Negotiating proximity:expert testimony and collective memory in the trials of environmental activists in France and the United Kingdom

This article analyzes the role of expert witness testimony in the trials of social movement actors, discussing the trial of the "Kingsnorth Six" in Britain and the trials of activists currently mobilising against airport construction at Notre Dame des Landes in western France. Though the study of expert testimony has so far overwhelmingly concentrated on fact-finding and admissibility, the cases here reveal the importance of expert testimony not simply in terms of legal argument, but in "moral" or political terms, as it reflects and constitutes movement cognitive praxis. In the so-called climate change defence presented by the Kingsnorth Six, I argue that expert testimony attained a "negotiation of proximity," connecting different types of contributory expertise to link the scales and registers of climate science with those of everyday understanding and meaning. Expert testimony in the trials of activists in France, however, whilst ostensibly able to develop similar bridging narratives, has instead been used to construct resistance to the airport siting as already proximate, material, and embedded. To explain this, I argue that attention to the symbolic, as well as instrumental, functions of expert testimony reveals the crucial role that collective memory plays in the construction of both knowledge and grievance in these cases. Collective memory is both a constraint on and catalyst for mobilisation, defining the boundaries of the sayable. Testimony in trials both reflects and reproduces these elements and is a vital explanatory tool for understanding the narrativisation and communication of movement identities and objectives. © 2013 The Author. Law & Policy © 2013 The University of Denver/Colorado Seminary.

Adjusting to institutional realities: the 2006 NGO law and its effects on civil society in Russia

Key findings: The paper investigates the impact that the legislative changes of 2006 had on civil society in Russia. This legislation has change the regulatory environment in which civil society actors such as Third Sector Organisations operate. Using the past development of civil society organisations as well as insights about how the institutional environment influences this article illustrates: - the undemocratic nature and motivation of the law and how it exploits the structural weaknesses of civil society - how Third Sector Organisations rationalise and translate the legislative changes into their organisational realities and how this changed or did not change their behaviour - the shift in state-civil society relations away from liberal co-existence into more hierarchical arrangements were Third Sector Organisations are subordinated to the state. These trends have far reaching implications for civil society. The empirical evidence shows that state now manages civil society to meet its own political ends. It also shows that organisations in the field welcome the more engage and directive nature of the Russian state. Why is this important? What does it mean for business or other users? Are there policy implications? The research is important as it shows how Third Sector Organisations have reacted to the legislative changes. Further it provides a basis for interpretation of the potential future development of civil society. Additional it highlights how the continuous process of democratisation in transition economies sometimes might come unstuck. In particular donor agencies will need to consider these trends when disturbing funding to Third Sector Organisations.

Corporate coalitions and policy making in the European Union:how and why British American tobacco promoted "better regulation"

Over the past fifteen years, an interconnected set of regulatory reforms, knownas Better Regulation, has been adopted across Europe, marking a significant shift in theway that European Union policies are developed. There has been little exploration of the origins of these reforms, which include mandatory ex ante impact assessment. Drawing on documentary and interview data, this article discusses how and why large corporations, notably British American Tobacco (BAT), worked to influence and promote these reforms. Our analysis highlights (1) howpolicy entrepreneurs with sufficient resources (such as large corporations) can shape the membership and direction of advocacy coalitions; (2) the extent to which "think tanks" may be prepared to lobby on behalf of commercial clients; and (3) why regulated industries (including tobacco) may favor the use of "evidence tools," such as impact assessments, in policy making. We argue that a key aspect of BAT's ability to shape regulatory reform involved the deliberate construction of a vaguely defined idea that could be strategically adapted to appeal to diverse constituencies.We discuss the theoretical implications of this finding for the Advocacy Coalition Framework, as well as the practical implications of the findings for efforts to promote transparency and public health in the European Union.