Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law

The most comprehensive efforts to develop a new evolutionary approach to law are found in the work of Nonet and Selznick in the United States and Habermas and Luhmann in Germany. While these theorists are concerned with a common problem-the crisis of formal rationality of law-they differ drastically in their accounts of the problem and their vision of the future. This paper tries to resolve these differences by first decomposing and then restructuring the diverse neo-evolutionary models. Using a more comprehensive model of socio-legal covariation, the author identifies an emerging kind of legal structure which he calls reflexive law. Reflexive law is characterized by a new kind of legal self-restraint. Instead of taking over regulatory responsibility for the outcome of social processes, reflexive law restricts itself to the installation, correction, and redefinition of democratic self-regulatory mechanisms. The author identifies areas of private law in which reflexive solutions are arguably emerging, and he spells out the consequences which a concern for reflexivity has for a renewed sociological jurisprudence.

[1]  G. Radbruch.  Vorschule der Rechtsphilosophie , 1947 .

[2]  W. Friedmann.  Law in a changing society , 1960 .

[3]  J. Habermas,et al.  Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit , 1964 .

[4]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

[5]  J. Esser,et al.  Das Problem der Rechtsgewinnung ; Gesetzesauslegung und Interessenjurisprudenz ; Begriffsbildung und Interessenjurisprudenz , 1968 .

[6]  Niklas Luhmann,et al.  Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie : Was leistet die Systemforschung? , 1971 .

[7]  Lawrence M. Friedman,et al.  A History of American Law , 1973 .

[8]  N. Luhmann.  Rechtssystem und Rechtsdogmatik , 1974 .

[9]  C. Stone,et al.  Where the Law Ends: The Social Control of Corporate Behavior. , 1976 .

[10]  Lawrence M. Friedman,et al.  The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective , 1975 .

[11]  T. Parsons,et al.  Law in Modern Society , 1976 .

[12]  N. Luhmann,et al.  Differentiation of society , 1977 .

[13]  Ronald Dworkin,et al.  Taking Rights Seriously , 1977 .

[14]  Günther Teubner.  Organisationsdemokratie und Verbandsverfassung : Rechtsmodelle für politisch relevante Verbände , 1978 .

[15]  Rainer Erd.  Verrechtlichung industrieller Konflikte : normative Rahmenbedingungen des dualen Systems der Interessenvertretung , 1978 .

[16]  John N. Warfield,et al.  Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving , 1979 .

[17]  R. Voigt.  Verrechtlichung : Analysen zu Funktion und Wirkung von Parlamentarisierung, Bürokratisierung und Justizialisierung sozialer, politischer und ökonomischer Prozesse , 1980 .

[18]  M. Galanter.  Legality and its Discontents: A Preliminary Assessment of Current Theories of Legalization and Delegalization , 1980 .

[19]  Barry M. Mitnick.  The political economy of regulation , 1980 .

[20]  N. Luhmann.  Funktion der Religion , 1980 .

[21]  J. Habermas.  Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns , 1981 .

[22]  Guenther Roth,et al.  The rise of Western rationalism: Max Weber's developmental history , 1981 .

[23]  Niklas Luhmann,et al.  Politische Theorie im Wohlfahrtsstaat , 1981 .

[24]  Richard L. Abel,et al.  The Politics of Informal Justice , 1982 .

[25]  G. Winter.  Literaturbericht zum Thema , 1982 .

[26]  P. M. Hejl,et al.  Sozialwissenschaft als Theorie selbstreferentieller Systeme , 1982 .

[27]  Stephen G. Breyer,et al.  Regulation and its reform , 1982 .