State policies in private law? A comment on Hanoch Dagan

American Journal of Comparative Law

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 835-843

  Teubner, Gunther ^a,b  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 49249131511     PISSN: 0002919X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5131/ajcl.2007.0029     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (43)

1. Hanoch Dagan, The Limited Autonomy of Private Law, 56 AM. J. COMP. L. 809 (2008).
2. Id. at 823.
3. Id. at 811.
4. Id. at 811.
5. For a recent extensive analysis of the private/public distinction and the relation between private law and the state, see Nils Jansen & Ralf Michaels, Private Law and the State: Comparative Perceptions and Historical Observations, 71 RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AUSLÄNDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 345 (2007);
6. Ralf Michaels & Nils Jansen, Private Law Beyond the State? Europeanization, Globalization, Privatization, 54 AM. J. COMP. L. 845 (2006).
7. For its relevance in the transnational context, see PEER ZUMBANSEN, THE LAW OF SOCIETY: GOVERNANCE THROUGH CONTRACT, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=988610 (2007).
8. Dagan, supra note 1, at 823.
9. Id. at 823.
10. For an influential argument, see Morton J. Horwitz, The History of the Public/Private Distinction, 130 U. PA. L. REV. 1423 (1982).
11. Locus classicus, JÜRGEN HABERMAS, THE STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE: AN INQUIRY INTO A CATEGORY OF BOURGEOIS SOCIETY (Thomas Burger trans.,1992);
12. considerable refinements of his analysis in JÜRGEN HABERMAS, BETWEEN FACTS AND NORMS: CONTRIBUTIONS TO A DISCOURSE THEORY OF LAW AND DEMOCRACY ch. 8 III (1996).
13. E.g., David Kennedy, Background Noise? The Underlying Politics of Global Governance, 3 HARV. INT'L REV. 52 (1999);
14. Karen Engle, After the Collapse of the Public/Private Distinction: Strategizing Women's Rights, in RECONCEIVING REALITY: WOMEN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 143 (Dorinda G. Dallmeyer ed. 1993).
15. This concept has been coined by Gotthard Günther, Life as Poly-Contexturality, in BEITRÄGE ZUR GRUNDLEGUNG EINER OPERATIONSFÄHIGEN DIALEKTIK I 283 (1976),
16. and has become one of the central elements of autopoietic social and legal theory, see for example Gunther Teubner, The Anonymous Matrix: Human Rights Violations by 'Private' Transnational Actors, 69 MOD. L. REV. 327 (2006).
17. For the full argument on polycontexturality and private law, see Gunther Teubner, After Privatisation? The Many Autonomies of Private Law, 51 CURRENT LEGAL PROBS. 393 (1998).
18. Dagan, supra note 1, at 820.
19. For an influential economic interpretation of contract, see OLIVER D. HART & JOHN HARDMAN MOORE, CONTRACTS AS REFERENCE POINTS, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=944784 (2006);
20. Oliver E. Williamson, The Lens of Contract: Private Ordering, 92 AM. ECON. REV. 438 (2002).
21. KLAUS F. RÖHL, ALLGEMEINE RECHTSLEHRE: EIN LEHRBUCH (2d ed. 2001).
22. See JEAN-FRANCOIS LYOTARD, THE DIFFEREND: PHRASES IN DISPUTE (1987).
23. Most explicitly, Roger Friedland & Robert Alford, Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions, in THE NEW INSTITUTIONALISM 232 (Paul DiMaggio & Walter Powell eds., 1992);
24. see also Walter W. Powell & Paul J. Di Maggio, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, in THE NEW INSTITUTIONALISM IN ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS (1991);
25. W. RICHARD SCOTT, INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS (1995).
26. See Niklas Luhmann, The Paradox of System Differentiation, in DIFFERENTIATION THEORY AND SOCIAL CHANGE 409 (Jeffrey C. Alexander & Paul Colomy eds., 1990).
27. See Gunther Teubner, In the Blind Spot: The Hybridization of Contracting, 8 THEORETICAL INQUIRIES IN LAW 51, 67 (2007);
28. Andreas Fischer-Lescano & Gunther Teubner, Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law, 25 MICH. J. INT'L L. 999 (2004).
29. See JÜRGEN HABERMAS, BETWEEN FACTS AND NORMS: CONTRIBUTIONS TO A DISCOURSE THEORY OF LAW AND DEMOCRACY (1996).
30. See ZYGMUNT BAUMAN, POSTMODERN ETHICS (1993);
31. BOAVENTURA DE SOUSA SANTOS, TOWARD A NEW LEGAL COMMON SENSE: LAW, GLOBALIZATION AND EMANCIPATION ch. 6 (2003).
32. See MICHAEL C. DORF & CHARLES F. SABEL, A CONSTITUTION OF DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENTALISM (2003).
33. See MICHAEL WALZER, SPHERES OF JUSTICE: A DEFENCE OF PLURALISM AND EQUALITY (1984);
34. PHILIP SELZNICK, THE MORAL COMMONWEALTH: SOCIAL THEORY AND THE PROMISE OF COMMUNITY 229 (1992).
35. Dagan, supra note 1, at 813.
36. Id. 815.
37. Id. 815.
38. Gunther Teubner, Contracting Worlds: Invoking Discourse Rights in Private Governance Regimes, 9 SOC. & LEGAL STUD. 399, 410 (2000).
39. See SELZNICK, supra note 23; LON FULLER, THE MORALITY OF LAW (1969).
40. Focusing on these examples I tried to work out some of the public dimensions of private law. On expert liability: Gunther Teubner, Expertise as Social Institution: Internalising Third Parties into the Contract, in IMPLICIT DIMENSIONS OF CONTRACT: DISCRETE, RELATIONAL AND NETWORK CONTRACTS 333 (David Campbell, Hugh Collins & John Wightman eds., 2003).
41. On bank guarantees by family members without income: Gunther Teubner, Ein Fall von struktureller Korruption? Die Familienbürgschaft in der Kollision unverträglicher Handlungslogiken, 83 KRITISCHE VIERTELJAHRESSCHRIFT FÜR GESETZGEBUNG UND RECHTSWISSENSCHAFTEN 388 (2000).
42. On con-tort relations: Gunther Teubner, Hybrid Laws: Constitutionalizing Private Governance Networks, in LEGALITY AND COMMUNITY: ON THE INTELLECTUAL LEGACY OF PHILIP SELZNICK 311 (Robert A. Kagan et al. eds. 2002).
43. On good faith obligations: Gunther Teubner, Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Ends Up in New Divergencies, 61 MOD. L. REV. 11 (1998). On horizontal effects of constitutional rights: Teubner, supra note 11.