Dr Jen Hendry
Lecturer in Jurisprudence
I completed my PhD in Law at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence (2009), before which I studied at the University of Glasgow (LLB Hons, 2002) and the University of Edinburgh (LLM, 2003). Before joining the School of Law in September 2009 I was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Tilburg Institute for Comparative & Transnational Law at Tilburg University.
I have been a visiting research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Department of Philosophy (2011) and the University of Arizona’s Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy (2013), and will be hosted as a visiting scholar by the University of Arizona's James E. Rogers College of Law during my sabbatical semester (January-July 2015).
My principal research interests are in the areas of social and legal theory and comparative socio-legal studies, specifically on legal pluralism, legal culture and spatial justice. I am currently writing on issues of legal translation and transfer, and am a principal investigator on a World Universities Network (WUN)-funded interdisciplinary international research network focusing on 'Spaces of Indigenous Justice'. I also write on systems theory and autopoiesis.
I am a member of the senior editorial board of the German Law Journal and of the executive of the UK Socio-Legal Studies Association (SLSA) where I serve as Social Media officer. I am also the Leeds University lead for the White Rose Doctoral Training Centre Socio-Legal Pathway.
I am the module coordinator for the level 3 core module Jurisprudence.
I currently supervise doctoral students working on issues of European Union legal integration and governance, international human rights, and Japanese legal culture. I am happy to consider potential students with projects in any of the research areas listed above.
The Diffusion of Law The Movement of Laws and Norms Around the World (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2015),
‘Governance, Proceduralisation and Justice: Some Challenges to the Legal Paradigm’, Law & Critique: : Special Issue on Governance, Civil Society & Social Movements, ed. by Blecher M and Hendry J, 19.3 (2008), 345-361,
In 1989, Rudolf Wiethoeltner alleged that we are witnessing a 'failure of law' in terms of its obligation to achieve 'just law'. This paradox at the very heart of law - in essence, the impossibility of the realisation of legal justice twinned with the law's inability to cease trying to attain this goal - has been accommodated to a degree by the utilisation of a proceduralist paradigm that relies upon the contingency of governance, but this is now coming under renewed scrutiny. This article will put forward three arguments in this respect. The first section will argue that the turn to governance and the resultant procedural paradigm are both consequences of the 'failure of law'; the second will point to the inherent weaknesses of the procedural paradigm that can be said to stem from this very failure; while the third will discuss some of the challenges issued to those still reliant upon the legal paradigm.
‘Unity in Diversity': Questions of (Legal) Culture in the European Union’, Journal of Comparative Law, 3.1 (2008), 289-294,
‘Kadi in Sight of Autopoiesis’, in Kadi on Trial A Multifaceted Analysis of the Kadi Trial, ed. by Avbelj M, Fontanelli F and Martinico G (Routledge, 2014), 63-76,
The long-running saga of the prominent Kadi case raises a variety of issues, not least the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)’s overt acknowledgment of the European Union (EU) as a ‘virtuous international actor’ (de Búrca 2009) in terms of rights protection, and the monism/dualism/pluralism issue in terms of global governance. This chapter will consider these from the standpoint of autopoiesis or ‘systems’ theory in order to present a fresh perspective on both legal-systemic unity and considerations of ‘justice’ vis-à-vis human rights.
‘Legal Comparison and the Im/possibility of Legal Translation’, in Comparative Law - Engaging Translation, ed. by Glanert S (Routledge, 2014), 87-103,
In this chapter, I propose that translation be conceptualised as both a lens and a frame for the critique of legal comparison. As such, the focus does not rest upon the technical/linguistic aspect of translation (Harvey 2002), important as it is, but rather upon considerations of context and meaning. It engages with (what I style) ‘comparative legal studies’, which is to say, the legal comparatist’s more interpretive endeavour.
‘The double fragmentation of law: legal system-internal differentiation and the process of europeanization’, in Integration through law Revisited: The making of the European Polity, ed. by Augenstein D, 1 (Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2012), 157-171,
Repository URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/43067/