The introduction of co-management is often associated with recognition and allocation of property rights. This chapter therefore provides definitions of the concepts of property, property rights and property regimes. Systems informed by economic theory to provide ‘user rights’ are reviewed in relation to collaborative governance, including Transferable Quota systems and Territorial User Rights for Fishing. Given that rights may be contested and not realised in practice, the chapter goes on to consider the pursuit and realisation of justice through co-management, differentiating between procedural, distribution and recognition justice. Insights from the application of a human rights based approach to natural resource governance and implications for co-management are then identified.

This chapter concludes that narrative change both precedes and sustains legal transformation. Across Ghana, Israel, Greece, and India, the study shows that the (in)cohesion of judicial narratives decisively shapes minority trust, procedural justice, and reform. Narratival cohesion sends a strong signal to lower courts, religious authorities, and communities, reinforcing legitimacy and the rule of law, while incohesion undermines harmonization and fuels alienation. The chapter introduces a “Narrative Cohesion Test” to complement Irshai and Zion-Waldoks’s “Narrative Ripeness Test,” arguing that internal readiness for reform yields results only when courts articulate coherent, consistent narratives. Through the example of S. Sushma v. Commissioner of Police (2021), it illustrates how judicial reflexivity and narrative literacy can deconstruct exclusionary norms and construct new, dignity-affirming meanings. A proposed “Blueprint for Narrative Transformation” outlines practical judicial and civic steps for narrative reform, framing law itself as an act of storytelling that links justice, empathy, and coexistence.

This chapter examines how Ghanaian courts have historically constructed and sustained a rejectionist narrative toward Muslim Family Law (MFL). From the colonial Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance of 1907 to the present, the judiciary and bureaucracy have collaborated to exclude MFL from formal recognition, treating it as a foreign legal system. This enduring narratival exclusion has denied Ghanaian Muslims meaningful judicial feedback, foreclosed harmonization between communal and state legal meanings, and deepened procedural injustice. The analysis traces how exclusion, presented as legal neutrality, in practice privileges customary law rooted in indigenous religion while marginalizing Islamic norms. Drawing on interviews and case analysis, the chapter shows how this exclusionary narrative erodes trust in courts, fosters legal estrangement, and, in extreme cases, fuels radicalization. By theorizing “narratival exclusion,” the chapter reveals how cohesive yet exclusionary judicial narratives produce stability without justice, undermining legitimacy in Ghana’s plural legal order.

This chapter examines narratival conflict within Greek courts over the legitimacy and scope of Muslim Family Law (MFL) in Thrace – the only European jurisdiction formally recognizing Islamic law. It identifies three competing judicial narratives: the Protective Narrative, which upholds the mufti’s jurisdiction as a treaty-based obligation; the Restrictive Narrative, which narrows that jurisdiction under constitutional and human-rights principles; and the Liberative Choice Narrative, which affirms minority exit rights and voluntary recourse to civil law. Drawing on content analysis of case law and extensive fieldwork, the chapter demonstrates how narratival incohesion between higher and lower courts has produced chronic legal ambiguity, undermined procedural justice, and eroded minority trust. It argues that Greece’s securitized approach to Islamic law – shaped by historical tensions with Turkey – has stifled harmonization and prevented internal reform within the mufti system. Ultimately, narratival conflict, rather than fostering pluralism, has entrenched uncertainty, alienation, and the double failure of both religious and civil justice.

This chapter examines how narratival alignment within the Israeli judiciary has shaped the interpretation and reform of Muslim Family Law (MFL). Unlike in other jurisdictions, Israeli courts exhibit high narratival cohesion across the judicial hierarchy, underpinned by ideological consensus and professional norms. Through analyses of High Court of Justice (HCJ) and civil family court rulings, the chapter identifies five dominant judicial narratives – jurisdictional, human rights, best interests of the child, Orientalist-sexist, and comparative. It argues that while coherent apex-court narratives foster procedural justice, predictability, and minority trust, their effects on internal reform depend on resonance with religious courts and reformist groups. Alignment among the HCJ, reformers, and the shariʿa establishment enabled custody and gender reforms, including the appointment of Israel’s first female shariʿa judge. Yet in maintenance and confinement cases, alignment was absent, leaving patriarchal norms intact. The chapter thus reveals both the emancipatory and constraining potential of narratival cohesion in pluri-legal systems.

The approach of equity theory and other justice-based psychological theories to intergroup relations is criticlly examined in this chapter. The discussion includes consideration of distinctions between distributive and procedural justice, rights and duties, and natural law and positive law. The equity theory proposition that the ratio of inputs and outcomes determine subjective justice is examined, with research examples of how the ratio works. Lerner’s just world theory is also discussed, with research examples. The applied implications of equity theory and just world theory are also examined, as are the relationship between these theories and other major theories of intergroup relations.

Fairness norms operate in virtually every area of social endeavor. There are several common behavioral responses to exchanges between social actors. Exploitation and retaliation, both of which are threats to fairness, are closely associated with narcissism. Other behavioral responses include cooperation, reciprocity, acquiescence, withdrawal, and altruism. Social movements such as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo are collective responses to profound unfairness.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are used in court to analyse legal data, cite case law, evaluate and generate evidence, or support judges with prediction. As technological advancements enter the courtroom, assessing their impact on core judicial values is crucial. This chapter asks whether AI undermines procedural fairness in judicial decision-making. To address this question, it first presents procedural fairness as a normative concept studied across different disciplines. It shows why procedural fairness matters and what values fair procedures aim to foster. Drawing on case studies and scholarly work, it then illustrates how AI systems may impair these values. It then investigates how regulatory attempts and ethical frameworks for AI in judicial systems aim to address the resulting issues by analysing fundamental principles of technology regulation. The main argument of the chapter is that AI regulation must be complemented by specific procedural rules tailored to the judicial domain. In the age of AI, fair procedures should realise participation, increase trust, preserve neutrality, and provide mechanisms to detect errors in AI systems.

Relational equality theorists have drawn attention to the expressive dimensions of social and institutional hierarchies, highlighting the ways that expressive disrespect, for example by state institutions and officials can entrench social inequalities. Meanwhile, theorists of trust have drawn attention to the ways that agents who are disadvantaged or marginalised are often treated with presumptive distrust by social institutions and excluded from the trust economy. This paper draws on these insights, on empirical findings from the literature in social psychology on procedural justice, and on conceptions of vulnerability, to argue that expressive disrespect and presumptive distrust by state institutions is a form of injustice that can entrench vulnerability. The theoretical argument is supported and extended by discussion of a notorious example from the recent Australian context, Robodebt, a government scheme that was found to be illegal, which used automated decision-making technology to identify and claw back alleged overpayments to social welfare recipients.

Although the main focus of the dialogue is practical deliberation rather than political and legal theory, it has over time provided stimulus to such theorizing. In this dialogue, the bond between citizen and state is portrayed as one of personal commitment. Strikingly, Plato does not invoke natural law, divine law, Kantian generalizations, or consequentialist theories where he might have done.

This chapter focuses on issues of justice in sustainability transitions. Although there is an increasing focus in academia, policymaking and practice on the importance making sustainability transitions not only environmentally and economically sustainable, but also just and fair so that costs and benefits are shared equally, this chapter illustrates that social inequities can often be exacerbated rather than alleviated in the context of sustainability transitions. Indeed, people who are vulnerable and marginalised do not often benefit from sustainability transitions: they may have limited opportunities to actively participate as citizens and suffer from negative consequences of climate and energy policies and projects. Such injustices are often the reason for contestations of developments, projects, policies and initiatives that are part of sustainability transitions. This underlines the importance of considering questions of distributional, recognition, procedural, restorative, cosmopolitan, spatial, postcolonial, intergenerational and multispecies justice when designing, developing, and implementing sustainability transition policies and projects across all socio-technical systems.

This chapter analyses compliance motivations and their alignment with existing taxonomies: extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivations, cooperation vs. coercion, and trust-based vs. monitoring-based approaches. It then explores the advantages of voluntary compliance over coerced compliance, both in the short term and in the long term.