Search

Climate change is a wicked problem, a framework not often used in sociolegal studies. The problem is complex, not readily named, and not limited to one jurisdiction. Therefore, the places of law are multiple: human rights instruments, supranational tribunals, regional courts, and local governments and NGOS. Litigation concerning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions has largely not resulted in favorable judgments, and the papers in this collection turn to other ways of conceptualizing law and courts in responding to climate change. Relevant legal strategies include environmental legal enforcement, but also changes in investment, and response to the many disasters that are related to climate change. The papers in this collection travel across jurisdictions, actors and problems to assess legal strategies concerning climate change.

Although courts are not usually perceived as forums for democratic participation, the existence of legal mechanisms such as amicus curiae briefs has allowed civil society organizations to actively participate in judicial debates. This article examines amicus curiae participation in LGBT rights cases decided by the Colombian Constitutional Court between 1992 and 2022. Based on interviews and a review of norms, rulings, and amicus curiae briefs, I argue that the accessibility of the Court's rules and the presence of justices interested in promoting the participation of non-judicial actors in constitutional debates created legal opportunities that encouraged and shaped amicus curiae participation in LGBT rights litigation. This article contributes to a better understanding of the role that courts can play in legal mobilization and in building a more democratic judicial system.

In an apparently paradoxical or contradictory way, our new century seems to show two trends: on the one hand, an increasingly informal, disorganized, oftentimes violent spate of uprisings, and on the other hand, a growing exploitation of legal strategies. Given these developments, how do we rethink the relationship between social struggles and law? This article employs a casuistic approach in order to explore current modes of interconnections between law and society. It argues that law is that language that through the institution of norms gives shape to the world of social relations. Through this same language, law performs actions in this world that it institutes through its categories. This piece also proposes a technical understanding of the concept of legal mobilization and argues that the innovative use of legal technique (rather than a political grammar) and the institutions of social cooperation could be seen as elements that re-describe and re-signify legal mobilization.

India’s encounter with farmers’ protests since 2015 has highlighted the constructivist attempt of grassroots movements in confronting the state’s monopoly over production of law. Farmers’ groups and civil society organisations have been mobilising legal and extra-legal tactics to gain discrete legal responses from the state towards guaranteeing farmers’ fundamental rights in the context of climate change adaptation to droughts in semi-arid parts of rural India. This paper discusses the strategies used by such actors to frame the contours of climate justice. The movement highlights the need for India’s policies to align with transformational, procedural and distributional justice goals that recognise and redress structural (socio-economic, cultural, colonial) roots of vulnerability towards just and sustainable adaptation processes. It also highlights the responsibility of the nation-state to safeguard the fundamental/constitutional rights of farmers who contribute to the nation’s food security while being the most vulnerable to climate impacts at sub-national scales.

Time is of the essence in relation to climate change. However, there have been few studies of how time features as a frame in legal mobilization against climate change. The current article explores temporal framing in a number of high profile climate litigation cases, including Urgenda, Kivalina, Kingsnorth, and the current US Our Children’s Trust proceedings. I argue that there is a tension between a future-looking scientific framing of time and both an environmentalist policy framing of time and a present-based scientific time frame. Under future-looking scientific framing, the effects of dangerous climate change have not yet occurred and remain some way off in the ‘modelled’ future. Under an environmentalist policy time frame, action is needed immediately, now in the present, and with a present scientific time frame climate harm is already happening or is imminent. El tiempo es esencial en relación con el cambio climático. Sin embargo, se han hecho pocos estudios sobre la manera en que se designan los marcos temporales en la movilización legal contra el cambio climático. El presente artículo examina la designación de marcos temporales en una serie de casos jurídicos contra el cambio climático de gran notoriedad pública, como Urgenda, Kivalina, Kingsnorth, y los actuales procesos de Our Children's Trust en EEUU. Argumento que hay una tensión entre el marco temporal científico de cara al futuro y el marco temporal de la ciencia basada en el momento actual. Según el marco científico a largo plazo, los efectos peligrosos del cambio climático todavía no han ocurrido y quedan a cierta distancia en un futuro proyectado. Bajo el prisma de la política medioambiental, se necesita una acción inmediata, ahora, en el presente; y, de acuerdo con un marco científico actual, el daño climático ya está sucediendo o es inminente. Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1063

Environmental NGOs in Spain are well known policy actors. Since the nineties some of them have been invited to participate in governmental committees and/or to provide expertise to Parliamentary committees. They have also an important role in mobilizing public opinion to defend and protect the environment. We know less though about how do they intervene in the judicial arena. In the framework of a growing role of the Courts in the field of environmental governance, the goal of this paper is to analyze to what extent Spanish NGOs resorted to the judicial arena, specifically the Supreme Court, to enforce international and European higher standards of environmental protection and advocated against wrong or inadequate praxis in the implementation of environmental regulations. Several non-judicial factors seem to have strengthened that trend in Spain: increasing environmental national and European regulation as well as the NGOs organizational capacity to make judicial claims in line with their policy preferences. Desde la década de los noventa, las ONG medioambientales de España participan en comités gubernamentales y/o como expertas en los comités parlamentarios; además de tener un papel importante en la movilización de la opinión pública. En cambio, sabemos menos sobre hasta qué punto recurren a la arena judicial. En el contexto de un creciente de papel de los tribunales en el campo de la gobernanza ambiental, el objetivo de este documento es analizar en qué medida las ONG españolas inician litigios, específicamente en el Tribunal Supremo, para exigir el cumplimiento de los estándares internacionales y europeos de protección del medio ambiente o en contra de malas praxis. Varios factores no judiciales parecen haber reforzado esa tendencia en España: el aumento de la regulación ambiental nacional y europea, así como la capacidad organizativa de las ONG para iniciar litigios en línea con su posición sobre una política determinada. Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1061

El presente número de Oñati Socio-legal Series es el resultado de las discusiones y los encuentros llevados a cabo en el marco del workshop titulado La sociología jurídica en América Latina y el Caribe: debates actuales y perspectivas futuras. En vista del crecimiento y la riqueza del conocimiento socio-jurídico en la región y las potencialidades que emergen de las realidades del sur global, consideramos necesario adelantar preguntas sobre el estado de arte de la sociología jurídica y las expectativas hacia el futuro. Esperamos que la agenda de trabajo que se desenvuelve en la presente contribución abone a una sociología jurídica crítica, que consolide el campo no solamente en el rigor académico que muestre la potencia de las apuestas interdisciplinarias; sino también en el compromiso social que aporte a la transformación de las sociedades latinoamericanas. This issue of Oñati Socio-legal Series is the result of the discussions and encounters from the workshop Sociology of law in Latin America and the Caribbean: current debates and future perspective. In view of the growth and potential that emerges from the global south realities, we believe it necessary to put forward questions over sociology of law’s state of the art and its expectations for the future in Latin America. We hope that the work agenda that unveils in this issue contributes to a critical sociology of law. This entails not only bringing out the academic rigour of interdisciplinary approaches; but also a social commitment with the transformation of Latin-American societies. Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-0968

Amidst disproportionate climate-related harms and inadequate responses, affected groups have turned to legal mobilization. This paper analyzes socio-ecological complexity and territorial limits as themes of enduring relevance in official responses to the Inuit Circumpolar Council’s and Maldives’ foundational legal claims that climate change violates human rights, considering these against the backdrop of evolving understanding of responsibility for climate-related harm in scientific, political, and public discourse. The claims demonstrated that when legal analysis integrates scientific and traditional knowledge, climate change can be seen as violating rights internationally, and identifiable actors as culpable. Respondents disagreed, citing the complexity of climate-related harm, which combines multiple human actors, environmental processes, probability, prediction, and extraterritorial impact. Unresolved gaps between these interpretations raise doubts about law’s relevance to growing global inequities of climate change and other processes that mix people, places, and things.

In recent years, “public interest law” (PIL) has become a frequent component in conversations about law and policy around the globe. While this worldwide manifestation of a professional and political script that thus far seemed to be typically so American suggests a remarkable process of diffusion, its mechanics and significance are yet to be examined more deeply and systematically. The available account contends that this process has been one of “convergence” and “adaptation”. Yet, there are good empirical and theoretical reasons to subject this account to further examination. Drawing from a comparative and international empirical research on the everyday lives of “public interest lawyers” in the United States and Latin America, this article stresses significant differences in the ways US and LA lawyers have structured “public interest law” – thus challenging the idea of convergence –, while also unveiling factors in the rich histories of professional and political development in the studied contexts, which initially account for such differentiation. These findings call for further research, but already speak to a variety of theories about institutional development in times of globalization, such as theories of institutional isomorphism and field constitution. En los últimos años, el “derecho de interés público” (DIP) se ha convertido en un componente frecuente en las conversaciones sobre derecho y política a lo largo y ancho del globo. Mientras que esta manifestación a nivel mundial de un discurso profesional y político que hasta ahora parecía ser típicamente americano sugiere un notable proceso de difusión, sus mecanismos y significado todavía se deben examinar más profunda y sistemáticamente. La teoría disponible sostiene que este proceso ha sido de “convergencia” y “adaptación”. Sin embargo, hay buenas razones empíricas y teóricas para someter esta afirmación a un examen más profundo. A partir de una investigación comparativa empírica e internacional del día a día de los “abogados de derecho público” desarrollada en Estados Unidos y América Latina, este artículo hace hincapié en las importantes diferencias que hay en la forma en la que los abogados de Estados Unidos y América Latina han estructurado el “derecho de interés público” –poniendo así en duda la idea de convergencia–, y además revela nuevos factores en las ricas historias del desarrollo profesional y político de los contextos analizados, que a priori dan cuenta de esa diferenciación. Estos descubrimientos piden nuevas investigaciones, pero ya hablan de una variedad de teorías sobre el desarrollo institucional en tiempos de globalización, como teorías de isomorfismo institucional y constitución de campo. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2688435

Disasters are treated as independent events external to law. However, social processes define the beginning, end and extent of those events for mitigation, adaptation and response and recovery; those processes include the mobilization of law by people and organizations. Within the sociology of disaster, it is tempting to treat law as a problem-solving tool. Sociolegal analysis approaches law more skeptically: legal actors face problems and defer to the decisions others have made, or discount future problems as much as other institutions do and thereby contribute to problems, or offer compensation that does not ameliorate the inequality within and among countries that disaster can exacerbate. Law can signal that it is doing something about problems via national or supranational rights; for it actually to help requires legal actors to mobilize. Finally, the site of law has been displaced: from law being within public authority enacted through institutions to law as a matter of individual, self-governance set in expectation of disaster, and humanitarian assistance done through non-governmental organizations. This collection contributes analyses of individuals and organizations' action in disaster through legal processes. Los desastres se tratan como hechos independientes externos al derecho. Sin embargo, los procesos sociales definen el principio, el final y el alcance de esos acontecimientos en lo que respecta a su mitigación, adaptación, respuesta y recuperación; esos procesos incluyen la movilización del derecho por personas y organizaciones. En el ámbito de la sociología de los desastres, es tentador tratar el derecho como una herramienta para la resolución de problemas. Sin embargo, los análisis sociojurídicos se aproximan al derecho de forma más escéptica: los actores legales se enfrentan a problemas y se adhieren a decisiones que otros han tomado, o descartan problemas futuros de la misma forma que otras instituciones, aumentando así los problemas, u ofrecen una compensación que no mejora la desigualdad dentro de y entre los países, que en parte se ve agravada por los desastres. El derecho puede defender que está tratando los problemas a través del derecho nacional o supranacional; pero lo que realmente hace falta para ayudar requiere que los actores legales se movilicen. Por último, ha cambiado el lugar que ocupa el derecho: ha pasado de ser una autoridad pública, que actúa a través de instituciones, a tener carácter individual, con la prevención de desastres basada en el autogobierno, y siendo organizaciones no gubernamentales las que ofrecen la ayuda humanitaria. Este número ofrece un análisis de las acciones de individuos y organizaciones en caso de desastres, a través de los procesos legales.

In recent years, “public interest law” (PIL) has become a frequent component in conversations about law and policy around the globe. While this worldwide manifestation of a professional and political script that thus far seemed to be typically so American suggests a remarkable process of diffusion, its mechanics and significance are yet to be examined more deeply and systematically. The available account contends that this process has been one of “convergence” and “adaptation”. Yet, there are good empirical and theoretical reasons to subject this account to further examination. Drawing from a comparative and international empirical research on the everyday lives of “public interest lawyers” in the United States and Latin America, this article stresses significant differences in the ways US and LA lawyers have structured “public interest law” – thus challenging the idea of convergence –, while also unveiling factors in the rich histories of professional and political development in the studied contexts, which initially account for such differentiation. These findings call for further research, but already speak to a variety of theories about institutional development in times of globalization, such as theories of institutional isomorphism and field constitution. En los últimos años, el “derecho de interés público” (DIP) se ha convertido en un componente frecuente en las conversaciones sobre derecho y política a lo largo y ancho del globo. Mientras que esta manifestación a nivel mundial de un discurso profesional y político que hasta ahora parecía ser típicamente americano sugiere un notable proceso de difusión, sus mecanismos y significado todavía se deben examinar más profunda y sistemáticamente. La teoría disponible sostiene que este proceso ha sido de “convergencia” y “adaptación”. Sin embargo, hay buenas razones empíricas y teóricas para someter esta afirmación a un examen más profundo. A partir de una investigación comparativa empírica e internacional del día a día de los “abogados de derecho público” desarrollada en Estados Unidos y América Latina, este artículo hace hincapié en las importantes diferencias que hay en la forma en la que los abogados de Estados Unidos y América Latina han estructurado el “derecho de interés público” –poniendo así en duda la idea de convergencia–, y además revela nuevos factores en las ricas historias del desarrollo profesional y político de los contextos analizados, que a priori dan cuenta de esa diferenciación. Estos descubrimientos piden nuevas investigaciones, pero ya hablan de una variedad de teorías sobre el desarrollo institucional en tiempos de globalización, como teorías de isomorfismo institucional y constitución de campo. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2688435

Disasters are treated as independent events external to law. However, social processes define the beginning, end and extent of those events for mitigation, adaptation and response and recovery; those processes include the mobilization of law by people and organizations. Within the sociology of disaster, it is tempting to treat law as a problem-solving tool. Sociolegal analysis approaches law more skeptically: legal actors face problems and defer to the decisions others have made, or discount future problems as much as other institutions do and thereby contribute to problems, or offer compensation that does not ameliorate the inequality within and among countries that disaster can exacerbate. Law can signal that it is doing something about problems via national or supranational rights; for it actually to help requires legal actors to mobilize. Finally, the site of law has been displaced: from law being within public authority enacted through institutions to law as a matter of individual, self-governance set in expectation of disaster, and humanitarian assistance done through non-governmental organizations. This collection contributes analyses of individuals and organizations' action in disaster through legal processes. Los desastres se tratan como hechos independientes externos al derecho. Sin embargo, los procesos sociales definen el principio, el final y el alcance de esos acontecimientos en lo que respecta a su mitigación, adaptación, respuesta y recuperación; esos procesos incluyen la movilización del derecho por personas y organizaciones. En el ámbito de la sociología de los desastres, es tentador tratar el derecho como una herramienta para la resolución de problemas. Sin embargo, los análisis sociojurídicos se aproximan al derecho de forma más escéptica: los actores legales se enfrentan a problemas y se adhieren a decisiones que otros han tomado, o descartan problemas futuros de la misma forma que otras instituciones, aumentando así los problemas, u ofrecen una compensación que no mejora la desigualdad dentro de y entre los países, que en parte se ve agravada por los desastres. El derecho puede defender que está tratando los problemas a través del derecho nacional o supranacional; pero lo que realmente hace falta para ayudar requiere que los actores legales se movilicen. Por último, ha cambiado el lugar que ocupa el derecho: ha pasado de ser una autoridad pública, que actúa a través de instituciones, a tener carácter individual, con la prevención de desastres basada en el autogobierno, y siendo organizaciones no gubernamentales las que ofrecen la ayuda humanitaria. Este número ofrece un análisis de las acciones de individuos y organizaciones en caso de desastres, a través de los procesos legales. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2221275