This qualitative socio-legal study critically examined the protection against housing discrimination found in chapter 2 § 12 of the Swedish Discrimination Act (SFS 2008:567), in light of United Nations, Council of Europe and European Union housing and non-discrimination (human rights) standards. As an applied socio-legal study it aimed to be critical towards the limits of law in context. By applying an intersectional approach as the theoretical framework for the study, it aimed to identify legal weaknesses from an intersectional point of view. The study made use of a descriptive doctrinal analysis method and a critical text analysis method. The material for analysis consisted of civil housing discrimination law: legislation, preparatory works and case law. The case law, anonymized for this study, consisted of three district court judgments and three appeal court judgments processed during the years 2007-2016. The first research question asked what, if any, forms of intersectional discrimination the housing discrimination law face and comprise. The descriptive doctrinal analysis revealed that all cases shared the discrimination ground ‘ethnicity’ and discrimination form ‘direct discrimination’. The critical text analysis resulted in three themes illustrating intersectional discriminating facing the law: “aggressive men” (the intersection of sex and ethnicity), “resourceless women” (the intersection of sex, socio-economic class and ethnicity) and “unsettled strangers” (the intersection of socio-economic class and ethnicity). The second research question asked what, if any, the limits of law are from an intersectional point of view. By discussing the three themes in relation to the legal landscape and previous research it was possible to identify several limits of law relating to intersectionality, such as the exhaustive list of discrimination grounds, absent discrimination grounds and an absence of intersectional awareness. The study concluded that Swedish housing discrimination law rely on formal equality, which renders intersectional discrimination invisible and the power of housing human rights disputable.

This work is concerned with problems of the practice of the authority in the socio- legal protection of children in Ústecký region. The purpose of the work is the analysis of progress in work of the authority in the socio-legal protection of children in the context of the international standards Quality for Children. The theoretical part of the paper describes basic concepts relating to social- legal protection of children in the connection to the standards Quality for Children. The practical part analyzes practical progress in work of the social-legal authority of children in Ústecký region in the context of these standards. The analysis was performed with 20 interviews with officers from socio-legal authority in Ústecký region. The result of my investigation is to analyze the degree of the fulfillment of these standards.

This dissertation is the first ever written Institutional Ethnography (IE) of the Asignación Universal por Hijo para Protección Social, or "AUH" [Universal Child Allowance], Argentina's CCT (conditional cash transfer) program. CCTs are one of international development's favourite and fastest-growing anti-poverty initiatives. Through the AUH, the State transfers cash to the poor attaching certain conditions that refer to the health and education of their children. Most CCT programs target women, and the AUH is no exception, as the overwhelming majority of legal recipients of the AUH are poor mothers. CCTs have been praised for contributing to human capital accumulation and empowering women. Using IE, a feminist socio-legal methodology drawn from Canadian sociologist Dorothy Smith,† I conducted research with a total of fifty-eight informants: thirty-nine AUH recipient women - through in-depth semi-structured individual interviews, focus group discussions, and narrative photovoice - and nineteen professionals working at diverse corners of the AUH institution. I use the findings to answer two main questions: (1) What are AUH recipients' experiences with and attitudes toward the program? and (2) How do both State and non-State legal regimes work to influence the lives of the most vulnerable women in Argentina? In other words, how does the AUH play within a system of rules - formal and informal - that have traditionally exerted control over poor women? Following IE and Social Reproduction Feminism (SRF), I found that while the AUH program indicates women's decision-making roles within their families and communities, this policy initiative serves to entrench rather than rectify inequalities. The problematic that I have found through this study is administrative and obstetric violence against AUH recipient women. Discussion about the administrative and obstetric violence that AUH recipient women suffer while doing AUH work has remained at the margins of legal and social policy debates, generally underdeveloped in policy and scholarship conversations about the realities of Argentina's most vulnerable people. Recipient women depicted diverse acts of violence they suffered while doing AUH work: they were mistreated, dismissed, neglected, humiliated, and discriminated against by State agents; recipient women were treated as ignorant or infantilized; recipient women had their stipend partially stolen by bureaucrats; had to wait countless hours in unsafe conditions; were not heard by health actors when expressing concerns about their health; had no opportunity to give prior informed consent; and they faced barriers to accessing health services and contraception. I have found a disjuncture between women's lived experiences and the broader ruling relations that organize "AUH work." The findings show a disconnection between women's experiences of violence, bureaucratic actors' experiences and knowledge of the AUH, and a misalignment between bureaucrats' knowledge and the black-letter law. These disjunctures enable and facilitate violence against recipient women through fragmentation, invisibilization, rationalization, minimization, standardization, and objectification of women's experiences. In sum, the AUH facilitates violence against women and systematically obscures that violence. Following a legal pluralist approach, I show the complex role of the law: at times, it problematically excludes recipient women's actual experiences from the AUH legal framework; at others, it fails to protect recipient women against violence. I identify the formal legal regimes interacting and immersed in the AUH institution: human rights and constitutional law, administrative law, and the violence against women (VAW) legal framework. Despite an outstanding formal repertoire of rights, there is a gap between the formal laws and their effective translation into women's lives. The law is fragmented, complex, and sometimes contradictory. It cannot be limited to State-enacted formal laws; informal laws substantially impact people's lives, such as the rule to avoid retaliation from State actors by avoiding complaining. I argue that IE and legal pluralism can provide a more nuanced understanding of the law's complex institutional hierarchy and of the myriad ways by which recipient women's voices continue to be ignored and discredited within the law in the hope that the law can better respond (or at least stops interfering) with their needs. Ultimately, nothing less than the transformation of the socioeconomic order will achieve gender equality. Rather than "empowerment," we should strive toward emancipation, abolishing the structural colonial, patriarchal, and capitalist foundations of exploitation and oppression instead of integrating women into existing institutions and "empowering" them with shallow cash transfers.

Since the late 1980s, efforts made by the international community to deal with the complex and global problem of money laundering have stimulated the creation and definition of the so-called 'international crime of money laundering', which is included in various United Nations and Council of Europe international treaties, as well as European Union Directives. The Central purpose of this thesis is to investigate if the main goal of effectiveness in the adaptation of the international crime of money laundering at the domestic level, might undermine other values that international law is seeking to protect, namely the guarantee of due process and the adequate protection of human rights principles. Then, if the adoption of any element of the crime shows to be inconsistent with civil rights and guarantees, to propose how deficiencies could be remedied.

In this thesis I explore the attitudes, arguments, and actions of British political elites in connection with the development of human rights law in Europe and the UK. I do this by examining British input into five key episodes for the development of European supranational rights and their incorporation into domestic legal orders (namely the drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, the drafting of the European Social Charter 1961, the acceptance of individual petition in 1966, the failed 1970s Bill of Rights debate, the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998, and recent developments such as the UK ‘opt-out’ to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the emergence of a new ‘British Bill of Rights’ debate). Casting light on British involvement in less examined periods in European rights development, I challenge existing, isolated, explanations for the more focal episodes (such as Simpson’s rational-choice post-colonial thesis for individual petition acceptance, and ideological accounts for New Labour’s post-1997 constitutional reform). Responding to the most recent literature in the area, central to my analysis is the question of how rights progress relates to inter-party conflict. By considering continuities and discontinuities in elite political discussion of rights I argue that while conflict is a significant underlying feature of every major episode of rights progress during the last sixty years, and is less evident in less progressive periods, other factors have had a greater influence over the form, timing, and extent of rights progress. Most significant amongst these is the constitutional ideological development of the Labour party and the critical connection between Labour’s elevation of the Convention within the UK constitutional space and revisionist shifts in party thinking.

Transitional justice has undergone tremendous shifts since it was first used in Latin American and Eastern European countries to address post-authoritarian and post-communist legacies of atrocity and repression. In particular, the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has increased the demand for prosecutions within a field that was previously marked by compromise and non-prosecution. While there are increasing expectations that countries with unresolved claims of human rights abuses should enact transitional justice policies, most of the literature on the subject largely omits to explain how elites from those countries choose among the possible options of transitional justice, and specifically, how they choose among international prosecutions, domestic prosecutions, and truth-seeking. Using case studies of Kenya and Uganda, this dissertation examines this decision-making process to understand how elites choose and reject different transitional justice policies. Theoretically, the research examines how preferences for transitional justice policies are constituted through “judicial statecraft”: the strategic efforts by heterogeneous, interest-pursuing elites to use justice-related policies as carrots and sticks in the overall contestation of power. The research finds that the choices of elites about judicial statecraft depend on three factors: the extent to which the elites are secure that their policy choices cannot be subverted from within; the cost and credibility of transitional justice threats; and the effects, both intended and unintended, of history.

My thesis explores the roles in Albanian nation-building of the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjin, an early-twentieth century codification of northern-Albanian customary practices, and the Pajtimi i Gjaqeve, a late-twentieth century movement to conciliate blood feuds in Kosovo. To understand them, we need to know: what both were, in their own terms; their significance; and how they relate to other aspects of nation-building, and comparative examples. I draw on participant-observation fieldwork, archive work and extensive interviews. Nation-building is necessarily complicated and the Albanian case particularly so. The existence of an Albanian nation was contested by neighbouring peoples, and its characteristics, by Albanians themselves. In this complex context, the text of the Kanun, and the Pajtimi i Gjaqeve, give us good insights into Albanian understandings of the nation, and associated nation-building activities, at pivotal points in national history. While the nation-building projects of the region had many elements in common, prominent ideas of a ‘national’ legal tradition are a distinctive aspect of the Albanian case. Both the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjin and the Pajtimi i Gjaqeve need to be understood as aspects of nation-building. In the context of a crumbling Ottoman Empire, by presenting Albanian customary practices in the form of a legal code, the Albanian codifier made claims about the contents and the people from whom they came. The Kanun demonstrated the existence of a distinct people with a tradition of self-governance and mediation; and made significant contributions to the crucial process of language standardisation. In the context of the 1990s break-up of Yugoslavia, ideas of an Albanian legal tradition re-emerged in Kosovo, in the Pajtimi i Gjaqeve which presented intra-Albanian disputes as national concerns, and drew on traditional values and customary practices to effect conciliations. Subsequently, the Movement itself has become a national resource, through reference to which important ideas about the nation are expressed.

Since the early 1990s, institutional approaches to organizations have increasingly focused on explaining the role of agency in processes of institutional creation and transformation. The paradox of embedded agency, the question of how actors can become motivated and enabled to transform supposedly taken-for-granted practices, structures and norms has become the fundamental puzzle of contemporary institutional theory. Recent attempts to resolve this puzzle under the label of “institutional work” focus on practices aimed at creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions, but portray them as planned, discrete episodes that unfold in isolation from everyday organizational or social life. Thereby, the label highlights institutionalists’ current neglect of work in its literal meaning as actors’ everyday occupational tasks and activities. The detachment of institutional work from practical work constitutes a significant blind spot in institutionalists’ understanding of agency and calls for research that examines the reciprocity of institutions and work. Drawing on illuminating constructs from theories of practice, this study extends existing field-level approaches to the paradox of embedded agency. It argues for a practice-based institutionalism that focuses on individual actors and the role of their collective micro-level praxis in constituting macro-level institutions. It re-connects institutional arguments to every-day activity rather than organizational or managerial action, unpacks the micro-practices and micro–politics by which actors negotiate institutional contradictions and demonstrates the reciprocity of institutions and work. The research addresses the detachment of institutional and practical work through a single-case study of a global law firm’s banking group. It explores what banking lawyers do when they ‘do deals’ and how their practical work may attain institutional relevance. Positioned at the intersec-tion of local laws, international financial markets, commercial and professional logics, banking lawyers operate across multiple institutional frameworks. Observations and accounts of their work provide particularly rich insights into the dynamics of institutional persistence and change, because they illustrate empirically how contradictory institutionalized concepts, practices and logics are experienced, negotiated, and constituted at work.

This thesis examines the treatment and experiences of foreign national prisoners in England and Wales. It contains two main arguments. First, I contend that dominant prison theories rely on an outmoded understanding of the nation-state, and as a result, tend to ignore the effects of globalisation. Second, I argue that current prison practices reaffirm the boundaries of the British nation-state and promote an exclusionary notion of British citizenship. I conclude that research attuned to the affective, embodied dimensions of incarceration can help criminologists to develop a more ‘global’ perspective on state power. This argument begins and builds from ethnographic research. As a whole, the thesis is based on more than 200 interviews conducted over the course of a year in and around five men’s prisons in the north, southwest, and center of England. Structurally, it proceeds from a theoretical critique of prison studies, to an ethnographic account of prison life, to a conclusion about the purpose of prison scholarship. Thematically, it focuses on the relationship between identity and imprisonment, and in particular, on the ways in which normative beliefs about race, gender, sexuality, and class get infused in incarceration practices.

This dissertation deals with court-executive relations in post-authoritarian Argentina (1983-2006). Specifically, I analyse Supreme Court behaviour in highly sensitive cases to determine whether the tribunal has cooperated with or obstructed the government’s policy preferences in three key policy areas: human rights, economic emergency and pensions. This innovative type of approach – i.e., focusing on a small number of highly sensitive decisions – allows me to concentrate on cases that are genuinely important for the government or, more precisely, for the country’s political administration. There are cases that are significant for the State apparatus but irrelevant for the president (thinking of politicians as self-interested actors). My research uses a rational choice approach to courts, underscoring the strategic nature of judicial behaviour. This vision of judges provides a more accurate account of judicial-executive relations by bringing politics into the study of courts. By focusing exclusively on attitudes and apolitical jurisprudence, other visions take for granted the institutional context. Political stability, for example, cannot be assumed in many developing democracies. My findings indicate that the Argentine Supreme Court has consistently avoided obstructing the president’s policy preferences. Such behaviour is motivated by strategic considerations: judges are risk-averse actors that avoid clashing with the executive. For most of the time, the Supreme Court has operated under unified government, which increases the chances of being punished for anti-government decisions. Two other factors also account for the court’s risk-averse behaviour. First, procedural rules grant the Supreme Court wide discretion over its docket. The tribunal has used such discretion to strategically select the timing of its decisions. Second, recurrent democratic breakdowns have repeatedly led to attacks against the court, such as impeachment, irregular dismissals, and/or enlargements. Third, politicians exert broad control of judicial promotions, allowing them to block the careers of independent, courageous judges that act as a check on political power.