“Critical Legal Thought: An American-German Debate” An Introduction at the Occasion of Its Republication in the German Law Journal 25 Years Later

Author:

Joerges Christian

Abstract

The motivation and agenda of the German contributors to the “German-American Debate on Critical Legal Thought”, were not, and certainly could not, be uniform, neither within the American nor the German group of participants, let alone between Americans and Germans. It seemed nevertheless obvious at the time that we shared a number of concerns. Four seemed obvious and particularly important: Uneasiness, albeit for different reasons, with our respective mainstream traditions; a concern for social justice, albeit in different societies and with different priorities; the critique of our educational systems though they differed so markedly; an awareness of the discrepancies between the law on the books and the law in action which generated contextual studies and all sorts of “law and…” endeavors. Neither during the laborious preparations of the 1986 conference nor during the equally demanding publication process and not even with hindsight is it conceivable to identify comprehensively and exactly our communalities and differences. This is why we have decided to write separate introductions. Mine will proceed in three steps. The first is a reconstruction of German, more precisely: my own, motivation and agenda (A). The second step reproduces in the form of an essay the proposal submitted to the Volkswagen Foundation in 1985, the funding organization for the conference (B). The third summarizes much more briefly what I see as accomplishments and failures - and ensuing challenges (C).

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Law

Reference117 articles.

1. To cite just the work of David Fraser which does not only cover national attempts in Europe to deal with Nazi and collaborationist regimes, but also transitional Justice mechanisms with a view to learn about law out of its encounters with the evils of the past; see, e.g., his Law After Auschwitz: Towards A Jurisprudence of the Holocaust(2005); The Fragility of Law: Constitutional Patriotism and the Jews of Belgium, 1940-45, London 2009, and most recently, Daviborshch's Cart: Narrating the Holocaust in Australian War Crimes Trials, forthcoming in 2011 with Nebraska Press.

2. See Aristide Chiotellis and Wolfgang Fikentscher, Zur Einführung: Rechtssachenforschung - Ein heute noch erfüllbares Programm? in: Chiotellis A. & W. Fikentscher (eds.), Rechtstatsachenforschung. Methodische Probleme und Beispiele aus dem Schuld- und Wirtschaftsrecht 1 (1985)

3. Heldrich Andreas , Die Bedeutung der Rechtssoziologie für das Zivilrecht, 186 Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 74 (1986).

4. Max. Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (5th ed. by J. Winckelmann, 1972), at, 889-892.

5. Esser Josef , Grundsatz und Norm (Principle and Rule, 1956), at 18-23.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3