Trafficking in Law: Cause Lawyer, Bureaucratic State and Rights of Human Trafficking Victims in Thailand

被引:6
作者
Munger, Frank W. [1 ]
机构
[1] New York Law Sch, New York, NY 10013 USA
来源
ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW | 2015年 / 39卷 / 01期
关键词
human rights; human trafficking; Thailand; cause lawyer; UNITED-STATES;
D O I
10.1080/10357823.2014.990355
中图分类号
K9 [地理];
学科分类号
0705 ;
摘要
In this case study of a young, Thai "cause lawyer", advocacy for human rights is considered in context. The most important elements of that context are the path of development of Thai political and legal institutions, globalisation of law, and the networks of relationships that penetrate the state. The case study shows that human rights advocacy by NGO lawyers can adapt creatively to unpromising conditions under which courts provide little access or oversight. At the same time, the case study raises profound questions about the ultimate independence of cause lawyers when the state must be made a partner in order to establish the authority of law needed to make human rights advocacy possible. The ambiguity of the lawyer's position is apparent from the relative ineffectiveness of her interventions and her growing moral authority on behalf of best practices under law. Her position suggests the limitations on law imposed by the underpinnings of the Thai state itself.
引用
收藏
页码:69 / 87
页数:19
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
Abel Richard., 1998, CAUSE LAWYERING, P69
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1969, POLITICS REFORM THAI
[3]  
[Anonymous], LAW POVERTY CRITICAL
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1999, LAW CAPITALISM POWER
[5]  
Baker Chris., 2005, HIST THAILAND
[6]  
Boonmongkon Pimpawun, 2003, LIVING EDGES CROSS B, P161
[7]  
Dezalay Yves., 2010, ASIAN LEGAL REVIVALS
[8]  
EMPOWER, 2003, REP EMP CHI MAI HUM
[9]  
Epp C.R., 2009, Making rights real: Activists, bureaucrats and the creation of the legalistic state
[10]   Comparative sociology of law:: Legal fields, legal scholarships, and social sciences in Europe and the United States [J].
Garcia-Villegas, Mauricio .
LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION, 2006, 31 (02) :343-382