciation of the use of law to modulate violence.