Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKThis article is the first comprehensive scholarly analysis of South Carolina's landmark education reform legislation, the Education Improvement Act (EIA). Using the "T-formation" process used to attain passage of the EIA as a prototype, the author evaluates the efficacy of nonadjudicative approaches to school reform, as against the impact litigation model of achieving systematic change in public education. While the latter strategy has been favored by public interest advocates since the advent of Brown v. Board of Education and the Rights Revolution, the author argues that nonadjudicative processes are more likely than impact litigation to yield effective outcomes in certain localities. In fact, the author argues, the nonadjudicative "T-formation" process used to persuade the South Carolina legislature to enact the EIA has much in common with other alternative dispute resolution processes that have been used with much success, including the direct action strategy used by activists to persuade Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. The author identifies three characteristics common to alternative dispute resolution processes such as direct action and the T-formation that are critical to their success, including the participation of a diversity of people and talents (particularly non-lawyers) in the process of conceiving educational rights and implementing remedial policies, and the use of informal procedures, or pressure and negotiation tactics, to achieve policy objectives."

"This volume provides a critical roadmap through the major historical sources of legal semiotics as we know them today. The history of legal semiotics, now at least a century old, has never been written (a non-event itself pregnant with semiotic possibility).  As a consequence, its sources are seldom clearly exposed and, as word, object and meaning change, are sometimes lost. They reach from an English translation of the 1916 inaugural lecture of the first Chair in Legal Significs at the Amsterdam University, via mid 20th century studies on “property” or “contract,” to equally fascinating essays on contemporary semiotic problems produced by former students of the Roberta Kevelson Semiotics Roundtable Seminar at Penn State University 2012 and 2013. Together, the materials in this book weave the fabric of semiotics and significs, two names for the unfolding of semiotics in law and legal discourse at least until the second half of the 20th century, and both of which covered a lawyer’s focus on sign and meaning in law.  The latter is embedded within the cultural imperatives of the civilization that gave these terms meaning and made them an effective tool for the dissection of law, its reconstitution as an instrument to be used by the lawyer to advance the interests of her clients, and for judges as a means to restructure language as a narrative of law whose power could bend behavior to its strictures. Legal semiotics has become an indispensible part of the elite lawyer’s toolkit and a fundamental approach to analysis of legal texts. Two previous volumes published in 2011 and 2012 explored the conceptual, methodological and epistemological progress in the field of legal semiotics, the modern forms of semiotics study, and the mechanics of meaning making processes by lawyers. Yet the great lessons of semiotics requires a focus on the origins of the concepts and frameworks that would become contemporary legal semiotics, its origins as an object of the consciousness of meaning making—one whose roots, as lessons for the oracular conversations of law, are expanded in this volume."