Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Abstract

This article questions some assumptions in legal, moral and political theory regarding the law’s ways of functioning. As the constant revival of the topos ‘living law’ shows, underlying common models of law, and of the legitimacy of law, is, though often implicitly, the view that law is or should be particular, near to the facts, flexible, susceptible to realities, and as a consequence accessible to modernisations. However, this article proposes an immanent critique of similar hopes or fears, and it argues that modern positive law can not be responsive to any other ‘order’ or context because it constitutes an order of its own. The article seeks to give an explanation of the specific character and forms of the juridical operating and to explain more specifically how decisions are produced. The article in this regard also investigates the importance and role of imagination, fiction and performativity. Underlining the fact that the juridical exceeds legal propositions by asserting itself as a distinct form of social communication, it calls for a shift from the representational to the performative analysis in the study of law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Council of the European Union. 2010. A secure Europe in a better world: European security strategy, Brussels, 12 december 2003, URL http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf, last access 27/10/2010.

  2. Messner, Claudius. 2006. «Individuals first»? Osservazioni sulla nuova strategia europea di sicurezza globale. Antigone. Quadrimestrale di Critica del Sistema Penale e Penitenziario 1(2): 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ehrlich, Eugen. 1913. Grundlegung der Soziologie des Rechts. Reprint 1967, 4th ed. 1989. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

  4. Cardozo, Benjamin N. 1921. The nature of the judicial process. New Haven: Yale UP.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cardozo, Benjamin N. 1924. The growth of the law. New Haven: Yale UP.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dworkin, Richard. 1977. Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dworkin, Richard. 1986. Law’s empire. Cambridge: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nonet, Philippe, and Selznick Philip. 1978. Law and society in transition: Toward responsive law. New York: Octagon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Atyah, Patrick S. 1978. From principles to pragmatism: Changes in the function of the judicial process and the law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Resta, Eligio. 2008. Diritto vivente. Bari Roma: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Alpa, Guido. 2008. Il diritto giurisprudenziale e il diritto «vivente». Convergenza o affinità dei sistemi giuridici? Sociologia del diritto XXXV(3), 47–81.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Luhmann, Niklas. 1984. Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tamanaha, Brian Z. 1997. Realistic socio-legal theory. Oxford: Oxford UP.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Luhmann, Niklas. 1993. Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Luhmann, Niklas. 2002. Die Politik der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gehring, Petra. 2006. Can the legal order ‘respond‘? Ethical Perspectives 13: 469–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cane, Peter. 2002. Responsibility in law and morality. Oxford, Portland: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pattaro, Enrico. 2007. The law and the right. A reappraisal of the reality that ought to be. Dordrecht, New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Messner, Claudius. 2010. Law, brain, and society. Review of Enrico Pattaro «The law and the right. A reappraisal of the reality that ought to be». International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23(1): 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tugendhat, Ernst. 1993. Vorlesungen über Ethik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Waldenfels, Bernhard. 2006. Schattenrisse der Moral. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Messner, Claudius. 2009. Crime, crisis, critique. On dogmatic and creative use of foundations. In New directions for criminology. Notes from outside the field, ed. Ronnie Lippens, and Patrick Van Calster, 135–153. Antwerpen: Maklu Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ost, François. 2004. Racconter la loi. Paris: Odile Jacob.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wolgast, Elisabeth H. 1987. The grammar of justice. Ithaca, London: Cornell UP.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lambrecht, Lars. 1999. Demokratie. In Enzyklopädie Philosophie, vol. I, ed. H.J. Sandkühler. Hamburg: Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Touraine, Alain. 1992. Critique de la modernité. Paris: Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ackerman, Bruce. 1998. We the people. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, Andreas. 2009. Niklas Luhmann: Law, justice, society. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Messner, Claudius. 2009a. Diritto, politica, tortura e altri «states of concern». Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica XXXIX(2): 525–543.

  31. Goodman, Nelson. 1978. Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bentham, Jeremy. 1830. Principles of legislation, from the Ms. of Jeremy Bentham by M. Dumont. Boston: Wells and Lilly.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kantorowicz, Ernst H. 1984. La souveraineté de l’artiste (1961). In Mourir pour la patrie, prés. par P. Legendre, 31–59. Paris: PUF.

  34. Thomas, Yan. 1997. “Auctoritas legum non potest veritatem naturalem tollere”. Rechtsfiktion und Natur bei den Kommentatoren des Mittelalters. In Le droit entre nature et histoire, ed. François Kervégan, and H. Mohnhaupt, 1–32. Frankfurt: Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Haferkamp, Hans-Peter. 2006. “Methodenehrlichkeit”?—Die juristische Fiktion im Wandel der Zeiten. In Private and commercial law in a European and global context, ed. Klaus Peter Berger, et al., 1077–1090. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bergel, Jean-Louis. 2001. Méthodologie juridique. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Freud, Sigmund. 1969. Schriften zur Behandlungstechnik. In Studienausgabe, ed. Alexander Mitscherlich, A. Richards, and J. Strachey. Ergänzungsband, Frankfurt: Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1989. Vorlesungen 1930–1935. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kant, Immanuel. 1983. Erste Fassung der Einleitung in die Kritik der Urteilskraft. In Werke in zehn Bänden, vol. 8, ed. Wilhelm Weischedel, 173–236. Darmstadt: WB.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1989. Bemerkungen über Frazers Golden Bough. In Vortrag über Ethik und andere kleine Schriften, ed. Joachim Schulte, 29–47. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1984. Vermischte Bemerkungen. In Werkausgabe, vol. 8, 445–573. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

  42. Krämer, Sybille. 1998. Sprache—Stimme—Schrift: Sieben Thesen über Performativität als Medialität. Paragrana V 7(1) 33–57.

  43. Lucien, Arnaud. 2010. Staging and the imaginary institution of the judge. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23(2): 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hart, Herbert L.A. 1961. The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fögen, Marie Th. 2006. Rechtsverweigerungsverbot. In Urteilen/Entscheiden, ed. Cornelia Vismann, and Th. Weitin, 37–50. München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Acts of religion. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudius Messner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Claudius Messner “Living” Law: Performative, Not Discursive. Int J Semiot Law 25, 537–552 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-011-9232-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-011-9232-y

Keywords

Navigation