Doctoral Dissertation Research: Rights Mobilization in Comparative Perspective

集体法律动员在什么条件下发生？诉讼策略如何变化？回答这些问题的努力主要集中在积极动员，以及使用宪法诉讼的案例上。相比之下，拟议的研究提供了一个框架，用于审查“成熟”的宪法行动，但没有发生的地方。通过对诉讼和权利动员的比较研究，本研究考察了公民环境、资源景观和动员历史这三个因素如何影响法律策略。该项目将对一名研究生进行严格的、以经验为基础的定性方法培训，研究结果将有助于美国和国外围绕权利动员和宪政问题的政策辩论。该项目审查了集体合法动员的条件，重点关注非公民的一个特定群体：临时外国工人。登记在册的外来务工人员（也被称为外来务工人员）的法律动员很少见，尽管在香港和以色列，外来务工人员曾对宪法提出过挑战，但在加拿大和美国这样的国家，这种情况并不常见，因为它们在促进影响诉讼策略以主张权利方面有着更长的历史。是什么迫使在香港的外籍劳工提起法律诉讼？加拿大和美国的客工在法律策略上有何不同？利用公民身份和移民研究、法律和社会变革理论以及社会运动奖学金，该项目采用两对比较的方法，比较了加拿大、美国和香港三个国家的背景，即多伦多和香港的家庭佣工和美国和加拿大的农业工人。该研究采用定性案例研究方法，分析法院判决、法律和政策，并对倡导组织、维权律师和tfw进行深入访谈。

Under what conditions does collective legal mobilization occur and how do litigation strategies vary? Efforts to answer these questions focus mainly on positive mobilization, cases in which constitutional litigation is used. The proposed study, by contrast, offers a framework for examining sites "ripe" for constitutional action but where it did not occur. Conducting a comparative study of litigation and rights mobilization, this research examines how three factors impact legal strategies: the citizenship environment, resource landscape, and past history of mobilization. The project will train a graduate student in rigorous and empirically-grounded qualitative methods, and the findings will contribute to policy debates in the United States and abroad around issues of rights mobilization and constitutionalism. The project examines the conditions for collective legal mobilization by focusing on a particular group of non-citizens: temporary foreign workers (TFW). Legal mobilization by documented TFWs, also called guest workers, is rare, though guest workers have pursued constitutional challenges in Hong Kong and Israel, but not in countries like Canada and the United States with a longer history of fostering impact litigation strategies to claim rights. What compelled guest workers in Hong Kong to bring a legal challenge? How and why do guest workers in Canada and the US differ in their legal strategies? Drawing on citizenship and immigration studies, law and social change theory, and social movement scholarship, the project compares three national contexts, Canada, United States, and Hong Kong, using two pairwise comparisons, domestic workers in Toronto and Hong Kong and agricultural workers in the US and Canada. The research takes a qualitative case-study approach, analyzing court decisions, laws, and policies, and conducting in-depth interviews of advocacy organizations, activist lawyers, and TFWs.