Search results

The present paper attempts to map the discursive relations between conflict and settlement as reflected in the realms of law and mediation during the second half of the 20th century, offering a 21st century model to combine the mediation drive to settle through reaching inter-subjective transformation with the legal drive to escalate and promote social conflict. Contemporary mediation, according to this model, should involve on the one hand “negotiating for justice,” according to the familiar models of problem solving and transformation, and on the other hand “fighting for law”: acknowledging the self-referential and ideological quality of conflicts, while emphasizing the pragmatic need to end them through an interpretive public act that involves value judgments.

X = multiple interpretations

Introducing the concept of intra-social movement backlash this chapter explores the “legacy phase” of legal action focusing on conflicts and debates within a social movement that has mobilized. Using a legal mobilization framework attuned to the recursive relationship between rights, rights-claiming activities, and collective identity, the chapter analyzes the mixed legacies of movement strategic litigation. Empirically, the chapter offers two illustrative case studies of intra-movement backlash in the women's and the disability rights movements in Canada. The findings suggest that while this form of backlash can have negative, disempowering effects, it also offers opportunities to challenge hegemonic structures within a social movement and re-imagine collective identities.

If law's foundational promise lies in the belief that it promotes the social good, then we need to reassess the limits of that promise. Exploring the often problematic translation of legal goods into social ones, the central claim is that the legal discipline has been limited by a “legal imperative” that manifests itself in an excessive focus upon law as a social tool and attitude of complacency in the face of law's limits. Seeking to displace this approach, the author argues for an attitudinal shift that expresses honesty about limits, greater social inquisitiveness and care about law's promise.

This article explores how legal intermediaries facilitate or inhibit social change. We suggest the increasing complexity and ambiguity of legal rules coupled with the shift from government to governance provide legal intermediaries greater opportunities to influence law and social change. Drawing from new institutional sociology, we suggest rule-intermediaries shape legal and social change, with varying degrees of success, in two ways: (1) law is filtered through non-legal logics emanating from various organizational fields and (2) law is professionalized by non-legal professionals. We draw from case studies in the United States and France to show how intermediaries facilitate or inhibit social change.

The purpose of this study is to examine the choices social enterprises in the USA have about the legal formation of their business. Recently, new legal forms have been developed in the USA to ensure social goals are legally embedded into the firm. While the development of these new alternative supports social missions, organizations should be aware of both the benefits and drawbacks, which are outlined in this paper. Additionally, we draw on the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case to illustrate how social enterprises can embed their social mission into their legal foundation using traditional legal structures, accomplishing the same purpose as the new socially oriented alternatives.

The authors provide a detailed assessment of the social-oriented legal forms of business based on precedent set in the US Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case.

Based on precedent in the Hobby Lobby case, the authors’ view is that traditional US legal business structures can be as effective as alternative socially oriented legal forms in the US as a method to legally prevent mission drift by legally embedding social goals into the legal structure of the firm.

By highlighting how social enterprises can use traditional US legal business forms to ensure their social mission as part of the organizational goals, the authors provide another legal avenue, and so US-based social enterprises can continue to focus on addressing social issues without worrying about mission drift from legal pressures.

There is quite a lot of hype surrounding the development and adoption of socially oriented legal business forms in the USA with little discussion about the actual need for these new forms. The alternative perspective by the authors informs social enterprises how they can operate within the traditional US legal system while still focusing on their social mission.

The authors are one of the first to argue, based on precedent in the Hobby Lobby case, that US social enterprises need to critically examine which type of legal form is right for their business and what will offer them most benefit to their social mission in the long run.

This paper aims to explore the availability of new legal models for social enterprise development in Australia, asking the question: what does a distinctive focus on legal form add to the scholarly exploration of social enterprise? The paper has a dual purpose: firstly, to present a general empirical review of the fact, possible causes and implications of the absence of new legal models for social enterprise in Australia; and secondly, to make a polemical argument highlighting some of the advantages of developing a distinctive legal structure for social entrepreneurs in Australia.

The paper reconciles two contending accounts. One would stress the absence of new legal models (the “gap” analysis). The other would acknowledge the absence of new legal models, while stressing the relevance of existing legal models for pursuing social enterprise goals. Both accounts are descriptively true, but the tension between them relates in part to the level of analysis (legal-political, collective voluntary action or bottom-up individual actors) and, in part, to longstanding tensions in the conceptualisation of social enterprise.

The paper provides evidence of the rising salience of existing cooperative legal forms, rising diversity in the legal model choices of individual social enterprises and the emergence of two significant bottom-up developments in voluntary model rules. The legal-political bottleneck that remains is related to the constitutional structure of federal and state power, key macro-political policy trends in the late 1990s and the distinctive nature of the Australian “wage-earners” welfare state settlement.

The paper highlights that what may appear as a “gap” in the legal landscape of Australian social enterprise is more nuanced. Despite the striking absence of any distinct new legislated legal models, the overall situation is a complex landscape providing multiple threads for weaving together diverse forms of social enterprise. Although legal frameworks may not be as salient as governance design choices, they generate three important second-order effects: signalling, legitimation and professional networks. Taken together, these may support a case for the distinctive value of a specific hybrid legal model for social enterprise.

This paper aims to explain the development of the social economy by analyzing when, why and how the community interest company (CIC) legal structure was established in the UK. The CIC legal structure was designed for social enterprise to ensure that company assets are committed to public benefit in perpetuity.

This research paper uses archival data and semistructured interviews to analyze the historical development of the social economy, emergence of social enterprise and the establishment of the CIC legal structure.

The historical analysis describes why and how the idea for the CIC emerged from practitioners and explains how collaboration between practitioners, lawyers, civil servants and politicians established the CIC as a new legal structure for social enterprise.

The analysis explains how practitioners influenced policy development and demonstrates how practitioner influence can be usefully incorporated into policy development.

The CIC legal structure advanced the social economy by creating an institutionally recognized brand identity for social enterprise that locks assets to public benefit in perpetuity.

The paper presents a detailed empirical account of the establishment of a new legal structure for social enterprise and applies theoretical concepts to develop an integrated account of social economy advancement.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

As social movements engage in transnational legal processes, they have articulated innovative rights claims outside the nation-state frame. This chapter analyzes emerging practices of legal mobilization in response to global governance through a case study of the “right to food sovereignty.” The claim of food sovereignty has been mobilized transnationally by small-scale food producers, food-chain workers, and the food insecure to oppose the liberalization of food and agriculture. The author analyzes the formation of this claim in relation to the rise of a “network imaginary” of global governance. By drawing on ethnographic research, the author shows how activists have internalized this imaginary within their claims and practices of legal mobilization. In doing so, the author argues, transnational food sovereignty activists co-constitute global food governance from below. Ultimately, the development of these practices in response to shifting forms of transnational legality reflects the enduring, mutually constitutive relationship between law and social movements on a global scale.