1932

Abstract

With a focus on legal and other organizational actors beyond the state, this article seeks to expand the theory of conditions under which legal occupations will mobilize to fight for basic legal freedoms within states. It elaborates the line of scholarship on legal complexes and political liberalism within states since the 17th century. First, we catalog harms that international organizations (IOs) of many kinds seek to protect in the more than 190 states in the world. Second, we elaborate the concept of an international legal complex (ILC) as a collective actor in the global struggle for basic legal freedoms. We illustrate these two steps with new data on China drawn from a wider project. We show what harms mobilize the ILC, international human rights organizations (IHROs) and an international governmental organization, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). We focus on accountability devices as tools differentially deployed by the ILC, IOs, and UNHRC in theirefforts to influence the institutionalization of basic legal freedoms, an open civil society, and a moderate state in China. The illustrative case of China provides a framework for research and theory on all other countries.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-013613
2021-10-13
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/17/1/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-013613.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-013613&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Babb SL, Carruthers BG. 2008. Conditionality: forms, function and history. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 4:13–29
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballestero A. 2019. A Future History of Water Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beck CJ, Drori GS, Meyer JW. 2012. World influences on human rights language in constitutions: a crossnational study. Int. Sociol. 27:483–501
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biddulph S. 2007. Legal Reform and Administrative Detention Powers in China New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Block-Lieb S, Halliday TC. 2017a. Global Lawmakers: International Organizations in the Crafting of World Markets New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Block-Lieb S, Halliday TC. 2017b. Creative design in legal technologies. See Block-Lieb & Halliday 2017a 227–64
  7. Clark DC, Feinerman JV. 1995. Antagonistic contradictions: criminal law and human rights in China. China Q. 141(Spec. Issue China's Legal Reforms135–54
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen JA. 1968. The Criminal Process in the People's Republic of China1949–1963 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen JA. 2009. The struggle for autonomy of Beijing's public interest lawyers. Human Rights in China Apr. 1. https://www.hrichina.org/en/content/3692
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Couso JA 2007. When the “political complex” takes the lead: the configuration of a moderate state in Chile. The Legal Complex and Struggles for Political Liberalism TC Halliday, L Karpik, MM Feeley 315–44 Oxford, UK: Hart Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Craig P. 2019. Transnational constitution-making: the contribution of the Venice Commission on Law and Democracy. See Shaffer et al. 2019 204–46
  12. D'Alessandra F. 2017. The accountability turn in third-wave human rights fact-finding. Utrecht J. Int. Eur. Law 33:59–76
    [Google Scholar]
  13. De R. 2012. Emasculating the executive: the federal court and civil liberties in late colonial India: 1942–1944. See Halliday et al. 2012 59–90
  14. Epp CR. 2012. The legal complex in the struggle to control police brutality in India. See Halliday et al. 2012 91–111
  15. Espeland W, Stevens ML. 2008. A sociology of quantification. Eur. J. Sociol. 49:401–36
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Espeland W, Vannebo B. 2007. Accountability, quantification and law. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 3:21–43
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fu H. 2007. When lawyers are prosecuted: the struggle of a profession in transition. J. Comp. Law 2:95–132
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fu H. 2014. Can lawyers build a legal complex for the rule of law in China?. China Rights Forum 2014:1 https://www.hrichina.org/en/china-rights-forum/can-lawyers-build-legal-complex-rule-law-china
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fu H. 2018. The July 9th (709) crackdown on human rights lawyers: legal advocacy in an authoritarian state. J. Contemp. China 27:554–68
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fu H, Cullen R. 2008. Weiquan (rights protection) lawyering in an authoritarian state: building a culture of public-interest lawyering. China J 59:111–27
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fu H, Cullen R. 2011. Climbing the Weiquan ladder: a radicalizing process for rights-protection lawyers. China Q 205:40–59
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ginsburg T. 2007. Law and the liberal transformation of the Northeast Asian legal complex in Korea and Taiwan. See Halliday et al. 2007a 43–64
  23. Ginsburg T 2011. Comparative Constitutional Design New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ginsburg T. 2019. Constitutional advice and transnational legal order. See Shaffer et al. 2019 26–54
  25. Gobe E, Salaymeh L. 2016. Tunisia's “revolutionary” lawyers: from professional autonomy to political mobilization. Law Soc. Inq. 41:2311–45
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gould J. 2012. Postcolonial liberalism and the legal complex in Zambia: Elegy or triumph?. See Halliday et al. 2012 412–54
  27. Halliday TC 2019. The international legal complex: Wang Yu and the global response to repression of China's rights’ lawyers. The Legal Process and the Possibility of Justice: Studies Inspired by the Work of Malcolm Feeley R Greenspan, H Aviram, J Simon 289–313 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Halliday TC, Block-Lieb S, Carruthers BG. 2009. Rhetorical legitimation: global scripts as strategic devices of international organizations. Socio-Econ. Rev. 8:177–112
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Halliday TC, Karpik L 1997. Lawyers and the Rise of Western Political Liberalism: Europe and North America from the Eighteenth to Twentieth Centuries Oxford, UK: Clarendon
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Halliday TC, Karpik L. 2015. Political lawyering. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences JD Wright 386–92 Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Halliday TC, Karpik L, Feeley MM 2007a. Fighting for Political Freedom: Comparative Studies of the Legal Complex for Political Change Oxford, UK: Hart Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Halliday TC, Karpik L, Feeley MM. 2007b. The legal complex and struggles for political liberalism. See Halliday et al. 2007a 1–42
  33. Halliday TC, Karpik L, Feeley MM 2012. Fates of Political Liberalism in the British Post-Colony: The Politics of the Legal Complex New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Halliday TC, Liu S. 2007. Birth of a liberal moment? Looking through a one-way mirror at lawyers’ defense of criminal defendants in China. See Halliday et al. 2007a 65–108
  35. Halliday TC, Osinsky P. 2006. Globalization of law. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 32:447–70
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Halliday TC, Zilberstein S, Espeland W. 2020. Tempering unbridled power: global scripts and international organizations in struggles for basic legal freedoms Presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting San Francisco: Aug. 9
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Harding A, Whiting A. 2012.. “ Custodian of civil liberties and justice in Malaysia”: the Malaysian bar and the moderate state. See Halliday et al. 2012 247–304
  38. Harrington B, Seabrooke L. 2020. Transnational professionals. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 46:399–417
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hilbink L. 2007. Judges Beyond Politics in Democracy and Dictatorship: Lessons from Chile New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Jacob C. 2018. From norm contestation to norm implementation: recursivity and the responsibility to protect. Glob. Gov. 24:3391–409
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Jacob C. 2021. Regulatory contestation: steering toward consistency in international norm implementation. Int. Stud. Rev. 2021:viab008
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Jones C. 2007.. “ Dissolving the people”: capitalism, law and democracy in Hong Kong. . See Halliday et al. 2007a 109–50
  43. Kaba M. 2021. NGO accountability: a conceptual review across the engaged disciplines. Int. Stud. Rev. 2021:viaa094
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Karpik L. 1995. Les Avocats entre l'Etat, le public et le marche Paris:: Ed. Gallimard
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Karpik L. 1997. Builders of liberal society: French lawyers and politics. See Halliday & Karpik 1997 101–23
  46. Karpik L. 2007. Postscript–political lawyers. See Halliday et al. 2007a 463–94
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kentikelenis AE, Seabrooke L. 2017. The politics of world polity: script-writing in international organizations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:1065–92
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim HJ, Sharman JC. 2014. Accounts and accountability: corruption, human rights, and individual accountability norms. Int. Organ. 68:2417–48
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Krygier M 2017. Tempering power. Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law: Bridging Idealism and Realism M Adams, A Meuwese, EH Ballin 34–59 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kumarasingham H. 2019. A transnational actor on a dramatic stage—Sir Ivor Jennings and the manipulation of Westminster style democracy: the case of Pakistan. See Shaffer et al. 2019 76–115
  51. Langford M 2021. Revisiting the theory of the legal complex. The Limits of the Legal Complex: Nordic Lawyers and Political Liberalism MM Feeley, M Langford New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Liu S. 2008. Globalization as boundary-blurring: international and local law firms in China's corporate law market. Law Soc. Rev. 42:771–804
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Liu S, Halliday TC. 2016. Criminal Defense in China: The Politics of Lawyers at Work New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Liu S, Halliday TC. 2019. The ecology of activism: professional mobilization as a spatial process. Can. Rev. Sociol. 56:452–71
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Liu S, Liang L, Halliday TC. 2014. The trial of Li Zhuang: Chinese lawyers’ collective action against populism. Asian J. Law Soc. 1:79–97
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Liu S, Wu H. 2016. The ecology of organizational growth: Chinese law firms in the age of globalization. Am. J. Sociol. 122:798–837
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Lu H, Miethe TD. 2002. Legal representation and criminal processing in China. Br. J. Criminol. 42:267–80
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Mate M. 2012.. “ Priests in the temple of justice”: the Indian legal complex and the basic structure doctrine. See Halliday et al. 2012 112–48
  59. McConville M. 2011. Criminal Justice in China: An Empirical Inquiry Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Merry SE. 2006. Transnational human rights and local activism: mapping the middle. Am. Anthropol. 108:138–51
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Meyer JW. 2010. World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 36:1–20
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Meyer JW, Boli J, Thomas GM, Ramirez FO. 1997. World society and the nation-state. Am. J. Sociol. 103:144–81
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Michelson E. 2006. The practice of law as an obstacle to justice: Chinese lawyers at work. Law Soc. Rev. 40:1–38
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Moustafa T. 2007. The Struggle for Constitutional Power: Law, Politics, and Economic Development in Egypt New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pils E. 2007. Asking the tiger for his skin: activism in China. Fordham Int. Law J. 30:1209–87
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pils E 2009a. The dislocation of the Chinese rights movement. A Sword and a Shield: China's Human Rights Lawyers S Mosher, P Poon Hong Kong: China Hum. Rights Lawyers Concern Group
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Pils E 2009b. Rights activism in China: the case of lawyer Gao Zhisheng. Building Constitutionalism in China S Balme, M Dowdle 243–60 New York: Palgrave
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Pils E. 2015. China's Human Rights Lawyers: Advocacy and Resistance London/New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Pils E. 2018a. Human Rights in China Cambridge, UK: Polity
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Pils E. 2018b. The Party's turn to public repression: an analysis of the “709” crackdown on human rights lawyers in China. China Law Soc. Rev. 3:1–48
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Rajah J. 2010. Splitting: encounters between the domestic and international legal complex in Singapore Presented at the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting Chicago:
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Rajah J. 2011. Punishing bodies, securing the nation: how rule of law can legitimate the urbane authoritarian state. Law Soc. Inq. 36:945–70
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Rajah J. 2012a. Authoritarian Rule of Law: Legislation, Discourse and Legitimacy in Singapore New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Rajah J. 2012b. Lawyers, politics and publics: state management of lawyers and legitimacy in Singapore. See Halliday et al. 2012 149–92
  75. Rosenzweig J. 2013a. Disappearing justice: public opinion, secret arrest and criminal procedure reform in China. China J 70:73–97
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Rosenzweig J. 2013b. Residential surveillance: evolution of a Janus-faced measure. Legal Reforms and Deprivation of Liberty in Contemporary China E Nesossi, S Biddulph, F Sapio, S Trevaskes 79–94 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Rosenzweig J, Sapio F, Jue J, Biao T, Pils E. 2012. The 2012 revision of the Chinese Criminal Procedure Law: (mostly) old wine in new bottles Occas. Pap., Cent. Rights Justice Hong Kong:
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Seabrooke L, Sending OJ. 2020. Contracting development: managerialism and consultants in intergovernmental organizations. Rev. Int. Political Econ. 27:4802–27
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Shaffer G, Ginsburg T, Halliday TC 2019. Constitution-Making and Transnational Legal Order New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sheng Y. 2003. A promise unfulfilled: the impact of China's 1996 criminal-procedure reform on China's criminal defense lawyers' role at the pretrial stage (part 1). Perspectives 4:41–18
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Sikkink K, Kim HJ. 2013. The justice cascade: the origins and effectiveness of prosecutions of human rights violations. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 9:269–85
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Simion K. 2021. Rule of Law Intermediaries: Brokering Influence in Myanmar Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Swidler A. 1986. Culture in action: symbols and strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 51:2273–86
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Teng B. 2009a. I cannot give up: record of a “kidnapping. .” China Rights Forum 2009:1 https://www.hrichina.org/chs/node/2021
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Teng B 2009b. What is rights defense?. A Sword and a Shield: China's Human Rights Lawyers S Mosher, P Poon Hong Kong: China Hum. Rights Lawyers Concern Group
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Teng B. 2013. The rights defense movement in China. Chin. Law Gov. 46:4–12
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Trevaskes S. 2007. Courts and Criminal Justice in Contemporary China Lanham, MD: Lexington Books
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Udagama D 2012. The Sri Lankan legal complex and the liberal project: only thus far and no more. Fates of Political Liberalism in the British Post-Colony: The Politics of the Legal Complexed. TC Halliday, L Karpik, MM Feeleypp. 21944 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  89. VonDoepp P. 2012. Legal complexes and the fight for political liberalism in New African democracies: comparative insights from Malawi, Zambia and Namibia. See Halliday et al. 2012 455–90
  90. Wilkins DB, Trubek DM, Fong B. 2020. Globalization, lawyers, and emerging economies: the rise, transformation, and significance of the new corporate legal ecosystem in India, Brazil, and China. Harvard J. Int. Law 61:281–355
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Yu P. 2002. Glittery promise versus dismal reality: the role of a criminal lawyer in the People's Republic of China after the 1996 revision of the criminal procedure law. Vanderbilt J. Transnatl. Law 35:827–65
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-013613
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-013613
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • 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