Deep-ocean observing is essential for informing policy making in the arenas of climate, biodiversity, fisheries, energy and minerals extraction, pollution, hazards, and genetic resources. The Deep Ocean Observing Strategy (DOOS), a UN Ocean Decade endorsed programme, is meeting with representatives from relevant international bodies and agreements to strengthen their interface with the deep-ocean science community, ensure that deep observing is responsive to societal needs, identify points of entry for science in policy making, and to develop relevant products for broad use. DOOS collaboration with the Environmental Systems Research Institute (Esri) facilitates this co-design. A DOOS policy liaison team is being formed to link the contacts, voices, and messaging of multiple deep-ocean networks and organizations in reaching international policy makers. The UN Ocean Decade will help to gain the ear of target communities, scale communication channels appropriately, minimize duplicative efforts, maximize limited resources, and organize inclusive and equitable public and private partners in deep-ocean science and policy.
Studies on international legal mobilization often analyze the mobilization efforts of activists at a single international court. Yet we know little about how activists choose among multiple international institutions to advance social justice claims. Drawing on comparative case studies of Turkish and British trade union activists' legal mobilization efforts and case law analysis, I show that activists, guided by their lawyers, probe multiple avenues to identify the legal institution with the highest judicial authority and is most responsive to activists' claims. Once they identify their target institution, the iterative process between a responsive court and activists' strategic litigation can build a court's jurisprudence in a new issue area, even if the court provides limited de jure rights protections. Activists primarily use international litigation strategy to leverage structural reforms at the domestic level and to set new international norms through precedents.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10401672
- Publisher / Repository:
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Law & Society Review
- Volume:
- 57
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 0023-9216
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 61-82
- Size(s):
- ["p. 61-82"]
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
What happens when international courts are asked to tackle local political controversies and their judgments subsequently spark contentious resistance? In the European Union (EU), scholars have posited that the politicization of the often‐liberalizing rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) provokes Euroscepticism and noncompliance. In contrast, I argue that contentious politics may also produce permissive conditions for activist “Eurolawyers” to promote awareness of EU law and mobilize support for liberalization. To unpack this claim, I conduct an intensive case study of perhaps the most explosive controversy in Italy to generate litigation before the ECJ: The 1991 “Port of Genoa” case, where the public monopoly rights of a centuries‐old dockworkers' union were challenged. Leveraging interviews, court and newspaper records, public opinion data, and litigation statistics, I trace how—despite dockworkers' vigorous resistance—a pair of entrepreneurial lawyers liberalized Italy's largest port by combining strategic litigation with a public relations campaign to mobilize a compliance constituency. I conclude with insights the case study offers into the contemporary politics of transnational governance.
-
International collaboration between collections, aggregators, and researchers within the biodiversity community and beyond is becoming increasingly important in our efforts to support biodiversity, conservation and the life of the planet. The social, technical, logistical and financial aspects of an equitable biodiversity data landscape – from workforce training and mobilization of linked specimen data, to data integration, use and publication – must be considered globally and within the context of a growing biodiversity crisis. In recent years, several initiatives have outlined paths forward that describe how digital versions of natural history specimens can be extended and linked with associated data. In the United States, Webster (2017) presented the “extended specimen”, which was expanded upon by Lendemer et al. (2019) through the work of the Biodiversity Collections Network (BCoN). At the same time, a “digital specimen” concept was developed by DiSSCo in Europe (Hardisty 2020). Both the extended and digital specimen concepts depict a digital proxy of an analog natural history specimen, whose digital nature provides greater capabilities such as being machine-processable, linkages with associated data, globally accessible information-rich biodiversity data, improved tracking, attribution and annotation, additional opportunities for data use and cross-disciplinary collaborations forming the basis for FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reproducible) and equitable sharing of benefits worldwide, and innumerable other advantages, with slight variation in how an extended or digital specimen model would be executed. Recognizing the need to align the two closely-related concepts, and to provide a place for open discussion around various topics of the Digital Extended Specimen (DES; the current working name for the joined concepts), we initiated a virtual consultation on the discourse platform hosted by the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge through GBIF. This platform provided a forum for threaded discussions around topics related and relevant to the DES. The goals of the consultation align with the goals of the Alliance for Biodiversity Knowledge: expand participation in the process, build support for further collaboration, identify use cases, identify significant challenges and obstacles, and develop a comprehensive roadmap towards achieving the vision for a global specification for data integration. In early 2021, Phase 1 launched with five topics: Making FAIR data for specimens accessible; Extending, enriching and integrating data; Annotating specimens and other data; Data attribution; and Analyzing/mining specimen data for novel applications. This round of full discussion was productive and engaged dozens of contributors, with hundreds of posts and thousands of views. During Phase 1, several deeper, more technical, or additional topics of relevance were identified and formed the foundation for Phase 2 which began in May 2021 with the following topics: Robust access points and data infrastructure alignment; Persistent identifier (PID) scheme(s); Meeting legal/regulatory, ethical and sensitive data obligations; Workforce capacity development and inclusivity; Transactional mechanisms and provenance; and Partnerships to collaborate more effectively. In Phase 2 fruitful progress was made towards solutions to some of these complex functional and technical long-term goals. Simultaneously, our commitment to open participation was reinforced, through increased efforts to involve new voices from allied and complementary fields. Among a wealth of ideas expressed, the community highlighted the need for unambiguous persistent identifiers and a dedicated agent to assign them, support for a fully linked system that includes robust publishing mechanisms, strong support for social structures that build trustworthiness of the system, appropriate attribution of legacy and new work, a system that is inclusive, removed from colonial practices, and supportive of creative use of biodiversity data, building a truly global data infrastructure, balancing open access with legal obligations and ethical responsibilities, and the partnerships necessary for success. These two consultation periods, and the myriad activities surrounding the online discussion, produced a wide variety of perspectives, strategies, and approaches to converging the digital and extended specimen concepts, and progressing plans for the DES -- steps necessary to improve access to research-ready data to advance our understanding of the diversity and distribution of life. Discussions continue and we hope to include your contributions to the DES in future implementation plans.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract This article analyzes institutions as sites for political and social change by looking beyond regimentation and fixedness as the central discursive features of institutionalization. Drawing on research at the European Court of Human Rights—one of the world's most extensive human rights courts—I analyze how human rights actors redeploy normative institutional logics through creative approaches to institutional categories. I argue that lawyers and advocates working within the Court and Convention system naturalize and fix boundaries of law and politics
and use that distinction to activate an excess of potential meanings and intertextual connections in legal judgments. This involves using institutional affordances to keep cases open and structure collaborative waiting. These strategies allow people to mutually inhabit open‐ended relationships to texts in intentional ways. In so doing, lawyers and activists defer resolving legal judgments—until new coalitions take political power, there are generational shifts in attitudes or shifts in geopolitical power arrangements that render state actors subject to diplomatic pressure. Analyzing how people improvise, learn, and teach others to manage institutional channels and excess opens up the black box of institutionality as a site for social transformation. -
more » « less
The process of litigation is part of the decentered complex governance structure of risks and disaster. The process highlights problems that other institutions deflect. Courts are also part of defining problems in governing disaster. Scholarship drawing on legal decisions, including concerning environmental decision making, often relies upon the final decision from a highest court of appeal. Most cases settle, and courts make temporary decisions that other courts subsequently overturn or vacate. This process also names and deflects problems. Therefore, looking only to highest courts of appeals misstates how courts participate in governance. However, the process of litigating in lower courts is complex to follow, with partial decisions and settlements. This paper traces the histories of key housing assistance cases taken after Hurricane Katrina, following their multiple iterations as well as how later cases drew upon them, through 2018. Although initial decisions evinced concern for those who had lost their homes, flexible legal standards and limits on groups' ability to litigate allowed courts to limit government agencies’ accountability in court. This paper argues for integrating courts into the governance of risks and hazards, and for following trial courts and process.
