Search

Social movements, NGOs and other political actors often mobilise the law for social change. Strategic litigation and collective legal mobilisation can be key instruments to face current political challenges like the climate crisis, human rights violations against refugees or the exploitation of workers along global supply chains. Although these struggles are framed by a societal context and have impacts on the political and juridical fields, the literature about legal mobilisation still does not decidedly engage with a social-theory-based perspective on such struggles. By developing the concept of legal struggles, the article proposes a conceptual framework to analyse both the ambivalence and the emancipatory potential of progressive struggles in the juridical field. Critical Theory, Materialist Theory and the Theory of Social Fields by Pierre Bourdieu are combined to investigate the specific form of collective legal struggles carried out in this arena. We examine repertoires and strategies of collective actors as well as the emancipatory potential of these mobilisation strategies. Our conclusions point to the structural distinctions and selectivities which define the juridical field in capitalist societies and also the conditions of possibility of political struggles using the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both territoriality and political status serve as parameters for determining the extent of a state's obligation to uphold human rights. Scholars have shown that different actors may manipulate the scope of these parameters to serve their particular purposes. Based on interviews with lawyers from Israeli human rights organizations, this article shows how they also manipulate the relationships between these parameters. When representing different clients, lawyers from Israeli human rights organizations accentuate one parameter over the other, demand congruity between them, or reject both. The findings highlight how the movable intersections between territoriality and political status facilitate a multitude of discursive strategies from which lawyers can pick and choose, to address political predicaments they face in their praxis. Furthermore, by judiciously applying these strategies, lawyers are able to mobilize the indeterminate relationship between political status and territoriality to destabilize what they perceive to be the unjust boundaries promoted by the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]