Law & Policy Co-Editor Colin Scott and author Hadar Aviram discuss the wider social and theoretical implications of Professor Aviram’s recent article, “How Law Thinks of Disobedience: Perceiving and Addressing Desertion and Conscientious Objection in Israeli Military Courts,” Law & Policy 30(3): 277-305. The podcast conversation is available HERE.
Here is the abstract from the article:
The study transcends the dichotomy “law in the books”/”law in action” by taking law’s knowledge-production mechanisms seriously. It examines how the Israeli military justice system perceives and addresses disobedience toward the mandatory military service duty by deserters and conscientious objectors. Both groups resist the military service ethos but differ in the offenders’ demographics and motivations. The findings show how law co-opts the socio-political problems, assimilates them, and transforms them to narrow its framework. The legal system can be cognitively open to external frameworks introduced by powerful and resourceful defendants; it remains, however, normatively closed to alternative rules and perspectives.
L&P Co-Editor Nancy Reichman and recent L&P author Andrew Goldsmith discuss observations and implications from his Law & Policy 30(2) (April 2008) article, “The Governance of Terror: Precautionary Logic and Counterterrorist Law Reform After September 11.” The podcast conversation is available here. (Description of the article and more links are available in an earlier post, below.)
Annual ILSA Meeting: Global, Regional, and Local: Law, Politics, and Society in Comparative Perspectives
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The Program Committee of the Annual Conference of the Israeli Law and Society (ILSA) invites scholars conducting research on any aspect of Law and Society to submit proposals for individual papers and organized panels. Panels and papers devoted to the main theme of the conference – “Global, Regional, and Local: Law, Politics, and Society in Comparative Perspectives” – are especially invited. Other topics relating Read the rest of this entry »
Faculty at the University at Buffalo Law School analyzed the Texas case from multiple perspectives at a lively and provocative Baldy Center presentation held on May 16, 2008. Events have moved quickly since then with the court-ordered release of children, but the basic issues remain. Each perspective framed the “problem” differently, generating a fascinating discussion. Professor Sue Mangold described current federal and state child welfare laws that allowed the state of Texas to remove over 460 children from their Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) families because suspected abuse. Although some states have sought to keep children in families while investigations of abuse are ongoing, Texas has been one of a few states in recent years that have increased their rates of removal of children from their homes. After describing domestic violence laws, Professor Sue Tomkins shared a YouTube video, “Polygamist Mothers Speak Out!” in which she saw signs of possible emotional abuse and control similar to victims in domestic violence cases. Others saw in the video an aggressive and patronizing reporter being challenged Read the rest of this entry »
The 13th annual Ontario/New York Regional Sociolegal Studies conference was held at University of Toronto Centre of Criminology’s wonderful new premises in the Canadiana Building at Queen’s Park on May 8, 2008. There were approximately 30 participants from University of Toronto, York, Carleton, University at Buffalo and the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy. Apart from opportunities for informal exchanges among participants, there were two main thematic roundtables. One concerned social movements and anti-discrimination and the other dealt with the interaction between risk knowledges and legal policy and decisionmaking. A remarkable feature of the presentations throughout the day was the wide range of casestudies canvassed: European anti-racism, LGBT social movements, history of civil rights activism, mental illness advocacy, citizenship and discourses of terrorism, energy and biotechnology policy, aboriginal justice processes, foster care funding, pension plan governance.
A central theme of the morning discussion was the idea of “framing” an issue and the factors that contributed to certain kinds of frames. For example, who is an “acceptable” citizen, what is a legitimate definition of “racism”, how do some kinds of activism get validated and others do not? Read the rest of this entry »
The Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy, the Department of Sociology, and the School of Law at SUNY Buffalo held a conference on “Private Lawyers and the Public Interest: The Evolving Role of Pro Bono in the Legal Profession” on April 24-26. The papers offered valuable empirical research on a wide range of topics: the incentives for pro bono in both large and small firms, the role of law schools in encouraging (and mandating) pro bono, the potential of mobilizing the huge cohort of baby-boom lawyers about to retire, the pro bono activities of public interest lawyers, and the efficacy of public interest lawyering against radical poverty. The papers were informed by several shared understandings: pro bono services exceed in quantity all legal services provided by government and foundations; pro bono has unique advantages and disadvantages vis-à-vis other delivery systems; we need to find ways to expand both the quantity and quality of pro bono activity. The papers (including plenary addresses by Deborah Rhode, past president of the Association of American Law Schools, and Karen Mathis, past president of the American Bar Association) will be published in a book edited by Robert Granfield, chair of the Sociology Department and organizer of the conference, and Lynn Mather, Baldy Center Director.
Advancing research and scholarly debate on questions of law and legal behavior.
Bridging the gap between academe and practice so that policymakers and practitioners are better informed by the insights of academic research, and academicians have a better understanding of how the concepts they study behave in practice.
Assisting policymakers and practitioners by applying empirical research to practical problems in the field.
The Socio-Legal Studies Association had its annual conference in Manchester last week. The event included the launch of a new Legal Empirical Research Support Network (LERSnet) which aims to build contacts and offer training for socio-legal researchers. Law & Policy had the first of its thirtieth birthday celebrations at a plenary coffee break. A huge cake featuring a replica journal made of icing sugar was enjoyed by all. I attended a session organized by the Law Commission in which they sought feedback on research they are conducting into the extension of tort liability of public authorities prior to the completion of a consultation paper. Discussion centred on the plurality of legal and quasi-legal mechanisms through which public authorities might be held accountable. There was strong support for the idea that the role of ombudsman schemes should be considered alongside tortious liability. There was also discussion of the role of insurers both in promoting and impeding accountability through liability. Next year’s conference will be held in Leicester and will be organised by De Montfort University, 7-9 April 2009.
The goal of the Journal is simple: to spark new thinking about how courts work and the role they play in our society. Along the way, we hope to bridge the worlds of theory and practice. Like most scholarly journals, the Journal of Court Innovation will include in-depth examinations of complicated subjects. But it will also contain shorter pieces describing provocative experiments, interviews with leading thinkers and practitioners, and book reviews that highlight cutting-edge scholarship.
New York State’s Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, provides the Welcome Message.
Prof. Abel writes:
featuring a replica journal made of icing sugar was enjoyed by all. I attended a session organized by the Law Commission in which they sought feedback on research they are conducting into the extension of tort liability of public authorities prior to the completion of a consultation paper. Discussion centred on the plurality of legal and quasi-legal mechanisms through which public authorities might be held accountable. There was strong support for the idea that the role of ombudsman schemes should be considered alongside tortious liability. There was also discussion of the role of insurers both in promoting and impeding accountability through liability. Next year’s conference will be held in Leicester and will be organised by De Montfort University, 7-9 April 2009. 
