Socio-legal Studies

Rethinking Property through Resilience: Lessons from Rural China

/ zuozhenbin / Leave a comment

By Professor Ting Xu, Essex Law School

On 16 May 2025, Professor Ting Xu presented at the Open University’s online legal histories conference, Land and Property Beyond the Centenary, marking 100 years since the transformative property law reforms of 1925 in England and Wales. The centenary offered a rich opportunity to reflect not only on English legal history, but also to look beyond it—to consider alternative models of property governance across time and place.

Professor Xu’s presentation, ‘Beyond 1925: Households, Property, and State Governance—Comparative Perspectives from Rural China’, grew out of her recent research on Resilience, Institutional Change, and Household Property in Rural China. This work draws on Chinese legal history, interdisciplinary scholarship on resilience, and Martha Fineman’s vulnerability theory to rethink how we understand property systems, particularly in contexts that don’t conform to liberal assumptions.

For a field so often shaped by Western, individualist models, rural China offers a compelling case that challenges many taken-for-granted ideas in property law. In her presentation, Professor Xu asked: what sustains property systems under pressure? And what might English legal history gain by looking East?

Revisiting the 1925 Reforms

The 1925 property law reforms in England and Wales were undoubtedly revolutionary. They sought to simplify and modernise a fragmented land system, advancing values such as clarity and certainty of title and ease of transfer—cornerstones of a liberal, market-oriented property regime. Yet, even within this liberal framework, English law has long recognised informal interests, especially within the household. Trusts over the family home, for example, remain one of the most contested and evolving areas in property law.

As Robert Ellickson has argued, the household operates largely through informal norms, rather than strict legal rules. These norms—based on intimacy, trust, and shared routines—are efficient and reduce the need for legal intervention. But the limits of this view become clear when we account for issues of dependency, vulnerability, and inequality—particularly in household governance.

Feminist scholars such as Martha Fineman have pushed back against the liberal ideal of the autonomous, self-sufficient property holder. Fineman’s vulnerability theory reminds us that all human beings experience dependency and vulnerability at various points in their lives, and that resilience—our ability to navigate life’s inevitable challenges—is deeply shaped by institutions and their willingness to support us.

Figure 1: Vulnerable Subjects and Layered Institutional Support

A Shift in Perspective: Property as Adaptive Governance

Inspired by Fineman and Ellickson, but also moving beyond them, Professor Xu’s presentation invited the audience to shift how we think about property. Rather than focusing only on legal certainty or formal title, what if we view property as a form of adaptive governance? And what if, instead of seeing informality as a deviation or a problem, we understand it as a site of institutional adaptation (and innovation)—particularly in systems that have long relied on collective, state-controlled, or non-liberal traditions?

To explore these questions, Professor Xu turned to the rural Chinese household and its role in property governance during the 20th century. From imperial systems of collective responsibility, through Maoist collectivisation, to the post-1978 rural reforms, the household has served as a key governance unit adapted to profound ecological, socio-economic, and political transformations.

The model that crystallised in the late 1970s and 1980s was the Household Responsibility System (HRS). Under this system, rural land remained collectively owned, but the rights to use and benefit from land were contracted to individual households. These households gained control over key production decisions—like what crops to grow or how to invest, while still being part of a broader collective governance framework.

The HRS was not a spontaneous market-driven reform. It was an institutional innovation shaped by history, political negotiation, and grassroots experimentation. It was also a response to crisis: the failures of collectivised agriculture and the need to revive rural productivity without dismantling state oversight altogether.

Figure 2: HRS—Layered Governance

Resilience Over Certainty

In legal terms, the HRS is striking. It doesn’t offer private ownership in the liberal sense. Nor does it offer full certainty or enforceability by Western standards. Yet it has endured, evolved, and adapted across decades of political and socio-economic transformation.

From a resilience theory perspective—drawn from ecological and institutional scholarship—this makes perfect sense. Systems survive not because they are static or clear-cut, but because they can bend without breaking. They absorb shocks, adapt to new conditions, and renegotiate relationships among actors and institutions.

In her presentation, Professor Xu argued that property should be understood as a socio-ecological system—an evolving interaction among resources (e.g., land and housing), governance structures, and legal rights and entitlements (she calls the interaction of these three elements ‘a resilience triad’). As discussed above, what is often ignored is the governance aspect—one key component of property. In the Chinese context, the household plays a central role in this socio-ecological system. Beyond being a mere private unit, it is a resilient institution, from lineage structures and collective responsibility systems to contemporary contracting practices.

Photo: A Farmer Working in the Field

The Gendered Dimensions of Informality

However, as Fineman’s work reminds us, we must be cautious not to romanticise informality or resilience. Systems that appear stable at the surface can mask deep inequalities.

One of the clearest examples in the Chinese case is gender. Although households contract with the collective, land contracts are often issued in the name of the male head. Women’s rights to land are frequently tied to marital and registration status. When households divide or dissolve—due to divorce or migration, for instance—women may lose access to land altogether.

This parallels, in some ways, the difficulties faced in English co-ownership disputes, where informal arrangements and non-financial contributions (such as caregiving) can be difficult to assert legally. In both contexts, legal informality without institutional support leaves vulnerable members at risk.

Resilience, then, must be understood not simply as survival or adaptation, but as something that must be supported—and made just—through institutional design. This is where Fineman’s idea of the responsive state becomes important. Whether in liberal or non-liberal contexts, property systems that work in practice are those that can support resilience equitably, not just functionally.

What Can English Legal History Learn from China?

Presenting this work at the Open University conference sparked excellent conversations. While many in the audience were not experts on China, they immediately saw the relevance of these ideas to broader legal questions. What happens to property under conditions of uncertainty—whether ecological, economic, or political? How do communities maintain access and control when formal systems fall short?

There is no one-size-fits-all model. But the Chinese experience shows that property systems can be stable without being rigid, and adaptive without relying entirely on individual title. It also reminds us that households, communities, and informal institutions are not remnants of the past, but active sites of governance in the present.

As we reflect on 100 years since the 1925 property reforms, this moment invites us to think globally and historically. The liberal vision of property—rooted in autonomy, clarity, and marketability—has achieved many successes. But it is not the only way property works. And in an era of climate stress, displacement, and inequality, it may not always be the most resilient one.

Looking Ahead

Professor Xu’s research continues to explore how property systems evolve under pressure, and what we can learn by comparing across legal traditions and historical trajectories. She is particularly interested in how non-liberal or hybrid institutions help sustain access to land and resources—not only in China, but also in other parts of the Global South and beyond.

Legal history offers us more than a story of how we got here—it offers tools for reimagining where we might go next. As we face global challenges that affect land, livelihoods, and governance, property law will need to become more adaptive, more relational, and more responsive.

Rethinking property through resilience is one way to start.

Decoding Historical Power Struggles and Shifting Paradigms in Assisted Death: In Conversation with Dr. Rees Johnson

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Assisted death remains a complex and polarising issue. On one hand, proponents highlight the need to preserve dignity in dying calling for a more compassionate response to the law. Opponents object, emphasising concerns about diminishing the sanctity of human life, the risks of introducing a slippery slope, and highlighting negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. The debate around assisted death is staggering which begs the question: what more could be said of the problem of assisted death that has not been said 100 times over?

For Dr Rees Johnson, there is an important underlying context that is essential to future reform attempts. Dr. Johnson is a Lecturer at the Essex Law School. His research interests include end-of-life matters and the racial/cultural contexts of end-of-life care. He teaches Medical Law and Property Law. Rees recently concluded his PhD: Situating Medical Power within the Modern (Legal) History of Assisted Death: 1936 – Present.

The Research Visibility Team interviewed Dr. Rees Johnson to find out more about his thesis and research.

In layman’s terms, what is the problem your research aims to fix and how would you describe your contribution to your subject area?

My PhD was borne out of frustration. The frustration I had was with the state of the academic debate and how I felt the way the problem of assisted death was being debated. After conducting an extensive literature review, I felt that the conventional framing of assisted death as a legal and/or ethical problem created a cyclical effect. Ethical and legal discourses have been deployed to advocate reform; and yet the same ethical and legal discourses have been inverted to argue the opposite. Rinse and repeat for nearly 100 years.

Considering this circular argumentation, how could the law progress when it is hindered by uncertainty and indeterminacy? What is the function of this uncertainty and indeterminacy? Who stands to benefit from this uncertainty and indeterminacy? What strategies have been deployed to preserve this uncertainty and indeterminacy? These were some of the questions I felt needed answering.

By adopting a critical historical analysis inspired by Michel Foucault, I examined the legal history of assisted death to determine whether something else was going on beneath the conventional framing.

I came to realise that the legal developments of assisted death have been constrained by an underlying tension: the tension between preserving medical power and authority on the one hand; and subverting it on the other.

My PhD therefore mapped out the ways this tension has played out. Using a historical frame, it charted the interest-driven strategies, interpretive struggles, and discursive practices of institutional actors (judges, lawyers, academics, medical professionals etc.) as well as the impact of these on the legal development of assisted death.

If your thesis was a front-page story in a newspaper, what would be the headline?

Facing the Challenge of Medical Power: A Call for Assisted Dying Law Reform

What inspired you to delve into the intersection of law, ethics, and power dynamics within the context of assisted death?

My background is in environmental law, having done Law with Environmental Science LLB at Northumbria University in 2014 and an LLM in Sustainable Development and Environmental Regulation at Newcastle University in 2016. I wrote my LLM dissertation on the legal rights of nature and the need for a pragmatic middle-ground.

During the LLM, I was introduced to the work of Michel Foucault when I studied ‘Critical Geopolitics’ in the Politics Department at Newcastle University, following a three-month trip to Israel in 2015. This introduction changed my worldview about pretty much everything – especially the law, and the way law supports and fosters power relations to the detriment of those at the margins.

After the LLM, I received a £30,000 funding package from Newcastle University to develop a SmartBot that could write a will for the purpose of estate planning. It was here that I became interested in death and dying. This seems like an unusual trajectory, but the PhD is simply a meeting of these two worlds.

Your thesis employs a critical historiographical method inspired by Michel Foucault. What key insights does this approach offer that traditional legal and ethical frameworks might overlook?

I think adopting a method of legal analysis that moves away from concentrating on formal modes or structures of power and authority is important. Foucault teaches us to consider the underlying, subtle ways in which power is exercised that are not immediately obvious, such as through discursive practices like medicalisation and expertise. In parliamentary debates or case law on assisted dying, it is difficult to unsee how politicians and judges help to legitimise and uphold these techniques.

The methodological approach was also helpful in that it allowed for the explication of power relations inherent in the development of legal knowledge and how this unfolds over time. Legal knowledge is not neutral but historically contingent and situationally negotiated through a constellation of power relations. This helps us to adopt a more critical approach to the development of legal knowledge and legal ideas.

Your thesis suggests the need to draw a line as a matter of policy to avoid conferring too much power and authority to the medical profession in the context of assisted death. Could you elaborate on potential alternative approaches or policies that could genuinely empower patients while ensuring a balance between autonomy and medical authority? What considerations should future proposals take into account?

In my PhD, I argue that the reason the law has not changed is that current and historic proposals would undermine the status quo of medical power and authority.

The issue the medical profession has had with reforming the law is that reformers have proposed bringing in third parties, such as referees/judges, into proceedings. As long as these safeguards remain, the dominant medical culture will remain opposed where external involvement risks undermining its professional autonomy. These are too explicit terms, however. Often you will hear about the need to preserve the doctor-patient relationship which seems noble. However, the foundation of this power relationship is trust; and trust is essential to maintaining the professional autonomy of the medical profession. It is from this autonomy that the profession derives its power and authority. 

To circumvent this, I drew upon the work of Suzanne Ost and Margaret Brazier to propose de-medicalising assisted death to enable people to have an assisted death beyond the grip of medical power and authority. I see no reason why assisted death needs to be within the domain of medical practice. There are important policy/social reasons why we might not want to extend the power of the profession to encompass power and authority over death itself. For that reason, I would reject the need to strike a balance between patient autonomy and medical authority.

Reflecting on your research journey, what challenges did you encounter in examining the historical contingency and power relations surrounding assisted death?

The project was a huge undertaking. The debate in Britain is nearly a century old. There have been a lot of shifts in the debate, its discourses, and the range of institutional actors that have emerged within the debate at different historical points. Trying to capture this in 80,000 words meant I had to be very selective. A lot of my ‘darlings’ had to be killed, and so learning to let certain ideas or contexts go was difficult.

The biggest hurdle was attempting to incorporate Foucauldian philosophy into an ethico-legal analysis of assisted dying. I faced difficulties trying to convince others of the value or utility of my theoretical and methodological choices especially those who have fed into the conventional frame.

My critical approach is not traditional within the bioethical intellectual space. Whilst others were saying assisted death is a legal problem, or an ethical problem, I was arguing that the frameworks of law and ethics occlude an underlying context –– that assisted death is better problematised as a problem of ideology, of power.

The preservation of medical power and authority is the root of the failure of past reform attempts. In knowing this, future reform attempts can concentrate their efforts on new points of resistance that can overcome the constraining effects of medical power and authority.

Now that you submitted your thesis, how do you plan to move forward in terms of your research?

Having examined the ways in which medical power and authority have shaped legal developments of assisted death, I am now keen to examine the other aspect of the power relationship: the patient.

I am interested in those patients who are more susceptible to the effects and constraints of medical power and authority.

Currently, I am exploring the racial and cultural contexts of assisted dying reform and how changes in the law might impact people of colour and, importantly, what we ought to do about this.

Elevate Your Academic Journey: SENSS and Essex Law School Unite for Excellence

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Image via Shutterstock

If you are an aspiring legal scholar seeking advanced training in law within a dynamic research environment that encourages innovation and interdisciplinary exploration, the SENSS Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School could be your gateway to an exciting academic journey.

What is SENSS?

The South and East Network for Social Sciences (SENSS), an ESRC-funded Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP), is dedicated to fostering innovative and inclusive social science research training and collaboration. Among the eight distinguished institutions comprising SENSS, the University of Essex plays a pivotal role as the coordinating institution.

SENSS provides fully-funded doctoral studentships, mentorship from global experts, personalised research methods training, and diverse placements as part of its Doctoral Training Partnership. These opportunities empower researchers to extend their social scientific skills beyond academia.

Here at the Essex Law School and Human Rights Centre, aspiring PhD students can apply for SENSS studentships, unlocking comprehensive support and collaborative excellence in their academic journey.

Why choose the Essex Law School?

Choosing where to pursue your doctoral training is a significant decision. At the Essex Law School, we have meticulously crafted an environment that champions excellence and fuels innovation. Here is why you should join us:

We are a research powerhouse. Our Law School has been ranked 3rd in the UK for research power in law according to the Times Higher Education research power measure (REF2021). Law at Essex is also ranked 47th in the THE World University Rankings, which show the strongest universities across the globe for key subjects (and 9th for UK Universities). This speaks volumes about the calibre of research conducted within our School. Our academic staff collaborates globally, working with the United Nations, the European Union, governments, and non-governmental organisations.

We believe in the power of interdisciplinary research. Our dynamic research clusters foster collaboration across diverse backgrounds, creating a vibrant intellectual space for innovative and stimulating legal exploration.

With expertise spanning diverse legal disciplines, our academics are the driving force behind the Law School’s excellence. Our faculty boasts exceptional scholars, providing intellectual leadership in key areas, including Human Rights Law, led by Dr. Andrew Fagan who is Director of the Human Rights Centre; International & Comparative Law led by Professor Yseult Marique, an associate member of the International Academy of Comparative Law; Private and Business Law, led by Professor Christopher Willett who also spearheads the Law, Business and Technology Interdisciplinary Hub; as well as Public Law & Sociolegal Studies, led by Professor Theodore Konstadinides, who is also a founder member of the Constitutional and Administrative Justice Initiative (CAJI).

Our academic leads are ready to guide you and link you with the ideal academic mentors.

Our research student community is central to our success. These talented individuals explore a broad range of exciting topics under expert supervision, forming a vibrant tapestry of ideas.

Image via Shutterstock

Our Essex Law Research Blog features Vanessa Topp, a SENSS-funded doctoral candidate at the Essex Law School & Human Rights Centre, who offers below her insights into the application process and provides valuable advice for prospective candidates.

Can you share your experience with the application process for the SENSS Doctoral Training Partnership and highlight how the partnership’s collaborative approach influenced your decision to apply? 

“I applied for the student-led studentship with SENSS, and throughout the application process, I received invaluable support from my supervisors and my department which allowed me to refine and greatly improve my proposal.”

“While the multiple rounds of review and steps involved in the application process initially felt somewhat intimidating and fast-paced, the ability to receive and implement feedback from several different perspectives was ultimately crucial to building a successful application.”

“There are several reasons why I was particularly drawn to SENSS. I am particularly excited to be a part of the SENSS network because it allows me to collaborate with academics from other institutions that are part of the DTP working on research relevant to my own and I look forward to participating in cross-institutional knowledge sharing.”

“I also appreciate the opportunities provided through SENSS to conduct fieldwork in collaboration with external partner organisations or to potentially participate in an overseas institutional visit at another university which I feel will lead to more meaningful and impactful research.” 

Reflecting on your successful application, what tips or insights would you offer to prospective candidates aiming to secure SENSS funding and maximise the opportunities offered by this collaborative platform of universities? 

“Start the process as early as possible so you can revise your application several times and be open to taking on board feedback, while also remembering that ultimately it is your project, and you have to be happy with the proposal you design.”

“The SENSS application contains a lot of different elements – not just the proposal – so make sure to take your time with these as well. The space to write your proposal in the application form is quite compact, so these other parts of the application form can provide an important opportunity to provide more information that you could not include in the proposal for space limitations; about your project, who you are as a candidate, and how you are the best fit to your project.” 

“SENSS is a collaborative network, so it is also important to look into what this means and to highlight what aspects you would like to participate in and what your contributions will be.”

Where can you find out more?

Explore the opportunities offered by the SENSS scholarships at the Essex Law School on our informative webpages. Discover eligibility criteria, application processes, and the outstanding benefits that await you by accessing the downloadable documents provided below.

For inquiries about legal research and the SENSS scheme, please contact Dr. Anil Yilmaz Vastardis, our Postgraduate Research Director. 

Specific questions about academic disciplines? Reach out directly to our dedicated Academic Leads (mentioned above) who can put you in touch with suitable supervisors.

Embark on your journey to become a world-leading scholar in law. Do not miss the chance to join SENSS at the Essex Law School, where innovation, excellence, and transformation define the doctoral experience.

Navigating Challenges and Solutions in Grandparental Rights: Insights from the 2023 Grandparents United for Children Conference

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Photo by Christian Bowen (via Unsplash)

The Grandparents United for Children Conference at Leeds Beckett Law School on 21 November 2023 saw a gathering of individuals passionate about addressing the challenges faced by grandparents who lose contact with their grandchildren.

The hybrid presentation by Dr. Samantha Davey of the University of Essex and Dr. Charlotte Bendall of the University of Birmingham on their research into mediation shed light on the complexities and potential solutions surrounding this issue.

Drs. Davey and Bendall delved into the intricacies of mediation, focusing on the formidable challenges encountered by grandparents in contact disputes. The discussion centred on the notable absence of explicit references to grandparents in the Children Act 1989, rendering them devoid of certain rights. This regulatory gap exposes the vulnerability of grandparental contact, with subsequent re-establishment proving to be particularly challenging.

Their interest extended towards a comprehensive examination of grandparents’ encounters with both court processes and mediation, drawing insightful comparisons between the two. A key objective was to gain an understanding of grandparents’ experiences and to explore avenues for improving the existing system.

Threads of Feeling
Each square stitched together by a grandparent estranged from their grandchild.

The event was organised by Tina Gallagher from Grandparents United for Children and chaired by Jasvinder Sanghera, a prominent advocate for women’s human rights. The conference provided an important platform for grandparents, academics, legal practitioners, and child welfare professionals to share their experiences and expertise.

The conference featured the perspectives of both grandparents and grandchildren. It also included a poignant and personal address from Jay Kontzle, an actor from the popular ITV soap opera Emmerdale Farm.

Jay’s heartfelt reflections on being raised by his maternal grandparents resonated deeply with the audience, reinforcing the importance of intergenerational relationships and how grandparents can influence the identity of their grandchildren.

The experience of a grandparent, estranged from her grandchild.
The experience of another grandparent diistant from their cherished grandchild
Another grandparent feeling disconnected from their grandchild

Overall, the Grandparents United for Children Conference was a success, fostering thought-provoking conversations, and serving as a catalyst for meaningful action to support grandparents and grandchildren facing these challenging circumstances.

Drs. Bendall and Davey are currently recruiting grandparents, mediators, and solicitors for a research study on their experiences of court and mediation. If you are interested or know someone else who would like to participate, please contact Dr. Davey at smdave@essex.ac.uk.

recruitment-poster-for-grandparentsDownload

From Judgment to Justice: Discussing the Implementation of International Judgments on Socio-Economic Rights in Johannesburg

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Dr. Casla’s visit to the South African Constitutional Court

By Dr Koldo Casla, Senior Lecturer in Law and Director of the Human Rights Centre Clinic

In the first week of November, I participated in a workshop on advancing the implementation of positive rulings on economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. The event took place in Johannesburg, South Africa, and it was jointly convened by Amnesty International and the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net). Taking stock of the discussion, some of us also held a meeting of the steering committee of the working group on strategic litigation of ESCR-Net.

The event gave us the opportunity to talk about specific examples of what is working and what not in strategic litigation around the world, with a particular focus on cases from Africa (South Africa, Kenya, Gambia and Malawi), but also from India (workers’ rights and the right to food), Canada (right to health of undocumented migrants), Ecuador (land rights of Sarayaku indigenous people) and Spain (evictions in the private rental sector).

The team deliberated on strategic approaches to address the challenges posed by the uncertainties associated with litigation and its enduring consequences. Emphasis was placed on the critical role of civil society in spearheading the identification of concerns and the implementation of judicial decisions.

We had the privilege of visiting the South African Constitutional Court, possibly the most important national court as regards the justiciability of socio-economic rights globally. The building is full of symbolism appealing to values of transparency, culture and accessibility of justice. It is built on top of the remains of a brutal prison of the apartheid regime. Gandhi and Mandela spent time there. The location is a powerful message about learning from the past to build a more promising future founded on the principles of the rule of law and human rights.

From the cells in the prison on Constitution Hill, where the Constitutional Court is located.

The occasion was also an opportunity to express solidarity with the Ogiek indigenous people in Kenya. Some of the community leaders were present at the workshop. Despite several rulings from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Ogiek have suffered repeatedly violations of their human rights, including further evictions from their ancestral land.

An action in solidarity with the Ogiek people of Kenya, who have suffered multiple evictions and other human rights violations, as documented by the African Commission and Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights.

At the event, I talked about the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) as a venue for strategic litigation on housing rights in Spain. The Optional Protocol on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was adopted in 2008 and entered into force in 2013. It allows individuals to lodge complaints in front of the CESCR against States Parties for violations of socio-economic rights. To this day, 26 countries have ratified this treaty. Spain was the third country to do so, the first one in Europe.

More than 90% of CESCR decisions concern Spain, and the vast majority of them are about the right to adequate housing. One of the most significant cases is Ben Djazia and Bellili v Spain (2017), where the CESCR made two big contributions to international human rights law: firstly, it established that the proportionality test applies to the private rental sector as well as the public one; and secondly, it ruled that the State had breached the principle of non-retrogression because in the background of the eviction there had been a large-scale sale of some 4,000 social housing units by regional authorities in Madrid to transnational real estate investment trusts.

Dr. Casla presented the Ben Djazia case at the workshop

Since 2019, Spain’s legislation has been amended several times, and some of those amendments have brought to life some of the recommendations of the CESCR. Not all recommendations have been taken onboard yet; in particular, the issues of progressive realisation and the adoption of a national plan have not been given due consideration.

However, judges are now given the opportunity to look at personal circumstances (while not obliged to do so), and there is an expectation of coordination between the judiciary and social services before an eviction is executed (but not a specific timeframe or duties on public authorities). Housing laws at regional as well as central/national levels have created additional duties for large landlords over small landlords, which the CESCR considers part of the proportionality test (López Albán v Spain, 2019).

The experience of strategic litigation on housing rights in Spain has taught us some valuable lessons.

Firstly, sometimes human rights progress comes from non-human rights litigation. In the case of Spain, the first major court victory was the Aziz case (2013), where the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that foreclosure procedures must give judges the chance to look for potential unfair terms in the contract, opening the door to a kind of proportionality test. This ruling was based on consumer law (EU 1993 Directive), not human rights law.

Secondly, recent legal developments in Spain are a reminder that parliaments can play a central role in the implementation of international human rights rulings. After all, hardly anything can beat securing a majority in parliament for human rights-friendly legislation.

Thirdly, recent developments also show that in federal or quasi-federal countries, regions can indeed learn from each other in a sort of laboratory for democracy. As I show in Chapter 5 of Spain and Its Achilles Heels, I would argue that this is precisely what happened between several of Spain’s regional legislative chambers between 2013 and 2017.

Finally, we must not make perfect the enemy of the good. Not all of the CESCR recommendations have been implemented in Spain. The situation is far from perfect. Even those that have been implemented have been implemented only to some extent. However, in the spirit of joyful advocacy, it is important to celebrate victories when they occur, including partial victories, even if we do not achieve everything we may hope for.

Listening to Young Voices: New Family Court Research

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Photo by Piron Guillaume on Unsplash

By Samantha Davey, Liz Fisher-Frank, Joanna Harwood and Jaime Lindsey

A new research project has been funded by the British Academy which will explore the voice of the child in private family law cases concerning allegations of child sexual abuse (‘CSA’). The aim is to draw on first-hand insights into the experience of children who had disclosed CSA during or in relation to private family court proceedings.

The project fills a gap by aiming to directly hear the voice of the child in family proceedings through narrative interviews. It will contribute to the evidence base regarding experiences of, and reform to, the family courts.  

This project draws upon a workshop held at the University of Essex School of Law in March 2021 with ESRC Impact Acceleration Account funding, which explored the voice of the child in private family law cases concerning allegations of CSA. This workshop highlighted the need for further research to obtain first-hand accounts of children’s experiences of the family court – accounts that are notably absent from the existing evidence base.

The project is led by Dr Jaime Lindsey at the University of Reading, with Co-Investigators Dr Samantha Davey and Dr Joanna Harwood from the University of Essex. We have also been supported by family law expert and Essex Law Clinic Director Liz Fisher-Frank and through training and consultancy provided by the Centre for Action on Rape and Abuse (CARA).

Why now?

This research into the family courts is important now, at a time when there have been several concerns raised about the family courts’ response to domestic and sexual abuse allegations in private law cases. For example, a recent report by the University of Manchester, in conjunction with SHERA Research Group, found that women suffered ‘serious health problems … as a result … of biased family court proceedings.’ Relatedly, the Ministry of Justice in their published report ‘Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases’ highlighted that ‘the voices of children experiencing domestic abuse and child sexual abuse are not sufficiently heard by the family courts’ (MoJ, 40). The Ministry of Justice report further noted that there are many reasons why victim-survivors of sexual abuse might have negative experiences. These may include the lack of resources, the way that the court works in a ‘silo’, lacking coordination with other organisations, and the adversarial approach of the court system which focuses on investigation rather than supporting survivors.

We know from evidence in other areas that victim-survivors of sexual abuse often recount sentiments of being silenced, misunderstood, or negatively judged, and often feel a sense of re-traumatisation from their courtroom experiences (Rape Crisis, 2023). The adversarial layout of court proceedings can sometimes exacerbate negative experiences, despite it being possible to make adjustments within the court system, such as allowing victims to give evidence through video links or behind screens.

The 2021 workshop, referred to above, demonstrated a need for research to facilitate the direct voice of child victim-survivors and to explore whether there is a need for reform in the law or court processes, shifting towards a child-centred approach to hearing the voice of the child where CSA allegations are raised in family courts.

Given the absence of evidence from children who have experienced family court processes, this research aims to record, through narrative interviews, the voices of those who experienced the family court as children and give them an opportunity to tell their stories directly through the research.

Contact details 

If you would like to know more about this planned research or would like to be kept informed as the research progresses, please contact the Project Lead, Dr Jaime Lindsey at j.lindsey@reading.ac.uk or Co-Investigator Dr Samantha Davey at smdave@essex.ac.uk.

Essex Law School Expert Praised in House of Lords for Work on Online Safety Legislation

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Photo by Marcin Nowak on Unsplash

Essex legal expert Lorna Woods has earned special recognition in the House of Lords thanks to her research and work supporting the landmark Online Safety Bill. The Bill successfully passed through Parliament and is now enshrined into law, having received Royal Assent on Wednesday 26 October 2023. The Act makes social media companies keep the internet safe for children and give adults more choice over what they see online.

Professor Woods has helped influence the bill after famously writing some of its founding principles on the back of a sandwich packet with the help of William Perrin, of the charity Carnegie UK, several years ago.

Professor Woods has continued to work with Carnegie throughout the last few years and provided expert advice to backbenchers and members of the House of Lords.

She was personally thanked following the final debate in the Lords by Lord Stevenson for her work on the bill.

Lord Clement-Jones added: “I pay my own tribute to Carnegie UK, especially Will Perrin, Maeve Walsh and Professor Lorna Woods, for having the vision five years ago as to what was possible around the construction of a duty of care and for being by our side throughout the creation of this bill.”

Professor Woods has become a high-profile commentator on the bill throughout its passage on Parliament, and recently recounted the “surreal moment “it was approved by the Lords in an interview with the BBC Online.

In a separate interview with Wired, Professor Woods responded to criticisms of the bill by insisting it would help protect the human rights of children being exploited and abused online.

She was also quoted in the New York Times’ own coverage of the Bill, and has also appeared on BBC Radio Five Live.

Professor Woods said: “The Bill is significant as it marks a move from self-regulation – where service providers decide what is safe design and whether to enforce their community standards – to regulation under which services are accountable for those choices.”

This story was first published on the University of Essex’s news webpages and is reproduced on the ELR Blog with permission and thanks. The story was edited to reflect the fact that the Bill received Royal Assent.

Unlock Your Potential: Join the CHASE Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School

/ essexlawresearch / 1 Comment

Are you an aspiring legal scholar with a hunger for advanced training in law and a thirst for a vibrant research environment that fosters innovation and interdisciplinary exploration?

If the answer is a resounding ‘yes,’ then the CHASE Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School could be your ticket to an exciting and transformative journey in the world of academia.

What is CHASE?

The Consortium for Humanities and the Arts South-East England (CHASE) is not just any doctoral training partnership; it is an AHRC-funded initiative that is carving out a path for the next generation of world-leading arts and humanities scholars.

Comprising nine prestigious institutions engaged in collaborative research activities, including an AHRC doctoral training partnership, CHASE is a gateway to an intellectually stimulating and supportive academic community. And we are proud to announce that the University of Essex is one of the esteemed members of this exceptional consortium.

Here at the Essex Law School and Human Rights Centre, our students and applicants to our PhD programme are eligible to apply for CHASE studentships and take advantage of the unparalleled training opportunities offered by this partnership.

CHASE is dedicated to supporting discipline-based projects, but what sets it apart is its specialisation in interdisciplinary research and emerging fields of study and creative practice. If you are looking to pioneer new methodologies, CHASE provides a great platform for your academic aspirations.

Moreover, CHASE does not just stop at academic prowess; it extends its reach to powerful partnerships with leading organizations in the creative and public sectors. This collaboration is a goldmine of opportunities for future CHASE scholars, providing a network of connections that few other programmes can match.

Why choose the Essex Law School?

The choice of where to embark on your doctoral training is not one to be taken lightly. At the Essex Law School, we have worked hard to create an environment that nurtures excellence, fosters innovation, and empowers our students to become leaders in their chosen fields.

Here is why you should consider joining us:

We are a research powerhouse. Our Law School has been ranked 3rd in the UK for research power in law according to the Times Higher Education research power measure (REF2021). This speaks volumes about the calibre of research conducted within our institution. Our academic staff collaborates with the United Nations, governments, human rights organizations, and corporations worldwide.

We believe that the best research happens at the intersection of various disciplines. This is why we encourage innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to legal research. Our research clusters bring together colleagues from different backgrounds to work on collaborative projects, creating a stimulating and diverse intellectual environment.

Our academics are the heart and soul of the Essex Law School. They bring a wealth of expertise across a wide range of legal disciplines. We are proud to have some remarkable scholars in the field, with particular strengths in areas of intellectual leadership, including Human Rights Law, led by Dr. Andrew Fagan who is Director of the Human Rights Centre; International & Comparative Law led by Professor Yseult Marique, an associate member of the International Academy of Comparative Law; Private and Business Law, led by Professor Christopher Willett who also spearheads the Law, Business and Technology Interdisciplinary Hub; as well as Public Law & Sociolegal Studies, led by Professor Theodore Konstadinides, who is also a founder member of the Constitutional and Administrative Justice Initiative (CAJI).

Our academic leads are more than willing to provide guidance and connect you with the right members of our academic staff.

Our thriving community of research students is at the heart of our success. These talented individuals investigate a broad range of exciting topics under the supervision of our academics, creating a rich tapestry of ideas and insights.

Image via Shutterstock

Where can you find out more?

Are you intrigued to explore what the CHASE Doctoral Training Partnership at the Essex Law School can offer you? Join us for an information session on the CHASE student-led studentship scheme on 18 October 2023, from 12:30-1:30 pm (UK Time), via Zoom. This is the perfect opportunity to learn more about eligibility, application processes, and the incredible benefits that await you.

For further details, eligibility criteria, and application procedures, please visit our web pages here. For questions relating to legal research and the CHASE scheme, please contact our Postgraduate Research Director, Dr. Anil Yilmaz Vastardis. If you have other specific questions about academic disciplines, do not hesitate to reach out to our academic leads (mentioned above) who are here to guide and inspire you on your academic journey.

Your journey to becoming a world-leading scholar in the field of law begins here. Do not miss this chance to be part of the CHASE Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School, where innovation, excellence, and transformation are the name of the game. Your future awaits – seize it with both hands!

Essex Law School Researcher’s New Book Nominated for Two Awards

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Photo by Mikołaj on Unsplash

Author Dr Jaime Lindsey from Essex Law School, researched mental capacity law in practice by observing Court of Protection hearings, reviewing court files, and conducting interviews with social workers, mediators and lawyers, in addition to theoretical and doctrinal analysis. 

The Court of Protection can make decisions about a person’s mental capacity and make best interests rulings on financial, health, or welfare matters for people who may lack the capacity to make their own decisions. 

This can include a range of decisions across a person’s life, including decisions about medical treatment, where to live, whether a person can have a sexual relationship or whether they can manage their finances. 

Analysing the court through a procedural justice lens, she concludes that procedural justice is not always secured for the person at the heart of Court of Protection cases, as they often do not participate, their experiential evidence is discounted and the court is not designed with the person at the centre of its practice. 

This impacts upon their ability to secure access to justice. 

Dr Lindsey’s book, Reimagining the Court of Protection: Access to Justice in Mental Capacity Law, outlines her main findings and goes on to make a case for reimagining the Court of Protection as an institution that better secures access to justice for its subjects, with specific recommendations for reform. 

The book has been shortlisted by the Socio-Legal Studies Association for the Hart SLSA prize for early career academics, and the Hart SLSA book prize 2023.

Dr Lindsey said: “I am delighted and honoured to have been shortlisted for two prestigious SLSA prizes for my book, Reimagining the Court of Protection. 

This is an area which impacts so many people daily and this book, looking at the realities of mental capacity law in practice drawing on empirical socio-legal research, shines a light on the work of this important jurisdiction.”

The winning book in each category will be announced at the annual SLSA conference in April.

This story was first published on the University of Essex’s news webpages and is reproduced on the ELR Blog with permission and thanks.

Reimagining the Court of Protection: Access to Justice in Mental Capacity Law

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

Image credit: Jared Craig unsplash.com

Dr Jaime Lindsey of Essex Law School has recently published a book titled Reimagining the Court of Protection: Access to Justice in Mental Capacity Law with Cambridge University Press. Dr Lindsey provides an original account of the workings of the Court of Protection as one of the first researchers authorized to observe hearings and access the court’s files. Using original empirical data, the book takes a socio-legal approach to understanding how the Mental Capacity Act operates in practice to achieve access to justice.

Dr Lindsey contributes to the call for the reform of this important court from a procedural justice perspective, to ensure a better experience for those who use it, and to meet the requirements of access to justice.

A piece detailing further information about this book was published on Cambridge Blog and can be found here.