Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T01:01:45.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repeat Players, the Law, and Social Change: Redefining the Boundaries of Environmental and Labor Governance Through Preemptive and Authoritarian Legality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Annabel Ipsen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Powerful corporations leverage the law to shape the regulatory environments in which they operate. A key strategy for achieving this is litigation. I ask under what conditions corporations litigate, and specifically, what happens when two repeat players, transnational agribusiness firms and local governments, face each other in court. I compare outcomes of two cases—Hawaii and Arica, Chile—documenting how different sociopolitical contexts and legal systems shape how actors engage the law. Interviews with firm managers, unions, government officials, lawyers, and advocacy organization leaders and document analysis reveal that firms seize on existing institutional norms and politics to define their localized legal strategies. Through strategic legalism, a defensive legal strategy that is outcome-oriented and context-specific, firms accomplish legal compliance and political containment of their opposition. In Hawaii, firms rely on preemptive legality, a strategy that moves controversial issues like pesticide safety from one domain of democratic politics to another that is largely incontestable because it is preempted by a higher authority. In Chile, firms use authoritarian legality, an approach that draws on authoritarian structures and policies within the state, to sway legal outcomes. These cases reveal the mechanisms that corporations draw on to institutionalize their power advantages through the law, offering a typology for future scholars to better understand how the strategic behavior of corporations shapes regulatory outcomes.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 201 - 232
Copyright
© 2020 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I would like to thank Sida Liu, Joe Conti, Jane Collins, and Alexandra Huneeus for commenting on earlier drafts of this article. A special thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and the editors for their guidance. I take sole responsibility for any errors. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Dissertation Improvement Grant number 1334375; the Robert F. and Jean E. Holtz Center for Science & Technology Studies; the Latin American, Caribbean, and Iberian Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; and the Graduate School and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with funding from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.

References

References

ACTA N° 372 Sobre Plan Laboral 1979. Chilean Nacional Library of Congress 25 June 1979. https://www.bcn.cl/historiapolitica/buscar/index.html?terminos=ACTA+N%C2%B0+372+Sobre+Plan+Laboral+1979 (last accessed 26 March 2018).Google Scholar
Affron, Si. 2017. “Maui vs. Monsanto: The battle over GMOs in Hawaii,” The Politic 29 March 2017. http://thepolitic.org/maui-vs-monsanto-the-battle-over-gmos-in-hawaii/ (last accessed 19 April 19 2018).Google Scholar
Albiston, Catherine. 1999. “The Rule of Law and the Litigation Process: The Paradox of Losing by Winning.” Law & Society Review 33: 869–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Carl. 1998. Against the Current: Privatization, Water Markets, and the State in Chile. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bravo-Hurtado, Pablo. 2013. “Hacia los Precedentes en Chile: Reforma Procesal Civil y Fuentes del Derecho.” Revista Chilena de Derecho 40: 549–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esteban, Buendía and Matías, Ricardo. 2017. “Las Adecuaciones Necesarias por parte del Empleador en la Huelga.” Revista Chilena de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social 8: 153–63.Google Scholar
Caamaño Rojo, E and Ugarte Cataldo, José Luis. 2008. “Negociación Colectiva y Libertad Sindical, un Enfoque Crítico,” Editorial Legal Publishing. Chile.Google Scholar
Coglianese, Cary. 1997. “Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking.” Duke Law Journal 46: 1255–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conti, Joseph. 2010. “Learning to Dispute: Repeat Participation, Expertise, and Reputation at the World Trade Organization.” Law & Social Inquiry 35: 625–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couso, Javier. 2005. “The Judicialization of Chilean Politics: The Rights Revolution that Never Was.” In The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America, edited by Angell, A., Sieder, R., and Schjolden, L. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Díaz García, Iván. 2015. “Objetivo del recurso de unificación de jurisprudencia laboral.” Ius et Praxis. 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Lauren. 2016. Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Civil Rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren, Leachman, Gwendolyn, and McAdam, Doug. 2010. “On Law, Organizations, and Social Movements.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6: 653–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Lauren and Suchman, Mark. 1999. “When the ‘Haves’ Hold Court: Speculations on the Organizational Internalization of Law.” Law & Society Review 33: 941–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 2006. “Planet of the APs: Reflections on the Scale of Law and its Users.” Buffalo Law Review 53: 1369–417.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the Haves Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9: 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Mary. 2017. Authoritarian Legality in China: Law, Workers, and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Robert. 2014. “Afterward.” In Why the Haves Come out Ahead: The Classic Essay and New Observations, edited by Galanter, M., 110–33. New Orleans, Louisiana: Quid Pro Books.Google Scholar
Grossman, Joel B., Kritzer, Herbert M., and Macaulay, Stewart. 1999. “Do the “Haves" Still Come out Ahead?” Law & Society Review 33: 803–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez Crocco, Francisca and Gutiérrez Crocco, Ignacio. 2017. “Movilización Legal: Una Estrategia Sindical con Efectos Ambivalentes.” Izquierdas (Noviembre) 200–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter. 2013. In Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era, edited by Lamont, Michèle. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Terence. 2009. “Recursivity of Global Normmaking: A Sociolegal Agenda.” Annual Review of Law & Social Science 5: 263–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Terence and Carruthers, Bruce. 2007. “The Recursivity of Law: Global Norm Making and National Lawmaking in the Globalization of Corporate Insolvency Regimes.” American Journal of Sociology 112: 1135–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, David. 2001. Spaces of Capital: Toward a Critical Geography. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haynie, Stacia. 1995. “Resource Inequalities and Regional Variation in Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court, 1961-1986.” Political Research Quarterly 48: 371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Xin and Su, Yang. 2013. “Do the Haves Come out Ahead in Shanghai Courts?” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10: 120–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendley, Kathryn, Murrell, Peter, and Ryterman, Randi. 1999. “Do Repeat Players Behave Differently in Russia? Contractual and Litigation Behavior of Russian Enterprises.” Law & Society Review 33: 833–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbink, Lisa. 2008. “Agents of Anti-Politics: Courts in Pinochet's Chile.” In Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes, edited by Ginsburg, Tom and Moustafa, Tamir. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilbink, Lisa. 2007. Judges beyond Politics in Democracy and Dictatorship: Lessons from Chile. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humeres, Hector and Halpern, Cecily. 2015. La Unificación de la Jurisprudencia Laboral. Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
Huneeus, Carlos. 2014. La democracia semisoberana: Chile después de Pinochet. Santiago, Chile: Taurus.Google Scholar
Ipsen, Annabel. 2017. “Dimensions of Power in Regulatory Regime Selection: Shopping, Shaping and Staying.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107: 849–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ipsen, Annabel. 2016. “Manufacturing a Natural Advantage: Capturing Place-Based Technology Rents in the Genetically Modified Corn Seed Industry.” Environmental Sociology 2: 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Robert. 2001. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Robert and Axelrad, Lee, eds. 2000. Regulatory Encounters: Multinational Corporations and American Adversarial Legalism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kraus, Martine. 2000. “Licensing Biologics in Europe and the United States.” In Regulatory Encounters: Multinational Corporations and American Adversarial Legalism, edited by Kagan, Robert and Axelrad, Lee. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, David and Stiglitz, Joseph, eds. 2013. Law and Economics with Chinese Characteristics: Institutions for Promoting Development in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert. 2003. “The Government Gorilla: Why Does Government Come out Ahead in Appellate Courts?: Do the Have's Still Come out Ahead?” In Litigation: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead?, edited by Herbert Kritzer and Susan Silbey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert and Silbey, Susan, eds. 2003. In Litigation: Do the “Haves” Still Come out Ahead?. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Maguire, Peter H. 2000. Law and War an American Story. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Brent, Steven Picou, J., and Schlichtmann, Jan. 2004. “Technological Disasters, Litigation Stress, and the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.” Law & Policy 26: 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCormick, Neil and Summers, Robert S. 1997. Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Ashgate/Dartmouth.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 2006.“Law and Social Movements: Contemporary Perspectives.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2: 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, Mary-Hunter and King, Brayden. 2018. “Order in the Court: How Firm Status and Reputation Shape the Outcomes of Employment Discrimination Suits.” American Sociological Review 83: 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merryman, John Henry. 1969. The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Western Europe and Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Moustafa, Tamir. 2014. “Law and Courts in Authoritarian Regimes.” Annual Review of Law & Social Science 10: 281–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vega, Muñoz, Andrea, Javiera. 2016. “Función del Recurso de Unificación de Jurisprudencia con Ocasión del Reemplazo de los Trabajadores en Huelga.” M.A. Thesis in Labor Law and Social Security. University of Chile.Google Scholar
Frost, Portilla, Ignacio, Camilo. 2016. “El Derecho a Huelga en la Reforma Laboral Chilena: Análisis desde el Derecho Internacional, la Doctrina y la Jurisprudencia.” Thesis for Law Degree. University of Chile.Google Scholar
Rajah, Jothie. 2012. Authoritarian Rule of Law: Legislation, Discourse and Legitimacy in Singapore. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Kenneth. 1998. Deepening Democracy?: The Modern Left and Social Movements in Chile and Peru. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Gregory. 2009. “How Business Shapes Law: A Socio-Legal Framework.” Connecticut Law Review 42: 147–83.Google Scholar
Shain, Yossi and Linz, Juan. 1992. “The Role of Interim Governments.” Journal of Democracy 3: 73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siavelis, Peter. 2016. “Crisis of Representation in Chile? The Institutional Connection.” Journal of Politics in Latin America 8: 61–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidel, Mark. 2008. Law and Society in Vietnam: The Transition from Socialism in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Gordon. 2008. “Singapore: The Exception that Proves Rules Matter.” In Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes, edited by Tom Ginsburg and Tamir Mostafa. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald and Sheehan, Reginald. 1992. “Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals.” American Journal of Political Science 36: 235–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmer, John, Johnson, Susan W., and Sarver, Tammy A. 2007. “Does the Lawyer Matter? Influencing Outcomes on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Law and Society Review 42: 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmer, John, Songer, Donald, and Bowie, Jennifer. 2016. “Party Capability and the US Courts of Appeals: Understanding why the “Haves” Win.” Journal of Law and Courts 4: 65–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2014. “Institutional and Political Sources of Legislative Change: Explaining how Private Organizations Influence the Form and Content of Consumer Protection Legislation.” Law & Social Inquiry 39: 973–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2013. “How The ‘Haves' Come out Ahead in the Twenty-First Century.” De Paul Law Review 62:519–554. UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2013–149.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2009. “The Privatization of Public Legal Rights: How Manufacturers Construct the Meaning of Consumer Law.” Law & Society Review 43: 527–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ugarte, José Luis. 2015. “Cocinando con Valdés: reemplazo a la carta,” El Mostrador 17 August 2015. http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/opinion/2015/08/17/cocinando-con-valdes-reemplazo-a-la-carta/ (last accessed 22 March 2018).Google Scholar
Wilse, Rebekah (2014) “Pesticide and GMO Corporations Spend Big in Hawaii,” The Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch 11 June 2014. http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/06/12506/pesticide-and-gmo-corporations-spend-big-hawaii#sthash.UIvFXjRI.dpuf (last accessed 18 July 2018).Google Scholar
Weiland, Paul S. 1999. “Preemption of Local Efforts to Protect the Environment: Implications for Local Government Official.” Virginia Environmental Law Journal 18: 467–506.Google Scholar
Winn, Peter. 2004. Victims of the Chilean Miracle. Durham. N.C. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb. 2015. “Invisible (and Visible) Lobbying: The Case of State Regulatory Policymaking.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 15: 322–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb. 2014. “Reconsidering Agency Capture during Regulatory Policymaking.” In Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and how to Limit it, edited by Carpenter, Daniel and Moss, David A. New York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

La Inspección Provincial del Trabajo de Arica y Parinacota v. Semillas Pioneer Chile. Rol N° 7239- 2013, Recurso de Unificación de Jurisprudencia (Sup Ct. 2013).Google Scholar
La Inspección Provincial del Trabajo de Santiago v. RGM Mallas de Alambre. Rol N° 15293–2014, Recurso de Unificación de Jurisprudencia, Resolution N° 68497 (Sup Ct. 2014).Google Scholar
Syngenta Seeds v. County of Kauai. 842 F.3d 669 (9th Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Atay v. County of Maui. 842 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. Cty. of Maui. 111 F. Supp. 3d 1088, 1114 (D. Haw. 2015).Google Scholar