This paper examines the impact of a “disability rights model” on the emerging disability rights movement in Germany. Traditional German disability politics and activism are based on the expansion of welfare and special needs provisions rather than on equal rights and integration. Inspired by the 1990 Americans with Disability Act, German activists adopted a disability rights model and successfully worked toward the passage of a constitutional equality amendment in 1994 and ant-discrimination legislation in 2002. Using the literature on rights mobilization, this paper argues that German disability activists use rights talk to both support and contest culturally specific approaches to disability rights, equal treatment, and the role of the state in guaranteeing welfare rights. The globalization of disability rights should not be viewed as an imposition of American norms but as a more complex process of adaptation and cultural transformation that involves constructing locally legitimate approaches to disability rights with an American import.

I am pleased to introduce the following two companion papers on gender in the United States Eighth Circuit courts. They emerge from a partnership of social scientists and legal professionals, spurred by a national movement to understand influences of gender on the judicial system. These studies reflect a majority of voices in the Eighth Circuit bench and bar– women and men who work in and preside over the federal courts of seven states. This project yielded a wealth of data, the analysis of which reveals ways both subtle and overt by which gender bias threatens fairness in the courts. Underscoring the importance of this and similar projects, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once stated, “by acknowledging and not trivializing the effects of gender bias on reasonable women and men, courts can work toward ensuring that neither men nor women will have to run a gauntlet of abuse in return for the privilege of being allowed to work and make a living” (as quoted in the Final Report of the Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness Task Force [ECGFTF] 1997, 8).

Driven by the fear of collusion in the new divorce court, in 1860 Parliament authorized the Queen's Proctor to intervene in divorce suits by rooting out information that the parties left undisclosed. This paper explores the activities of the Queen's Proctor in its first quarter century, revealing both the curious genealogy of community participation in the Queen's Proctor's efforts and the struggle over the definition of collusion. Over time, economic and evidentiary concerns prompted the Queen's Proctor to turn from uncovering collusion to producing evidence of adultery. The Queen's Proctor represents a striking attempt by courts to assess the validity of party-controlled narratives, resulting in surprising practical consequences. Evaluation of narratives quickly devolved into a bright-line test focusing on adultery, with judges following the Queen's Proctor's lead and eschewing discretion.

The role of trial judges in the litigation process is frequently debated. Are judges to be dispassionate adjudicators, disengaged referees in a sport in which attorneys compete? Or are they charged with a more active role in promoting the substance, form, and process of justice? In the present paper, we explore the judicial role in addressing gender bias in federal litigation, using data gathered for the Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness Task Force. The federal judges of this circuit were surveyed about their experiences, observations, and opinions of gender-biased conduct. Results indicated that although judges viewed judicial intervention as an appropriate response to gender bias, they had little personal experience with intervention in such a situation. Fur thermore, when specific hypothetical scenarios were presented, they generally agreed that the described conduct was inappropriate but offered little consensus regarding the best course of action for an attorney or judge confronted with such behavior. The Eighth Circuit data thus provide the basis for expanded understanding of the conduct at issue, the options for action in response, and the persistent discrepancy in viewpoints on gender bias and the judicial role.

This paper documents the recent emergence of constitutional review of legislative and administrative action in Korea and Taiwan, two East Asian countries seen to be historically resistant to notions of judicial activism and constitutional constraint. It argues that the ability to draw from foreign legal traditions, especially those of the United States and Germany, empowered judges in these countries and therefore helped to alter the structure of public law away from executive-centered approaches of the past. This is consistent with viewing judicial review as essentially a foreign transplant. Nevertheless, the institution of judicial review has some compatibilities with Confucian legal tradition, a point that has implications for how we think about institutional transfers across borders. By constructing a locally legitimate account of what is undeniably a modern institution of foreign origin, the paper argues that constitutional constraint should not be viewed as an imposition of Western norms, but as a more complex process of adaptation and institutional transformation.

Closely examining a range of New York Court of Appeals police-power cases during the period 1885 to 1905, this article demonstrates that the New York Court had a long history of accepting and continually expanding the police power. In these police-power cases, one finds the court grappling with an evolving sense of how to balance the concept of and need for a well-regulated society against the rights of an individual in an increasingly complex and interconnected world, as well as a tenacious refusal to abandon Victorian bourgeois norms regarding the dichotomy between the home and workplace. By contextualizing and historicizing New York Court of Appeals cases, the article challenges the dominant historiographical interpretations about late-nineteenth-century law. Moving away from a paradigm that labels the court conservative or liberal, formalist or realist, it argues that the court participated in creating a regulatory state while also employing a reasoning that adopted a sharp distinction between the market and the site of the domestic.

The current study examines experiences of interpersonal mistreatment in federal litigation among a random sample of 4,608 practicing attorneys. Using both quantitative and qualitative survey data, we documented the nature and interplay of general incivility, gender-related incivility, and unwanted sexual attention. Nearly 75% of female attorneys had experienced some form of this misconduct in the previous five years, compared to half of male attorneys. An in-depth examination of instigators revealed that not only fellow attorneys but also federal judges, court personnel, marshals, and court security officers instigated the inappropriate behavior. We further found that most attorneys responded to this mistreatment with avoidance and denial; few used or trusted existing reporting mechanisms. The current study surpassed simple prevalence estimates to document effects of interpersonal mistreatment on the professional well-being of targeted attorneys. We discuss implications of these results, drawing on theories of social dominance, sex-role spillover, cognitive stress, organizations, and intervention.

As a distinct class of criminals, sex offenders stand out as being particularly subject to the new “risk management” penal strategies that, according to a number of scholars, have come to dominate punishment rhetoric and practices in recent years. Nonetheless, the criminal justice policymaking that targets sex offenders appears to have a more emotionally based underside. In this paper, I examine the emotional drive that appears to undergird contemporary sex offender lawmaking, suggesting that a significant force propelling the current panoply of sex offender containment strategies is a constellation of emotional expressions of disgust, fear of contagion, and pollution avoidance, manifested in a legislative concern about boundary vulnerabilities between social spheres of the pure and the dangerous. To do so, I analyze the lawmaking discourse of U. S. legislators as they debated four proposed legislative bills directed at sex offenders during the late 1990s.

This essay examines the legitimation work of globalization by bringing into dialogue the authors' research on immigration, finance, and intercountryadoption. It is concerned with the practices that produce, define, and preclude both movement and connection, such as “naturalizing” some border crossings while criminalizing others; denying the histories and policies that allow some parents to “choose” babies while others must abandon them; and challenging the practices through which small states tweak transnational financial systems while allowing multinational corporations privileges denied small states. Legitimation work (re)configures jurisdictionality, transparency, and sovereignty–the constructs on which debates over globalization's consequences hinge. Examining how these constructs order, include, and exclude persons, goods, and practices sheds light on the boundaries, slippages, and connections between the legitimate and the illegitimate within global processes.

I want to thank the editors of Law and Social Inquiry for giving me the chance to convey my immense admiration—indeed, reverence would not be too strong a word—for James Heckman and his work, on the occasion of his being awarded the 2000 Nobel prize in economics. It's a great pleasure to be able publicly to acknowledge my personal and professional debts to Jim; but I've come to realize that it's also a great burden to have to say something worthy of the occasion and the person. Jim's own writing tends toward the terse rather than the expansive. In that spirit, the tersest thing I can say that adequately conveys the importance of his work is that I'm certain that people will still be reading and talking about both his methodological and substantive ideas 100 years from now.

When Congress ended the immigration of Chinese laborers in 1882, the Chinese population was over 95% male. While there has been much disagreement about why so few women came, the more fruitful question may be to ask how Chinese women were able to immigrate to the United States at all. Central to their immigration were legal arguments for lawful Chinese immigrants—primarily merchants and native-bom citizens—to bring their wives to the United States. Due to racial restrictions barring them from independent entry or marital naturalization, Chinese wives appealed to the uncodified gender privileges of their husbands in turn-of-the-century legal society: the natural right of a man to the company of his wife and children. In the face of a bureaucratic structure designed to sift immigrants by race, judges ruled that racial admission policies must conform to established gender privileges. The power of these arguments was tested in cases involving the deportation of Chinese women admitted as wives. While initially evading registration regulations for immigrants, Chinese women were unsuccessful at evading regulations concerning prostitution. This failure underscored the performative aspects of husbands' rights arguments, especially the image of the dutiful wife and husband and the class-based ideal of the elite merchant or citizen.

Given James Heckman's enormous contributions to the field of economics and the social sciences more generally, the question regarding the Nobel prize was not “if,” but “when.” The choice of Heckman as the 2000 Nobel laureate (joint with Daniel McFadden, another deserving winner) has been warmly received throughout the profession. Heckman and McFadden were both pioneers whose work helped to create modern empirical economics.

This paper provides a critical perspective on the use of U. S. alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches for managing conflict in African and other communities. It argues that imposition of American ADR as a condition for foreign aid or capital investment is deeply problematic, and urges a more sophisticated analysis of the power dimensions and ideological basis of ADR. When viewed as an ideologically laden paradigm for how conflict should be resolved (i. e., a conflict paradigm), ADR can be seen as carrying troubling baggage. For example, ADR approaches imported from the United States deal with dispute resolution simply in terms of mechanisms or techniques, ignoring substantive issues central to conflict management in African and other communities. The entire discourse surrounding ADR pays insuficient attention to problems with terms such as modern or traditional, and encourages an ingenuous denial of the effects of inequality in power and money on conflict resolution. This ideological baggage renders unreflective imposition of ADR incompatible with the best interests of African communities. The authors urge a more complete and objective analysis of the global ADR revolution—one that takes a broader perspective.