Luhmann and Law

Author: Christopher Thornhill
Publisher: Routledge
ISBN: 9781472455598
Published In: October 2016
Format: Hardback
Jurisdiction: U.K. ? Disclaimer:
Countri(es) stated herein are used as reference only

List Price: HKD 3,445.00

HKD 3,341.65 Save HKD 103.35 (3%)

Download Order Form

Add to Wishlist
| Add to Compare

Description
Contents

Details

Niklas Luhmann wrote a number of works which have decisively shaped the recent development of legal science as a theoretical discipline. Some basic elements of his theory have been widely appropriated by other legal theorists, such that it is difficult to imagine contemporary reflection in legal theory, and above all legal sociology, without Luhmann.

This collection brings together the most important canonical and cutting-edge papers on Luhmann's legal thought. It is introduced in a comprehensive editorial piece by the editor which locates the articles in context and explores the issues and topics at hand.

Introduction

1. Michael King and Chris Thornhill, ‘Society’s Legal System’, in Michael King and Chris Thornhill, Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Politics and Law (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003), pp 35-68.

2. Jean Clam, ‘Une nouvelle sociologie du droit ? Autour de Das Recht der Gesellschaft de Niklas Luhmann.’ Droit et société 1996 33(1): 405-423.

3. Frieder Naschold, ‘Demokratie und　Komplexität: Thesen　und Illustrationen zur Theoriediskussion in der Politikwissenschaft.’ Politische Vierteljahresschrift (1968) 9(3): 494-518.

4. Peter Nahamowitz, ‘Autopoiesis oder ökonomischer Staatsinterventionismus?’ Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie (1988) 9: 36-73.

5. Chris Thornhill, ‘Niklas Luhmann: A Sociological Transformation of Political Legitimacy?’ Distinktion. Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory (2006) 13: 33-53.

6. Jean Clam, ‘What is Modern Power?’, in Michael King and Chris Thornhill, Luhmann on Law and Politics. Critical Appraisals and Applications (Oxford: Hart, 2006), pp.

145-162.

7. Gunther Teubner, ‘Substantive and Reflexive Elements in Modern Law.’ Law & Society Review (1983) 17(2): 239-286.

8. Hubert Rottleuthner ‘A Purified Sociology of Law: Niklas Luhmann on the Autonomy of the Legal System.’ Law & Society Review (1989) 23(5): 779-798.

9. Inger-Johanne Sand, ‘The Interaction of Society, Politics and Law: The Legal and Communicative Theories of Habermas, Luhmann and Teubner.’ Scandinavian Studies in Law (2008) 53: 45-75.

10. Gert Verschraegen, ‘Human Rights and Modern Society: A Sociological Analysis from the Perspective of Systems Theory.’ Journal of Law and Society (2002) 29(2): 258–281.

11. Marcelo Neves, ‘From the Autopoiesis to the Allopoiesis of Law.’ Journal of Law and Society (2001) 28(2): 242-264

12. Chris Thornhill, ‘Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann: Two Rival Critiques of Metaphysics’, Chris Thornhill, German Political Philosophy. The Metaphysics of Law (London: Routledge, 2006), pp.

314-339.

13. Kjaer, Poul 2006. ‘Systems in Context. On the Outcome of the Habermas/Luhmann-Debate.’ Ancilla juris: 66-77.

14. Gunther Teubner, ‘Economics of Gift - Positivity of Justice: The Mutual Paranoia of Jacques Derrida and Niklas Luhmann.’ Theory, Culture and Society (2001) 18: 29-47.

15. Christoph Menke, ‘The Self-Reflection of Law and the Politics of Rights.’ Constellations (2011): 18(2): 124-134.

16. Karl-Heinz Ladeur, ‘Recht und Gerechtigkeit bei Derrida und Luhmann: Eine Kritik auf systemtheoretischer Grundlage.’ Rechtstheorie (2012) 43(3): 271-323.

17. Gunther Teubner, ‘Societal Constitutionalism: Alternatives to State-Centred Constitutional Theory?’ in　Christian Joerges, Inger-Johanne Sand and Gunther Teubner (eds), Transnational Governance and Constitutionalism (Oxford: Hart, 2004), pp.

3-28.

18. Marc Amstutz, Métissage: On the Form of Law in World Society.’ Zeitschrift für　vergleichende　Rechtswissenschaft (2013) 11: 336–360.

19. Mathias Albert, ‘Observing World Politics. Luhmann´s　Systems Theory　of Society and　International Relations.’ Millennium (1999) 29(2): 239-265.

20. Andreas Fischer-Lescano, ‘Critical Systems Theory.’ Philosophy & Social Criticism　(2012)　38(1): 3-23