Law, justice and Reza Banakar’s legal sociology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1169Keywords:
Reza Banakar, sociology of law, law and justice, socio-legal theoryAbstract
This work provides a specific theoretical reading of the contemporary sociology of law promoted by Reza Banakar. Specifically, it investigates how the scholar approaches the relationship between law’s autonomy and justice claims through socio-legal lenses, and it proposes a partial understanding of his response. This response is critically interpreted in order to outline the potentialities and limitations of the author’s theoretical proposal. The analyses found in this work were operationalized from a bibliographic review of different sets of literature. In the end, the work highlights that, despite certain gaps, Banakar’s sociology of law has much to offer to the field, and it paves the way for the engagement of future socio-legal researchers interested in the different forms of intersection between law and justice in society.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF 891
References
Alexy, R., 1985. A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Alexy, R., 1998. Law and correctness. Current Legal Problems [online], 51(1), 205–221. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/51.1.205 [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Alexy, R., 2000. On the thesis of a necessary connection between law and morality: Bulygin’s critique. Ratio Juris [online], 13(2), 138–147. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00146 [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Alexy, R., 2002. The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Alexy, R., 2007. An Answer to Joseph Raz. In: G. Pavlakos, ed., Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy. Oxford: Hart, 37–58.
Archer, M., 2007. Making our Way through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M., 2010. Reflexivity. Sociopedia.isa [online]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/205684601373 [Accessed 28 June 2020].
Archer, M., 2012. The Reflexive Imperative in Late Modernity. Cambridge University Press.
Banakar, R., 1998. The Identity Crisis of a “Stepchild”: Reflections on the Paradigmatic Deficiencies of Sociology of Law. Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 81(2), 3–21.
Banakar, R., 2000. Reflections on the Methodological Issues of the Sociology of Law. Journal of Law and Society [online], 27(2), 273–295. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00154 [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Banakar, R., 2001a. A Passage to “India”: Toward a Transformative Interdisciplinary Discourse on Law and Society. Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 92(1), 3–21.
Banakar, R., 2001b. Integrating Reciprocal Perspectives: On Georges Gurvitch’s Theory of Immediate Jural Experience. Canadian Journal of Law and Society [online], 16(1), 67–91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S082932010000658X [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Banakar, R., 2003. Merging Law and Sociology: Beyond the Dichotomies in Socio-Legal Research. Berlin/Wisconsin: Galda and Wilch.
Banakar, R., 2006. Can Sociology and Jurisprudence Learn from Each Other?: A Reply to Mauro Zamboni. Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 113(2), 75–80.
Banakar, R., 2007. Whose Experience is the Measure of Justice? Legal Ethics [online], 10(2), 209–222. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728X.2007.11423893 [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Banakar, R., 2008. The Politics of Legal Cultures. Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 123(4), 37–60.
Banakar, R., 2009. Law Through Sociology’s Looking Glass: Conflict and Competition in Sociological Studies of Law. In: A. Denis and D. Kalekin-Fishman, eds., The ISA Handbook in Contemporary Sociology: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation [online]. London: Sage, 58–73. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446214626.n5 [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Banakar, R., 2010. Law, Rights and Justice in Late Modern Society: A Tentative Theoretical Framework. In: R. Banakar, ed., Rights in Context Law and Justice in Late Modern Society. Farnham: Ashgate, 19–40.
Banakar, R., 2011a. Having one’s cake and eating it: The paradox of contextualisation in socio-legal research. (review essay). International Journal of Law in Context [online], 7(4), 487–503. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552311000267 [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Banakar, R., 2011b. The Sociology of Law. Sociopedia.isa [online]. Available from: https://sociopedia.isaportal.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/20568401134 [Accessed 28 June 2020].
Banakar, R., 2012. Who Needs the Classics? On the Relevance of Classical Legal Sociology for the Study of Current Social and Legal Problems. In: O. Hammerslev and M.R. Madsen, eds., Retssociologi [online]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2140775 [Accessed 28 May 2020].
Banakar, R., 2013a. Can Legal Sociology Account for the Normativity of Law? In: M. Baier, ed., Social and Legal Norms: Towards a Socio-legal Understanding of Normativity. Farnham: Ashgate, 15–38.
Banakar, R., 2013b. Law and Regulation in Late Modernity. In: R. Banakar and M. Travers, eds., Law and Social Theory [online]. 2nd ed. Oxford: Hart, 305–324. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2229247 [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Banakar, R., 2015. Normativity in Legal Sociology: Methodological Reflections on Law and Regulation in Late Modernity. Cham: Springer International.
Banakar, R., 2016. Law, Policy and Social Control Amidst Flux. In: K. Dahlstrand, ed., Festskrift till Karsten Åström. Juristförlaget i Lund, 47–74.
Banakar, R., 2019. On Socio-legal Design [online]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463028 [Accessed 1 August 2020].
Banakar, R., and Phillips, A.L., 2017. Law, Community and the 2011 London Riots. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 62, 79–99.
Barden, G., and Murphy, T., 2011. Law and Justice in Community. Oxford University Press.
Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U., 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., and Lash, S., 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Traditions and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., 1975. The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason. Social Science Information [online], 14(6), 19–47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F053901847501400602 [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Cotterrell, R., 1995. Law’s Community: Legal Theory in Sociological Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dalberg-Larsen, J., 2000. Sociology of law from a legal point of view. Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 89, 26–39.
Deflem, M., 2008. Sociology of Law: Visions of a Scholarly Tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Ehrlich, E. (with R. Pound and K.A. Ziegert), 2017. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. London/New York: Routledge. (Originally published in 1912).
Habermas, J., 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action – Vol I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press. (Originally published in 1981).
Habermas, J., 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action – Vol II: System and Lifeworld – A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston: Beacon Press. (Originally published in 1981).
Hart, H.L.A., 1983. Positivism and the separation of law and morals. In: H. Hart, ed., Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1958).
Hydén, H., 1999. Even a Stepchild Eventually Grows Up: On the Identity of Sociology of Law. Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 85, 71–80.
Kafka, F., 2009. The Trial. Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1925).
Kelsen, H., 2002. Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Oxford University Press. (Originally published in 1934).
Luhmann, N., 2004. Law as a Social System. Oxford University Press.
Mathiesen, T., 1998. Is it all that bad to be a stepchild? Comments on the state of sociology of law. Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 83(4), 67–76.
Norrie, A., 2005. Law and the Beautiful Soul. London: Glasshouse.
Parsons, T., 1977. Law as an Intellectual Stepchild. Sociological Inquiry [online], 47(3–4), 11–58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1977.tb00792.x [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Radbruch, G., 2006. Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies [online], 26(1), 1–11. (Originally published in 1946). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi041 [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Raz, J., 1979. The Authority of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Samuel, G., 2009. Interdisciplinarity and the authority paradigm: Should law be taken seriously by scientists and social scientists? Journal of Law and Society [online], 36(4), 431–459. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2009.00478.x [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Sand, I.J., 2000. A future or a demise for the theory of the sociology of law: Law as a normative, social and communicative function of society. Nordisk juridisk tidsskrift, 90, 55–73.
Teubner, G., 2009. Self-subversive Justice: Contingency or transcendence formula of law. Modern Law Review [online], 72(1), 1–23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00731.x [Accessed 19 January 2021].
Treviño, J.A., 2010. The Sociology of Law: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives. New Brunswick/London: Transaction.
Waters, M., 1994. Modern Sociological Theory. London: Sage.
Weber, M., 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Originally published in 1922).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Mariana Motta Vivian
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
