Legal institutions as comparators of legal cultures
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1361Keywords:
comparators, comparative legal cultures, institutional theory of law, legal pluralismAbstract
The institutional theory of law provides the conceptual foundations both for a sociologically sound and theoretically coherent socio-legal theory of law and for comparative research into legal cultures. By conceiving law as institutional normative order the institutional theory can accommodate for the rich historical and cultural diversity in the forms of law. This article analyses the three components of the institutional theory, i.e. norms, order and institutions, and gives a brief account of the types of norms that institutions bring together, their sociological dimension and the typologies of legal institutions. The notion of order is enhanced by the institutional theory to account both for claims to practical operation of the law and for the existence of conflicts, calling for institutional approaches to dispute resolution. This opening to “order and dispute” raises the question of justice and fairness of the norms and of the mechanisms of dispute resolution. Comparison of legal cultures needs to identify the legal fields that are being compared, with a view to producing a workable set of legal culture comparators for comparative purposes. These comparators would need further spelling out to deliver measurable indicators.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
12_6_Bengoetxea_OSLS 297
XML_12_6_Bengoetxea_OSLS 402
References
Alexy, R., 2010. The Dual Nature of Law. Ratio Juris, 23(2), 167–182.
Austin, J., 1832. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. London: John Murray.
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 New ISA Handbook in Contemporary International Sociology: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. New York: Sage.
Bell, J., 2001. French Legal Culture. London: Butterworths.
Blankenburg, E., and Bruinsma, F., 1994. Dutch Legal Culture. 2nd ed. Deventer/Boston: Kluwer.
Bohannan, P., 1965. The Different Realms of the Law. American Anthropologist, 67(6), 33–42.
Čehulić, M., 2021. Perspectives of legal culture: a systematic literature review. Croatian Sociological Review [online], 51(2), 257–283. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5613/rzs.51.2.4 [Accessed 19 September 2022].
Dworkin, R., 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R., 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA/London: Belknap Press.
Ferrari, V., 2006. Derecho y Sociedad. Elementos de sociología del derecho. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Friedman, L.,1977. Law and Society: An Introduction. London: Pearson College/Prentice Hall.
Friedman, L., 1985. The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. (Originally published in 1975).
Friedman, L., 1990. The Republic of Choice: Law, Authority and Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Friedman, L., 1997. The Concept of Legal Culture: A Reply. In: D. Nelken, ed., Comparing Legal Cultures. London: Routledge.
Friedman, L., 2006. The Place of Legal Culture in the Sociology of Law. In: M. Freeman, ed., Law and Sociology. Oxford University Press, 185–199.
Fuller, L., 1964. The Morality of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Galanter, M., 1989. Law and Society in Modern India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, J., 2018. From Personal Life to Private Law. Oxford University Press.
Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books Classics.
Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hart, H.L.A., 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kelsen, H., 1911. Hauptprobleme Der Staatsrechtslehre Entwickelt Aus Der Lehre Vom Rechtssatze, Tübingen: Mohr.
Klare, K., 1998. Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism. South African Journal on Human Rights, 14(1), 146.
Luhmann, N., 1985. A Sociological Theory of Law. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
MacCormick, N., 1999. Beyond the Sovereign State. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MacCormick, N., 2007. Institutions of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Maduro, M.P., 2021. Has the law of the EU become European Law? EULAWLIVE weekend 53rd.
Merry, S.E., and Brenneis, D., eds., 2004. Law and Empire in the Pacific. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Nelken, D., 2004. Using the Concept of Legal Culture. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 29, 1–26.
Ponthoreau, 2005. Le droit comparé en question(s). Entre pragmatisme et outil épistémologique. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 57, 7-27.
Rawls, J., 1971. A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press.
Roberts, S., 1979. Order and Dispute. An Introduction to Legal Anthropology. London: Penguin.
Santos, B.S., y Meneses, P., eds., 2014. Epistemologías del sur. Barcelona: Akal.
Searle, J.R., 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R., 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford University Press.
Tamanaha, B., 2017. A Realistic Theory of Law. Cambridge University Press.
Tuori, K., 2018. Whose voluntas, what ratio? Law in the state tradition. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 16(4), 1164–1175.
Wallace, J.R., 2018. Practical Reason. In: E.N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University Press.
Weber, M., 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Joxerramon Bengoetxea
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.
