Legal Mobilization and Authoritarianism

Abstract

Studies about authoritarianism build the foundation of legal mobilization scholarship and continue to advance this area of sociolegal research. The contributions of these studies become apparent when we view authoritarianism as a phenomenon found in all societies. Authoritarian regimes exist as nation states and as enclaves, such as subnational territories, institutions, and social spaces. Scholars who examine whether and how people use the law in diverse authoritarian settings bring out the malleable, situational, and plural nature of legal power. Law, in collaboration or complicity with other sources of power, can impede legal mobilization. Nevertheless, individuals and groups can use the law to challenge authoritarianism by carrying out formal, quasi-formal, or nonformal legal actions, an array of strategies and tactics that encompass more than courtroom litigation. Overall, the outcomes of legal mobilization under authoritarianism are mixed and paradoxical. Sometimes law can benefit disadvantaged populations living under authoritarianism. However, law is also criticized for being ineffective, even harmful. Examined in light of the notion that authoritarianism is all over, legal mobilization research offers keen reflections on the study of legal power.

Closing Open Government: Grassroots Policy Conversion of China’s Open Government Information Regulation and Its Aftermath

“…The United States Supreme Court, to take just one well-known example, placed limits on class action litigation in the late 1960s and early 1970s by making it more difficult to certify a class (Burbank, 2008(Burbank, , p. 1491. As several round-ups of research on authoritarian legality note (Chua, 2019;Moustafa, 2014), the divide separating authoritarian and democratic courts can be overdrawn. Across regime type, courts might rewrite procedural rules for political reasons, but also to better manage their workload.…”

Beyond litigation: Policy work within cause lawyering organizations

“…Some scholars argued that we were unlikely to see lawyers engage in nonlitigation work (Komesar & Weisbrod, 1978;Rosenberg, 2005;Scheingold, 1974). But legal mobilization scholarship gave us a different way of conceptualizing 'legal tactics' and how the law could be invoked beyond the courtroom including policy tactics (Chua, 2019;McCann, 1994;McCann & Silverstein, 1998). Chua (2019, p. 356) writes that legal mobilization could be "as simple as consulting a lawyer or even making a verbal appeal to the law to demand a particular behavior."…”

“…Chua (2019, p. 356) writes that legal mobilization could be “as simple as consulting a lawyer or even making a verbal appeal to the law to demand a particular behavior.” But if policy work is part of legal mobilization, then why distinguish it as "policy work"? After all, policy work concerns many law‐related activities.…”

Turning on the lights? Publicity and defensive legal mobilization in protest-related trials in Russia

“…This article brings a new case study to the comparative dialogue on "cause lawyering" and "human rights lawyering" in authoritarian and repressive contexts by contrasting new empirical data to these ideal types (Cheesman & Kyaw Min San, 2013;Liu & Halliday, 2016;Sarat & Scheingold, 1998van der Vet, 2018van der Vet, , 2020. Zooming in on the relational configuration of trials of opposition protesters and the inventiveness of actors with little room to maneuver, it furthers scholarly reflection on law and resistance in repressive settings and under authoritarianism (Abel, 1995;Chua, 2014Chua, , 2019Israël, 2005;Moustafa, 2007;Stern, 2013;van der Vet, 2018van der Vet, , 2020.…”