Suchergebnisse

This paper examines sociologists' current interest in the topics of human rights and globalisation. Some descnbe a world where everyone has rights (or at least a modicum of rights), because we are all human, and we all interact and communicate with one another in a global environment which will (it is argued), result in greater toleration and recognition of differences. In contrast, this paper emphasises the political instability of rights in a world characterised by vast economic inequalities which does not fit neatly into some of the visions of international or global community being proposed. Rather than the inevitability of rights discourse, I argue that it is the force of law that demands human problems be cast in the language of rights and rights language is legal language. Nonetheless, there has been relatively little attention paid by sociologists to the institutions, especially courts, for example, that will recognise and enforce those rights designated as human rights. The paper closes with some suggestions for further sociological endeavour in this regard.

Recent cases in the United States and Australia have catapulted surrogacy into the forefront of debates and public policy regarding new procreative technologies, even though gestating and birthing a baby for another woman does not necessarily involve artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. Feminists have condemned commercial surrogacy because it borders on baby selling and exploits women. Similar criticism has appeared in the mass media, but these forums, as well as the medical profession, have considered noncommercial surrogacy as more acceptable because of the absence of monetary exchange. Using two cases of surrogacy, this article argues that the distinction between commercial and altruistic surrogacy is socially constructed rather than based on self-evident or intrinsic differences. Both types of surrogacy involve the application of pervasive gender norms specifying that women's motivations to have children should be based on emotion, selflessness, and caring, not on self-interest, financial incentives, or pragmatism. Applying these norms renders commercial surrogacy deviant, but altruistic arrangements more acceptable. However, the article's central argument is that both types of agreement can entail exploitation, the denial of the birth mother's rights, and the severe reduction of her autonomy.

Over the past 20 years or so, magistrates courts in Australia have undergone significant change, in particular, separation from the public service and credentialization, indicating greater professionalization. One important reason for separating the magistracy from the public service was to establish magistrates' independence as judicial officers, a distinctive form of professional autonomy. Drawing on a national study of magistrates and their courts, this article investigates the impact of separation from the public service and credentialization on magistrates' occupational location, and considers other dimensions of professionalization, specifically occupational status and prestige. While the professionalization of magistrates has increased, it can also be seen as incomplete. Some magistrates are dissatisfied with their autonomy, especially in relation to workload, and there is some dissatisfaction with their perceptions of the prestige and standing of their judicial office, especially in comparison with judges in the higher courts.

This article examines the judgecraft required when judicial officers actively manage the time pressures created by long and unpredictable case lists. It considers the implications of this time management for the legitimate exercise of judicial authority. In particular, we focus on the strategy of altering the temporal sequence of the list by standing matters down and recalling them later in the list. This strategy, especially when initiated by the judicial officer, is analysed in light of the temporal goals of getting through the list on the day and moving cases along towards final resolution, and the ideological and practical requirements of legitimate judicial authority within the adversary system. The article is based on a court observation study of the general criminal list, concentrating on the role of the presiding judicial officer — the magistrate — in the lower courts of Australia. The research demonstrates that magistrates exercise considerable judgecraft which achieves temporal goals and can create space for a more engaged and therefore more legitimate decision-making process; however, their capacity to do so is limited by the judicial role and the roles allocated to others by conventional adversarial norms and practices.

Relatively little attention has been paid to lower courts' capacity to bring about social change, despite the fact that most citizens who come into contact with the judicial system will have their case considered (and most likely only considered) by these courts. Often these citizens experience a range of problems that are social in origin, including precarious employment, welfare dependence, financial hardship, and various health problems, including mental health and drug dependency. Magistrates courts must respond to social change and its human fallout and, in so doing, can contribute to progressive social change in a local, personal, and incremental way.