Globalization of law may be defined as the worldwide progression of transnational legal structures and discourses along the dimensions of extensity, intensity, velocity, and impact. We propose that a theory of the global penetration of law will require at least four elements-actors, mechanisms, power, and structures and arenas. A comparison of four approaches to globalization and law-world polity, world systems, postcolonial globalism, and law and economic development-indicates considerable variation in perceived outcomes and gaps in explanation, but with possible complementarities in both outcomes and explanatory factors. Research demonstrates that globalization is variably contested in several domains of research on law: (a) the construction and regulation of global markets, (b) crimes against humanity and genocide, (c) the diffusion of political liberalism and constitutionalism, and (d) the institutionalization of women's rights. We propose that the farther globalizing legal norms and practices are located from core local cultural institutions and beliefs, the less likely global norms will provoke explicit contestation and confrontation. Future research will be productively directed to where and how global law originates, how and when global norms and law are transmitted and enforced, and how global-local settlements are negotiated. GLOBALIZATION OF LAW 449 initially contextualized definitions, interpretations, diagnoses, frames, archaeologies, genealogies, and extrapolations in accord with the universality inherent in the globalization discourse. An arena may be said to be globalized when there is a coincidence of structural and discursive elements. Variation in the advance of globalization occurs in both structural and discursive elements, which may be arrayed along dimensions of extensity (i.e., breadth of inclusion of nation-states, policy domains within states), intensity (i.e., how deeply a global influence penetrates inside states, societies, and consciousnesses), velocity (i.e., how rapid the flow of a globalizing content), and impact (i.e., the degree of change effected directly or indirectly by a global encounter) (Held et al. 1999). Thus, a highly globalized domain includes structural changes that are fast moving and extensive and that penetrate intensively into a society with strong impact. A highly globalized domain is dominated by discourses that are universalized and that obtain consensus deep within adopter societies.
Following a role-theoretic perspective, we conceptualize employees who work with customers as brokers between an organization and its customers. This unique organizational position increases the likelihood that its occupants will face conflicting demands from the two constituencies they serve, the organization and the customer. We propose, however, that the work conditions of resource adequacy, role clarity, and autonomy moderate the effect that working with customers has on role conflict. Survey data from 5,811 employees at a national telecommunications firm are used to test these role-theoretic hypotheses. Compared with those who do not work with customers, “customer work” does produce greater role conflict. Also, as hypothesized, when comparing customer work and noncustomer work, role clarity reduces role conflict more for noncustomer workers, whereas autonomy reduces it more for customer workers. Suggestions are offered for additional applications of role theory to the study of employees who work with customers.
This article examines the determinants of professional commitment of college-educated specialists in one of the Russian provinces. We analyze the specialists’ professional commitment as determined by two sets of orientations: universalistic instrumental factors (compensation, career advancement and opportunities of alternative employment) and specifically professional noninstrumental factors (professional responsibility, cognitive orientation, and cultural capital). Although both instrumental and noninstrumental factors affect professional commitment of Russian specialists, noninstrumental factors are the most important. The article also identifies significant differences between two groups of Russian professionals, technocrats, and the traditional intelligentsia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.