Law's role in democratising the family
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1348Keywords:
family law, mediation, Durkheim, constitutionalism, human rights, GiddensAbstract
This paper explores the dynamics of family law’s transformation over the past 50 years as the result of interactions of two autonomous systems: the law and the family. The interesting feature in the change of family is its democratisation. Equality, consent, freedom of partners, participative governance have become ideals of the Western family. Law is a motor of this family transformation through its own internal transformation on two points: the transformation of legal reasoning, based on human rights; the use of mediation in judiciary conflict resolution. This U turn can be explained by the new mechanisms of social order in modern differenciated societies. Following Anne Rawls’ reading of Durkheim’s insights, the article argues for the centrality of “constitutive practices” in modern societies. Legal framework can no longer derive and perform social order through moral rituals. Modern law must fit the procedural morality (instead of a moral consensus) of family interactions in order to be able to solve conflicts. This explanation of the success of mediation in family law is also the key to understand the constitutionalisation of family law via the use of principles (instead of rules) in legal reasoning. Intercultural conflicts arise inside families as well as inside societies. New flexible family law becomes a factor of pluralization of family forms. On this basis, transnationalization of family law can develop, even if state sovereignty remains a powerful brake of this evolution.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
14(1)_De_Munck_OSLS 305
XML_14(1)_De_Munck_OSLS 19
References
Archer, M.S., 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M.S., 1996. Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge University Press.
Bartolini, S., 2024. Mutual Trust Through the looking Glass: Protection of Childrens’ Fundamental Rights in EU Child Abduction Cases. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 14(1-this issue). Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1349
De Munck, J., 2015. L’enfant en pyjama sur Global Airlines. In : C. Guy-Ecabert and E. Volckrick, eds., Enlèvement parental international d’enfants. Saisir le juge ou s’engager dans la médiation ? Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn, 229–46.
Fiss, O.M., 1984. Against Settlement. Yale Law Journal, 93(6), 1073–89.
Garapon, A., and Allard, J., 2005. Les juges dans la mondialisation: La nouvelle révolution du droit. Paris: Seuil.
Giddens, A., 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Polity Press.
González Martín, N., 2015. International Parental Child Abduction and Mediation. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, 15(1), 353–412.
Guy-Ecabert, C., 2015. Du bon usage de la distinction entre règles et principes en médiation. In: C. Guy-Ecabert and E. Volckrick, eds., Enlèvement parental international d’enfants. Saisir le juge ou s’engager dans la médiation ? Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn, 218–28.
Harding, M., 2013. Does transnational family law exist? Should adult relationships be freed from national protective norms. In: P. Jurčys, P.F. Kjaer and R. Yatsunami, eds., Regulatory Hybridization in the Transnational Sphere. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 263–80.
Hart, H.L.A., 2005. Le concept de droit. Brussels: Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis.
Honneth, A., 2015. Le droit de la liberté. Esquisse d’une éthicité démocratique. Paris: Gallimard (Nrf).
Jamieson, L., 1999. Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the “Pure Relationship” Sociology, 33(3), 477–494.
Jamieson, L., and Wajcman, J., 2010. Anthony Giddens et l’intimité : la structuration oubliée. In: D. Chabaud-Rychter, ed., Sous les sciences sociales, le genre. Relectures critiques, de Max Weber à Bruno Latour. Paris: La Découverte, 107–120.
Joas, H., 2016. Comment la personne est devenue sacrée. Paris: Labor et Fides.
Lande, J., 2012. The Revolution in Family Law Dispute Resolution. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 24, 411–449.
Lukes, S., and Prabhat, D., 2012. Durkheim on law and morality : The disintegration thesis. Journal of Classical Sociology 12(3–4), 363–83.
Rawls, A., 2009. An Essay on Two Conceptions of Social Order. Constitutive Orders of Action, Objects and Identities vs. Aggregated Orders of Individual Action. Journal of Classical Sociology, 9(4), 500–520.
Rawls, A., 2012. Durkheim’s theory of modernity : Self-regulating practices as constitutive orders of social and moral facts. Journal of Classical Sociology, 12(3–4), 479–512.
Stalford, H., 2010. Crossing boundaries : reconciling law, culture and values in international family mediation. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 32(2), 155–68.
Taylor, C., 1992. Grandeur et misère de la modernité. Montreal: Bellarmin.
Teubner, G., 2016. Fragments constitutionnels. Le constitutionnalisme sociétal à l’ère de la globalisation. Paris: Classiques Garnier.
Théry, I., 1993. Le démariage. Justice et vie privée. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Thørnblad, R., and Strandbu, A., 2018. The Involvement of Children in the Process of Mandatory Family Mediation. In: A. Nylund, K. Ervasti and L. Adrian, eds., Nordic Mediation Research [online]. Cham. Springer, 183–208. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73019-6_10
Turowetz, J., and Rawls, A., 2021. The development of Garfinkel’s “Trust” argument from 1947 to 1967: Demonstrating how inequality disrupts sense and self-making. Journal of Classical Sociology, 21(1), 3–37.
Willems, G., 2016. La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme et l’avènement d’une nouvelle rationalité juridique en droit de la personne et de la famille. Annales de droit de Louvain, 76(1), 3–46.
Willems, G., 2024. Same-sex marriage as a human right: How the Strasbourg Court could draw inspiration from the US Supreme Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to affirm marriage equality. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 14(1-this issue). Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1347
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Jean De Munck
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.
