Abstract

This article analyzes the concept of the legal mobilization of laws and institutions for the redressal of “justiciable” problems—problems for which a remedy can potentially be obtained through legal processes. The dispute-processing approach initiates the naming, blaming, claiming framework, to understand the reasons that substantial “perceived injurious experiences” do not mature into lawsuits. This article proceeds further with the discussion of the idea of a “dispute pyramid.” This method presents a real problem of asserting injuries that are unperceived, subjective in nature. Broad methodological approaches are applied in empirical research regarding claiming. The expansive methodological spectrum includes, structured surveys, institutional records ethnography etc. This article then examines the explanations that have been advanced for variations in claiming patterns, both at the individual and the aggregate levels. It analyses the points of general agreement and issues where agreement is lacking and proposes an agenda for future research related to claiming.