On the Interdependence of Liberal and Illiberal/Authoritarian Legal Forms in Racial Capitalist Regimes…The Case of the United States

Scholars conventionally distinguish between liberal and illiberal, or authoritarian, legal orders. Such distinctions are useful but often simplistic and misleading, as many regimes are governed by plural, dual, or hybrid legal institutions, principles, and practices. This is no less true for the United States, which often is misidentified as the paradigmatic liberal constitutional order. Historical and critical scholarship, including recent studies of law under racial capitalism, provide reason to identify American law as a dual state in which legal forms that govern property ownership, contract relations, and civil liberties of free citizens differ from the more illiberal, authoritarian legal forms that rule over subaltern populations, particularly racialized, low-wage workers, Indigenous populations, the poor, immigrants, and women. This dual state, we argue, did undergo changes to adopt more procedurally liberal, professional, overtly deracialized legal forms after World War II, but these changes masked more than tamed the continuing illiberal, authoritarian violence that targeted marginalized citizens. While constantly changing, the American legal system is best understood not as a singular liberal order but instead as a hybrid system of mutually constitutive liberal and illiberal and authoritarian legal practices. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Infrastructures and Laws: Publics and Publicness

Infrastructures are technical-social assemblages infused in politics and power relations. They spur public action, prompting increased scholarly reference to the practices of infrastructural publics. This article explores the normative and conceptual meanings of infrastructures, publics, and infrastructural publics. It distills from political theory traditions of Hannah Arendt, Jürgen Habermas, and Nancy Fraser a normative ideal of publics composed of the persons subject to a particular configuration of power relations that may significantly affect their autonomy. Autonomy can be seriously affected not only by existing or planned infrastructures, with their existing or anticipating users and workers and objectors, but also by the lack of an infrastructure or by the terms of infrastructural exclusions, rationings, channelings, and fiscal impositions. Legal-institutional mechanisms provide some of the means for infrastructural publics to act and be heard, and for conflicts between or within different publics to be addressed, operationalizing legal ideas of publicness. These mechanisms are often underprovided or misaligned with infrastructure. One reason is the murkiness and insecurity of relations of infrastructural publics to legal publics constituted or framed as such by institutions and instruments of law and governance. We argue that thoughtful integration of infrastructural and legal scaling and design, accompanied by a normative aspiration to publicness, may have beneficial effects. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Advancing Socioeconomic Rights Through Interdisciplinary Factfinding: Opportunities and Challenges

The human rights movement is increasingly using interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, mixed-methods, and quantitative factfinding. There has been too little analysis of these shifts. This article examines some of the opportunities and challenges of these methods, focusing on the investigation of socioeconomic human rights. By potentially expanding the amount and types of evidence available, factfinding's accuracy and persuasiveness can be strengthened, bolstering rights claims. However, such methods can also present significant challenges and may pose risks in individual cases and to the human rights movement generally. Interdisciplinary methods can be costly in human, financial, and technical resources; are sometimes challenging to implement; may divert limited resources from other work; can reify inequalities; may produce “expertise” that disempowers rightsholders; and could raise investigation standards to an infeasible or counterproductive level. This article includes lessons learned and questions to guide researchers and human rights advocates considering mixed-methods human rights factfinding. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Parole Board Decision Making and Constitutional Rights

Parole board decision making has changed dramatically over the last century, mirroring broader trends in criminal punishment. Even though parole decisions affect the length of prison sentences and the US Supreme Court has safeguarded defendants’ rights during the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings, the court has largely declined to interfere in parole. After briefly surveying the historical evolution of parole in the United States, this article proceeds in two parts. First, the article analyzes Supreme Court cases involving sentencing and parole and discusses questions raised by those decisions. Second, the article examines modern studies of parole board decisions and highlights ethical and legal questions raised by the research. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Philanthrocapitalism and the Separation of Powers

This article discusses the rise of an approach to philanthropic giving known as philanthrocapitalism. I relate it to a new paradigm in management theory that has claimed that private profit making naturally aligns with improved public welfare. I show how growing belief in the inherent “compatibility” of corporate missions and public benefits has led to new laws and contributed to major shifts in how giving practices are structured and legitimated. The original point made in this article is that the philanthrocapitalist turn is more than simply an organizational change in the structure of different philanthropic institutions. Rather, the belief that profit-making and public welfare are naturally aligned also has significant, undertheorized implications for different principles in European-American legal traditions. The ascendancy of the philanthrocapitalist approach represents a subtle but profound displacement of belief in the need for democratic checks and balances on the use of public funds for private enrichment. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Algorithms and Decision-Making in the Public Sector

This article surveys the use of algorithmic systems to support decision-making in the public sector. Governments adopt, procure, and use algorithmic systems to support their functions within several contexts—including criminal justice, education, and benefits provision—with important consequences for accountability, privacy, social inequity, and public participation in decision-making. We explore the social implications of municipal algorithmic systems across a variety of stages, including problem formulation, technology acquisition, deployment, and evaluation. We highlight several open questions that require further empirical research. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

What Is Cultural Cognition, and Why Does It Matter?

By all accounts, we currently live in a polarized political state in which virtually every fact is contestable. From climate change to vaccine efficacy, people feel free to choose their own facts to support politically charged arguments. Partisans in every area of American life are unable to agree on the basic assumptions underlying political debate. Research on cultural cognition demonstrates that people's political and cultural commitments shape how they process information from news sources, scientists, and public officials, thereby dictating which policies they support and which ones they oppose. When partisan loyalties determine what evidence people will accept, political compromise becomes difficult or even impossible. All is not lost, however. Cultural cognition has a powerful influence, but facts are stubborn things. In some areas of public debate, facts and evidence have overcome political divides. Furthermore, an understanding of the influence of cultural cognition can facilitate remedies to partisanship. This article examines the research that demonstrates the extent of cultural influences on people's understanding of public debates, identifies the limits of cultural cognition, and describes the extent to which cultural cognition itself provides keys to breaking down partisan divides. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Protecting Basic Legal Freedoms: International Legal Complexes, Accountability Devices, and the Deviant Case of China

With a focus on legal and other organizational actors beyond the state, this article seeks to expand the theory of conditions under which legal occupations will mobilize to fight for basic legal freedoms within states. It elaborates the line of scholarship on legal complexes and political liberalism within states since the 17th century. First, we catalog harms that international organizations (IOs) of many kinds seek to protect in the more than 190 states in the world. Second, we elaborate the concept of an international legal complex (ILC) as a collective actor in the global struggle for basic legal freedoms. We illustrate these two steps with new data on China drawn from a wider project. We show what harms mobilize the ILC, international human rights organizations (IHROs) and an international governmental organization, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). We focus on accountability devices as tools differentially deployed by the ILC, IOs, and UNHRC in their efforts to influence the institutionalization of basic legal freedoms, an open civil society, and a moderate state in China. The illustrative case of China provides a framework for research and theory on all other countries. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Water Security and International Law

International law seeks to ensure water security and to prevent or resolve conflicts leading to water insecurity. This relationship is based on a hybrid framework comprising binding and nonbinding instruments. The multi-scalar dimensions of water (in)security are recognized, but further engagement is required. The link between international law and water (in)security is considered primarily through the lens of international water law, which focuses on transboundary (surface) watercourses. Groundwater—the other main source of water and determinant of water (in)security—receives little attention. Further, the traditional state-centric approach, with its emphasis on sovereignty and cooperation, remains the dominant paradigm despite some attempts to redefine it. Several other branches of international law present opportunities for expanding international law's engagement with the water security discourse. Finally, the climate change challenge requires a reconsideration of international law's approach to water (in)security while considering the global dimensions of water. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Replicability in Empirical Legal Research

As part of a broader methodological reform movement, scientists are increasingly interested in improving the replicability of their research. Replicability allows others to perform replications to explore potential errors and statistical issues that might call the original results into question. Little attention, however, has been paid to the state of replicability in the field of empirical legal research (ELR). Quality is especially important in this field because empirical legal researchers produce work that is regularly relied upon by courts and other legal bodies. In this review, we summarize the current state of ELR relative to the broader movement toward replicability in the social sciences. As part of that aim, we summarize recent collective replication efforts in ELR and transparency and replicability guidelines adopted by journals that publish ELR. Based on this review, ELR seems to be lagging other fields in implementing reforms. We conclude with suggestions for reforms that might encourage improved replicability. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.