Dr Jen Hendry
Associate Professor in Law and Social Justice
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 scholar at the University of Arizona's James E. Rogers College of Law (2015), the University of Arizona’s Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy (2013), and the University of Sydney’s Department of Philosophy (2011).
I am the Deputy Postgraduate Research Tutor for the School of Law, and the Leeds University lead for the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) White Rose Doctoral Training Centre Socio-Legal Studies Pathway.
My research interests are in the fields of social and legal theory, socio-legal studies, and comparative legal studies. I am currently writing on issues of Indigenous justice, legal culture, and legal pluralism, and on theoretical and comparative perspectives on procedural hybrids, specifically civil recovery. I also write on systems theory and autopoiesis.
I am a member of the ESRC peer review college, the senior editorial board of the German Law Journal and the Executive Committee of the UK Socio-Legal Studies Association (SLSA), where I serve as Social Media officer.
I am the module coordinator for both the level 2 core module Law and Society (LAW 2620) and the level 3 elective module Concepts of Law (LAW 3122).
I am happy to consider potential doctoral candidates with projects in any of my research areas. I currently supervise postgraduate researchers writing on issues of European Union legal integration and governance, international human rights, and Japanese legal culture.
The Diffusion of Law The Movement of Laws and Norms Around the World (Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2015),
‘Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples, and the Pursuit of Justice’, Yale Law and Policy Review, 34.2 (2016), 351-386,
Repository URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/102795/
There are three major problems with the use of the rights-based approach to tackle issues of Indigenous justice: 1. It privileges (the worldview of) the dominant legal culture; 2. It artificially restricts the conversation about causes of and solutions to problems of Indigenous justice; and 3. It masks the inherent tension between human rights and legal pluralism. We explore the first of these problems in Part I by examining what is meant by a “rights-based approach,” how those ideas came into being, and how they differ from Indigenous conceptions. We address the second problem in Part II, which examines six representative U.S. cases and the patterns that can be derived from those cases. In Part III we turn to the third issue, which we operationalize in order to begin building possible solutions to the problem and possible alternate approaches to achieving justice for Indigenous people.
‘How Far Is Too Far? Theorising Non-Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture’, International Journal of Law in Context, 11.4 (2015), 398-411,
DOI: 10.1017/S1744552315000269, Repository URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/89915/
Non-conviction-based (NCB) asset forfeiture is a relatively recent addition to law enforcement's armoury in the fight against organised crime in the UK. It allows for criminal assets to be forfeited to the State even in the absence of criminal conviction, the stated objective being to undermine the profit incentive of criminal activity. Until now, NCB asset forfeiture has principally been critiqued from a criminological point of view, specifically concerning the Packer models and the civil / criminal dichotomy – aside from this, however, it remains rather underdeveloped theoretically. This paper addresses this lack of legal theoretical engagement with NCB asset forfeiture by providing an initial contribution from systems-theoretical perspective. This contribution makes use of systems theory’s unique insights to critique the perceived ‘failure of law’ that gave rise to the NCB approach, and challenges the legitimacy of that approach in terms of procedural rights.
‘Legal comparison and the (im)possibility of legal translation’, in Comparative Law - Engaging Translation ([n.pub.], 2014), 87-103,
Repository URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90228/
‘Legal Pluralism and Normative Transfer’, in Order from Transfer: Comparative Constitutional Design and Legal Culture, ed. by Frankenberg G, Studies in Comparative Law and Legal Culture series (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2013), 153-170,
Repository URL: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90231/