Justice suspended: Rethinking institutions, regimentation, and channels from a human rights law perspective

Abstract

AbstractThis article analyzes institutions as sites for political and social change by looking beyond regimentation and fixedness as the central discursive features of institutionalization. Drawing on research at the European Court of Human Rights—one of the world's most extensive human rights courts—I analyze how human rights actors redeploy normative institutional logics through creative approaches to institutional categories. I argue that lawyers and advocates working within the Court and Convention system naturalize and fix boundaries of law and politics and use that distinction to activate an excess of potential meanings and intertextual connections in legal judgments. This involves using institutional affordances to keep cases open and structure collaborative waiting. These strategies allow people to mutually inhabit open‐ended relationships to texts in intentional ways. In so doing, lawyers and activists defer resolving legal judgments—until new coalitions take political power, there are generational shifts in attitudes or shifts in geopolitical power arrangements that render state actors subject to diplomatic pressure. Analyzing how people improvise, learn, and teach others to manage institutional channels and excess opens up the black box of institutionality as a site for social transformation.