法律优先权在中国的深化:利用政府法律援助复员职工及其倡导者

Aaron Halegua
{"title":"法律优先权在中国的深化:利用政府法律援助复员职工及其倡导者","authors":"Aaron Halegua","doi":"10.1163/25427466-20220001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nFor over two decades, China has implemented a “legal preemption” strategy of encouraging workers to enforce their legal rights through litigation in order to preempt their tendency toward collective action. During most of this period, there was some space for unlicensed “barefoot lawyers” and labor nongovernmental organizations (ngo s) to provide meaningful assistance to workers by representing them in this litigation process. This article argues that even those limited openings for civil society participation in this area have narrowed as China’s legal preemption strategy has deepened: the government has sought not only to steer workers into the litigation process but also to control who represents them in that process and which tactics they may use. Specifically, the government ramped up its own legal aid programs, in which licensed lawyers beholden to the state represent workers, in order to squeeze out unregulated barefoot lawyers and labor ngo s. The article describes how and why this was done. The article then considers the implications of this transition for workers seeking legal representation and the future of China’s labor ngo s.","PeriodicalId":135002,"journal":{"name":"China Law and Society Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Deepening of Legal Preemption in China: Using Government Legal Aid to Demobilize Workers and their Advocates\",\"authors\":\"Aaron Halegua\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/25427466-20220001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nFor over two decades, China has implemented a “legal preemption” strategy of encouraging workers to enforce their legal rights through litigation in order to preempt their tendency toward collective action. During most of this period, there was some space for unlicensed “barefoot lawyers” and labor nongovernmental organizations (ngo s) to provide meaningful assistance to workers by representing them in this litigation process. This article argues that even those limited openings for civil society participation in this area have narrowed as China’s legal preemption strategy has deepened: the government has sought not only to steer workers into the litigation process but also to control who represents them in that process and which tactics they may use. Specifically, the government ramped up its own legal aid programs, in which licensed lawyers beholden to the state represent workers, in order to squeeze out unregulated barefoot lawyers and labor ngo s. The article describes how and why this was done. The article then considers the implications of this transition for workers seeking legal representation and the future of China’s labor ngo s.\",\"PeriodicalId\":135002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"China Law and Society Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"China Law and Society Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/25427466-20220001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China Law and Society Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/25427466-20220001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

二十多年来,中国实施了一项“法律优先”战略,鼓励工人通过诉讼来行使他们的合法权利,以防止他们采取集体行动的倾向。在这段时间的大部分时间里,没有执照的“赤脚律师”和劳工非政府组织(ngo)有一些空间通过在诉讼过程中代表工人向他们提供有意义的援助。本文认为,随着中国法律优先战略的深化,民间社会参与这一领域的有限机会也在缩小:政府不仅试图引导工人进入诉讼程序,而且控制在这一过程中代表他们的人以及他们可能使用的策略。具体来说,政府加强了自己的法律援助项目,由受国家委托的执业律师代表工人,以排挤不受监管的赤脚律师和劳工非政府组织。这篇文章描述了这样做的方式和原因。然后,文章考虑了这种转变对寻求法律代表的工人和中国劳工非政府组织的未来的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Deepening of Legal Preemption in China: Using Government Legal Aid to Demobilize Workers and their Advocates
For over two decades, China has implemented a “legal preemption” strategy of encouraging workers to enforce their legal rights through litigation in order to preempt their tendency toward collective action. During most of this period, there was some space for unlicensed “barefoot lawyers” and labor nongovernmental organizations (ngo s) to provide meaningful assistance to workers by representing them in this litigation process. This article argues that even those limited openings for civil society participation in this area have narrowed as China’s legal preemption strategy has deepened: the government has sought not only to steer workers into the litigation process but also to control who represents them in that process and which tactics they may use. Specifically, the government ramped up its own legal aid programs, in which licensed lawyers beholden to the state represent workers, in order to squeeze out unregulated barefoot lawyers and labor ngo s. The article describes how and why this was done. The article then considers the implications of this transition for workers seeking legal representation and the future of China’s labor ngo s.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信