<scp>E</scp>urope Reconstructed

Orford, Anne

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00900.x

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This change in disability policy in Sweden and this new orientation toward litigation have caused increased conflict between disability rights organizations and the state. Disability rights organizations consider, as Anne Orford has shown, that “adversarial legalism is what remains when the state no longer attends to the interests of the people who live within its territory, leaving individual ‘consumers’ to litigate in an attempt to protect their ‘rights’” (, 286).…”

Section: Discussion: Legal Mobilization Within the Bureaucracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal Mobilization within the Bureaucracy: Disability Rights and the Implementation of Antidiscrimination Law in Sweden

Lejeune¹

2017

Law & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that the analysis of legal mobilization needs to give more attention to the state and its relationship with social movements in order to examine how the state either sustains social movements’ demands or is a field of contention for those demands. Focusing on how disability bureaucrats and activists mobilize antidiscrimination law in Sweden, this article shows that two main factors shape legal mobilization within the bureaucracy and alter the state's ability to become a legal mobilization actor: (1) the institutional relationships between social movement organizations and government agencies and (2) the profiles and careers of bureaucrats and activists. It concludes by suggesting several lines for further research on law and social movements in nonpluralist countries.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Legal Mobilization Within the Bureaucracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal Mobilization within the Bureaucracy: Disability Rights and the Implementation of Antidiscrimination Law in Sweden

Lejeune¹

2017

Law & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Orford and Slobodian concur on the distinction between neoliberalism at large and its Ordoliberal variant, namely that neoliberals view the price mechanism as the proper form of economic regulation-rather than government intervention, let alone state planning-but Ordoliberals place greater weight on the role of strong institutions at the national, regional, and international levels in reproducing the competitive conditions for allocative efficiency and guarding the world market from distortions of decolonisation, democracy, or redistribution. 24 In exploring the influence of these ideas on trade and investment law, Slobodian focuses on 'a small number of European men' rather than 'the routine operation and technical detail of legal practice and institutions'. 25 This approach is not a problem per se for the study of international law.…”

Section: A Twofold Critique Of Slobodian's Globalistsmentioning

confidence: 99%