1932

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026
2019-10-13
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/15/1/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrego LJ. 2011. Legal consciousness of undocumented Latinos: fear and stigma as barriers to claims-making for first- and 1.5-generation immigrants. Law Soc. Rev. 45:2337–70
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adam EM. 2017. Intersectional coalitions: the paradoxes of rights-based movement building in LGBTQ and immigrant communities. Law Soc. Rev. 51:1132–67
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Adam EM, Cooper BL. 2017. Equal rights versus special rights: rights discourses, framing, and lesbian and gay antidiscrimination policy in Washington State. Law Soc. Inq. 42:3830–54
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Albiston CR. 2010. Institutional Inequality and the Mobilization of the Family and Medical Leave Act: Rights on Leave New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Allen L. 2013. The Rise and Fall of Human Rights: Cynicism and Politics in Occupied Palestine Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Andersen EA. 2005. Out of the Closets and into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Andrews K, Jowers K. 2018. Lawyers and embedded legal activity in the southern civil rights movement. Law Policy 40:110–32
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Arendt H. 1968. What is authority?. Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought91–142 New York: Viking
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Armstrong EA, Bernstein M. 2008. Culture, power, and institutions: a multi-institutional politics approach to social movements. Sociol. Theory 26:74–99
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Atuahene B. 2014. We Want What's Ours: Learning from South Africa's Land Restitution Program Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Barkan SE. 1984. Legal control of the Southern civil rights movement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 49:4552–65
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Barkan SE. 2006. Criminal prosecution and the legal control of protest. Mobilization 11:2181–94
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bernstein M, Marshall AM, Barclay S 2009. The challenge of law: sexual orientation, gender identity, and social movements. Queer Mobilizations: LGBT Activists Confront the Law S Barclay, M Bernstein, AM Marshall 1–20 New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Black DJ. 1973. The mobilization of law. J. Legal Stud. 2:1125–49
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bogaards M. 2009. How to classify hybrid regimes? Defective democracy and electoral authoritarianism. Democratization 16:2399–423
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press (from French)
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brownlee J. 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bumiller K. 1988. The Civil Rights Society: The Social Construction of Victims Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Burstein P. 1991. Legal mobilization as a social movement tactic: the struggle for equal employment opportunity. Am. J. Sociol. 96:51201–25
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Burstein P, Monaghan K. 1986. Equal employment opportunity and the mobilization of law. Law Soc. Rev. 20:3355–88
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Calavita K, Jenness V. 2014. Appealing to Justice: Prisoner Grievances, Rights, and Carceral Logic Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cheesman N. 2015. Opposing the Rule of Law: How Myanmar's Courts Make Law and Order Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chen P, Gallagher M. 2018. Mobilization without movement: how the Chinese state “fixed” labor insurgency. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 71:1029–52
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chua LJ. 2012. Pragmatic resistance, law, and social movements in authoritarian states: the case of gay collective action in Singapore. Law Soc. Rev. 46:4713–48
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chua LJ. 2014. Mobilizing Gay Singapore: Rights and Resistance in an Authoritarian State Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chua LJ. 2015. The vernacular mobilization of human rights in Myanmar's sexual orientation and gender identity movement. Law Soc. Rev. 49:2299–332
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chua LJ. 2017. Collective litigation and the constitutional challenges to decriminalizing homosexuality in Singapore. J. Law Soc. 44:3433–55
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chua LJ. 2019. The Politics of Love in Myanmar: LGBT Mobilization and Human Rights as a Way of Life Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Chua LJ, Hildebrandt T. 2014. From health crisis to rights advocacy? HIV/AIDS and gay activism in China and Singapore. VOLUNTAS 25:61583–605
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cichowski RA. 2016. The European court of human rights, amicus curiae, and violence against women. Law Soc. Rev. 50:4890–919
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Collier JF. 1973. Law and Social Change in Zinacantan Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Cummings SL, NeJaime D. 2010. Lawyering for marriage equality. UCLA Law Rev 57:1235–331
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Currier A. 2009. Deferral of legal tactics: a global LGBT social movement organization's perspective. Queer Mobilizations: LGBT Activists Confront the Law S Barclay, M Bernstein, A Marshall 21–37 New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Currier A. 2012. Out in Africa: LGBT Organizing in Namibia and South Africa Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Dale JG. 2011. Free Burma: Transnational Legal Action and Corporate Accountability Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Davenport C. 2005. Repression and mobilization: insights from political science and sociology. Repression and Mobilization C Davenport, C Mueller, H Johnston, pp. vii–xli Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Diamant NJ. 2005. Hollow glory: the politics of rights and identity among PRC veterans in the 1950s and 1960s. Engaging the Law in China: State, Society and Possibilities for Justice NJ Diamant, SB Lubman, KJ O'Brien 131–60 Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Diamond L. 2002. Thinking about hybrid regimes. J. Democr. 13:221–35
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Digeser P. 1992. The fourth face of power. J. Politics 54:4977–1007
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Earl J. 2005. Introduction: repression and the social control of protest. Mobilization 11:2129–43
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Earl J. 2011. Political repression: iron fists, velvet gloves, and diffuse control. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 37:261–84
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Edelman LB. 2016. Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Civil Rights Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Edelman LB, Fuller SR, Mara-Drita I 2001. Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of law. Am. J. Sociol. 106:61589–641
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Englund H. 2006. Prisoners of Freedom: Human Rights and the African Poor Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ewick P, Silbey SS. 1998. The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Felstiner WLF, Abel R, Austin S 1980–1981. The emergence and transformation of disputes: naming, blaming, claiming. Law Soc. Rev. 15:3/4631–54
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ferree MM. 2003. Resonance and radicalism: feminist framing in the abortion debates of the United States and Germany. Am. J. Sociol. 109:2304–44
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Fligstein N, McAdam D. 2011. Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociol. Theory 29:11–26
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Foucault M. 1979. Discipline and Punish New York: Vintage Books
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Fraenkel E. 1941. The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Fritsvold ED. 2009. Under the law: legal consciousness and radical environmental activism. Law Soc. Inq. 34:4799–824
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Galanter M. 1974. Why the “haves” come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change. Law Soc. Rev. 9:95–160
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gallagher ME. 2006. Mobilizing the law in China: “informed disenchantment” and the development of legal consciousness. Law Soc. Rev. 40:4783–816
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Gallagher ME. 2017. Authoritarian Legality in China: Law, Workers, and the State Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Garreton MA. 1995. Redemocratization in Chile. J. Democr. 6:1146–58
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Gaventa J. 1982. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley Chicago: Univ. Ill. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gibson EL. 2005. Boundary control: subnational authoritarianism in democratic countries. World Politics 58:1101–32
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gleeson S. 2009. From rights to claims: the role of civil society in making rights real for vulnerable workers. Law Soc. Rev. 43:3669–700
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Gleeson S. 2010. Labor rights for all? The role of undocumented immigrant status for worker claims making. Law Soc. Inq. 35:3561–602
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gobe E, Salaymeh L. 2016. Tunisia's “revolutionary” lawyers: from professional autonomy to political mobilization. Law Soc. Inq. 41:2311–45
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Goldberg-Hiller J. 1996. The boycott of the law and the law of the boycott: law, labor, and politics in British Columbia. Law Soc. Inq. 21:2313–51
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Goldberg-Hiller J, Milner N. 2003. Rights as excess: understanding the politics of special rights. Law Soc. Inq. 28:1075–118
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Gramsci A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks New York: Int. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Handler JF. 1978. Lawyers and the Pursuit of Legal Rights New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Handler JF. 1992. Postmodernism, protest and the new social movements. Law Soc. Rev. 26:697–732
    [Google Scholar]
  66. He X. 2014. Maintaining stability by law: protest-supported housing demolition litigation and social change in China. Law Soc. Inq. 39:4849–73
    [Google Scholar]
  67. He X, Wang L, Su Y 2013. Above the roof, beneath the law: perceived justice behind disruptive tactics of migrant wage claimants in China. Law Soc. Rev. 47:4703–38
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Hernández D. 2010. Special issue interdisciplinary legal studies: the next generation. Stud. Law Politics Soc. 51:95–121
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Heyer K. 2015. Rights Enabled: The Disability Revolution, from the US, to Germany and Japan, to the United Nations Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hilbink E. 2007. The Politics of Judicial Apoliticism: Chile in Comparative Perspective Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Holzer E. 2013. What happens to law in a refugee camp?. Law Soc. Rev. 47:4837–72
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Holzmeyer C. 2009. Human rights in an era of neoliberal globalization: the Alien Tort Claims Act and grassroots mobilization in Doe v. Unocal. Law Soc. Rev 43:2271–304
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Jacob H. 1969. Debtors in Court Chicago: Rand McNally
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Johnston H. 2015. The game's afoot: social movements in authoritarian states. The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements DP Della, M Diani 619–33 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kahraman F. 2017. Claiming labor rights as human rights: legal mobilization at the European Court of Human Rights PhD thesis, Univ. Wash Seattle, WA:
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Keck ME, Sikkink K. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kemp A, Kfir N. 2016. Mobilizing migrant workers’ rights in “non-immigration” countries: the politics of resonance and migrants’ rights activism in Israel and Singapore. Law Soc. Rev. 50:182–116
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Kessler M. 1990. Legal mobilization for social reform: power and the politics of agenda setting. Law Soc. Rev. 24:1121–44
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lawrence SE. 1991. Participation through mobilization of the law: institutions providing indigents with access to the civil courts. Polity 23:3423–42
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Leachman GM. 2014. From protest to Perry: how litigation shaped the LGBT movement's agenda. UC Davis Law Rev 47:1667–751
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Lejeune A. 2017. Legal mobilization within the bureaucracy: disability rights and the implementation of antidiscrimination law in Sweden. Law Policy 39:3237–58
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lemaitre J, Sandvik KB. 2015. Shifting frames, vanishing resources, and dangerous political opportunities: legal mobilization among displaced women in Colombia. Law Soc. Rev. 49:15–38
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Lempert RO. 1976. Mobilizing private law: an introductory essay. Law Soc. Rev. 11:2173–89
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Levitsky S, Way LA. 2010. Competitive Authoritarianism: International Linkage, Organizational Power, and the Fate of Hybrid Regimes New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Levitsky SR. 2015. Law and social movements. Handb. Law Soc. 2015:382–98
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Levitt P, Merry S. 2009. Vernacularization on the ground: local uses of global women's rights in Peru, China, India and the United States. Glob. Netw. 9:4441–61
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Liu S. 2015. Law's social forms: a powerless approach to the sociology of law. Law Soc. Inq. 40:11–28
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Liu S. 2018. Book discussion—Nick Cheesman, Opposing the Rule of Law: How Myanmar's Courts Make Law and Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015): commentary by Sida Liu. Asian J. Law Soc 52485–98
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Liu S, Halliday TC. 2017. Criminal Defense in China: The Politics of Lawyers at Work New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Lovell GI. 2012a. The myth of the myth of rights. Stud. Law Politics Soc. 59:1–30
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Lovell GI. 2012b. This Is Not Civil Rights: Discovering Rights Talk in 1939 America Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Lovell GI, McCann M, Taylor K 2016. Covering legal mobilization: a bottom-up analysis of Wards Cove v. Atonio. Law Soc. Inq 41:161–99
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Lukes S. 1974. Power: A Radical View London: Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Marshall AM. 1998. Closing the gaps: plaintiffs in pivotal sexual harassment cases. Law Soc. Inq. 23:4761–93
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Marshall AM. 2003. Injustice frames, legality, and the everyday construction of sexual harassment. Law Soc. Inq 28:3659–89
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Marshall AM. 2005. Idle rights: employees’ rights consciousness and the construction of sexual harassment policies. Law Soc. Rev. 39:183–124
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Massoud MF. 2015. Work rules: how international NGOs build law in war-torn societies. Law Soc. Rev. 49:2333–64
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Mayhew LH. 1975. Institutions of representation: civil justice and the public. Law Soc. Rev. 9:3401–29
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Mayhew L, Reiss AJ Jr 1969. The social organization of legal contacts. Am. Sociol. Rev. 34:3309–18
    [Google Scholar]
  100. McCann MW. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  101. McCann MW. 2006. Law and social movements: contemporary perspectives. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2:17–38
    [Google Scholar]
  102. McCann MW, March T. 1996. Law and everyday forms of resistance: a socio-political assessment. Stud. Law Politics Soc 15:207–36
    [Google Scholar]
  103. McElhattan D, Nielsen LB, Weinberg JD 2017. Race and determinations of discrimination: vigilance, cynicism, skepticism, and attitudes about legal mobilization in employment civil rights. Law Soc. Rev. 51:3669–703
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Merry SE. 1995. Resistance and the cultural power of law. Law Soc. Rev. 29:11–26
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Merry SE. 2003. Rights talk and the experience of law: implementing women's human rights to protection from violence. Hum. Rights Q. 25:2343–81
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Merry SE. 2006. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Michelson E. 2007a. Climbing the dispute pagoda: grievances and appeals to the official justice system in rural China. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72:3459–85
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Michelson E. 2007b. Justice from above or below? Popular strategies for resolving grievances in rural China. China Q 193:43–64
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Mickey R. 2015. Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America's Deep South, 1944–1972 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Migdal JS. 2004. State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Miller RE, Sarat A. 1981. Grievances, claims, and disputes: assessing the adversary culture. Law Soc. Rev. 15:3–4525–66
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Morgan PA. 1999. Risking relationships: understanding the litigation choices of sexually harassed women. Law Soc. Rev. 33:167–92
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Morrill C, Tyson K, Edelman LB, Arum R 2010. Legal mobilization in schools: the paradox of rights and race among youth. Law Soc. Rev. 44:3–4651–93
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Moustafa T. 2007. The Struggle for Constitutional Power: Law, Politics, and Economic Development in Egypt New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Moustafa T. 2014. Law and courts in authoritarian regimes. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 10:281–99
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Moustafa T. 2018. Constituting Religion: Islam, Liberal Rights, and the Malaysian State New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Munger F. 2014. Revolution imagined: cause advocacy, consumer rights, and the evolving role of NGOs in Thailand. Asian J. Comp. Law 9:129–64
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Nader L. 1964. An analysis of Zapotec law cases. Ethnology 3:4404–19
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Nader L, Metzger D. 1963. Conflict resolution in two Mexican communities. Am. Anthropol. 65:3584–92
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Nader L, Todd HF Jr 1978. The Disputing Process: Law in Ten Societies New York: Columbia Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Narrain A, Thiruvengadam AK. 2013. Social justice lawyering and the meaning of Indian constitutionalism: a case study of the alternative law forum. Wis. Int. Law J. 31:525–64
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Nguyen TP. 2018. Labor law and (in)justice in workers’ letters in Vietnam. Asian J. Law Soc. 5:129–47
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Nonet P, Selznick P. 1978. Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law New York: Harper & Row
    [Google Scholar]
  124. O'Brien KJ, Li L. 2006. Rightful Resistance in Rural China New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Olson SM. 1984. Clients and Lawyers: Securing the Rights of Disabled Persons Westport, CT: Greenwood
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Osanloo A. 2006. Islamico-civil “rights talk”: women, subjectivity, and law in Iranian family court. Am. Ethnol. 33:2191–209
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Ozgul C. 2017. Beyond legal victory or reform: the legal mobilization of religious groups in the European Court of Human Rights. Relig. State Soc. 45:3–4317–33
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Polletta F. 2000. The structural context of novel rights claims: Southern civil rights organizing, 1961–1966. Law Soc. Rev. 34:2367–406
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Quinn BA. 2000. The paradox of complaining: law, humor, and harassment in the everyday work world. Law Soc. Inq. 25:41151–85
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Rajah J. 2012. Authoritarian Rule of Law: Legislation, Discourse and Legitimacy in Singapore New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Rana A. 2010. The Two Faces of American Freedom Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Revillard A. 2017. Social movements and the politics of bureaucratic rights enforcement: insights from the allocation of disability rights in France. Law Soc. Inq. 42:2450–78
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Rodríguez-Garavito CA, Arenas LC. 2005. Indigenous rights, transnational activism, and legal mobilization: the struggle of the U'wa people in Colombia. Law and Globalization from Below: Towards a Cosmopolitan Legality B de Sousa Santos, C Rodríguez-Garavito 241–66 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Rosenberg GN. 2008 (1991). The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Sarat A, Scheingold SA. 2006. What cause lawyers do for, and to, social movements: an introduction. Cause Lawyers and Social Movements A Sarat, S Scheingold 1–36 Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Scheingold SA. 1974. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Scheppele KL. 2018. Autocratic legalism. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. 85:545–83
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Scott JC. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Resistance New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Scott JC. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Selby DF. 2011. “Kat Mai Ploi”—bite and don't let go: motherhood and pursuits of justice in Thailand. Citizsh. Stud. 15:6–7711–33
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Sezgin Y. 2013. Human Rights Under State-Enforced Religious Family Laws in Israel, Egypt, and India Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Smith MR. 1997. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Speed S. 2008. Rights in Rebellion Indigenous Struggle and Human Rights in Chiapas Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Steinman EW. 2005. Legitimizing American Indian sovereignty: mobilizing the constitutive power of law through institutional entrepreneurship. Law Soc. Rev. 39:4759–92
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Stern RE. 2013. Environmental Litigation in China: A Study in Political Ambivalence Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Su Y, He X. 2010. Street as courtroom: state accommodation of labor protest in South China. Law Soc. Rev. 44:1157–84
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Tam W. 2013. Legal Mobilization under Authoritarianism: The Case of Post-Colonial Hong Kong New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Thireau I, Hua L. 2005. One law, two interpretations: mobilizing the labor law in arbitration committees and in letters and visit offices. Engaging the Law in China: State, Society and Possibilities for Justice NJ Diamant, SB Lubman, KJ O'Brien 84–107 Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Thompson EP. 1975. Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act New York: Pantheon Books
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Tsutsui K. 2017. Human rights and minority activism in Japan: transformation of movement actorhood and local-global feedback loop. Am. J. Sociol. 122:41050–103
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Tsutsui K, Shin HJ. 2008. Global norms, local activism, and social movement outcomes: global human rights and resident Koreans in Japan. Soc. Probl. 55:3391–418
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Van der Vet F. 2018. “When they come for you”: legal mobilization in new authoritarian Russia. Law Soc. Rev. 52:2301–36
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Varol OO. 2015. Stealth authoritarianism. Iowa Law Rev 100:1673–742
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Wedeen L. 1999. Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Wilson S. 2015. Tigers Without Teeth: The Pursuit of Justice in Contemporary China Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Wilson S. 2017. Cause lawyering in revolutionary Ukraine. J. Law Courts 5:2267–88
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Winn JK, Yeh T. 1995. Advocating democracy: the role of lawyers in Taiwan's political transformation. Law Soc. Inq. 20:2561–99
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Woodward J. 2015. Making rights work: legal mobilization at the agency level. Law Soc. Rev. 49:3691–723
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Zemans FK. 1983. Legal mobilization: the neglected role of the law in the political system. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 77:3690–703
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-043026
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error