This thesis engages and scrutinizes critiques of rights developed in Critical Legal Studies scholarship and critical international law theory, specifically as formulated in the works of prominent and influential legal theorists Duncan Kennedy and Martti Koskenniemi, and draws on them to grapple with the changes that Swedish refugee and asylum policy went through during the fall/winter of 2015 and 2016. During this period, a series of drastic and far-reaching restrictions were enacted. Despite this, the Swedish government could still, albeit under immense criticism, claim a status for their policies as respecting human rights and adhering to the principles of international law. Against this background, the purpose of this study is to examine anew, using works of Kennedy and Koskenniemi, the relationship between the concept of human rights on the one hand and politics on the other, and how this relationship can be observed to have been (re)negotiated during the policy shift in Sweden. The thesis also raises the question of whether any general or uniform assessment of rights discourse is available in the works of the chosen theorists, and if so, of what this consists. The results show that the indeterminacy and contingency of rights frameworks, which is pointed to by both theorists, provides a suitable perspective from which to view the flexibility of the discourse, but this perspective is also seen as partially inadequate and in need of being supplemented with an account of what, or who, effects actual policy outcomes and thus determines the social meaning and contents of human rights. The theoretical tools developed by Koskenniemi help explain how the structural biases of the deciding institutions, the Swedish government and the EU, contribute to the re-definition of the content of refugee rights. Further, it is argued that both theorists have some difficulty in expounding in any clear and unambiguous way just what consequences their critiques might have for how rights discourses can and should be approached. An engagement with asylum and refugee rights from a critical legal theory perspective was thus shown as offering both problems and possibilities.

The United States Constitution provides its citizens protection from unreasonable searches and seizures from government officials, including police officers, through the Fourth Amendment. This Amendment applies to searches that violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the Fourth Amendment does not protect citizens when they consent to a search voluntarily. It is necessary to determine whether or not a search is voluntary by looking at a variety of factors. Although an infinite number of factors can be considered to make this determination, race of both the police officer and of the person being searched should be considered, due to societal factors and racial stereotypes leading to intimidation factors. Participants (N=575) read a vignette about a situation in which a bus passenger was asked to consent to a search. The races of the police officer and the passenger were manipulated in a vignette (White, Latino, Black). Participants then answered a series of questions about privacy expectations and consenting to the search. The results suggested that race of police officers and recipients of search requests affects how search requests perceive the search, indicating that voluntariness of consenting to a search may also have some basis in race.

In 2012, the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin brought national attention to Florida’s Stand Your Ground (SYG) law. As of 2012, more than 20 states have enacted SYG laws. Previous studies suggest that these laws increase homicide, particularly justifiable homicide. However, these studies ignore race and/or gender. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature by examining the effect of SYG laws on the number of homicide and justifiable homicide victims and offenders of a given race or gender. Using data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports between 2000 and 2012, we create a generalized least squares model with random and fixed effects and controls for time-varying state effects and year fixed effects to empirically examine this impact. We find that while SYG laws have no effect on the number of homicide victims or offenders of any race or gender, they significantly increase the number of black and male justifiable homicide victims by 32 percent and 26 percent respectively and the number of white and female justifiable homicide offenders by 34 and 25 percent respectively. These findings suggest that, in terms of justifiable homicide, SYG laws differentially affect racial and gender groups.

ABSTRACT This study provides an empirical analysis of the effect of tobacco marketing regulation on unit sales, in order to evaluate the effectiveness these laws in the United States. The analysis did not find a significant effect of tobacco advertising expenditure on unit sales. Examination of advertising expenditure revealed that tobacco companies substituted banned forms of advertising for other marketing strategies, leading to little reduction in total advertising expenditure and a limited effect on sales. Furthermore, it found an unexpected positive relationship between the 1971 Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act and tobacco consumption; the ban on advertising and promotion actually increased sales by over 88 billion units. Additional empirical evidence is provided from studies performed by Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking (FORCES) and Saffer and Chaloupka that show correspondingly inconclusive results. The paper then discusses several policy implications and subsequent recommendations that follow from these results.

Past literature has indicated that jury instructions are not written in ways that result in optimal juror comprehension, and can be improved through various ways of simplification. Prototypes of the insanity defense have also been found to influence juror decision-making. Additionally, individual factors such as attitudes toward and myth endorsement of the insanity defense can influence verdict. The following study explored these effects of jury instruction format, insanity defense consistency, and participant factors on jury understanding and decision-making. Three hundred and eighty jury eligible community members were recruited online for this study. Participants were first asked questions pertaining to attitudes and myths about the insanity defense. Afterwards, each participant read one of two vignettes (an insanity defense consistent case and an insanity defense inconsistent case), and then read one of three jury instructions (traditional, simplified, or flow-chart versions). The participants then reached individual verdicts and answered factual questions about the insanity defense and their perceptions on the defendant. Results indicated that simplified instructions increased participant knowledge over the traditional and flow-chart instructions, but did not influence verdict selection overall. Consistency, myth endorsement, attitudes, and perceptions of the defendant were also all found to contribute to the verdict. These results contribute to the current research on comprehension of jury instructions, especially in the context of an insanity defense case, and may provide additional information for attorneys to consider during the voir dire process.

This article seeks to uncover the historical trajectory of the notion of women as repositories of male honor in Indian society and whether there has been a change in the discourse. Through a historically oriented comparative study of two case studies it draws attention to the fact that this perception of women has made them extremely susceptible to sexual attacks from members of opposing communities. At the time of Partition India witnessed large scale religion-based rapes where men of one religion attempted to assert their dominance over another religious community by raping the women of that community. Today the use of rape as a means of power assertion is still prevalent but now it is upper caste men who are seeking to assert their dominance over lower caste communities.This article believes that a combination of legal and social dilemmas is the cause of this discourse that works against the safety of women.

The author raises the question of what black women do to resist acts taken by the government to control their bodies such as the welfare queen trope. Many authors demonstrate that the welfare queen is used to control black women as a labor force as well as their reproduction. An infrapolitical reading of black hair tutorials is done to analyze the ways that black hair care is a form of political resistance. Robin Kelley's use of infrapolitics to understand actions taken by working class black people is used as a model.

A critical analysis of the film Remember the Titans, released in 2000, shows a preoccupation with nation and national identity through race and football. Set in 1971, it follows the desegregation and integration of a high school football team in Virginia. The film articulates a revisionist racial reconciliation reading of the Civil War based on white suffering and subsequent redemption. At its core it is a story about the progress of race relations and racism, framed as interpersonal relationships and segregation, in the United States.

This study examines the role of law in the constitution and contestation of state power in African history. Using Zimbabwe as a case study, it analyses legal struggles between Africans and the state, and amongst Africans themselves between 1950 and 1990. In doing so it intervenes in a number of scholarly debates on the relationship between law, state power and agency in African history. Firstly, I examine the role of law in constituting state power by exploring the interplay between legitimation and coercion in long term perspective. Secondly, I interrogate legal centralism as an approach to understanding developments in the legal sphere in African history and make the case for legal pluralism as a more appropriate approach. I argue that during the period under study, Zimbabwe witnessed a process of evolving legal pluralism characterised by the mutual appropriation of forms, symbols and concepts between state law and the ‘customary law’. Thirdly, I contribute to the debate on African legal agency by demonstrating that its significance went beyond the utility of the law in specific social, economic and political struggles. I argue that it also gave expression to emergent political imaginaries, shifting ideas of personhood and alternative visions of the social and political order. Lastly, I argue that, by undertaking a historical examination of legal struggles, this study provides a useful foundation from which to analyse contemporary legal struggles in Zimbabwe and in Africa more generally. The findings presented here caution against being drawn in by the apparent novelty of contemporary legal struggles. In addition, they suggest the means by which human rights discourse in Africa might be reinvigorated.

The scholarly consensus on the political foundations of independent constitutional review – that it invariably stems from electoral and inter-branch competition – has been weakened by recent empirical discoveries which demonstrated that constitutional courts in a number of authoritarian states are actually more activist than previously assumed. This dissertation examines this phenomenon using the case of Hong Kong, an authoritarian polity first under the sovereignty of Britain and then of China. It is widely believed that the competence of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal – a cosmopolitan common law final appellate court – to strike down legislative and executive acts, and its ability to induce the regime’s compliance with its rulings, is intrinsic to the Basic Law, just as it is in liberal democracies. Nevertheless, two interrelated anomalous phenomena – the Court’s repeated issuance of activist rulings with near-complete impunity, and the continuing forbearance of China’s foremost constitutional authority, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), faced with the Court’s aggressive assertions – necessitates careful explanation. This dissertation proposes an explanatory Constitutional Investment Theory, which highlights the similarities between “investment” in constitutional review and investment in financial assets, to explain the activation, consolidation, and ascendancy of independent constitutional review in authoritarian settings. It shows how strong incentives to signal its ideological commitment to the “One Country, Two Systems” scheme, both internationally and domestically, first drove the NPCSC to acquiesce in the Court’s self-aggrandisement; how internal divisions within and external opposition to the Hong Kong regime have rendered retaliation a costly option; and how the Court’s strategic resolution of the Basic Law’s ambiguities has encouraged continuous political investment in its jurisdiction and autonomy. Altogether, these have contributed to the formation of a dynamic equilibrium of constitution control, under which the Court and the NPCSC dynamically developed their own jurisprudence within their respective bailiwicks.