法律动员专题介绍

IF 0.9 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Jeff Handmaker
{"title":"法律动员专题介绍","authors":"Jeff Handmaker","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huac068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n For many of us who study, or practice legal mobilization, the image of a duck-rabbit can be regarded as a metaphor of the very different world views and vocabularies that legal scholars and legal practitioners as well as social scientists and social activists use in explaining and practising law-based advocacy. Conventional, siloed approaches by academics and practitioners alike are common, though hardly desirable. We feel that rather than ask which vocabulary is more important, it is imperative to focus on the process of how people can understand each other, irrespective of the language and terms they are using. Moreover, we are curious why it is important to make such distinctions in conceptualizing and analysing the context of law-based advocacy and the many forms that legal mobilization adopts.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction to the legal mobilization special focus\",\"authors\":\"Jeff Handmaker\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jhuman/huac068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n For many of us who study, or practice legal mobilization, the image of a duck-rabbit can be regarded as a metaphor of the very different world views and vocabularies that legal scholars and legal practitioners as well as social scientists and social activists use in explaining and practising law-based advocacy. Conventional, siloed approaches by academics and practitioners alike are common, though hardly desirable. We feel that rather than ask which vocabulary is more important, it is imperative to focus on the process of how people can understand each other, irrespective of the language and terms they are using. Moreover, we are curious why it is important to make such distinctions in conceptualizing and analysing the context of law-based advocacy and the many forms that legal mobilization adopts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Human Rights Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Human Rights Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huac068\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huac068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于我们许多研究或实践法律动员的人来说,鸭兔的形象可以被视为法律学者和法律从业者以及社会科学家和社会活动家在解释和实践基于法律的倡导时使用的截然不同的世界观和词汇的隐喻。学术界和从业者的传统、孤立的方法很常见,尽管很难令人满意。我们觉得,与其问哪个词汇更重要,不如关注人们如何理解彼此的过程,无论他们使用的语言和术语如何。此外,我们感到好奇的是,为什么在概念化和分析基于法律的宣传的背景以及法律动员所采取的许多形式时,做出这样的区分很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Introduction to the legal mobilization special focus
For many of us who study, or practice legal mobilization, the image of a duck-rabbit can be regarded as a metaphor of the very different world views and vocabularies that legal scholars and legal practitioners as well as social scientists and social activists use in explaining and practising law-based advocacy. Conventional, siloed approaches by academics and practitioners alike are common, though hardly desirable. We feel that rather than ask which vocabulary is more important, it is imperative to focus on the process of how people can understand each other, irrespective of the language and terms they are using. Moreover, we are curious why it is important to make such distinctions in conceptualizing and analysing the context of law-based advocacy and the many forms that legal mobilization adopts.
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
80
×
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