Laws, Judiciaries, and National Security Agencies: Advancing Theory and Concepts of Civil Society Laws

该奖项是NSF社会、行为和经济科学(SBE)博士后研究奖学金(SPRF)计划和SBE法律和科学计划的一部分。SPRF计划的目标是为学术界、工业界或私营部门和政府的科学职业生涯培养有前途的、早期职业博士水平的科学家。SPRF奖项包括在知名科学家的赞助下进行两年的培训，并鼓励博士后研究员进行独立研究。国家科学基金会致力于促进科学界所有阶层的科学家参与其研究方案和活动，包括那些来自代表性不足的群体的科学家；博士后阶段被认为是实现这一目标的专业发展的一个重要水平。每个博士后研究员都必须解决推动各自学科领域向前发展的重要科学问题。在埃默里大学杰弗里·K·斯塔顿博士的赞助下，这项博士后奖学金资助了一位研究政府如何以及为什么监管公民社会的早期职业科学家。人权界越来越关注全球各地对民间社会组织的法律打击或监管限制。标准的解释是，这些公民社会的法律和执法行动在开放、民主的社会中不太可能，而在不民主或威权的环境中更有可能。数据总体上符合这一预期，但也有相当数量的例外，数据显示，许多不民主的政权经常制定自由法律。在解释这些案例时，我们特别关注司法和国家安全机构，因为它们是改变和执行这些法律制度的参与者。这项研究在司法政治、政治经济学、民主化和发展、法律和政治机构、法律程序、公共政策和比较公共行政等领域的研究课题上做出了实质性贡献。其主要研究目标是审查司法机构如何通过法院裁决影响民间社会法律的演变。根据情况，法院有权宣布法律违宪，确定法规适当但执法行动不公正，或使执法行动和法律机构合法化。第二，分析几十年来安全机构在执行民间社会法律方面的作用。第三，在定性数据仓库上发布原始数据集，定性数据仓库是通过对该研究员早期研究中使用的法律语料库进行编码而创建的。这些目标是相互关联的，并依赖于混合方法的研究设计。办公桌代码主要来源材料收集自[一个国家]国家立法图书馆、法律和司法报告委员会以及法律和司法部。实地调查对[国家]法官培训和发展中心的教师进行了深入的访谈。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

This award was provided as part of NSF's Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Postdoctoral Research Fellowships (SPRF) program and SBE's Law and Science program. The goal of the SPRF program is to prepare promising, early career doctoral-level scientists for scientific careers in academia, industry or private sector, and government. SPRF awards involve two years of training under the sponsorship of established scientists and encourage Postdoctoral Fellows to perform independent research. NSF seeks to promote the participation of scientists from all segments of the scientific community, including those from underrepresented groups, in its research programs and activities; the postdoctoral period is considered to be an important level of professional development in attaining this goal. Each Postdoctoral Fellow must address important scientific questions that advance their respective disciplinary fields. Under the sponsorship of Dr. Jeffrey K. Staton at Emory University, this postdoctoral fellowship award supports an early career scientist investigating how and why governments regulate civil society. The human rights community has grown increasingly concerned with legal crackdowns or regulatory restrictions of civil society organizations (CSOs) around the globe. The standard explanation is that these civil society laws and enforcement actions are less likely in open, democratic societies and more likely in undemocratic or authoritarian settings. The data generally accord with this expectation but there is a non-trivial number of exceptions, and data show many undemocratic regimes routinely enact liberal laws. In explaining these cases, we give special attention to the judiciary and national security agencies as actors that change and enforce these legal institutions.The research makes substantive contributions to research topics in judicial politics, political economy, democratization and development, law and political institutions, legal processes, public policy, and comparative public administration. Its primary research objectives are to examine how the judiciary affects the evolution of civil society laws through court rulings. Depending on the context, courts have the power to declare laws unconstitutional, identify statutes as appropriate but enforcement actions unjust, or legitimize enforcement actions and legal institutions. Two, analyze the role of security agencies in the enforcement of civil society laws over a multi-decade period. Three, publish an original dataset on the Qualitative Data Repository created by coding a legal corpus used in the fellow's earlier research. These objectives are interconnected and rely on a mixed-methods research design. Deskwork codes primary source materials collected from [a country's] National Legislative Library, Commission on Laws and Judicial Reporting, and the Ministry of Laws and Justice. Fieldwork conducts in-depth interviews with instructors at [the country's] Centre for Training and Developing Judges.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.