Search

This paper examines the extrajudicial use of legal norms by activists. It aims to show how law serves as a useful symbolic resource for activists to strengthen their strategies for political pressure outside the courts. It does this through a qualitative investigation of six citizen debt audit groups from three European countries (France, Belgium, and Spain). Based on an analysis of legal provisions mobilised by activists in public documents, when addressing decision-makers, and in interviews, we identify several common uses of the law: the 'legal call to order'; the 'contradiction game between norms of the same legal order'; the 'call to derogation of certain norms'; and, the 'call to produce new norms'. This work is a valuable contribution to legal consciousness studies. We assert that activists have a complex legal consciousness, being neither completely enchanted ('before the law'), nor completely withdrawn ('against the law'). In their political interventions, the citizen audit groups under study rely on certain legal norms that they consider legitimate to make claims, while they seek to disqualify others of the same legal order. One can thus contest positive law without being against the law per se. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, addressing the need to cultivate an understanding of the interplay between law and politics, aims to explore the possibility—and necessity—of teaching Soviet law, where this mutually beneficial relationship assumed a particularly palpable form. In doing so, firstly, it analyses how Soviet law was taught both within the Soviet state and abroad historically, locating the main challenges in doing so in lack of academic freedom and immersion in the political context respectively. Secondly, it makes a case for reviving these practices in the modern day as Soviet law can say a lot about Soviet history, law in general and its interaction with politics, and modern legal and political developments in Russia. Thirdly, it provides an indication of how Soviet law can be taught in current times based on the authors' experiences of designing and teaching courses on Soviet law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates the significance of legal reforms during the tenure of BJ Habibie (an Indonesian politician, engineer and scientist who served as the third president of Indonesia from 1998 to 1999), focusing on the configuration and characterisation of legislative products and their impact on the country's legal and political landscape. The primary objective is to examine how these reforms, including Law No. 10/1998 on Banking, Law No. 17/1999 on Hajj Management, Law No. 35/1999 on the Judiciary, and Law No. 38/1999 on Zakat Management, were formulated and implemented in response to aspirations of the Muslimmajority population and broader democratization efforts. The normative analysis presented in this article is based on a legal history and legal politics approaches. Using qualitative analysis method, legislative documents, historical records, and secondary sources are investigated to understand the context, processes, and outcomes of legal reforms during the BJ Habibie era. The analysis also includes the roles played by political parties, legislative bodies, Muslim organizations, and the media in shaping and supporting these legal changes. This article argues that the Habibie administration's legal reforms were characterized by a commitment to inclusivity, transparency, and responsiveness to the Muslim community's demands. His Islamic law reforms reflected a shift towards integrating Islamic principles into the national legal framework. The proactive role of the House of Representatives (known as DPR in Indonesia), engagement of Muslim organizations, and supportive media coverage were crucial in facilitating the enactment of these laws. However, this article argues that despite significant progress, challenges remain to be addressed in the effective implementation and public acceptance of the new legal products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An analysis of legality in an authoritarian zone requires a nuanced understanding of its dynamics and how they differ from those conventionally envisioned in a democratic society. This article critically examines the varieties of authoritarian legality in three differentiated paradigms, namely, 'law and politics', 'law with politics', and 'law in politics', each engaging in a distinctive entanglement of law with politics depending on the varying degrees of the law's autonomy. Furthermore, it points out that the engagement of authoritarian legality is favourably facilitated through politically controllable legal institutions and state-shaped public sphere. Moreover, it argues that the standalone statist reason cannot stand out alone as a legitimate ground for legality unless some other alternative reasons can be dialogically engaged in the public discourse. Otherwise, the force and violence may be clothed in the form of a law that serves as a political instrument for the ruling of the authoritarian government, which can be fuelled by nationalistic ideologies or demagogues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Direito e Práxis is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)