From Geneva to the World? Global Network Diffusion of Antidiscrimination Legislation in Employment and Occupation: The ILO’s C111

The adoption of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) marked ILO’s first endorsement to universal non-discrimination and an early equal opportunity approach at work. Albeit considered to be premised upon “a traditional, formal-equality and formal-workplace vision of antidiscrimination law,” the convention marked a genuine new strand in international standard-setting in the Post-World War II and Philadelphia Declaration time. However, due to the implicit formal vision, it is assumed that ratification was more attractive and more feasible for countries of the Global North first. Following, this behavior diffused through colonial ties time-varying toward the Global South. Whether this assumption holds will also be studied regarding the moderating effects of networks of culture, trade, and regional proximity.

Antitrust as Antiracism: Antitrust as a Partial Cure for Systemic Racism (and Other Systemic “Isms”)

We usually think of antitrust law as addressing violations of free market norms, not equality norms. The two, however, may be related. Systemic racism (and other systemic “isms”) is about power and its abuse. So is antitrust law. Moreover, antitrust may be able to fill gaps left by antidiscrimination law. In particular, antitrust law can address: entire markets, not just individual firms or discrete actions; power imbalances from differences in capital, not just disparities in compensation; financial allocations between owners and workers, not just between workers; and legal violations that shrink total worker pay and do not just distort its allocation. Antitrust law also relies on centrist free market principles. Those may be less controversial than tackling issues of race directly. To be sure, in part for that reason, antitrust laws are limited. They can at best remedy a small portion of the potential wrongs caused by systemic racism. But antitrust may nevertheless contribute valuably to systemic racial equality. It also may provide a model for how antidiscrimination law might be reframed to make it more effective in that regard.

Contesting Sexual Prejudice to Support Sexual Minorities: Views of Chinese Social Workers

Professional development has been recognized as one of the strategies to effectively combat sexual prejudice and negative attitudes against lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning/queer (LGBQ+) individuals and sexual minorities. Nevertheless, studies related to LGBQ+-inclusive training are rarely found in the Chinese Hong Kong context, where sexual prejudice still prevails without the establishment of antidiscrimination law. Sociocultural considerations, such as religious and parental influences, are obstacles to discussing the reduction of sexual prejudices, both within wider society and social work organizations, without institutional support. This paper aims to understand social workers’ perspectives on prejudice reduction training themes and perceived cultural barriers through qualitative in-depth interviews with 67 social workers. Qualitative thematic analysis yielded the following themes: (1) understanding sexuality; (2) initiating training legitimately; (3) contesting religious and cultural assumptions; (4) resolving value and ethical dilemma; (5) selecting relevant knowledge; (6) implementing diverse training strategies. The study suggests that social workers and service providers need to understand how sexual prejudice is manifested in Hong Kong through unique cultural forces. LGBQ+-inclusive content, addressing updated concepts and prejudice-free language, should be incorporated into the training curriculum. Intergroup contact, professional reflection, and experiential learning are suggested as training strategies (190).

Intersectionality and Comparative Antidiscrimination Law

This volume in the Brill Research Perspectives in Comparative Discrimination Law addresses intersectionality from the lens of comparative antidiscrimination law. The term ‘intersectionality’ was coined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in 1989. As a field, intersectionality has a longer history, of nearly two hundred years. Meanwhile, comparative antidiscrimination law as a field may be just over a few decades old. Thus, intersectionality’s tryst with antidiscrimination law is a fairly recent one. Developed as a critique of antidiscrimination law, intersectionality has had a significant influence on it. Yet, intersectionality’s logic does not seem to have infiltrated the logic of antidiscrimination law completely. Comparative antidiscrimination law continues to develop with intersectionality in sight, but rarely, in step. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Crenshaw’s seminal article that coined the term in the context of antidiscrimination law, Shreya Atrey explores this irony. Her article provides a meta-narrative of the development of the two fields with the purpose of showing what appear to be orthogonal trajectories.