Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (403)
- Working Paper (402)
- Review (260)
- Conference Proceeding (119)
- Part of Periodical (61)
- Part of a Book (58)
- Book (55)
- Contribution to a Periodical (41)
- Doctoral Thesis (39)
- Report (14)
Language
- German (1036)
- English (389)
- Italian (13)
- French (8)
- Multiple languages (8)
- Portuguese (5)
- Spanish (3)
- mis (1)
- Polish (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (1464)
Keywords
- Deutschland (72)
- Aktienrecht (17)
- Kapitalmarktrecht (16)
- Börsenrecht (12)
- Coronavirus (12)
- Corporate Governance (12)
- Börsenordnung (11)
- USA (11)
- Urheberrecht (11)
- Democracy (10)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (1464) (remove)
Although intellectual property law is a distinctively Western, modern, and relatively young body of law, it has spread all over the world, now encompassing all but a very few outsiders such as Afghanistan, Somalia, and Vanuatu. This article presents three legal transfers that contributed to this development: first, from real property in land and movables to intellectual property in the late 18th century in Western Europe; second, from Western Europe, in particular from the United Kingdom and France to the rest of the world during the colonial era in the 19th and early 20th century; third, from the protection of new knowledge to the protection of traditional knowledge, held by indigenous communities in developing countries, on 5 August 1963. This story illuminates how legal transfers in a broad sense – including, but not limited to legal transplants - drive the evolution of law.
Die Frage nach den Zusammenhängen zwischen Normanerkennung und ökonomischem Verhalten lassen sich anhand der Wirkung von Corporate Governance Kodizes schlaglichtartig beleuchten. Der vorliegende Beitrag liefert erste theoretische Bausteine zum Zusammenwirken von Corporate Governance Kodizes und verbindlichen gesetzlichen Normen auf der Grundlage des Comply or Explain-Grundsatzes, indem er zunächst die Wirkungsweise des Kapitalmarktes, wie sie von der ökonomisch fundierten Gesellschaftsrechtstheorie vorausgesetzt wird, dem Mechanismus des Comply or Explain gegenüberstellt. Die empirischen Studien zur Wirksamkeit des Kapitalmarktes bei der Durchsetzung des Deutschen Corporate Governance Kodex im Wege des Comply or Explain lassen Raum für weitere Normanerkennungs- und –befolgungsmechanismen, die sich in Parallele zur Diskussion im Bereich der Corporate Social Responsibility und den sogenannten „business cases“ hierfür verdeutlichen lassen. Die dabei aufscheinenden Berührungspunkte ökonomischer Motivation mit sozialen Interessen geben Gelegenheit, auf Fairnessnormen als Grenzen des traditionellen Rationalmodells einzugehen. Ein ähnliches Nebeneinander und Ineinandergreifen von Eigennutzinteresse und intrinsischer Motivation lässt sich anhand der Anreizwirkung bei der Managervergütung veranschaulichen. Ihre gesetzliche Regelung im VorstAG lässt zum Teil eine empirische Absicherung vermissen. Damit schließt sich der Kreis der Analyse der Verbindlichkeitsstrukturen im Wirtschaftsrecht, nach der sich diese einem einheitlichen theoretischen Modell entziehen und deren empirische Grundlagen noch nicht zweifelsfrei geklärt sind.
Eine wesentliche Voraussetzung für die Entschlüsselung herrschender Justizverständnisse ist die Auseinandersetzung mit den Rollen, die die beteiligten Akteure in einem Rechtssystem einnehmen sowie die Untersuchung der rechtlichen und institutionellen Bedingungen unter denen diese Akteure handeln. Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich zunächst mit der Macht- und Aufgabenverteilung zwischen Richtern und Parteien. Dabei wird deutlich, dass die Rollenallokation nicht einheitlich ist, sondern in Abhängigkeit von unterschiedlichen verfahrensrechtlichen und institutionellen Voraussetzungen variiert. In Verfahren vor einer Jury wird die richterliche Autorität durch eine maximal ausgeprägte Parteiautonomie stark eingeschränkt. Als Rechthonoratioren (im Weberschen Sinne) agieren Richter dagegen immer dann, wenn Sie ohne Geschworene Recht sprechen. Dies geschieht insbesondere in den einzelstaatlichen Obergerichten und den Bundesberufungsgereichten, aber auch in Verfahren erster Instanz, in denen „claims in equity“ zu entscheiden sind. Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich abschließend mit dem Einfluss, den die Besonderheiten der amerikanischen Juristenausbildung auf das amerikanische Justizverständnis ausüben: Sie prägen und reproduzieren eine der Rollen und Selbstbilder unter amerikanischen Juristen, sowohl in der Anwaltschaft als auch auf Seiten der Richter.
Der vorliegende Beitrag leitete das Programm des Workshops „Schlichten und Richten – Differenzierung und Hybridisierung” (Frankfurt/Main, 9./10. Februar 2012) ein. Mit diesem Workshop begann das Arbeitsprogramm des LOEWE–Schwerpunkts „Außergerichtliche und gerichtliche Konfliktlösung“, der am 1. Januar 2012 seine Tätigkeit aufgenommen hatte (siehe hierzu www.konfliktloesung.eu; eine leicht veränderte Fassung des Beitrags in englischer Sprache wird in Kürze abrufbar sein unter: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Max-Planck-Legal-History-RES.html ). Der Ausgangspunkt des Workshops ist eine deutsche Debattentradition, die die Alternativität von gerichtlichen und nichtgerichtlichen, kontradiktorischen oder konsensualen sowie mehr formalisierten und mehr informalisierten Konfliktlösungsformen unter dem Schlagwort „Schlichten oder Richten“ (auch „Schlichten statt Richten“ oder „Schlichten oder Richten“) thematisierte.
Der Beitrag problematisiert zunächst die bisherige mangelnde rechtshistorische Aufmerksamkeit, die Alternativen zur gerichtlichen Konfliktlösung zugewandt wurde. Er weist daraufhin, dass auch die heutige Diskussion über gelungenes Konfliktlösungsmanagement oft explizit oder implizit von – zuweilen nicht ausreichend reflektierten – historischen Vorannahmen geprägt ist und – damit verbunden – von Vorstellungen über rechtskulturelle Fremdheit und Nähe.
Im zweiten und dritten Abschnitt skizziert der Beitrag kurz den historischen Gang der deutschen Diskussion über „Schlichten und Richten“ seit dem Aufkommen auch rechtswissenschaftlich anerkannter Schlichtungsinstitutionen zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts. Er versucht, deren wechselnde zeitgenössische Kontexte sichtbar zu machen und zeigt, wie sich in diesen Diskussionen (zuweilen utopisch scheinende) rechtspolitische Verheißungen ansiedeln konnten, welch fruchtbaren Boden diese Diskussionen aber auch für neue Kategorienbildungen und multidisziplinäre Zugänge bot.
Im vierten Abschnitt wird versucht, Verknüpfungen mit der gegenwärtigen ADR-Diskussionen herzustellen, während im fünften Abschnitt in analytischer Absicht Konfigurationen des Wortpaars „Schlichten“ und „Richten“ vorgestellt werden: „Schlichten“ und „Richten“ als Alternative, als Abhängigkeitsverhältnis und als Abfolge. Der fünfte Abschnitt schließlich fragt nach Funktionselementen und den Funktionsbedingungen von Schlichten und Richten, d.h.: Welche Leitrationalitäten, Partizipationsmechanismen, Legitimationsnarrative und Reflexionsformen lassen sich jeweils der einen oder anderen Form der Konfliktlösung zuordnen.
All diese Überlegungen sind eher tentativer Art und vermitteln nur erste umrisshafte Vorstellungen. Sie dienen in erster Linie dem Diskussionsanstoß und sollen erste Schneisen in dieses komplexe Forschungsfeld schlagen. Die Vortragsform ist beibehalten und der Fußnotenapparat ist auf das nötige Minimum reduziert.
Gerhard Dilcher und Diego Quaglioni setzen mit diesem Band die Veröffentlichung der Ergebnisse einer zweiteiligen Tagung zu den Anfängen des öffentlichen Rechts fort, die in den Jahren 2006 und 2007 in Trient im Centro per gli Studi Storici Italo-Germanici in Verbindung mit der rechtswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der dortigen Universität veranstaltet wurde (vgl. Francia-Recensio 2009/1–Mittelalter). Die Anfänge des öffentlichen Rechts sind in den letzten Jahren verstärkt auf Interesse gestoßen und waren vor kurzem Gegenstand eines von Jacques Krynen und Michael Stolleis herausgegebenen Tagungsbandes zu "Science politique et droit public dans les facultés de droit européennes (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle), Frankfurt/M. 2008". Trotz des ähnlichen Themas ist die Konzeption beider Bücher sehr verschieden und ergänzt sich in mancher Hinsicht, zumal der geografische Rahmen des Trienter Bandes sich der Zielsetzung der Veranstaltung entsprechend auf Italien und Deutschland zur Zeit der Staufer konzentriert. In beiden Fällen werden die gesamteuropäische Bedeutung und Ausstrahlung der mittelalterlichen italienischen Rechtswissenschaft und wichtiger Autoren wie Bartolus und Baldus deutlich. ...
O artigo investiga a formação, a carreira e os trabalhos de Max Weber como jurista, assim como delineia as linhas gerais do impacto e das influências de sua formação jurídica na sua obra em geral. Especial atenção merece sua tese de doutorado sobre as sociedades comerciais na Idade Média, que é apresentada em sua problematização geral e em suas principais ideias. Com isso, procura-se indicar como os problemas tratados por Weber em sua tese de doutorado - sua principal obra jurídica - antecipam temas e problemas que serão desenvolvidos na obra posterior de modo ampliado e aprofundado.
"Entre direitos iguais, a força decide", proferiu karl marx ao descrever a antinomia do direito em situações antagônicas das relações de produção capitalistas, em que "o direito [oferece resistência] ao direito" nesse ponto, marx aborda uma questão que se situa no centro de todas as teorias jurídicas críticas: que tipo de violência é velada por meio do mecanismo de ocultação denominado "direito"? Para responder a esta questão, tentar-se-á, a seguir, tornar a teoria da hegemonia de antonio gramsci e seu modelo de direito hegemônico produtivos para o campo da teoria do direito. Tal tarefa tem de lidar com a dupla dificuldade de que, por um lado, gramsci não foi um teórico do direito no sentido mais estrito, razão pela qual o potencial de sua teoria para uma análise do direito raramente foi utilizada. Por outro lado, sua abordagem só pode ser empregada por meio de uma crítica às restrições relacionadas a seu tempo. isso se aplica especialmente à sua concepção de economia como a base e a núcleo essencialista oculto (laclau; mouffe, 2001:69), assim como à sua ideia de 'classismo' sob a forma de um enfoque unilateral das classes, em que há preferencialmente mais de um "pluralismo de poder" e inúmeras lutas (litowitz, 2000: 536). Recuperar-se-á, consequentemente, argumentos-chave, ampliando-os pela utilização das recentes descobertas feitas pelas abordagens feminista e neomaterialista da teoria jurídica, bem como as análises de foucault acerca das tecnologias de poder. por fim, uma interpretação da teoria sistêmica das autonomizações comunicativas.
O 11 de setembro acelerou o desenvolvimento de uma arquitetura transnacional de segurança que intervém profundamente nas liberdades civis individuais, tanto nos direitos básicos dos cidadãos dos Estados como nos direitos humanos dos cidadãos mundiais. O artigo delineia essa arquitetura, mostra como ela dissolve as categorias jurídicas tradicionais que preservam a liberdade e discute por que hoje se aceita amplamente a prioridade da segurança sobre a liberdade.
Law making becomes an increasingly important function of the higher courts in civil law matters. This observation leads to the question of whether the law making function is nevertheless carried out in a “classical” legal-principled way or whether the courts increasingly employ a political-formative style. To answer this question, one should not only focus on the content of the courts’ reasoning but also on their procedural-institutional framework. From that perspective, the processing of so-called legislative facts is a key issue in determining the role of courts between legal reasoning and social engineering. The paper shows that Germany, England and the United States pursue different lines in processing legislative facts. Notwithstanding these differences, it seems to be the case that the increasing importance of law making will also change the institutional framework of appellate courts towards a quasi-legislative forum.
This paper outlines relatively easy to implement reforms for the supervision of transnational banking-groups in the E.U. that should not be primarily based on legal form but on the actual risk structures of the pertinent financial institutions. The proposal also aims at paying close attention to the economics of public administration and international relations in allocating competences among national and supranational supervisory bodies. Before detailing the own proposition, this paper looks into the relationship between sovereign debt and banking crises that drive regulatory reactions to the financial turmoil in the Euro area. These initiatives inter alia affirm effective prudential supervision as a pivotal element of crisis prevention. In order to arrive at a more informed idea, which determinants apart from a perceived appetite for regulatory arbitrage drive banks’ organizational choices, this paper scrutinizes the merits of either a branch or subsidiary structure for the cross-border business of financial institutions. In doing so, it also considers the policy-makers perspective. The analysis shows that no one size fits all organizational structure is available and concludes that banks’ choices should generally not be second-guessed, particularly because they are subject to (some) market discipline. The analysis proceeds with describing and evaluating how competences in prudential supervision are currently allocated among national and supranational supervisory authorities. In order to assess the findings the appraisal adopts insights form the economics of public administration and international relations. It argues that the supervisory architecture has to be more aligned with bureaucrats’ incentives and that inefficient requirements to cooperate and share information should be reduced. Contrary to a widespread perception, shifting responsibility to a supranational authority cannot solve all the problems identified. Resting on these foundations, the last part of this paper finally sketches an alternative solution that dwells on far-reaching mutual recognition of national supervisory regimes and allocates competences in line with supervisors’ incentives and the risk inherent in crossborder banking groups.
In its admissibility decision in the Al-Saadoon case the ECtHR held that the United Kingdom had jurisdiction over the applicants, who had been arrested by British forces and kept in a British-run military prison in Iraq. Just before the respective mandate of the Security Council expired on 31 December 2008, the applicants were transferred to Iraqi custody at Iraqi request and thereby exposed to the risk of an unfair trial followed by capital punishment. In this respect, the case resembles the Soering case, although the applicants were, unlike Soering, not on British territory but on occupied Iraqi soil before they were handed over. This aspect raises the question of Iraqi sovereignty as a norm competing with the UK's human rights obligations. The authors trace back the ECtHR's case law concerning the extraterritorial application of the Convention and analyse the UK judgments and the ECtHR's admissibility decision in the Al-Saadoon affair from this angle. Furthermore they consider the doctrinal consequences of the ECHR's extraterritorial effect in cases like Soering and Al-Saadoon, where contracting parties violate guarantees of the Convention by exposing a person within their jurisdiction to a risk of a treatment contrary to these guarantees by a third state. Finally, they test the argument brought forward by the UK that not transferring the applicants would have violated Iraqi sovereignty and establish patterns how the ECtHR and the UK Courts did cope in the past with international law norms potentially competing with the Convention.
Rezension zu: Hans Erich Troje: Gegenpositionen. Aspekte zur Zukunft von Ehe und Familie. Köln u.a.: Böhlau Verlag 2009. 260 Seiten, ISBN 978-3-412-20342-9, € 39,90.
Der Sammelband ist in der Reihe „Rechtsgeschichte und Geschlechterforschung“ des Böhlau Verlags erschienen. Er enthält Aufsätze des emeritierten Rechtswissenschaftlers aus den Jahren 1975 bis 1999, die in ideologischer und polemischer Form Positionen zu Familien- und Gleichstellungspolitik formulieren, wie sie in der Geschlechterforschung längst überholt sind.
Power and law in enlightened absolutism : Carl Gottlieb Svarez' theoretical and practical approach
(2012)
The term Enlightened Absolutism reflects a certain tension between its two components. This tension is in a way a continuation of the dichotomy between power on one hand and law on the other. The present paper shall provide an analysis of these two concepts from the perspective of Carl Gottlieb Svarez, who, in his position as a high-ranking Prussian civil servant and legal reformist, has had unparalleled influence on the legislative history of the
Prussian states towards the end of the 18th century. Working side-by-side with Johann Heinrich Casimir von Carmer, who held the post of Prussian minister of justice from 1779 to 1798, Svarez was able to make use of his talent for reforming and legislating. From 1780 to 1794 he was primarily responsible for the elaboration of the codification of the Prussian private law – the “Allgemeines Landrecht für die Preußischen Staaten” in 1794. In the present paper, Svarez’ approach to the relation between law and power shall be analysed on two different levels. Firstly, on a theoretical level, the reformist’s thoughts and reflections as laid down in his numerous works, papers and memorandums, shall be discussed. Secondly, on a practical level, the question of the extent to which he implemented his ideas in Prussian legal reality shall be explored.
Mit der Europäischen Rechtsgeschichte verfügt die Rechtsgeschichte seit vielen Jahrzehnten über eine Tradition transnationaler rechtshistorischer Forschung. Sie wurde von deutschsprachigen Wissenschaftlern der Vor- und Nachkriegszeit geprägt – Emil Seckel, Paul Koschaker, Franz Wieacker, Helmut Coing – und stand im Kontext des westeuropäischen Nachkriegsprojekts. Noch heute bauen wir auf ihren großen Leistungen auf. Sie war, wie alle Geschichtswissenschaft, Teil eines Prozesses der gesellschaftlichen Selbstverständigung über die eigene Identität und zeichnete das Bild einer distinkten europäischen Rechtskultur.
In den letzten Jahren sind im Zuge der Diskussion um postkoloniale Perspektiven auf die Geschichte, um Transnationale und Globalgeschichte, viele Grundlagen der traditionellen Europahistoriographie kritisiert und massiv erschüttert worden. Das wirft Fragen auch an die Europäische Rechtsgeschichte auf: Welches Europabild liegt ihr zu Grunde? Auf welchen intellektuellen und konzeptionellen Grundlagen beruht sie? Wie antwortet sie auf die Vorwürfe des Eurozentrismus, des epistemischen Kolonialismus, wie auf die Forderung, Europa zu ‘provinzialisieren’? Wie definiert sie das Verhältnis der Europäischen zur Transnationalen und Globalen Rechtsgeschichte? - Diesen und ähnlichen Fragen wenden sich die folgenden Überlegungen zu. Der Schwerpunkt liegt auf einer Auseinandersetzung mit der Tradition, ihren konzeptionellen Grundlagen und deren wissenschaftshistorischem Kontext (1. Teil, 1.-6.). Aus dieser kritischen Bestandsaufnahme und den Ergebnissen der Debatte um Globalgeschichte ergeben sich Ausgangspunkte und Aufgaben einer in vielem auf den Leistungen der Disziplin aufbauenden, doch notwendigerweise auf einer anderen Konzeption beruhenden Rechtsgeschichte Europas in globalhistorischer Perspektive (2. Teil, 7.-11.).
Das Gesetz zur Änderung des Vormundschafts- und Betreuungsrechts ist am 14. April 2011 vom Deutschen Bundestag beschlossen worden; der Bundesrat hat am 25.05.2011 zugestimmt. Dieses Gesetz trat – mit einigen Ausnahmen, die erst ein Jahr nach der Verkündung des Gesetzes in Kraft treten – am 6.7.2011 in Kraft. Der Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrags soll nicht bei den durch diese Reform bereits erfolgten bzw. demnächst in Kraft tretenden Änderungen und den sich bereits abzeichnenden Schwierigkeiten seiner Umsetzung liegen, vielmehr soll es um die Ziele und Grundsätze einer noch weitergehenden Reform (zweite Stufe) gehen, die die Rechtspolitik im Rahmen der Verabschiedung dieses Gesetzes für erforderlich gehalten und bereits in Aussicht gestellt hat (zweite Stufe). Dennoch sollen zunächst die Essentials dieses ersten wichtigen und richtigen Reformschritts nochmals in Stichworten am Anfang dieses Beitrags stehen. Dieses Gesetz wurde auch schon als "Amtsvormundschaftsverbesserungsgesetz" und als Minimalkompromiss apostrophiert, was angesichts der Fokussierung dieses ersten Reformschrittes nicht überrascht.
Mit der neuen Umgangspflegschaft verabschiedet sich der Gesetzgeber vom Grundsatz, dass Eingriffe in das elterliche Sorgerecht erst bei (nicht anders abwendbaren) erheblichen Kindeswohlgefährdungen zulässig sind. Bleibt zu hoffen, dass die Praxis mit größter Behutsamkeit von der Bestellung von Umgangspflegschaften Gebrauch macht, insbesondere dann, wenn Umgang gegen den Kindeswillen durchgesetzt werden soll, was sich aus rechtlichen, fachlichen und ethischen Gründen verbietet. Die massive Bedrohung der eigenständigen Interessenvertretung Minderjähriger – die bislang eine Erfolgsgeschichte zu werden schien – tritt am 01.09.2009 in Kraft. Verfahrenspfleger/-beistände werden sich auf die neue vergütungsrechtliche Situation einzustellen haben, mit welchen persönlichen Konsequenzen, das kann nur von ihnen beantwortet werden. Es wäre schade, insbesondere für die auf qualifizierte und einfühlsame erfahrenspfleger/-beistände angewiesenen Minderjährigen, wenn allzu viele dieser erfahrenen und bewährten Interessenvertreter Minderjähriger sich von diesem bedeutsamen, aber auch herausfordernden Arbeitsfeld abwenden müssten, geht es doch bei der Gruppe von Minderjährigen, die auf einen Verfahrenspfleger bzw. -beistand zur eigenständigen Wahrnehmung ihrer Interessen angewiesen sind, um Minderjährige, die bereits erheblich gefährdet sind oder waren bzw. denen eine solch massive Beeinträchtigung ihres Wohls droht. Sicherlich: Auf die Situation vor 1998 sind wir noch nicht zurückgeworfen, aber es gilt in mühsamer Arbeit die Rechtspolitik davon zu überzeugen, dass diese Fehlentscheidung alsbald korrigiert werden muss.
Dieser Band dokumentiert die Vorträge des ersten „Familienrechtlichen Forums Göttingen“, das am 28. Juni 2008 stattgefunden hat. Unmittelbar vor dem Abschluss des Gesetzgebungsverfahrens erörterten Experten aus Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis das im September 2009 in Kraft tretende „Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit“ (FamFG). Der Band enthält einen Überblick über die Grundzüge des neuen Familienverfahrensrechts sowie Analysen und Stellungnahmen zu einzelnen Bereichen. Dabei werden schwerpunktmäßig das neue Rechtsmittel- und Vollstreckungssystem, das Hinwirken auf Einvernehmen, das Vermittlungsverfahren, der Verfahrensbeistand, der Umgangspfleger und das Verfahren bei Kindeswohlgefährdung behandelt. Darüber hinaus wird eine interdisziplinäre Perspektive durch die soziologische Einordnung der derzeitigen Reformen in den Kontext der allgemeinen Familien- und Sozialpolitik eröffnet.
Der vorliegende Band enthält die Referate des 2. Familienrechtlichen Forums
Göttingen vom 2. Juli 2011, welches aktuelle Problemstellungen des Kindschaftsrechts
zum Gegenstand hatte. Vor dem Hintergrund jüngst abgeschlossener
und bevorstehender Gesetzesnovellen erörterten ausgewählte Experten
aus Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis verschiedene Problemschwerpunkte: Zum
einen wurde die anstehende Novellierung des Sorgerechts nicht miteinander
verheirateter Eltern thematisiert und nach Lösungen für den Umgang mit dem
Umgangsboykott gesucht. Dabei eröffnete die interdisziplinäre und rechtsvergleichende
Annährung an die aufgeworfenen Probleme neue Perspektiven. Zum
anderen wurden die nur wenige Tage nach der Veranstaltung abgeschlossene
Vormundschaftsrechtsreform sowie das inzwischen ebenfalls in Kraft getretene
Bundeskinderschutzgesetz einer kritischen Würdigung unterzogen. Die Veranstaltung
endete mit einer kritischen Zwischenbilanz zum kindschaftsrechtlichen
Verfahren nach dem FamFG, das die Praxis vor zahlreiche Probleme stellt.
Although their applications have not yet extended widely due to their incipient state, nano-technologies and nano-medicines may be presumed to be at the origin of the next great technological revolution, foreseeably contributing to a new stage with respect to evolutions in mankind’s progress. Their possibilities are truly immense in enormously varied spheres, but the risks and uncertainties they engender are enormous too. Because access and use of the unceasingly increasing mega-quantity of information they generate will place further strain on the protection of personal life, privacy, the exercise of freedom, as well as the safeguarding of other fundamental principles and rights.
The requalification of Habermas’ discussions on political philosophy and legal theory after the publication of Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion (2005), and his most recent texts and debates on religion and the public sphere, suggest a revision of the Habermasian theory of rationalization as it was firstly presented in Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns (1982), especially on what concerns the processes of dessacralization and the linguistification of religious authority. In search of contributing to this revision, this paper intends to focus on the problem of a supposedly “lost” aesthetic-expressive understanding of religious authority in Habermas’s theory of rationalization, which may have contributed to a theory of law in Faktizität und Geltung (1992) that does not give satisfactory account to the aesthetical-expressive character of the modern understanding of legal authority. A better understanding of this special character, however, may contribute not only to the avoidance of fundamentalisms and new attempts of “aesthetization of politics”, but also to a rational strengthening of the solidarity of the citizens of democratic constitutional states.
This paper aims to discuss in which sense public hearings in supreme courts of democratic rules of law can be seen as proceduralization of popular sovereignty policies. These policies constitute expressions of a normative claim for a wider “publicization of law” by democratic states’ institutional powers and organs; a claim that becomes evident when one undertakes an intersubjective interpretation of law. This theoretical argument will be presented in the first section of the paper through a new articulation of Jürgen Habermas’ discursive theory of law and his most recent studies on the concept of political public sphere. The theoretical section gives normative and procedural criteria for the second section of the paper, which consists on a critical analysis of the procedures and practical cases of public hearings held at the Brazilian Supreme Court, constituting the first scientific study to date on the Court’s use of this legal instrument.
Since the XIX century, a pleiad of philosophers and historians support the idea that Greek philosophy, usually reported to have started with the presocratics, lays its basis in a previous moment: the Greek myths – systematized by Homer and Hesiod – and the Greek arts, in particular the lyric and tragedy literature. According to this, it is important to retrieve philosophical elements even before the pre-Socratics to understand the genesis of specific concepts in Philosophy of Law. Besides, assuming that the Western’s core values are inherited from Ancient Greece, it is essential to recuperate the basis of our own justice idea, through the Greek myths and tragedy literature. As a case study, this paper aims on the comparison of two key-works, each one representing a phase of the Greek tragedy: The Orestea, by Aeschylus, and Orestes, by Euripides. Both contain the same story, telling how the Greeks understood the necessity of solving their conflicts not by blood revenge, but through a political way, and also the political drama. Although, in Aeschylus’s one, men still leashed by their fate, while the gods play a major role, in order to punish human pride (hybris). In a different way, on Euripides’s work men face their own loneliness, in a world fulfilled with gods, each one demanding divergent actions. That represents a necessary moment to the flourishing freedom and human subjectivity, and, once the exterior divinity is unable to resolve human problems, men will need to discover their interior divinity: that is how the Philosophy emerges.
Dworkin`s political theory is characterized by the interpretative integrity of morality, law, and politics, the so-called “hedgehog’s approach”. The interpretative integrity approach functions on multiple levels. Firstly, philosophical foundations of his theory of justice are linked to his conception of just liberal society and state. Secondly, from the perspective of political morality, interpretative concepts of law and morality are internally connected, in addition to interpretative concepts of equality, liberty, and democracy. Thirdly, from the perspective of philosophical foundations, individual ethics, personal morality and political morality are mutually connected. The aforementioned ethical and moral foundations are also related – in a wider sense of philosophical foundations - with his gnoseological conception regarding value concepts in law, politics and morality, and with his episthemological conception regarding an objective truth in the field of values, in a sense that the value concepts are interpretative and can be objectively true when articulated in accordance with methodological rules and standards of a »reflexive equilibrium« and an interpretative integrity, and in accordance with the so-called internal scepticism in the context of value pluralism.
The term “ethics” in a “narrower” sense refers to individual ethics, the study of how to live well, while the “ethics” in a “broader” sense refers to personal morality, the study of how we must treat other people. The term “morality” however, is used primarily to denote a political morality, the issue of how a sovereign power should treat its citizens.
Philosophical foundations of Dworkin`s political theory of justice, his conception of two cardinal values of humanity, his concievement of individual ethics, personal morality and political morality will be in the focus of consideration.
Agamben has claimed to work inside the tradition inaugurated by the archaeological method of Michel Foucault but not to fully coincide with it. “My method is archaeological and paradigmatic in a sense which is very close to that of Foucault, but not completely coincident with it. The question is, facing the dichotomies that structuralize our culture, to go beyond the exceptions that have been producing the former, however, not to find a chronologically originary state, but to be able to understand the situation in which we are. Archaeology is, in this sense, the only way to access present” (interview to Flavia Costa, trad. Susana Scramim, in Revista do Departamento de Psicologia – Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, v. 18 - n. 1, 131-136, Jan./Jun. 2006, 132, translated by the author). However, the aspects in which Agamben follows Foucault's method and the ones he does not were never very clear. This situation seems to change with the edition of Agamben's most extensive and explicit texts on method, Signatura Rerum. Sul Metodo (2008, italian edition). The goal of this article is to identify the points of intersection between their methods and some points in which they differ.
John Gray is the thinker who has reconstructed the main tenets of ethical pluralism inherent in the work of its initiator - Isaiah Berlin - and pointed to its consequences for political philosophy. In particular he singled out three levels of conflict in ethics identifiable in Berlin’s writings: among the ultimate values belonging to the same morality or code of conduct, among whole ways or styles of life and within goods or values which are themselves internally complex and inherently pluralistic.
It is the third, internal kind of conflict that proves to be the richest in implications.Because it undermines a whole constellation of contemporary liberal doctrines informed by the Kantian-Lockean tradition that conform to the legal paradigm. From the pluralist perspective such monumental theories (e.g. those of Rawls or Dworkin) are no longer sustainable due to the recognition that no ultimate value is immune to the phenomenon of incommensurability. Thus, irresolvable conflicts may also break out within the given regulative value.
Confronting ethical pluralism with general reflection on law has mostly negative consequences. Nevertheless, the incommensurability thesis sheds considerable light on certain legal disputes. This claim will be illustrated by interpreting from the pluralist perspective the controversy over the verdict by the European Tribunal of Human Rights of 3 November 2010 concerning hanging crosses in classrooms.
Brazil has one of the worst distributions of income in the world. The wealth of the richest 1% of the population is equal to that of the poorest 50%. Brazil has a greater concentration of wealth than ninety-five percent of the countries on which data is available. In the legal field, tax justice is based on the constitutional principle of the “ability to pay”, according to which taxes should be paid based on the economic capacity of the taxpayer. This principle first appeared in the Brazilian legal order in the 1946 Constitution, was excluded from the texts of 1967/69, and reappeared in § 1 of article 145 of the 1988 Constitution. The aim of this paper is to examine two possible grounds for the ability to pay principle (equal sacrifices and proportional sacrifices) to show how, in Brazil, the interpretations that seek to assign a positive content to the principle are limited to the horizons of a particular form of State associated with the theory of equal sacrifice. This theory for its turn is consistent with a theory of justice, under which no expense or charge levied by the government can alter the distribution of welfare produced by the market. As the application of the ability to pay principle is done within the limits of that horizon, as a consequence, this principle does not play an important role in the issue of reduction of inequality in Brazil.
In their book Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Tom Beauchamp and James Childress offer an account of bioethics, called “Principlism”, by way of specifying and balancing four clusters of principles.2 These principles are found, as the author state, in a common morality, understood as a set of universally shared moral beliefs.
This paper seeks to introduce the following questions: Does this account of Beauchamp and Childress flow from common morality in a natural way? Can their proposals claim to be endorsed by the authority of common morality? If not, in what way does Principlism contribute to bioethics?
This paper is aimed to re-elaborate questions and discuss them rather than presenting answers. It starts with the dialog concerning specific contributions of philosophy of language to Law, followed by the re-elaboration of some yet unanswered problems, as well as the discussion of possible paths for this issue.
Since de advent of what is known as new constitucionalism, jurists have faced a difficult task in order to overcome some failures of normative positivism. In this context, the judiciary has played a renewed role, which can be justified on grounds of legal theory and on institutional reasons. However, this new role has led legal philosophers to several concerns, such as the relationship between law and ethics. On one hand, Critical Legal Studies points out that the judge always acts informed by his own convictions. On the other hand, according to R. Forst (within another context, but also relevant here), this is not really a problem, because a rule can be provided with ethics, but not ethically justified. This openness of law to moral makes it difficult for the interpretative judicial discourse to be taken as claimed by K. Günther: as a discourse of application only, and not of justification. All these controversies, however, lead to a common statement: the constitutional adjudication has been exercising a different activity. Some legal systems allows such activity legitimacy in some extent, like Brazilian’s, for example, which i) states a very broad adjudication, ii) provides an extensive catalog of basic rights, and iii) contains several procedural mechanisms for their protection. This empowers the adjudication to exercise what can be called a political activity. Therefore, a series of moral issues which were once exclusive to the political arena have been brought to the judiciary, such as: gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, religious freedom, federation, separation of powers, distribution of scarce resources. In a democracy, these moral questions ought to be mainly decided through deliberation outside the judiciary, but not always this is what happens. The paper discusses these issues, showing also how the Brazilian Supreme Court has dealt - technically, or not - with this relationship between law and justice in a complex and pluralist society.
Are Kantian philosophy and its principle of respect for persons inadequate to the protection of environmental values? This paper answers this question by elucidating how Kantian ethics can take environmental values seriously. In the period that starts with the Critique of Judgment in 1790 and ends with the Metaphysics of Morals in 1797, the subject would have been approached by Kant in a different manner; although the respect that we may owe to non-human nature is still grounded in our duties to mankind, the basis for such respect stems from nature’s aesthetic properties, and the duty to preserve nature lies in our duties to ourselves. Compared to the “market paradigm”, as it is called by Gillroy (the reference is to a conception of a public policy based on a criterion of economic efficiency or utility), Kantian philosophy can offer a better explanation of the relationship between environmental policy and the theory of justice. Kantian justice defines the “just state” as the one that protects the moral capacities of its “active” citizens, as presented in the first Part of the Metaphysics of Morals. In the Kantian paradigm, the environmental risk becomes a “public” concern. That means it is not subsumed under an individual decision, based on a calculus.
The increase in the volume of litigation verified since the 1990’s, having the Brazilian society as context, made the judiciary open itself to new technologies which facilitate the access to justice, as well as to a faster resolution of the demands. However, the intense insertion of technical rationalization in the process and decision operations by the judiciary, during the last years, led to a legalization supported by presuppositions of technical-instrumental regulation. According to the goal policy established by the CNJ, the annoyance of the instrumental rationality is present “with respect to purposes”, which demands, more and more, a mere fulfillment of previously instituted goals from the law operators. The matter is to know if the implementation of new technologies to solve the growing litigation coming from the complexity of societies is enough to adjust the Law to a post-conventional platform. If the social complexity implies resources coming from new technologies, it’s not certain that such technologies, on their own, satisfactorily answer a judicial model which, seen under the eyes of the post- conventional legitimacy and regulation, is adequate to complex societies. This illustrates that a judicial model, able to deal with the social plurality, must take into account not only the rules of instrumental rationality, but also the fundamental issues of communicative rationality. This current work intends to evaluate if the applicability of the instrumental rationality in the judiciary equally allows the law to extent the useful conditions of the communicative rationality to the consensual formation of will and opinion in the Democratic State of Law.
Civil Society became an important theme in the recent discussion of political or social theory. Civil Society is playing a substantial role for the legislation process. We can find it especially in the activities of international NGO. It gives a new aspect of the relationship between state and society, and legal philosophically speaking, of validity of law. Activities of Civil Society are socially recognized and their support systems are gradually institutionalized also domestic in Japan. But Japanese NPO has its own weak point, which arises from the political structure of our society.
Scientific and technical achievements can cause deep changes in spheres of morals and law. I am going to discuss some philosophical conclusions which follow from two significant ideas of contemporary civilization. First of them is a thesis about indistinguishability of natural from artificial, and the second one is an opportunity of creation of artificial human.
The first thesis is a consequence of the principle of relativity of physical reality to conditions and a way of observation, on which both interpretations of quantum theory and Einstein’s theories of relativity are based. I show that the given principle deprives us of objective criteria to distinguish natural from artificial, freedom from necessity, freedom from violence.
Today power of technique is directed not only on the external world, but also on a person. Due to information technology, and biotechnology an opportunity of creation of artificial and controlled individual increases. So human loses many features of a person and transforms to a part of a collective super individual subject. In modern time a search of the transcendental basis of law and power leads to impersonal human and recognition of super individuality.
Traditional belief about natural rights will disappear. There is necessity of revision of such concept as right of freedom. Liberal belief about freedom as a condition of human existence is changing. Prospects of technical development make justified R. Dworkin's reflections about superiority of right of equality in comparison with right of freedom.
The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 declares Brazil as a Democratic State of Law. This formally democratic legal status has been facing difficulties when it comes to its material implementation. Brazilian legal procedures are still greatly influenced by the catholic heritage from Portugal in the times of colonization, translated in the present times into a strong moral set of dogmas that still reflects upon the legal production and interpretation in the country. Recently in Brazil, a debate brought to the Supremo Tribunal Federal, the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, has evidenced the struggle between Ethics and Morality in the country’s legal scenario. The focus of the discussion was the possibility of abortion of anencephalic fetuses (in Brazil, abortion in considered a crime against life). In order to properly ground its decision, the Court invited scientists, doctors, members of feminist movements and representatives of certain religions to a public dialogue, in which both scientific-technical and purely moral-religious arguments were presented. Although these procedures encouraged and promoted a democratic and pluralistic legal debate, it seems like the crucial point of the discussion were not taken into account: the scientific character of Law. This is the object of the present manuscript: in order to ensure an intersubjective construction and application of Law, this must be perceived as an Applied Social Science and judges, lawyers, legislators and all other legal actors must proceed in a scientific way. To illustrate the theme, the specific case of abortion of anencephalic fetuses will be mentioned through the text.
The very idea of the European Convention on Human Rights is to bring the laws of contracting states into line with fundamental human rights principles. Where the Convention is not explicit, the Court should never rule restrictively so as to reduce the scope of a general right. In the case of homeschooling, the Convention sets forth the general principle that “the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” It must not, therefore, allow a contracting state to eliminate a means of achieving this desired by parents—unless the state can show that the means in question is ineffective.
I will discuss issues which can be seen as taken strictly from the science fiction literature. Nonetheless, I would like to demonstrate that those issues not so far from now will have a big influence on the ethical discourse and also the law and social philosophy. The first part aims at clarifying concept of “cyborg” and “cyborgization”. I will consider only meanings coined for scientific or philosophical purposes. I will also indicate two experiments, which bring to life “the first cyborg” – term in which the head-scientist of these experiments used to describe his effects. In the second part I will show ideas of transhumanists in the context of technological achievements mentioned earlier. I will concentrate on the human enhancement idea, underling majority of transhumanist’s branches. I will try to demonstrate that it is realistic concept. In the third part I will shift my attention to some of consequences which flow from “cyborgisation” and human enhancements mentioned in prior parts. I will present two rights seen by transhumanist’s philosophers as able to become human rights in the near future. In these frames I will consider the “morphological freedom” and the “cognitive liberty”. At the end, in the fourth part I will summarize my considerations about the influence of semi-fictitious technologies. I will try to bring on an unambiguous conclusion that aforesaid issues could in the nearest future become very substantial for every area of the theory and policy of law.
In his new book, R. Dworkin advocates the unity of values thesis. He wants to circumscribe morality as a proper epistemological domain which is methodologically different from scientific inquiry. The epistemological independence of morality is supposed to be a consequence of the irreducible fact/value dichotomy. This paper sustains that unity of values thesis is methodologically correct; all moral reasoning must be a constructive interpretation of its meaning. However, that author fails to recognize that not every axiological interpretation implies moral consequences. From H. Putnam’s pragmatic realism, this paper intends to demonstrate that much of scientific inquiry relies on values interpretation, and that this kind of reasoning is morally neutral. Finally, it should be clear that epistemological choices in legal positivism – e.g. the decision on which aspects of social interaction are theoretically relevant – should not disturb the soundness of its argument nor should it be read as if it had moral implications. This paper concludes that positivist theories cannot be ruled out. Since the choice between descriptive and interpretative models requires a circular justification, legal theory is itself an activity governed by epistemic values interpretation. Likewise natural sciences, it can only be understood from an internal perspective. Accordingly, inclusive positivism holds the advantage of being more consilient than interpretivism, which is arguably parochial.
A discussion regarding the complex relationship that exists between the concepts of efficiency and justice goes a long way back and raises several relevant arguments. One of them, and it must be rejected in advance, is that justice is in the realm of public law, while efficiency in that of private law. Is it unacceptable that the balance between public and private law leads to the belief of a divided legal system; one system, one set of laws, one legal system. Legislators and judges are responsible for determining a balance and no theory can postulate that the balance will always be found with a simple cut between public and private law to distinguish when the criterion should be justice or when it should be efficiency. It is reductionist to confine the discussion to single goals of efficiency and justice, when human dignity and human rights should also be considered when one is discussing law. Moreover, a discussion limited to only the concepts of justice and efficiency, relies on a belief that the terms are mutually exclusive. Posner has said that the economic analysis of law has limits and philosophy of law plays an extremely important role in this discourse, which must be interdisciplinary. There can be no goal other than the realization of human rights and there can be no justice if not shared by all of mankind.
The author will deal with the relationship between law and technology from the viewpoint of technology security standard. One of the relationships can be found in that law has been providing a security level of technology. They have been saying that law would often follow technology. Law is too slow to adapt the changing technology through the advancement of technology. Above all, information technology has an electronic rapidity and a legislation technology has a paper one. There might be a big estrangement between law and technology. However, law must provide a security standard of technology. The standard must be based on a relative security level. The relative level would premise on the ordinary, lawful and ethical use of technology. Most technology has been opened to the public without any technology impact assessment. Technology would have some defect, which the producers have overlooked. As a result, the users might often meet with the accidents caused on the defects.
Then law should provide a technology security standard to exclude the defects from the users’ viewpoint as secure as possible. The security standard must be reflected on the architecture standard of technology. The architecture standard may be a yardstick whether the creators can evade the responsibility for the accidents.
The standard would also premise on the ordinary, lawful and ethical use of technology. The ordinary use means that the users should use normally technology within the extent of the architecture standard. The ethical use means that the users should use technology being conscious of the defects in order to avoid accidents.
The relative security level may be the sum of the architecture standard and the ethical use of technology.
In information society, legal norm communications have been never established in certain fields for a long time. That is, a few legal norms have never obeyed in the fields. Above all, legal norms which relate to data protection, information contents and information security, would often infringed. Most violation would be conducted by using information technologies. Information technologies would often be used in these infringing incidents. It can be said that these infringing incidents would have never been conducted without information technology. These infringing incidents include hacking actions, personal data abuse, personal information disclosure, unauthorized access, infringing copyrights, infringing privacy rights, and so on. A way of preventing those infringements is to raise the level of punishment against the violators. But, it will prove to be disappointing. Furthermore, it would be an ex post facto measure to the last. It would be needed to invent an ex ante measure, if it is possible. As the ex ante measure, the author proposes a fusion of law and information technology. An information technology will lead people to a lawful deed when they conduct actions in using computers and networks. They say that information technology cures information technology. After all, the fusion will aim at realizing laws, and it will contribute to recover a social justice.
Vor Kurzem hat das koreanische Höchstgericht den lebensverkürzenden Behandlungsabbruch durch die Entnahme des Beatmungsgeräts als zulässig befunden. Dafür sollen zwei Voraussetzungen erfüllt sein; 1) der Eintritt des irreversiblen Todesprozesses, 2) der ernstliche mutmaßliche Wille des Patienten. Dabei sind auch die folgenden abweichenden Meinungen vertreten. Sie gehen davon aus, dass im betreffenden Fall der nahe Todesvorgang noch nicht eingetreten ist. Darüber hinaus darf die Selbstbestimmung des Patienten nur in der negativen Weise vollzogen und keinesfalls in positiver Weise, denn dies würde den Selbstmord bedeuten. Außerdem ist der mutmaßliche Wille der Patientin von ihrem hypothetischen zu unterscheiden. Allerdings könnte der Behandlungsabbruch unabhängig vom Willen des Patienten ohne Rekurs auf die Selbstbestimmung des Patienten genehmigt werden, wenn auf die immanenten Schranken des ärztlichen Auftrags abgestellt werden. In der Sterbehilfe steht die Unverfügbarkeit des Lebens im Gegensatz zu der Selbstbestimmung des Patienten. Dabei zeigt sich aber, dass der Schutz des Lebens angesichts der Tötung im Krieg oder in der Notwehrlage nur ein relativer ist. Genauso lässt sich das Recht des Patienten nicht als das auf das eigene Leben, sondern lediglich als das auf den natürlichen Tod verstehen. Im vorliegenden Fall kommt es in rechtlicher Hinsicht auf sog. Passive Sterbehilfe an. Wenn hier der in Kürze bevorstehende Todeseintritt und die mutmaßliche Einwilligung der Patienten nicht abzulehnen ist, soll der Behandlungsabbruch rechtfertigt werden. Allerdings darf der einseitige Behandlungsabbruch nicht bewilligt werden und zwar vor allem deshalb, weil das Selbstbestimmungsrecht des Patienten vernachlässigt werden kann.
The use of most if not all technologies is accompanied by negative side effects, While we may profit from today’s technologies, it is most often future generations who bear most risks. Risk analysis therefore becomes a delicate issue, because future risks often cannot be assigned a meaningful occurance probability. This paper argues that technology assessement most often deal with uncertainty and ignorance rather than risk when we include future generations into our ethical, political or juridal thinking. This has serious implications as probabilistic decision approaches are not applicable anymore. I contend that a virtue ethical approach in which dianoetic virtues play a central role may supplement a welfare based ethics in order to overcome the difficulties in dealing with uncertainty and ignorance in technology assessement.
Der religiöse Pluralismus innerhalb der multikulturellen Gesellschaft erfordert vom Staat das Bemühen, die wechselseitige Achtung nicht nur zwischen Personen mit unterschiedlichen religiösen Glaubensüberzeugungen, sondern auch zwischen Glaubenden und Nicht-Glaubenden sicherzustellen. In diesem Kontext wird es für die vom Staat übernommene Funktion entscheidend sein, rechtzeitig zu beurteilen, ob er eine aktive und positive Rolle als eine Institution spielt, welche dafür sorgt, dass die Religionsfreiheit der Einzelnen und der Gruppen geachtet wird. Im Vorliegenden werden einige Gefahren und Bedrohungen für die Religionsfreiheit in der heutigen Gesellschaft analysiert und eine kritische Betrachtung als Antwort auf diese Krisensituation vorgelegt. Konkret werden die folgenden Punkte erörtert: 1. Der Glaube, daß die Religion nicht mit den Werten einer modernen, liberalen Gesellschaft zu vereinbaren ist. 2. Die Konfessionalisierung des Staates. 3. Der Missbrauch der staatlichen Macht, um die Präferenzen der Bürger durch absichtliche Änderungen im sozialen Kontext zu beeinflussen. 4. Die unnötigen Behinderungen und Beschränkung des Rechts auf Verweigerung aus Gewissengründen, die von einem falschen Verständnisses desselben herrühren. 5. Die Verherrlichung eines falsch verstandenen, radikalen Individualismus. 6. Ein Verständnis des Grundsatzes der Nichtdiskriminierung als ,,Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber den Unterschieden“.
Technocracy is usually opposed to democracy. Here, another perspective is taken: technocracy is countered with the rule of law. In trying to understand the contemporary dynamics of the rule of law, two main types of legal systems (in a broad sense) have to be distinguished: firstly, the legal norm, studied by the science of law; secondly, the scientific laws (which includes the legalities of the different sciences and communities). They both contain normative prescriptions. But their differ in their subjects‘ source: while legal norms are the will’s expression of the normative authority, technical prescriptions can be derived from scientific laws, which are grounded over the commonly supposed objectivity of the scientific knowledge about reality. They both impose sanctions too, but in the legal norm they refer to what is established by the norm itself, while in the scientific legality they consist in the reward or the punishment derived from the efficacy or inefficacy to reach the end pursued by the action. The way of legitimation also differs: while legal norms have to have followed the formal procedures and must not have contravened any fundamental right, technical norms‘ validity depend on its theoretical foundations or on its efficacy. Nowadays, scientific knowledge has become and important feature in policy-making. Contradictions can arise between these legal systems. These conflicts are specially grave when the recognition or exercise of fundamental rights is instrumentally used, or when they are violated in order to increase the policies‘ efficacy. A political system is technocratic, when, in case of contradiction, the scientific law finally prevails.
"Community and law approach" provides an illuminating insight into alternative legal orderings within a social unit. The comprehensiveness of legal systems within a community or a social unit, provides a suitable basis for a structural framework of alternative legal systems or Legal Pluralism, which is missing in the discourse on Legal Pluralism. "Identifying the locus of law within a community", provides us with an indication on how autopoetic a legal system can be within a social unit, taking into account the social rootedness of legal norms.
Legal practitioners and legal scientists need to have knowledge of the general rules that apply in the legal system. This involves both knowledge of the legislation and knowledge of the decisions by judges that function as general rules of law. Law students preparing themselves for the legal profession need to acquire these kinds of knowledge. A student has to have knowledge about where to look for decisions, understand the structure of decisions and learn to determine what makes a decision relevant to the body of applicable rules in the legal system. Legal education primarily aims at acquiring insight in the legal sources, their history and background. This basic knowledge is of great importance; legal problem solving is hardly possible without an understanding of the legal knowledge. To illustrate the use of this knowledge in practice, teachers work through decisions as examples. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to learn by explanation or by imitation alone. A more effective way to obtain expertise is by actually performing the task, i.e. students should do the exercises, while the teacher provides feedback on their solutions. For effective learning, also the solution process should be monitored and provided with feedback. Furthermore it is desirable for students to be able to ask for help at any time during the process. They should also be able to practice over and over again. An ideal situation would have a teacher available for every student, monitoring the student while practicing and providing support where and whenever necessary. However, this being not practically feasible, the second best option is to offer the student electronic support.
CASE (Case Analysis and Structuring Environment) is an environment where a law student can practice with finding decisions, with structuring its text and with analysing the decision in order to be able to determine in what way it adds to the body of applicable rules in the legal system.
CASE is developed using a principled and structured design approach. A short description of this approach is followed by an analysis of the learning task, the difficulties law students experience and the remedies proposed on the basis of both the task analysis and the stated difficulties. This is followed by a description of architecture, functionality, platform and implementation of CASE and a description of a session with CASE and future work.
In this article the author, in the context of the fiftieth anniversary of H.L.A. Hart’s “The Concept of Law”, reconsiders the moderate indeterminacy of law thesis, which derives from the open texture of language. For that purpose, he intends: first, to analyze Hart’s moderate indeterminacy thesis, i.e. determinacy in “easy cases” and indeterminacy in “hard cases”, which resembles Aristotle’s "doctrine of the mean"; second, to criticize his moderate indeterminacy thesis as failing to embody the virtues of a center in between the vices of the extremes, by insisting that the exercise of discretion required constitutes an “interstitial” legislation; and, third, to reorganize an argument for a truly “mean” position, which requires a form of weak interpretative discretion, instead of a strong legislative discretion.
After the absurd terrorism and violence of the totalitarianism and bureaucratic administrative and legal systems of the 20th century it does not give any meaning to rationalize harm as meaningful evil that even though it is evil may have some importance for the development of the world towards the good. Rather, evil is incomprehensible and as radical and banal evil it challenges human rationality. This is indeed the case when we are faced with instrumental and rationalized administrative and political evil. Therefore, we must analyse the banality of evil in politics and in administration in order to understand the concept of evil. Moreover, as proposed by Hannah Arendt, we need to fight this evil with political thinking and social philosophy. The only way to deal with harm and wrongdoing is to return a concept of responsibility that is closely linked to reflective thinking. In this paper, we will on the basis of a discussion of the banality of evil explore this in relation to Hannah Arendt’s analysis of the administration of evil, as expressed by the personality of Adolf Eichmann. Finally, we will place this concept of administrative evil in Hannah Arendt’s general political philosophy.
Es ist die Aufgabe der Wissenschaft, richtige, d.h. möglichst vernünftige Entscheidungen anzuleiten. Der wissenschaftliche Geltungsanspruch umfasst immer sowohl einen Wahrheits- wie einen Wert- und einen Gerechtigkeitsanspruch.
Vernunft lässt sich nur in einem sowohl rationalen wie interrationalen Diskurs annähern:
(1) Im rationalen Diskurs wird der Anspruch erhoben, innerhalb einer bestimmten Rationalität richtige Antworten auf ausgewählte Fragen zu finden (meist innerhalb der Grenzen bestimmter institutionalisierter Schulen oder Disziplinen).
(2) Der interrationale Diskurs setzt bei der Relation zwischen verschiedenen Fragen mit unterschiedlicher Rationalität an und versucht,
(a) zwischen diesen Fragen eine wechselseitige Verständigung herzustellen (Diskurs zur Verständlichkeit), bevor er
(b) auf den Diskurs über die Richtigkeit von Antworten verschiedener Fragestellungen im Zusammenhang eintritt (materieller interrationaler Diskurs).
Der interrationale Diskurs bedarf der Verfassung:
(1) Formelle Verfassung des Diskurses
(a) Institutionelle Strukturen und Prozesse (Gleichberechtigung aller Beteiligten, Symmetrie der Strukturen, z.B. die Tagesordnung einer Ratssitzung)
(b) Methodische Argumentationsstrukturen und -abläufe (Wahrheit, Wert und Gerechtigkeit; Fragen- und Antwortdimension).
(2) Materielle Verfassung: Inhaltliches Argumentarium guter Gründe im Diskurs (bewährte Argumente aus bisherigen Diskursen).
Germany is the focus of this paper, owing to the fact that since 1938 it has had the strictest laws on compulsory schooling worldwide. As a result, homeschooling in Germany has become virtually impossible. There are interesting divergences between policy and practice in the German setting, both in the country’s educational history and present educational problems. The Länder (federal states) have the responsibility for education, and they are taking a much stricter line against homeschoolers than a decade ago, especially by depriving parents of the custody of their homeschooled children at an early stage. The laws relied upon, however, were never intended to deal with such educational matters; they were designed to punish parents who abuse or neglect their children. The present, highly questionable legal action succeeds only because of the consent of state schools, state social welfare offices, and courts. The same laws are not used against the parents of the approximately 250,000 teens who are truant. The functioning of the legal and sociological machinery in Germany is being employed aggressively to stamp out homeschooling, while at the same time it ignores the crucial issue of parents who allow their children to skip school—thus depriving them of an adequate education at home or elsewhere. At the same time, the number of specialists in law and education, as well as politicians and governmental experts who argue in favor of homeschooling is growing, and media reports on homeschooling are much more positive than they were a decade ago.
Human rights and the law: the unbreachable gap between the ethics of justice and the efficacy of law
(2012)
This paper explores the structure of justice as the condition of ethical, inter-subjective responsibility. Taking a Levinasian perspective, this is a responsibility borne by the individual subject in a pre-foundational, proto-social proximity with the other human subject, which takes precedence over the interests of the self. From this specific post-humanist perspective, human rights are not the restrictive rights of individual self-will, as expressed in our contemporary legal human rights discourse. Rights do not amount to the prioritisation of the so-called politico-legal equality of the individual citizen-subject animated by the universality of the dignity of autonomous, reasoned intentionality. Rather, rights enlivened by proximity invert this discourse and signify, first and foremost, rights for the other, with the ethical burden of responsibility towards the other.
The problem of this paper is prompted by the claim of Zagreb University students residing in government subsidized dormitories that their duty to act for free as dorm night porters amounts to forced labour. After a preliminary note on the nature and types of legal scholarship, the paper restates jurisprudential arguments against student rights and analyses limitations inherent in legal scholarship in action, or jurisprudence, that make it unresponsive to student rights: a limited normative framework and a limited subject-matter, most notably a limited focus of inquiry when it comes to force or coercion. A glimpse at an analysis of force in international law indicates that the naked force typical of elementary criminal law has dissolved long ago into phenomena remotely related to naked force, such as economic pressure and ideological propaganda. Two legal and social contexts of force are of primary interest to understanding student rights. The first is legal recognition of the vulnerability of children to naked force. The second is the blind eye of jurisprudence for the vulnerability of workers to economic need. The belief in economic necessity and subjugation of the state to capital has resulted in a bizarre reversal of the roles of corporations and students. Jurisprudence cannot change the world but can interpret it more sensibly. What is required is a re-examination of maturity and emancipation within the emerging world law.
Die Rassenmischung bekam in der Entwicklung der Sozialwissenschaften in Brasilien immer wieder neue Bedeutungen, um sich an jeden politischen Zusammenhang anzupassen. Sie wurde von den Männern des Wissens als Problem und später als Lösung angesehen – nämlich durch die Aufhellung – gemäß der evolutionären Rassentheorien Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Aber vor allem in den 1930er Jahren betrachteten einige Intellektuelle Brasiliens, wie Gilberto Freyre, die Mischung der drei Rassen, die das Volk Brasiliens bilden, als Bestandteil der Nation. Eine solche Vorstellung brachte juristische und politische, manchmal unmerkliche Folgen für den Platz des Mischlings innerhalb der brasilianischen Gesellschaft. Dieser wird als Notausstieg Mulatte nach Carl Degler oder als epistemologisches Hindernis nach Eduardo de Oliveira e Oliveira verstanden. Der Zweck dieser Arbeit besteht darin, aufzuzeigen, inwiefern jene Tradition eine tiefe Auseinandersetzung verbirgt und wie sie juristische Auswirkungen in der Gegenwart hervorruft, z.B. in Bezug auf die Debatte über Rassenquoten an öffentlichen Universitäten.
Some advances in legal practical reason: for a progressive dialogue with contemporary hermeneutics
(2012)
This paper intends to critically discuss some points of the contemporary thesis concerning constitutional hermeneutics and methodology of law. Once identified some authors and the lines of argumentation affiliated grosso modo to the linguistic turn and rhetoric, as well as the core of the transcendental powers of communication (v.g. N. MacCormick, R. Alexy, K. Günther), the objective is to identify some dialogue with economics and political science, enlightened by recent researches about Hegel-Marx interpretations of social life. Of course the discussion inevitably passes through methodological questions, opposing analytics vs. dialectics, idealistic vs. realists standpoints. In a effort to foment the inclusive dialogue between points of view concerning the concept of law that may create (not necessarily) radical opponents, the lines of conclusion intents to revisit some foundations of Hegelian "method" (so to speak) and intends to give a modest contribution to a more profound analysis of the relations between sein and sollen categories, in order to enrich the discussions about technology and social life, specially the life of the law nowadays.
Die Auffassung des Rechts in Hegels Rechtsphilosophie weicht bekanntlich von dem ab, was üblicherweise unter „Recht“ verstanden wird. Schon deshalb sind Hegels Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts nicht einfach neben andere Werke zur Rechtstheorie zu stellen. Aber Hegels Bestimmung des Rechts ergänzt nicht nur das Recht äußerlich, sondern lässt es auf etwas gründen, das über es selbst deutlich hinausweist: auf jener Normativität, die er als Sittlichkeit bezeichnet. So ist Hegels Rechtsphilosophie nur als eine Sozialphilosophie der Sittlichkeit zu verstehen. Sie kann als die philosophische Selbstreflexion einer Gesellschaft verstanden werden, die sich selbst primär als durch das Recht bestimmt versteht, aber auf eine andere Form von Normativität bezogen ist.