'Tied visa' regimes are labour migration policies that condition migrants' visas on employment with a particular employer, thus restricting their access to the labour market. This article considers how, under such regimes, control by the state shapes control by employers, and investigates the resemblance between official migration control policies and private means of control and coercion, amounting to forced labour and trafficking. The discussion includes the theoretical analysis and empirical consideration of a case study: the Israeli tied visa regime, regulating migrant workers and Palestinian workers. The consideration of two groups of non-citizen workers, subject to different but related regimes, enables a novel analysis of the coercive impact of common labour migration policies, and of the justifications offered for such policies. The Israeli Supreme Court demonstrated some commitment to constitutional principles protecting non-citizens, but later withdrew from these principles and justified tied visas on the grounds that they serve the perceived public interest.

This article looks at the development of the regulation of traditional herbal medicines in the European Union (EU) context and its effects in the United Kingdom (UK). Drawing on socio-legal encounters with science and technology studies (STS), it explores how UK and EU stakeholders have struggled to regulate herbal products, and suggests that in order to tackle growing concerns about their safety, emerging EU legislation built on socio-technical imaginaries of 'tradition'. We argue that in doing so, the law also reshaped herbal medicines in the UK, rewriting their histories and potential futures by fostering new practices of herbal medicine making that sit precariously on the boundaries of what is lawful. Through an empirical exploration of the everyday landscape of herbal medicine in the UK, this article shows how the label of 'tradition' embedded in the new legislation transformed and unsettled the existing material practices and relationships that had underpinned herbal and traditional medicine.

In this conceptual article, we propose that legal professional decision makers' transformation of narratives in court (encoding) influences their emotional attunement to the stories at hand. First, we argue that the process of encoding is linked to the strict demand for dispassion in legal settings. Second, we introduce three techniques that regulate the emotional processes at play during the encoding of law narratives: , , and . Demarcation and fragmentation produce emotional distance from narratives and their associated emotions, while proximation refers to the deliberate calibration of emotional attunement to law stories to enable legal decision making. Demarcation and fragmentation are sustained by background emotions of ease and interest when stories align with legal requirements, versus disinterest and irritation when 'too many' details are introduced. Proximation is regulated through the epistemic emotions of doubt and certainty. By scrutinizing the subtle emotions involved in legal encoding, we problematize the ideal of judicial dispassion.

Initially the subject of widespread consensus, legislative and policy responses to COVID-19 are increasingly provoking predictable reactions. Right and left are united by concern that essential freedoms are being eroded by a state utilizing the opportunity of the pandemic to make a power grab. Focused on the Coronavirus Act 2020, this article takes a more cautious approach, suggesting that the law should be understood not as the product of a hierarchical state but as a demonstration of the 'statelessness' of the contemporary state. It examines the Act with particular focus on open justice, adult social care, and Business Improvement Districts. Reading this unique piece of legislation through the lens of the stateless state reveals the complexities, ambiguities, and contestations within contemporary policy making. Dismissing the Act as unnecessarily authoritarian is an insufficiently nuanced response; furthermore, this exploration of the law allows us to develop and complicate scholarship on the stateless state.

What contribution can rhetoric make to socio-legal studies? Though now a byword for deception and spin, rhetoric was long identified with the very substance of law and politics. Latterly radical scholars have foregrounded an understanding of law as rhetoric in their polemics against legal formalism, but it needs to be complemented by a critical perspective which goes beyond simple revivalism, taking account of rhetoric's own blind spots, inquiring into the means by which some speakers and listeners are privileged and others excluded or silenced. The critical potential of legal rhetoric is tested here through a review of the developing law on mental capacity and the best interests of people with disabilities in England and Wales. Much of what is at stake there is properly grasped in terms of a politics of speech: who is addressed, who can speak, who must speak, and how are they represented in judicial and media discourse.

Between 1935 and 1985, Irish law criminalized the sale and importation of condoms. Activists established illegal markets to challenge the law and alleviate its social consequences. They distributed condoms through postal services, shops, stalls, clinics, and machines. Though they largely operated in the open, their activities attracted little direct punishment from the state, and they were able to build a stable network of medical and commercial family planning services. We use 30 interviews conducted with former activists to explore this history. In doing so, we also examine the limits of 'illegality' in describing acts of everyday resistance to law, arguing that the boundaries between legal and illegal, in the discourses and practices of those who sought to challenge the state, were shifting and uncertain. In turn, we revisit 'illegality', characterizing it as an assemblage of varying selectively-performed political practices, shaped by complex choreographies of negotiation between state and non-state actors.

This article explores the utility of actor-network theory (ANT) as a tool for socio-legal research. ANT is deployed in a study of the evolution of divided regulatory responsibility for tobacco and medicinal nicotine (MN) products in the United Kingdom, with a particular focus on how the latter came to be regulated as a medicine. We examine the regulatory decisions taken in the United Kingdom in respect of the first MN product: a nicotine-containing gum developed in Sweden, which became available in the United Kingdom in 1980 as a prescription-only medicine under the Medicines Act 1968. We propose that utilizing ANT to explore the development of nicotine gum and the regulatory decisions taken about it places these decisions into the wider context of ideas about tobacco control and addiction, and helps us to understand better how different material actors acted in different networks, leading to very different systems of regulation.

International evidence suggests that in advanced welfare states the abuse of parents, most particularly mothers, by their (most frequently male) adolescent children is increasingly prevalent. In the United Kingdom, however, child-to-mother abuse remains one of the most under-acknowledged and under-researched forms of family violence. Although it is an issue shrouded in silence, stigma, and shame, the authors' work in the youth justice sphere, focusing on interventions to deal with anti-social behaviour, suggests that adolescent violence toward mothers is a topical and prevalent issue. We identify different ways of conceptualizing it in the policy realms of youth justice, child welfare, and domestic violence. The behaviour of both child/young person and mother is constructed in ways which inform the assignment of blame and responsibility. The paper highlights the silence that surrounds the issue in both the policy and wider academic spheres, hiding the failure of service providers to respond to this very destructive form of intimate interpersonal violence.

United Kingdom government policy to increase social security claimants' entry to the labour market through conditions attached to unemployed, sickness and incapacity benefits now includes additional measures to activate particular groups such as lone parents and drug users. The latter are a prime target because of their high level of dependency on benefits and because social security rules are seen as having the potential to modify the behaviour of individuals with a lifestyle regarded as being at odds with the moral obligations of citizenship and incompatible with the government's realization of its wider economic and social goals. There are strict procedures for the identification of drug-user claimants, enabling additional conditions to be attached to their benefit rights. This article discusses the general trend in benefit reform towards increased conditionality and evaluates the reforms affecting drug users, considering human rights and other implications. It concludes by reflecting on the status of conditional rights to social security as social rights.

In 2004 the Association of British Insurers (ABI) issued its second Statement of Best Practice on HIV and Insurance. This prohibited use of the "gay question" (employed by some underwriters in application forms for life insurance to identify heightened risk of infection with HIV), in response to growing criticism that the practice was actuarially unreliable, unfair to gay men, and unnecessary, given the availability of alternative "behaviour-based" risk criteria. While the overhaul of this controversial practice is clearly a victory for gay (male) identity politics, this paper argues that the interests of gay men seem to have dominated at the expense of a more far-reaching critique of the industry's evaluation of infection risk. It contends that a more radical (or "queerer") challenge is needed which can better understand and address the injustices created by criteria for appraising risk of infection that still remain in place.

"Housing" - the practical provision of a roof over one's head - is experienced by users as "home" - broadly described as housing plus the experiential elements of dwelling. Conversely, being without housing, commonly described as "homelessness", is experienced not only as an absence of shelter but in the philosophical sense of "ontological homelessness" and alienation from the conditions for well-being. For asylum seekers, these experiences are deliberately and explicitly excluded from official law and policy discourses. This article demonstrates how law and policy is propelled by an "official discourse" based on the denial of housing and the avoidance of "home" attachments, which effectively keeps the asylum seeker in a state of ontological homelessness and alienation. We reflect on this exclusion and consider how a new "oppositional discourse" of housing and home - taking these considerations into account - might impact on the balancing exercise inherent to laws and policies concerning asylum seekers.

The strategy for NHS modernization in England is privileging individual choice over collective voice in the governance of healthcare. This paper explores the tension between economic and democratic strands in the current reform agenda, drawing on sociological conceptions of embeddedness and on theories of reflexive governance. Building on a Polanyian account of the disembedding effects of the increasing commercialization of health services, we consider the prospects for re-embedding economic relationships in this field. An analysis is provided of the limits of the present legal and regulatory framework of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in establishing the democratic and pragmatist conditions of social learning necessary for effective embedding. We show how the attainment of reflexive governance in the public interest is dependent on such conditions, and on the capacities of patients and the public to contribute to debate and deliberation in decision making, including on fundamental policy questions such as how services are provided and by whom.

French Polynesia is an overseas collectivity of France whose kinship practices accommodate transgender parenting through the involvement of gender-variant (mahu) people in childrearing, including as adoptive parents in customary (faamu) adoption. While the existence and visibility of gender-variant people in French Polynesia is well documented, there is no literature on their involvement in parenting, reflecting a more general dearth of research on LGBT parenting in non-Western contexts. Drawing on the author's fieldwork in French Polynesia, this article fills this gap. The article also discusses the negative implications of France's ambivalence towards LGBT parenting for French Polynesian gender-variant parents and the children they raise.

Designed by Beveridge and built by Attlee's post-war Labour government, the welfare state was created during the 1940s. Britain has been seen – in domestic debates and internationally – as a world first: the place where both the idea and the practice of the welfare state were invented. I draw together comparative welfare state analysis with law and society scholarship (previously largely developed in isolation from one another) – as well as using British political cartoons as a source – to develop a revisionist historical critique of this conventional wisdom. First, the British welfare state has always been comparatively parsimonious. Second, the idea of the welfare state seems to have its origins outside the United Kingdom and this terminology was adopted relatively late and with some ambivalence in public debate and scholarly analysis. Third, a large body of socio-legal scholarship shows that robust ‘welfare rights’ were never embedded in the British ‘welfare state’.

This paper reports on the findings from a large-scale study of public attitudes to inheritance law, particularly the rules on intestacy. It argues that far from the assumption that the family' is in terminal decline, people in England and Wales still view their most important relationships, at least for the purposes of inheritance law, as centred on a narrow, nuclear family model. However, there is also widespread acceptance of re-partnering and cohabitation, producing generally high levels of support for including cohabitants in the intestacy rules and for ensuring that children from former relationships are protected. We argue that these views are underpinned by a continuing sense of responsibility to the members of one's nuclear family, arising from notions of sharing and commitment, dependency and support, and a sense of lineage.

This article examines the reliance placed on expert evidence in prosecutions of health professionals for gross negligence manslaughter, where juries must decide whether conduct goes beyond civil negligence and constitutes the crime of involuntary manslaughter. It argues that the test for liability is vague and examines some of the consequences of this. Given the vagueness of the offence, jurors are likely to place great reliance on expert medical evidence. Little is known about how experts negotiate the legal process, empirically speaking: how they approach their task, how they view their role as expert witnesses, and the attitudes, biases, and beliefs that may underpin their testimony. Drawing on the experiences and perceptions often medical experts, this article explores how experts manage the vagueness inherent in the task of interpreting and applying gross negligence. Experts appear to go beyond offering purely medical opinion and enjoy engaging with law and the legal process.

How is jurisdiction transferred from an individual's biological body to agents of power such as the police, public prosecutors, and the judiciary, and what happens to these biological bodies when transformed from private into public objects? These questions are examined by analysing bodies situated at the intersection of science and law. More specifically, the transformation of ‘private bodies’ into ‘public bodies’ is analysed by going into the details of forensic DNA profiling in the Dutch jurisdiction. It will be argued that various ‘forensic genetic practices’ enact different forensic genetic bodies'. These enacted forensic genetic bodies are connected with various infringements of civil rights, which become articulated in exploring these forensic genetic bodies’‘normative registers’.

On 1 April 2005, with the implementation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004, United Kingdom law was changed to allow children born through gamete donation to access details identifying the donor. Drawing on trends in adoption law, the decision to abolish donor anonymity was strongly influenced by a discourse that asserted the ‘child's right to personal identity’. Through examination of the donor anonymity debate in the public realm, while adopting a social constructionist approach, this article discusses how donor anonymity has been defined as a social problem that requires a regulative response. It focuses on the child's ‘right to personal identity’ claims, and discusses the genetic essentialism behind these claims. By basing its assumptions on an adoption analogy, United Kingdom law ascribes a social meaning to the genetic relatedness between gamete donors and the offspring.

Biobanks are increasingly seen as new tools for medical research. Their main purpose is to collect, store, and distribute human body materials. These activities are regulated by legal instruments which are heterogeneous in source (national and international), and in form (binding and non-binding). We analyse these to underline the need for a new model of governance for modern biobanks. The protection initially ensured by respect for fundamental rights will need to focus on more interactions with society in order to ensure biobanks' sustainability. International regulation is more oriented on ethical principles and traces the limits of the uses of genetics, while European regulation is more concerned with the protection of fundamental rights and the elaboration of standards for biobanks' quality assurance. But is this protection adequate and sufficient? Do we need to move from the biomedical research analogy to new forms of legal protection, and governance systems which involve citizens?

In 2007, the European Union adopted a lex specialis, Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), a new legal category of medical product in regenerative medicine. The regulation applies to ATMPs prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process. It also provides a hospital exemption, which means that medicinal products not regulated by EU law do not benefit from a harmonized regime across the European Union but have to respect national laws. This article describes the recent EU laws, and contrasts two national regimes, asking how France and the United Kingdom regulate ATMPs which do and do not fall under the scope of Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007. What are the different legal categories and their enforceable regimes, and how does the evolution of these highly complex regimes interact with the material world of regenerative medicine and the regulatory bodies and socioeconomic actors participating in it?